A male professor at a university in South Korea’s Yeongnam region faced sexual harassment allegations from a female colleague but received only a reprimand, equivalent to a warning without the victim’s expressed resentment.
Background of the Incident
The case traces back to 2019, when the female professor, referred to as Professor A, met the male professor, Professor B, at another institution. During this period, Professor A frequently invited Professor B to her home. They engaged in sexual relations twice in early 2021, after which Professor B resigned amid an initial probe.
In May 2021, the university received a report via the presidential office’s public petition site detailing the sexual harassment incident.
Investigation Findings
The university investigation cleared Professor B of wrongdoing and instead determined that Professor A had committed sexual harassment. Key evidence included shared communications between the professors, social media exchanges post-incident, and statements from witnesses, all pointing to harassment by Professor A.
Professor A acknowledged the harassing behavior during the probe. In an online interview on her channel in April-May 2021, she claimed to have demanded sex from Professor B. Professor B maintained that, regardless of any personal relationship, Professor A disseminated harassing content that damaged his reputation.
University’s Disciplinary Action
The university committee imposed a lenient reprimand on Professor B on January 15 following an appeal. Officials noted that Professor A’s interview lacked clear proof of an explicit sex demand, justifying the mild penalty.
The committee also forwarded a complaint against Professor A for potential defamation but upheld the original decision, stating no violations of disciplinary procedures occurred.
Related Court Rulings
In a connected defamation case, a lower court sentenced Professor A to eight months’ probation suspended for two years, ruling her statements false based on prior prosecutorial dismissal of rape charges against Professor B, upheld by higher courts.
The appeals court acquitted Professor A, finding insufficient evidence that her claims constituted provably false statements. Investigators incorporated these judicial outcomes and responses from both professors into their assessment, confirming inconsistencies.
Appeal panel members criticized the university’s handling, with one stating: “The prosecutorial non-indictment, appeals dismissal, and court rejection in the rape case against Professor B make it evident that the remarks were false, yet the university issued a light penalty despite the severity.”
Another remarked: “Claims that Professor A demanded sex from Professor B in the interview lack reasonable doubt-proof evidence, making conviction difficult.”
The university maintained its judgment as appropriate, dismissing further challenges.
