Korea University (left) and Yonsei University (right) [Photo=Yonhap]

Yonsei University and Korea University are facing allegations that they inflated their university evaluation performance by largely recruiting prolific international researchers as non-tenured faculty, such as visiting or special professors, and then listing their affiliations with the universities on papers without requiring them to stay in Korea long-term or lecture.

Yonhap News reported on this, calling it the so-called "academic mercenary" controversy. While universities may explain this as a legitimate strategy for international cooperation, if the reports are true, this is not just an issue of internationalization policy but one that shakes the very foundation of a university's existence.

A university is not a corporation. Corporations sell performance, but universities teach trust. Students pay tuition expecting lectures, research labs, mentorship, discussions, and an academic community.

However, if researchers who are not in the lecture halls, do not provide student guidance, and have minimal actual collaboration are attached to a university's name, and their papers are counted as university achievements under that name, it is not education but superficial management.

QS reflects research performance and internationality indicators in university evaluations, and under this structure, it is undeniable that co-affiliation with university names can become a motivation for ranking competition.

Of course, we cannot conclude at this moment that all facts have been definitively confirmed. The non-tenured faculty system itself is not immediately illegal. Even looking at the Ministry of Education's data, the operation of non-tenured faculty, such as invited or adjunct professors, exists within the system.

The problem is not the existence of the system but the purpose for which it is used. We must determine whether the positions are for educational and research collaboration or if they have been perverted into a mechanism for inflating university evaluation metrics. The core of this controversy lies not in the format of employment but in the substance of the employment.

This is precisely why the National Assembly's Education Committee must intervene.

It must inquire about the appointment criteria for foreign non-tenured faculty, whether there were actual lectures and student guidance, the extent of joint research achievements in Korea, what incentives were provided for co-affiliation on papers, and how the results impacted university evaluations and financial support structures.

The Ministry of Education is the governing body responsible for managing and inspecting university faculty status and system operations. If this method of operation has continued for years, the Ministry of Education must clarify what it knew and what it inspected. University autonomy is not a license for negligence. Autonomy is predicated on trust, but the moment trust is shaken, the responsibility for oversight becomes heavier.

This controversy is not an issue that can end with the reputation of just two specific universities. Yonhap News already mentioned the case in 2023 where major Saudi Arabian universities faced international controversy after paying renowned scholars large sums to list their affiliations with their institutions.

The damage is significant even if Korean academia is merely suspected of similar practices. This is not a problem for Yonsei and Korea University alone but an issue of credibility for higher education in Korea as a whole.

There are two things to be most wary of in this matter.

First is the universities glossing over superficial co-affiliation under the guise of "internationalization."

Second is the Ministry of Education evading responsibility by hiding behind the familiar phrase of "university autonomy."

The integrity of educational institutions is far more important than university ranking tables.

If the practice of listing faculty who are not in lecture halls only on paper performance metrics is true, it is not a matter of ranking competition but a problem that degrades the dignity of academia.

The National Assembly's Education Committee must step in. It must investigate, disclose, and establish correct standards.