대입3불정책의 헌법적 문제점

• 영문명: A Review on the Constitutionality of the so-called ‘Three Prohibitions Policy’(TPP) with regard to University Admission
• 발행기관: 한국헌법학회
• 저자명: 이덕연(Duk-Yeon Lee)
• 간행물 정보: 『헌법학연구』憲法學硏究 第13卷 第3號(第2冊), 799~827쪽, 전체 29쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2007.09.30

영문 초록

  A dispute over the ratio of reflecting highschool performance and the records of the national College Scholastic Aptitude Test(CSAT) erupted in June 2007, just several months before the entrance exam, as some private universities appeared to refuse to adopt the government"s guidelines that put more weight on the school records, under whose policy students are decided into nine grades and their marks are supposed to account for 50 percent in assessing. Even President Roh Moo-hyun also criticized the universities for trying to undercut the principle of equal education. He once again confirm that there would be no concession in his insistence on egalitarian principles in education.
  This extremely irreconcilable conflict like a military combat make it clear that the controversy over the TPP is not merely a problem of educational policy but an ideological question, also typically a ‘large-scale issue’, which is hard to find a way to make a necessary compromise. To begin with, it should a good deal of the discussion to make a contribution to debates about the optimal harmony between the almost dogmatized principles of liberal and equal education. I hope to describe that and how people who disagree on basic assumption about the goals and methods of education might and could find a way to live together with the reflection on themselves and mutual respects.
  Therefore I aim to focus attention on the structure and character of the TPP as a ideology problem, but especially with the intention to emphasize on the reasons and the necessities of the abstraction of the ideological tendencies and the focalizing on the legal aspects of a constitutional problem.
  In the context of the legal review, this paper is concerned with the unconstitutionality of the regulation enacted under the frame of TPP by the  Ministry of Education and Human Capital. First and foremost, the following brief reviewing shows that the TPP is illegal on the ground that it infringes the constitutional principle of the Act(Parliament)-Reservation(Prinzip des Gesetzes- bzw. Parlaments- vorbehalts in German Law) in the relation with the form of legislation.
  Meanwhile, in the viewpoint of the material constitutionality, too, is the TPP considered to be in conflict with the freedom of science, including the independence of education and the autonomy of university(Art. 22. Ⅰ; Art. 31. Ⅳ) and the related ‘equal right to receive education corresponding to their abilities’(Art. 31. I).
  Thus far the relevant arguments are not based on the one-sidedly emphasizing the negative aspects of the TPP. They proceed from the confirmed fact that the results of the TPP have not at all matched the purported good original intentions and the generally observable and easily predictable conditions of the unlimited open competition in global market of education. Taking the excessive dysfunction and growing severe external cost into consideration, we could insist that it"s time now for the government to reflect on his basic concept and assumptions about the TPP, which are inclined for a one-ideaed standardization and authoritative regulation in the autonomous realm of the diverse university and the freedom of science.
  As a result, the government could and should not stand any more front ‘the veil of ignorance’ suggested by J. Rawls. The educational policy of based on the dogma of the egalitarianism, in particular with regard to the TPP, have to be totally reexamined at the level of the open paradigm for the deregulation.

목차

Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 3불정책문제의 구조와 논의상황
Ⅲ. 3불정책의 법형식적 문제점
Ⅳ. ‘3불정책’ 관련 기본권심사의 지침과 관점
Ⅴ. 맺는말
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉

키워드

대입3불정책 대학의 자유 교육기본권 의회유보의 원칙 무지의 장막 Three Prohibitions Policy(TPP) autonomy of university basic right of education principle of parliamentsholding(Parlamentsvorbehalt) veil of ignorance