Tokenism in Academia: The Misleading Representation of Gender Balance at Dongguk University
Link back to the timeline at genderwatchdog.org
The Facade of Representation
When examining Dongguk University's Graduate School of Digital Image & Contents on their English language website, visitors would reasonably conclude that the faculty is entirely male. The English site presents a picture of a completely male-dominated department, with no female professors visible in any of the program descriptions or faculty listings.
However, digging deeper into the Korean language website reveals a different picture - though not necessarily a more equitable one. The Korean site shows that there are indeed some female professors, with a ratio of approximately 13 male professors to 6 female professors.
Beyond Numbers: The Power Imbalance
This 13:6 ratio (approximately 68% male to 32% female) might initially appear as progress, but closer examination reveals concerning patterns:
Concentration of Power: The most institutionally powerful positions - full professors, department chairs, and senior faculty who control thesis approvals, production resources, and industry connections - remain almost exclusively male. Core professors like 김종완, 김정호, 차승재, 양윤호, and 이원덕 hold the decision-making authority.
Marginalized Female Roles: The female professors are predominantly in adjunct, visiting, or research positions (겸임교수, 연구초빙교수, 강의초빙교수). These roles typically come with:
- Less job security
- Reduced influence in departmental decisions
- Lower status within the academic hierarchy
- Limited authority to intervene in institutional issues
Tokenistic Representation: The pattern suggests tokenistic inclusion rather than meaningful integration of women into the power structure of the department. Women appear to be included primarily in peripheral positions while men maintain control of the core faculty roles.
Implications for Risk Assessment
This gender imbalance, particularly in terms of power distribution rather than just numerical representation, maintains the high-risk environment previously identified. The concentration of institutional authority among male faculty members perpetuates existing power dynamics that have historically contributed to problematic patterns in academic environments.
The discrepancy between the English and Korean websites also raises questions about transparency and international representation. Why does the English-facing presence of the university erase the female faculty members entirely, presenting an even more skewed gender balance to the international community?
Conclusion
While our initial assessment stating "all male faculty" requires technical correction based on the Korean website information, the substantive critique about gender representation issues remains valid and possibly even strengthened by this deeper analysis. The tokenistic inclusion of women in less secure positions, combined with the concentration of power among male faculty, demonstrates that numerical representation alone doesn't address the structural gender imbalance within the department.
This pattern of relegating women to secondary roles while maintaining male dominance in positions of power is a common manifestation of institutional gender inequality that goes beyond simple headcounts and requires addressing the fundamental distribution of power and authority within academic structures.