Recently, some American parents have complained on social media about dimly lit classrooms at public schools and the effects they may have on their children. According to them, teachers do not turn on any lights in their classrooms all day — no overhead lights, no side lamps. These days, it is also a trend among younger teachers to turn off the bright fluorescent lighting and install dim lighting instead. Thus, children must read and write under the faint light from windows even on cloudy days. It worries American parents because their children’s vision is getting worse due to these dark classrooms.

Experts say that neurodiverse children who have sensory processing disorders due to autism, ADHD or dyslexia do not like bright lighting. In public schools, teachers are obliged to care about those special students and provide the best environment for them. Nevertheless, it would be problematic if dark classrooms made the majority of students wear eyeglasses or contact lenses.

From the above case, we can see the chronic issue of the majority versus the minority. In a democracy, we abide by the decision of the majority. Simultaneously, a truly democratic society should care about minority opinions. That is why we have the election system on the one hand and try to embrace diversity and minority groups on the other. If we cling to the decision by the majority only, excluding the perspective of minorities, democracy can easily turn into tyranny and totalitarianism. On the contrary, if we choose to prioritize diversity and minority opinions only, ignoring the majority, democracy may turn into chaos and anarchy.

In socialist countries, the majority population is subjugated by a minority ruling class that uses a "people’s democracy" to do whatever they want in the name of the people. In capitalist countries, too, right-wing politicians use populism to control and manipulate the majority against minorities for political gain these days.

Perhaps the solution to the problem lies somewhere in between, by balancing and harmonizing majority and minority views because they are complementary concepts that defy a “hierarchical relationship” of domination and subjugation. This would follow the good sense of the saying, “Majority rule should be limited to protect minority rights.”

In the dim classrooms example, a compromise could be that when only a few students need reduced light, they can wear special glasses that block the bright light. Meanwhile, other students, too, should agree on adjusting the brightness of the lighting just a little to help their peers who need dimmer classrooms.

A similar case can be found in the debate over the “Chinese New Year” versus the “Lunar New Year.” The “Merry Christmas!” controversy in the US can be seen as a mirror to it. Opponents of the phrase “Merry Christmas!” have complained that the Christmas greeting refers to a specific religion and assume that all people on Earth celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. Thus, they recommend, “Happy holidays!” instead.

Yet the proponents of “Merry Christmas!” are not happy about it because they feel that the new greeting, “Happy holidays!” erases Christmas’ specific origins. Despite their discontent, “Happy holidays!” has become a common greeting during the Christmas season these days in America.

Strangely, many Americans call the Lunar New Year “Chinese New Year.” However, other Asian countries, such as Korea, Vietnam and Thailand, celebrate the Lunar New Year as well. They do not celebrate the “Chinese” New Year, but their own Lunar New Year. Even the names for the Lunar New Year differ by country. For example, in Korea, the Lunar New Year is called Seollal and in Vietnam, it is called Tet. Even in China, it is called the “Spring Festival," Yet Americans keep calling it “Chinese New Year.”

Of course, the Lunar New Year has Chinese origins, and we should acknowledge it. But we cannot expect a country to celebrate an occasion that has the prefix of another country. American calendars, too, write "St. Patrick’s Day," not “Irish St. Patrick’s Day,” “Halloween,” not “Celtic Halloween,” or “Valentine’s Day,” not “Roman Valentine’s Day.”

Some people worry about the possibility that the name Lunar New Year would erase its Chinese origin. But everybody knows its origin is Chinese, even though it is not specified in the name of the event. Meanwhile, it would be nice if Americans used the term “Lunar New Year” instead of Chinese New Year, considering other Asian countries celebrate the occasion.

When we take sides, it is not easy to embrace the other in a heated debate. Still, we should concede and give way to others, while trying to find a solution somewhere in the middle. Instead of fighting or antagonizing each other when we choose one of the two options, we should try to be in each other’s shoes and find a mutually agreeable solution.

Kim Seong-kon

Kim Seong-kon is a professor emeritus of English at Seoul National University and a visiting scholar at Dartmouth College. The views expressed here are the writer's own. -- Ed


khnews@heraldcorp.com