Pro-democracy activists who participated in democratic movements after 1964 and who suffered reprisals due to this activity are registered with the Ministry of the Interior and Safety of South Korea and protected by law. This legal right, granted by the Kim Dae-jung government in August 2000, allows activists to regain their reputation, receive compensation from the government, and be reinstated to the positions they lost due to their then-recognized crimes. Those related to nationally recognized activists are also able to receive benefits, and one of the most controversial of these is related to university admissions. 

The “Democratic Movement Activist” special admissions program was introduced to universities nationwide in 2012. Since then, schools have accepted around 100 students in total, all of them descendants of registered protesters protected by the current administration. However, this application program has generated significant opposition due to allegations of favoritism toward this protected group. This issue is particularly sensitive because university reputation is strongly influential in South Korean society, with students striving to get into a well-known university. 

There are two sides to the current controversy — those who are supportive of it as an equal opportunity initiative and those who disagree with it. Those who agree with this admissions program cite the fact that it is a form of social consideration. The activists fought for equitable opportunities for students from various backgrounds, including low-income earners and students from rural areas. Students from these backgrounds, as well as descendants of pro-democracy activists, are supported by the Opportunity Balancing Program, which is a form of social equity for students who do not come from a privileged background. 

Those who are against this university policy believe that, due to the vague standards set by universities, applicants under this umbrella are privileged because they are judged under the same expectations as for other applicants. At Yonsei University, the lack of minimum grade standards raises the possibility of special treatment for the descendants of freedom fighters. Therefore, many of those who criticize the program state that universities need to be more upfront about their standards or create a new program into a system for crystal-clear equity. 

With this in mind, the opinion that arises here is something that is divided into two distinct lines, yet ironically demands the same equity in our increasingly unequal society. This is a case where people agree on the solution but disagree about how it is currently being handled, and although opinions may differ drastically, it is clear that everyone wants an equal and just system without bias for certain groups of applicants. 

While there is disagreement over the idea of this system being abolished, it is believed that descendants of freedom fighters should have a program to themselves to ensure an equitable system. This is because of the many social disadvantages that the parents of these children faced due to their bravery in standing up for a system they believed was right — a choice that still affects their descendants today. How this will be resolved is still up in the air; it requires expert opinions and time. However, given the controversy, this issue requires attention, a unified front to continue and equalize this equity program, and a desire for a better system to benefit all.