The stunning beauty of Mount Kumgang, the tearful woes of divided families, the exciting prospect of a Korean Trans-Eurasian Railway. Such would be familiar concepts to any student who has received education in a South Korean public school, as reunification between the two Koreas has been portrayed as an unimpeachable objective for the future. The amiable portrayal of North Korea as a subject of peaceful reunification was incorporated into public education starting from the early 21st century. For more than two decades, South Korean students sang “Our Wish is Reunification,” drew posters of the united peninsula adorned with mugunghwa flowers, and pored over textbooks outlining reasons why reunification is both a moral and technical must for South Korea.

Such efforts, unfortunately, did little to dispel the apathy younger South Koreans harbor towards the prospect of unification. A 2021 study by the Korean Institute for National Unification reports that just 12.4 percent of South Koreans born after 1991 prefer unification with North Korea; 74.1 percent of respondents showcase no interest in North Korea at all. Such indifference is often regarded as an exigent emergency of public morale. The Ministry of Reunification has issued recommendations to fortify educative material relating to reunification, stating that their primary goal is to “foster students’ will and ability to actively participate in unification” in a 2021 report. However, a fundamental question remains unanswered: what justifies the government to push their citizens to only revere reunification? If the overwhelming majority of the younger generation is either apathetic towards or disagrees with the matter, why are they still being taught that a unified Korea is the lone solution to the geopolitical conundrums surrounding the peninsula?

The national narrative surrounding reunification still rests its rudiments from the Cold War era when national propaganda was ubiquitously utilized in the education sector. Though the nature of the information pushed throughout public information may drastically differ, the overarching premise that the government holds the right to promulgate unilateral viewpoints on controversial issues in order to attain national benefit remains unchanged. It is time to step out of such anachronistic partiality. Students’ lack of enthusiasm towards reunification should not be treated as a tribulation that requires treatment, but for what it is — a societal phenomenon with comprehensible factors behind it, and one that deserves true recognition and respect.

Calling for neutral education does not presuppose any opinionated sentiments towards the necessity or virtue of reunification, nor does it endorse apathy towards the matter. South Korea’s delicate historical relationship with North Korea and the unique security challenges that arise from it undoubtedly need to be taught in the public curriculum. Instead of postulating a narrative pushed forward by the government, public education should encourage students to think for themselves. Along with providing the basic historical background surrounding reunification, textbooks should urge students to formulate their own opinions on reunification, and what they believe to be the best option in solving the peninsula’s crises.

Such a shift would actually facilitate resolving tensions with North Korea, as the young generation, the future stakeholders of diplomacy, would hold heightened interest in the matter and be liberated to devise more comprehensive solutions. Most importantly, such a paradigm shift would further emphasize the crucial element of diversity and representation in education. Student voices are no longer methods of political utilization, something to be rectified when it does not meet governmental standards; they now hold the grounds to be wholly represented in public education and are granted the capacity to further investigate and specify their vague disinclination.