Thread by @JeannieSGersen

Thread. 1: My colleague Mark Ramseyer @Harvard_Law has written two recent articles that together make clear his view, that well-established historical accounts of atrocities against Korean and other Asian women by Japan during WW II are “historically untrue” and “pure fiction.”

2: @thecrimson reports on this today, including @harvard historian Carter Eckert, a most responsible and measured scholar saying Ramseyer's work on this subject is “woefully deficient, empirically, historically, and morally.” thecrimson.com/article/2021/2….

3: Many have asked for my views on Ramseyer's claims, perhaps because I've published on Korean “comfort women,” because of my interest in Korea, and also because I happen to be the first Asian woman and first Korean professor @Harvard_Law and his colleague of 15 years.

4: I disagree with my colleague as deeply as it’s possible to disagree. For now, I’ll say I disagree with his interpretations of his sources, his wrong legal analysis, and even applying his own disciplinary terms, his reasoning fails. We talked, and he knows I disagree with him.

5: No legal system would recognize or justly enforce contract of this nature. Even supporters of legalizing sex work would firmly reject the idea that contract law extends where people must have sex with thousands in order to become “free” of their “obligation," as he puts it.

6: Crucial historical context: Korea was under Japanese colonial rule & imperial control, ended on Japan’s surrender to U.S. at WW2's end. The horrifying episode of “comfort women” reflected contempt toward Korean people & culture, the existence of which imperial Japan denied.

7: Contract presupposes agency of free actors to bargain at arms length. I believe in that possibility in many situations, sometimes even about sex. But people forced into sex in the context of this military occupation in WW2 weren't free agents exercising that form of agency.

8: Ramseyer recognizes the women were not free to walk away until they fulfilled the “obligation” to have sex with thousands. In other words there was no possibility to breach the “employment contract” as there would be a just contract system. That is the definition of slavery.

9: Therefore by his own logic, contract analysis is wrong analytically, apart from a question of moral outrageousness. His use of contract smuggles in agency but historical evidence from responsible scholars has indicated the agency normally associated w/ contract didn’t exist.

10: It would be a distraction and a red herring to suggest this is about people not liking law-and-economics, or about history being a different endeavor from L&E. No. It's legal analysis including claims about what is true. Response from all disciplines is perfectly appropriate.

11: This is my academic freedom to respond to a colleague, who has exercised his academic freedom. I’m proud of the @Harvard_Law student groups' response to affirm the importance of factual and historical accuracy, and avoidance of denial of facts, particularly in this period.

12: @Harvard_Law groups, @HLSAPALSA, KAHLS wrote this: orgs.law.harvard.edu/kahls/statemen…. I agree with its substance and also with their commitment to academic freedom. In a university, the proper response to conflicts about what is true or false is the pursuit of knowledge.

13: Given my scholarly interest in all of the above, and Korean legal history and contemporary legal issues, I will take the time to publish more on these topics. Stay tuned. End of thread.

.@thecrimson quotes @NoahRFeldman “The economic relationship...even according to Ramseyer’s own research, is very close to what we would ordinarily call debt slavery." Feldman compared it to sharecropping contracts in the Jim Crow South, which exploited vast power discrepancy.