The career path I set for myself includes teaching English overseas. It was one of the divergent roads I was ready to take if I ever found myself standing at a fork, needing to decide on my academic career. That came when, after many years as a school administrator, I suffered from severe job burnout. I revisited my career path and finally applied to be an ESL teacher abroad.

I searched for job openings in China, Japan, and South Korea. According to my TESOL trainer, the said countries are considered premiere destinations for ESL teachers. They offer the best package of remuneration and benefits. My preferred destination was South Korea, although I also sent applications to universities in the Middle East.

My initial search for ESL positions in South Korea ended in disappointment. Universities offered job openings only to citizens of native English-speaking countries. It means that if you’re not an American, British, Canadian, Australian, Irish, South African, or New Zealander, you may not apply. Even universities in China and Japan prefer hiring (or hiring only) citizens from the said countries.

Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that such a policy exists. Why, in a world where only native English speakers would be allowed to teach the English language? Isn’t that policy (of hiring native English speakers only) discriminatory? That was when I realized that “native-speakerism” is real. Adrian Holliday coined the term, and it refers to a form of discrimination or bias where preference or privilege is given to native speakers of a language over non-native speakers.

Exclusively hiring applicants from native English-speaking countries discriminates against individuals not coming from those parts of the world, even if they are highly proficient in the language. It deprives them of “equal job opportunities.”

Isn’t the said policy racist? It is! Why? Any practice that directly or indirectly excludes a particular group of people because of a specific cultural nuance is racist. Accent is the cultural nuance that is the main reason for implementing this policy. For this reason, Adrian Holliday created the construct of native-speakerism and classified it as a neo-racist ideology.

However, despite my initial disappointments, I did not lose hope and continued searching for job openings for ESL teachers in South Korea. I kept the faith and clung to the belief that there are universities in the said country that believe that any individual who has the necessary qualification and training, regardless of nationality, race, and color of skin,  should be given the opportunity to prove they are capable of teaching the English language.

It turned out I was right. Some universities in South Korea uphold the right of any individual to work and employment without discrimination, a right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 2 and 23). 

I did not beg to be employed as an ESL teacher. I only wanted a chance to have my credentials evaluated and my capabilities as an English teacher adequately appraised. Thankfully, some universities believe that teaching the English language is not a right exclusive to those citizens from the countries mentioned earlier. They accepted my application, and eventually, I landed a teaching job at one of them. I am now on my way to completing my 11th year here in South Korea.

Most universities in this country (and elsewhere in Asia) are standing firm on their policy to hire only native English speakers to teach the English language. Check advertisements for ESL jobs, and you’ll see how unabashedly these universities would include the note “Only Native English speakers may apply.” The primary reason for this is accent. Native English speakers, of course, have a natural and native-like pronunciation. But let’s not forget that speaking is only one of the four language macro skills. Language learning also involves reading, writing, and listening. An accent is only one of the many components of speaking.

The policy to hire English teachers exclusively from native English-speaking countries has created the impression among Asian students that only teachers from those countries can teach English. So, whenever I entered my ESL classes at the beginning of the semester, some of my students, seeing that I am a short Asian with dark skin and not the tall blond native English speaker they expected their teacher to be, would look surprised. I feel like they wanted to ask me, “Why are you here?” There were times that I cracked this joke, “My name is James Bond (mimicking the way Sean Connery speaks), I am the driver of your ESL teacher. He got injured, so I have to take his place temporarily for the entire semester.” That elicited laughs (from those who understood the joke.)

The policy also made them equate English proficiency to being able to sound like native English speakers. It made them think that the primary goal in English language learning is the acquisition of accents.

In learning any language, including English, the primary goal is not accent acquisition but to become proficient in speaking, listening, reading, and writing in the target language. Accent alone does not indicate proficiency in the language. Language proficiency encompasses various aspects, including vocabulary, grammar, comprehension, fluency, and the ability to effectively communicate ideas.

What I consider an obstacle in language learning is the students’ thinking that its primary goal is accent acquisition. It is a fallacy that I have always tried to rectify in my classes. Acquiring an accent is a desirable learning outcome but is not required for successful language acquisition. As previously mentioned, the primary goal of language acquisition is practical communication and comprehension rather than achieving a native-like accent. I told them that English is spoken with various accents worldwide, and no “correct” accent exists. The clarity in communication matters most – being understood by others and understanding them in return.

My advice to my student is to put accent acquisition last on their list of priorities. They must focus first on general language proficiency rather than developing a specific accent. Focusing on general language proficiency means emphasizing correct grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation (using the International Phonetic Alphabet as a guide), and overall language fluency. I always remind them that general language proficiency covers speaking, writing, listening, and reading. 

It is illogical to assume that being a native English speaker automatically makes someone a competent English teacher. Language teaching requires more than native-like pronunciation. It involves overall language proficiency, pedagogical skills, and knowledge of the language taught.

It’s about time that universities eliminate native-speakerism from their system. They must adopt a policy of hiring teachers with strong English language skills, relevant qualifications, and teaching experiences regardless of their nationality. Ironically, the ones practicing native-speakerism are universities in Asia. They don’t believe their fellow Asians are qualified and capable English teachers. It is sad to say that they discriminate against their fellow Asians.

Asian universities must hire English teachers based on non-discriminative standards. They must open their doors to both native and non-native English-speaking teachers. By doing so, they will be promoting diversity, inclusivity, and a more comprehensive approach to language teaching. Hiring teachers from a wide range of cultural and linguistic backgrounds can bring diverse teaching perspectives and experiences into the classroom, resulting in a more enriched learning environment that benefits the students. The policy of not exclusively hiring native English-speaking teachers ensures that all qualified applicants are given equal opportunities. Job descriptions should not be crafted to inadvertently exclude a particular group of people and effectively prevent them from seeking the position.