A celebrity-producing high school was ordered by the Tokyo District Court to pay about 980,000 yen $7,200 in compensation to a former student who was expelled because of her relationship with another student there.
The ruling on November 30 said that the no dating rule at the Horikoshi High School in Tokyo's Nakano Ward was reasonable, but the punishment against the plaintiff for violating the rule went too far.
According to court documents, the problem occurred when the plaintiff was a third-year student at the school in November 2019.
She received a recommendation letter for admission to a university, but the school cancelled the letter after learning that she had violated a school rule that bans dating between certain men and women. The high school told her to drop out.
The plaintiff said when she protested the school's admonishment, she was told: If you don't transfer immediately to another school, you won't be able to go to a university. The student dropped out and transferred to a high school correspondence course. She attended a cram school and took the general college entrance exam.
She demanded 7 million yen in compensation from the Horikoshi High School operator in her suit.
Her lawyer argued that the school rule is a blanket ban on dating, including relationships based on sincere romantic feelings. The lawyer has urged the court to invalidate the rule, saying it is irrational even if consideration is given to the freedom of private school education. The student's academic performance at the school was solid, and the school's actions of forcing her to drop out were too severe and illegal, the lawyer said.
Horikoshi High School is known for its courses geared toward people who are interested in sports and entertainment careers. Many show-business personalities in Japan have graduated from the school.
The student was informed of the ban on dating before she entered the school, according to the ruling.
The court said that the rule was reasonable and valid because it followed the school's philosophy and policy of having students dedicate themselves to studying and other pursuits.
The ruling said that the plaintiffs'violation of the rule was not heinous, and the school could have avoided administering a punishment that was virtually a forced expulsion.
The ruling said that applying such a formal penalty was an illegal judgment and went beyond the educational discretion of the school, given the student's positive attitude toward school life.