The dispute over Ewha Womans University’s plan to open a new lifelong education college for working women shows that all parties involved -- university officials and students, as well as government officials -- need to search their own souls.

First, school authorities need to explain why they let the students and professors know about the plan just days before the announcement. Such a decision requires understanding -- if not active support and agreement -- from the students.

Students -- especially those who study new media, health, nutrition and fashion, which the new college will offer -- have ample ground to believe that the quality of education they receive could be affected. University officials cannot avoid blame for making the decision in such a unilateral manner.

The root cause of unilateral nature of the move is in the government. The Education Ministry pushed the plan in line with President Park Geun-hye’s instruction to expand lifelong education.

It is against this backdrop that the ministry rushed to allow Ewha and nine other universities -- rewarding each with a subsidy of 3 billion won ($2.7 million) -- to open colleges next year. This clearly violates the guideline that requires universities to announce any changes in student admissions at least three years in advance.  

These blunders on the part of university and government officials, however, cannot not justify the students’ protest -- in terms of both its cause and method.

Most of all, the protesting students cannot avoid criticism that they are bent on protecting their vested rights in ignorance of the social need to expand lifelong education, especially for working women.

Globally, more women are joining the workforce, and Korea is no exception. This trend calls on societies to provide more educational opportunities for women, especially those who have not had access to higher education due to economic difficulties or other personal reasons.

Ewha, established in 1886 by an American Christian missionary, has spearheaded the nation’s university education for women. If it had been a pioneer in education of women in the times when the nation had been deep in male-dominated Confucianism, why should it not be willing to take the same pioneering role in expanding educational opportunities for working women?

The way students demonstrate their opposition hardly fits the usually favorable public image of the university. It was truly disappointing that some students who had been occupying offices of the university’s main building had blocked five faculty members and staffers from leaving the sit-in protest sites for 46 hours.

Students, alumni and parents protesting the new college argue it will taint the reputation of the university as the premier women’s education institute in the country. If they want to preserve the reputation, the first thing they have to do is accept the offer of dialogue with school authorities, who were well advised to announce a temporary halt to the plan.