History Textbooks: The Ienaga Cases

Ienaga Saburo, a noted historian and professor (retiring as a professor of the Tokyo University of Education in 1977), participated in the textbook screening process during the 1950s and early 1960s, when he submitted various editions of his history textbook for approval by the Ministry of Education.  His experiences during that process—the rejections, conditional approvals and required as well as recommended changes—led him to conclude that the screening process amounted to unacceptable censorship.  Accordingly, he filed a civil suit against the Ministry with the Tokyo District Court in 1965, charging that the process was unconstitutional and seeking financial compensation for the damages he argued he had suffered as a result of the textbook screening process.  In 1974, The Tokyo District Court ruled in favor of the government, arguing that the screening system was constitutional, but also found that the government had abused its review powers in some instances.  The court awarded Ienaga ¥100,000 in damages.  Both Ienaga and the government appealed the decision to the Tokyo High Court (the latter in order to overturn the specific items on which the court had found for Ienaga).  In March 1986, the Tokyo High Court upheld the Ministry’s position, ruling that its textbook screening system was legal and overturning  the lower court’s ruling for Ienaga on the specific review points.  Ienaga appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, but his challenge was dismissed in March 1993. 

In 1966, while his first suit was still pending, Professor Ienaga resubmitted his textbook as originally drafted; when it was rejected, he filed an administrative suit against the Ministry in 1967, again arguing that the Ministry of Education’s actions were unconstitutional and illegal.  The Tokyo District Court issued a judgment in Ienaga’s favor in 1970 (the Sugimoto Decision), ruling that the Ministry’s rejection of his textbook constituted censorship and that the state had exceeded its authority.  The Minister of Education appealed the decision to the Tokyo High Court, which in December 1975 also supported Ienaga’s position on the specific screening points, although the decision did not explicitly deal with the constitutionality of the textbook screening process.  The government appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.  Ultimately, the government successfully argued that the case should be dropped as moot (having "no benefit") because in the meantime the screening guidance had been changed, and the case was dismissed by the Tokyo High Court in 1989 (the Supreme Court having referred it back to the High Court in 1982).  Professor Ienaga did not appeal this decision. 

 In 1983, government screening examiners again sought changes to a manuscript that Professor Ienaga submitted that year.  In response, Ienaga filed his third lawsuit against the government in 1984, challenging the legitimacy of eight of the examiners’ comments (six 'requested' and two 'suggested' changes).  The requested changes—which led Ienaga to make revisions to allow the textbook to be approved—involved  references to Unit 731 (Japan's wartime biological warfare unit), the Nanjing massacre (two separate references), Korean resistance during the Sino-Japanese war of 1894-95, the battle of Okinawa toward the end of the Pacific War, and a volunteer militia that fought for the emperor during the 1868 imperial restoration.  In 1989, the Tokyo District Court ruled in Ienaga’s favor on one of the specific review points in contention (dealing with the volunteer militia; the other review comments were not found to be inappropriate.  Both the government and Ienaga appealed the decision (the latter hoping for a ruling on the more general issue of the constitutionality of the screening system itself as well as the other specific review comments).  In 1993, the Tokyo High Court found that two additional review comments (both relating to the Nanjing massacre) were illegal.  The Ministry did not appeal these findings nor the earlier finding of the District Court, letting the judgment in favor of Ienaga stand on those three review comments.  Nonetheless, Ienaga chose to appeal his case to the Supreme Court, hoping for a ruling on the broader constitutional question.  In August 1997 the Supreme Court ruled, finding in favor of Ienaga on one additional review point—the screeners’ objection to any discussion of Unit 731—but upholding the overall constitutionality of the textbook screening process.