Wednesday, July 17, 2002
Tuesday, July 16, 2002
Letter to Scholars at Risk
Letter to Scholars at Risk
16 July 2002
Dear Mr. Quinn,
I am writing this letter in view of two letters you wrote to the
university on behalf of Professor Richard de Canio, which were forwarded to
me yesterday, as soon as Professor de Canio received them. In my capacity
as a member of the National Cheng Kung University Faculty Union, I feel it
is incumbent upon me to clarify issues of the case involving Professor de
Canio.
As you may know, in March of 1999, a departmental dismissal action was
started against Professor De Canio. From the beginning, this dismissal
action involved rather serious violations of laws, regulations, and due
process of law. For example, Professor De Canio was not even informed of
accusations against him before the dismissal action. In addition, a secret
letter was circulated at the committee hearings the passed his dismissal.
I will not repeat all the details of this case. Suffice it to say,
that, due to obvious legal violations, the university was compelled to
"cancel" Professor De Canio's dismissal. However, although the university
should have then revived Professor De Canio's contract, instead the case was
returned to the department for further "review." Part of the reasoning was
that, in view of the fact that Professor De Canio is a foreigner, and
despite the cancellation of his dimissal , a further review was necessary.
This was an improper ruling for several reasons. First, it violated
university regulations, as they have been commonly understood at our
university. Then it violated the normal principle in law that a favorable
ruling in an appeal must produce legal benefits or the ruling is without
substance. Finally, of course, it violated the principle of equal treatment
for all faculty, regardless of nationality.
Equally of concern to us is the fact that this equivocal appeal ruling,
denying Professor De Canio any tangible benefits while enjoining further
investigation and the burden of his continued defense, amounts to open-ended
persecution of the appellant. This, indeed, is a tactic that has been
repeated numerous times since that first appeal ruling. Indeed, Professor
De Canio has defended himself at countless hearings at the department,
college, university, and even Ministry levels, with no legal benefits except
(according to the university) the right to appeal again. This is clearly an
abuse of Professor De Canio's rights, his human dignity, and the spirit of
the democratic laws as written and commonly accepted in Taiwan, even if not
enforced.
Most recently, in June, 2002, Professor De Canio was reviewed yet again
by the department, college, and university, despite a Ministry appeal
decision in his favor in February, 2001. I have just received the
university's official ruling. It states that his dismissal has been
canceled, but his case should be returned to the department for further
review.
It is apparent that the university, knowing it can not legally dismiss
Professor De Canio, is hoping to delay issuance of his contract for as long
as is necessary until Professor De Canio forfeits the legal benefits that
are rightfully (and lawfully) his. As it is, Professor De Canio, pending
the final disposition of this case, has suffered great hardship simply
staying in Taiwan for more than three years, with countless visa problems,
lack of medical insurance, and financial worries.
Thanks, however, to the support of several colleagues, who are
determined to obtain justice for him, Professor De Canio has been able to
continue to pursue his rights. But he has paid a heavy price for a justice
that should be his routinely under democratic laws.
Thus the claim by President Kao Chiang that laws are being followed at
National Cheng Kung University is clearly false. Just the fact that the
university is not accepting the Ministry ruling belies President Kao's
claim. In addition, the university has filed a lawsuit against Professor De
Canio, attempting to nullify the Ministry's ruling. In fact, the university
lawyer has argued in court that Professor De Canio, as a foreigner, really
has no right to appeal. Not only is this a falsehood, belied by the
university's own appeal hearings in his case, but it contradicts the
university's participation in the Ministry hearing, even sending university
representatives to Taipei to argue its case. Only after losing their case
did they decide Professor De Canio had no right to appeal in the first
place.
I hope this letter has clarified key issues in this case. And I hope,
as both an academic and a citizen of Taiwan, that, in protecting the rights
of Professor De Canio, Scholars at Risk will, in addition, have helped us to
advance democratic principles at our universities, not only for the benefit
of foreign academics, but for that of our own compatriots as well.
Sincerely,
Professor Ray Dah-tong,
Associate Professor
Department of Mineral and Chemical Engineering
National Cheng Kung University
1 Ta-hseuh Road,
Tainan, Taiwan
(2757575) 62831
Email: raydon@mail.ncku.edu.tw
16 July 2002
Dear Mr. Quinn,
I am writing this letter in view of two letters you wrote to the
university on behalf of Professor Richard de Canio, which were forwarded to
me yesterday, as soon as Professor de Canio received them. In my capacity
as a member of the National Cheng Kung University Faculty Union, I feel it
is incumbent upon me to clarify issues of the case involving Professor de
Canio.
As you may know, in March of 1999, a departmental dismissal action was
started against Professor De Canio. From the beginning, this dismissal
action involved rather serious violations of laws, regulations, and due
process of law. For example, Professor De Canio was not even informed of
accusations against him before the dismissal action. In addition, a secret
letter was circulated at the committee hearings the passed his dismissal.
I will not repeat all the details of this case. Suffice it to say,
that, due to obvious legal violations, the university was compelled to
"cancel" Professor De Canio's dismissal. However, although the university
should have then revived Professor De Canio's contract, instead the case was
returned to the department for further "review." Part of the reasoning was
that, in view of the fact that Professor De Canio is a foreigner, and
despite the cancellation of his dimissal , a further review was necessary.
This was an improper ruling for several reasons. First, it violated
university regulations, as they have been commonly understood at our
university. Then it violated the normal principle in law that a favorable
ruling in an appeal must produce legal benefits or the ruling is without
substance. Finally, of course, it violated the principle of equal treatment
for all faculty, regardless of nationality.
Equally of concern to us is the fact that this equivocal appeal ruling,
denying Professor De Canio any tangible benefits while enjoining further
investigation and the burden of his continued defense, amounts to open-ended
persecution of the appellant. This, indeed, is a tactic that has been
repeated numerous times since that first appeal ruling. Indeed, Professor
De Canio has defended himself at countless hearings at the department,
college, university, and even Ministry levels, with no legal benefits except
(according to the university) the right to appeal again. This is clearly an
abuse of Professor De Canio's rights, his human dignity, and the spirit of
the democratic laws as written and commonly accepted in Taiwan, even if not
enforced.
Most recently, in June, 2002, Professor De Canio was reviewed yet again
by the department, college, and university, despite a Ministry appeal
decision in his favor in February, 2001. I have just received the
university's official ruling. It states that his dismissal has been
canceled, but his case should be returned to the department for further
review.
It is apparent that the university, knowing it can not legally dismiss
Professor De Canio, is hoping to delay issuance of his contract for as long
as is necessary until Professor De Canio forfeits the legal benefits that
are rightfully (and lawfully) his. As it is, Professor De Canio, pending
the final disposition of this case, has suffered great hardship simply
staying in Taiwan for more than three years, with countless visa problems,
lack of medical insurance, and financial worries.
Thanks, however, to the support of several colleagues, who are
determined to obtain justice for him, Professor De Canio has been able to
continue to pursue his rights. But he has paid a heavy price for a justice
that should be his routinely under democratic laws.
Thus the claim by President Kao Chiang that laws are being followed at
National Cheng Kung University is clearly false. Just the fact that the
university is not accepting the Ministry ruling belies President Kao's
claim. In addition, the university has filed a lawsuit against Professor De
Canio, attempting to nullify the Ministry's ruling. In fact, the university
lawyer has argued in court that Professor De Canio, as a foreigner, really
has no right to appeal. Not only is this a falsehood, belied by the
university's own appeal hearings in his case, but it contradicts the
university's participation in the Ministry hearing, even sending university
representatives to Taipei to argue its case. Only after losing their case
did they decide Professor De Canio had no right to appeal in the first
place.
I hope this letter has clarified key issues in this case. And I hope,
as both an academic and a citizen of Taiwan, that, in protecting the rights
of Professor De Canio, Scholars at Risk will, in addition, have helped us to
advance democratic principles at our universities, not only for the benefit
of foreign academics, but for that of our own compatriots as well.
Sincerely,
Professor Ray Dah-tong,
Associate Professor
Department of Mineral and Chemical Engineering
National Cheng Kung University
1 Ta-hseuh Road,
Tainan, Taiwan
(2757575) 62831
Email: raydon@mail.ncku.edu.tw
Monday, March 18, 2002
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs (18 March 2002)
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
3/18/2002 11:10 PM
18 March 2002
Professor Huei-Chen Ko,
Dean of Student Affairs
Dear Dean Ko,
I received your letter dated February 28, 2002. Regretfully, you use action
phrases such as "thoroughly discussed," "responding to your request," and a
reference to meeting "many times in the past three months," only to
conclude, in an evasive manner common at our university, that administrative
action should be suspended.
You refer repeatedly to "law specialists," "the laws," "university
laws," and "protecting the rights" of "students and staff members."
However, this respect for laws and rights should be consistently observed at
National Cheng Kung University, not only when convenient.
An appeal to law should not be made to conceal abuses of the law.
Apparently at NCKU, if a student secretly and maliciously discredits a
professor, standards of law and morality are ignored. But when the injured
(foreign) teacher seeks redress, the university appeals to the law and to
"law specialists."
I remind you that, not only laws, but moral standards, were violated
when this student’s secret letter was accepted, although it was clearly
written with a malicious intent and made unsupported accusations of many
years before. Even without the documentation I mentioned in previous faxes,
it seems to me that no responsible official should have allowed that secret
accusation, much less accepted it in a dismissal case.
I ignore routine issues, such as that, in an appeal, new accusations
cannot be accepted. The purpose of an appeal is to contest old accusations,
not allow new ones. And these new accusations were not merely allowed, but
apparently solicited.
You write of "university laws." But where were university laws when
this student’s secret, and obviously malicious, letter was accepted? Why do
"law specialists" affirm a student’s rights but not the teacher she
discredited?
I was informed that the previous dean accepted this secret accusation
merely on the basis that the student affirmed she was willing to repeat her
claim in court. Her claim was therefore acceptable as true. If I tell you
that I am willing to go to court to swear that I am Santa Claus, does that
prove to your intellectual satisfaction that I am Santa Claus?
(For the record, in court, this student reprimanded me for taking the
case to court! She also claimed not to remember taking other courses from
me, in which she received high passes, the same year she claims she failed
unfairly. Courtroom testimony also suggested that at least one university
official, a current dean at our university, committed perjury to discredit
me.)
You refer confidently to law. Are you aware how many violations of
law, whether moral or legal, were made to effect my dismissal from the
university?
(1) I was never informed of accusations at a departmental review
meeting. (2) These accusations were not investigated according to Ministry
regulations. (3) They were not proved, by reasonable standards of proof.
(4) Accusers included members of the review committee. (5) A review
committee isn’t supposed to make accusations against a professor, but merely
"review" outside accusations.
University officials are obligated, according to principles of due
process, to defend a colleague’s reputation, not compromise it. To the best
of my knowledge, the reputations of Taiwan professors are not similarly
compromised at American universities, or subject to reckless libel, slander,
or unproved and secret accusations.
I am not certain if your "law specialists" would claim that
"university laws" were followed when a chairman in 1994 tried to effect my
dismissal, using unofficial "student evaluations" against me; or when a
former dean issued false minutes that libeled me. Since you speak of the
legal "rights" of "staff," I wonder what, if any, legal protections you
refer to; unless you refer only to native staff and students, not to foreign
colleagues.
Concerning my teaching contract, you know I won a Ministry of Education
award, canceling my dismissal. Yet the university administration,
presumably counseled by "law specialists," has ignored enforcement of this
ruling. Regarding observance of law, does the Ministry of Education
represent law in Taiwan? If not, what does it represent?
Dean Ko, you refer confidently to "law specialists." But what do you
think it suggests about the knowledge of law at our university, if all
eighteen members of a university committee, presumably the most legally
observant committee at the university, cannot see legal violations that are
obvious to an appeal committee outside the university (these violations were
bold-faced in the Ministry decision)?
These are general issues of concern. Supervisory committees should
deliberate lower committee decisions, not routinely ratify them. Higher
committees should protect higher principles of law and ethics, even if this
compromises the reputations of colleagues on lower committees. It seems to
me that the reputation of a university is worth more than the reputation a
few disreputable officials of that university.
Respect for individual rights also requires that protections against
"double jeopardy" be observed. The law usually protects the weak individual
from abuses of power on the part of more powerful adversaries. Is it fair
to call it an abuse of power when, despite a Ministry of Education ruling, a
university "investigates" those same accusations, using all its tax-funded
staff and resources to harass a colleague?
I conclude by appealing, not to "law specialists," but to the Law, as
well as to moral principles. The right thing is to observe, not merely
laws, but Law. This means the routine observance of Law, not merely the
selective use of some laws in some cases. Indeed, the worst offense against
moral principles is when there is a use of laws to justify an abuse of Law.
The offense is compounded when the victim is a foreign professor whose
native country uses all the resources of laws and due process of law to
protect the reputations of your compatriots.
Apart from law, let National Cheng Kung University officials observe
the Confucian principle of reciprocity. Let them apply the same legal
protections to foreign colleagues that are observed on behalf of native
colleagues, and that are applied in my country on behalf of your
compatriots. Let them punish reprobate students who maliciously accuse
teachers. And, finally, let them protect both the moral as well as the
academic reputation of our university and so preserve a heritage for the
generation that succeeds us.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Depart of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(06) 237 8626
3/18/2002 11:10 PM
18 March 2002
Professor Huei-Chen Ko,
Dean of Student Affairs
Dear Dean Ko,
I received your letter dated February 28, 2002. Regretfully, you use action
phrases such as "thoroughly discussed," "responding to your request," and a
reference to meeting "many times in the past three months," only to
conclude, in an evasive manner common at our university, that administrative
action should be suspended.
You refer repeatedly to "law specialists," "the laws," "university
laws," and "protecting the rights" of "students and staff members."
However, this respect for laws and rights should be consistently observed at
National Cheng Kung University, not only when convenient.
An appeal to law should not be made to conceal abuses of the law.
Apparently at NCKU, if a student secretly and maliciously discredits a
professor, standards of law and morality are ignored. But when the injured
(foreign) teacher seeks redress, the university appeals to the law and to
"law specialists."
I remind you that, not only laws, but moral standards, were violated
when this student’s secret letter was accepted, although it was clearly
written with a malicious intent and made unsupported accusations of many
years before. Even without the documentation I mentioned in previous faxes,
it seems to me that no responsible official should have allowed that secret
accusation, much less accepted it in a dismissal case.
I ignore routine issues, such as that, in an appeal, new accusations
cannot be accepted. The purpose of an appeal is to contest old accusations,
not allow new ones. And these new accusations were not merely allowed, but
apparently solicited.
You write of "university laws." But where were university laws when
this student’s secret, and obviously malicious, letter was accepted? Why do
"law specialists" affirm a student’s rights but not the teacher she
discredited?
I was informed that the previous dean accepted this secret accusation
merely on the basis that the student affirmed she was willing to repeat her
claim in court. Her claim was therefore acceptable as true. If I tell you
that I am willing to go to court to swear that I am Santa Claus, does that
prove to your intellectual satisfaction that I am Santa Claus?
(For the record, in court, this student reprimanded me for taking the
case to court! She also claimed not to remember taking other courses from
me, in which she received high passes, the same year she claims she failed
unfairly. Courtroom testimony also suggested that at least one university
official, a current dean at our university, committed perjury to discredit
me.)
You refer confidently to law. Are you aware how many violations of
law, whether moral or legal, were made to effect my dismissal from the
university?
(1) I was never informed of accusations at a departmental review
meeting. (2) These accusations were not investigated according to Ministry
regulations. (3) They were not proved, by reasonable standards of proof.
(4) Accusers included members of the review committee. (5) A review
committee isn’t supposed to make accusations against a professor, but merely
"review" outside accusations.
University officials are obligated, according to principles of due
process, to defend a colleague’s reputation, not compromise it. To the best
of my knowledge, the reputations of Taiwan professors are not similarly
compromised at American universities, or subject to reckless libel, slander,
or unproved and secret accusations.
I am not certain if your "law specialists" would claim that
"university laws" were followed when a chairman in 1994 tried to effect my
dismissal, using unofficial "student evaluations" against me; or when a
former dean issued false minutes that libeled me. Since you speak of the
legal "rights" of "staff," I wonder what, if any, legal protections you
refer to; unless you refer only to native staff and students, not to foreign
colleagues.
Concerning my teaching contract, you know I won a Ministry of Education
award, canceling my dismissal. Yet the university administration,
presumably counseled by "law specialists," has ignored enforcement of this
ruling. Regarding observance of law, does the Ministry of Education
represent law in Taiwan? If not, what does it represent?
Dean Ko, you refer confidently to "law specialists." But what do you
think it suggests about the knowledge of law at our university, if all
eighteen members of a university committee, presumably the most legally
observant committee at the university, cannot see legal violations that are
obvious to an appeal committee outside the university (these violations were
bold-faced in the Ministry decision)?
These are general issues of concern. Supervisory committees should
deliberate lower committee decisions, not routinely ratify them. Higher
committees should protect higher principles of law and ethics, even if this
compromises the reputations of colleagues on lower committees. It seems to
me that the reputation of a university is worth more than the reputation a
few disreputable officials of that university.
Respect for individual rights also requires that protections against
"double jeopardy" be observed. The law usually protects the weak individual
from abuses of power on the part of more powerful adversaries. Is it fair
to call it an abuse of power when, despite a Ministry of Education ruling, a
university "investigates" those same accusations, using all its tax-funded
staff and resources to harass a colleague?
I conclude by appealing, not to "law specialists," but to the Law, as
well as to moral principles. The right thing is to observe, not merely
laws, but Law. This means the routine observance of Law, not merely the
selective use of some laws in some cases. Indeed, the worst offense against
moral principles is when there is a use of laws to justify an abuse of Law.
The offense is compounded when the victim is a foreign professor whose
native country uses all the resources of laws and due process of law to
protect the reputations of your compatriots.
Apart from law, let National Cheng Kung University officials observe
the Confucian principle of reciprocity. Let them apply the same legal
protections to foreign colleagues that are observed on behalf of native
colleagues, and that are applied in my country on behalf of your
compatriots. Let them punish reprobate students who maliciously accuse
teachers. And, finally, let them protect both the moral as well as the
academic reputation of our university and so preserve a heritage for the
generation that succeeds us.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Depart of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(06) 237 8626
Monday, March 11, 2002
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs (11 March 2002)
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
3/11/2002 10:36 AM
11 March 2002
Professor Ker,
There are a number of issues we discussed over the telephone, which,
since you claim to want to do the right thing, I would like to explore into
a little more detail here.
You claim, for example, that the student's case is confusing and it is
difficult to decide the truth of the matter. I would be the first to agree
with this. However, this admirable standard of testing hearsay by legal
(not to mention moral) standards should have been applied BEFORE the
student's accusation was
accepted, not AFTER it was accepted to discredit a professor.
But this devious double standard is common at our university, where an
appeal to law is made only to conceal abuses of the law and not to prevent
or correct them. If a student secretly and maliciously discredits a
professor, standards of law and decency are ignored. But when the injured
teacher tries to effect justice for abuses of the law, the university
appeals to the law!
I would like to remind you that, not only laws, but moral standards,
were violated when this student's secret accusation was accepted by a
previous dean. What reasonable official would accept a secret accusation,
much less one that was clearly written with a malicious intent and referred
to unsupported accusations of many
years before? At my Alma Mater, for example, graduate students had a public
book where they could evaluate their professors. But the scrapbook also
contained a warning that malicious comments about a professor would be
ripped out of the book.
Professor Ker, students have rights, but also responsibilities, usually
regulated by legal channels of complaint. This student elected not to
pursue her complaint through regular legal channels and within a restricted
period of time when the testimony of other students and comparison with
other students' exams could easily have discredited her complaint. Even
several years later, when most reasonable people would agree that I had no
obligation to respond to her complaint, I did so, suggesting I could go to
my office and locate her exam. She ignored my letter and, as I was
informed, advised my colleague that she would contact a lawyer if I pursued
the matter further. Then, five years later, she files a SECRET complaint,
which was so obviously malicious that it should have discredited itself.
Indeed, no reputable chairman or dean would have accepted it, much less
credited it. On the contrary, a reputable dean or chair at a reputable
university would have cautioned the student to submit only legitimate
complaints in the future.
Professor Ker, did it ever occur to you the kind of letter I could
write, if I so chose, against this student? Believe me, it would make her
own letter appear mild in comparison. But, being an honorable person, I am
aware that my opinions of this student are personal and should have no
special relevance to that student's academic standing or professional
employment. If you notice, my current complaints against this student are
based on documented facts; on her own letter of complaint, which most
reasonable persons would find hostile; and on specific issues that concern
legal rights at our university. I am not interested in a general character
assassination of this student, especially since the facts speak for
themselves.
But did the facts speak for themselves in the student's letter?
Professor Ker, there were no facts! Even without the documentation I have
referred to in
previous faxes, no worthy official should have allowed that secret
accusation.
I ignore other, more routine, legal rights issues, such as that, as an
appellant, new
accusations should not have been accepted against me. The whole point of an
appeal is to defend against old accusations, not be subject to new ones.
The fact that these new accusations were apparently intended to "save" the
department's weak case against me only adds to the injury. A dean of an
appeal committee is supposed to protect an appellant's rights, not
compromise them.
(Only a naive person would imagine that this student's letter was NOT
solicited at that special time in order to effect my dismissal, however
illegally. The fact that the letter was even accepted, although dated
months after the department's initial accusations, only adds to the witches'
brew of legal rights violations at our university.)
The facts are plain. The former dean who handled this case should have
reversed it as soon as he realized the department's accusations against me
were not proved. But he chose a social conformity over a conformity to the
law. Perhaps this dean observed his conscience. But observing one's
conscience is not sufficient if one's conscience does not recognize the law.
I have been informed that the dean accepted this secret accusation
because the student affirmed she was willing to go to court and repeat her
claim. According to this official, her claim was therefore acceptable as
true.
Professor Ker, if I tell you that I am willing to go to court to swear
that I am Santa Claus, does that prove to your intellectual satisfaction
that I am Santa Claus?
(For the record, in court, this student chastised me for taking this
case to court! She also claimed not to have remembered taking other courses
from me, in which she received high passes, the same year she claims she
failed unfairly. Courtroom testimony also suggested that at least one
university official, a current dean at our
university, committed perjury to discredit me.)
Professor Ker, you appeal to the law to explain why an investigation
into this student's accusation is being delayed. But are you aware how many
violations of
law, whether moral or legal, were necessary in order to effect my dismissal
from the university? I'll list some of them.
1. The former chair of my department accepted secret accusations
against me at a review meeting. These accusations became the basis for my
dismissal at the departmental review meeting. I was never informed of these
accusations, although the chairman had one year to do so.
(This same chairman had the wisdom to inform me early in the first
semester that he needed a teacher for a night class. I informed him that,
in sympathy with his new chairmanship, I would accept an additional night
course. Yet this same chairman did not see fit to inform me of accusations
used in the department dismissal motion against me many months later, in
March.
Professor Ker, apart from legal rights violations, does the chairman's
behavior represent the best in principles of Chinese reciprocity to your
mind?)
2. These secret accusations were never properly investigated, according
to
Ministry regulations.
3. They were never proved, according to Ministry standards of proof.
4. Accusers included members of the review committee!
5. A review committee isn't even supposed to make accusations against a
professor, but merely "review" accusations against him.
Professor Ker, since you recognize the law, where is the observance of
law in these instances?
To be frank, I think very few people at our university have the
slightest knowledge of democratic process or even interest in it. Those few
who do don't care enough to challenge the rest who don't. Perhaps you're
one of them, since you told me it's all very confusing. I don't think so.
I think violations here were flagrant, if not outrageous. In any case, an
official at a university does not have the same right to be confused about
observance of the law.
To take the student complaint, all that is necessary for you to know is
that a student was allowed to accuse me and I was not allowed to defend
myself against her complaint, or even informed of it. If that does not
outrage your sense of moral conscience, then, frankly, your moral sense is
different from mine. But I'll say one thing for certain. If your child was
expelled from an American university based on another student's secret
complaint, you would no longer be confused about either the moral or legal
issues involved.
Professor Ker, we cannot square our conscience with acts such as I've
detailed here, anymore than we can square a circle. The law is a public
thing, not a private opinion. You cannot square the circle of justice by
saying you will obserrve one law, ignore that law, select this law, and
interpret another law. Democracy is a govenrment of laws; but it is also a
government of Law, which means an impartial and routine execution of laws.
For example, do you seriously believe that if this student had written the
same complaint against Kao Chiang or Lee Chen-er that it would have been
accepted? I think you would agree that the student's complaint would have
gone straight to the trash can; or worse: straight to the accused party so
he could chastise the student himself.
Professor Ker, you appeal with confidence to university laws. Do you
think that our committees have the same confidence in these laws?
Previously, a chairman in 1994 tried to effect my dismissal. He used
several "student evaluations" against me. In the same manner related above,
I was never informed of these evaluations, nor was I allowed a chance to
defend myself against them, nor were they even official
evaluations. Rather, they were solicited by the chairman in order to
discredit me and then effect my dismissal. This chairman was never punished
for this offense. On the contrary, according to the routine indifference to
law at our university, this individual (who also perjured himself in court
on behalf of the student who accused me) was elected dean of a college last
academic year.
As for my teaching contract, you know I won a Ministry of Education
award, canceling my dismissal. Presumably, this means my dismissal is not
in effect. Yet the university administration has interdicted the
enforcement of this ruling.
Professor Ker, you mention observance of law. Do you think the
Ministry of Education represents law in Taiwan? If not, what does it
represent? Or, put differently, who represents the law? Kao Chiang or the
university lawyers? Believe me, Professor Ker, if the Taiwan constitution
wanted university lawyers to represent the law of the land, it would say
so. If the Taiwan constitution wanted individual lawyers to interpret the
law of the land, it would say so. But, so far as I know, only the judiciary
in any democracy, including Taiwan, is authorized to interpret the law; all
other officials are obligated to enforce it.
Do you think an appeal decision in an appellant's favor can be
interpreted to mean that appellant merely has the right to appeal again?
Does this sound like a
rational point of view? Does it sound like a moral point of view?
If all a person could win by appealing was the right to appeal again, do
you think anyone would waste time to appeal? What would be the point? Even
if the university believed this, they would have had to make this clear from
the very beginning.
In law, many things are assumed. When you point to a picture of a
car and pay NT500,000, it is assumed, in law, you are buying the car, not
the picture of the car. But what if a devious lawyer claimed you had merely
bought the picture of a car? Would you still be "confused" over right and
wrong?
What if you owned a restaurant and a customer had an expensive meal
and then said he would pay you when he had the money. What if
he brought along a devious lawyer who claimed the menu did not say
payment had to be immediately after consumption of the meal and he
"interpreted" the menu to mean the customer could pay anytime before his
death?
Or perhaps this devious lawyer advises payment in weaker currency,
amounting to one-third the value in the exchange rate. The devious lawyer
claims the menu did not specify which currency should be paid and therefore
"interprets" it to mean any currency rather than local currency. Would you
still claim to be "confused" as to
the right and wrong of the situation, Professor Ker?
Or what if your student copied answers off his hand during an
examination. He claims that he is not cheating, since he is merely copying
answers he already knows. Would you still claim to be confused over the
right and wrong of the situation?
Finally, what if your child takes money from your purse but denies he is
stealing, since, as your son, what belongs to you belongs to him too. At
least, if he had the acquaintance of a devious lawyer, that's what he would
think of saying.
Professor Ker, the university had an appeal process, in which both of
us participated. Participation in a legal process implies, in law, consent
to the routine obligations that process entails, based upon commonsense
understandings. If you eat a meal in a restaurant, this implies consent to
certain obligations (for example, you will pay in local currency, and
immediately after consuming it). You cannot,
after consuming the meal, claim the meal was "inedible" and therefore you
are not obligated to pay. If you thought the food was not good enough to be
eaten, you were obligated to express that thought at the beginning not the
end.
The university's participation in the appeal process implies consent to
duties and obligations of the appeal process. But, in December, 1999, after
I won a university appeal, the university claimed that, as a foreigner, I
should be reviewed again!
Professor Ker, would you like your child to pass qualifying exams at a
foreign university only to be told, after he passed, that, as a foreigner
from Taiwan, he had to pass them again? Would you be "morally confused"
about the issue? I think not.
Lacking further confidence in observance of law, or even moral
standards, at our university, I appealed to the Ministry of Education. The
Ministry of Education wrote a strongly-worded appeal decision in my favor,
pointing out countless
irregularities in the university dismissal, a dismissal, I remind you, that
was UNANIMOUSLY passed by the university committee of eighteen members!
Professor Ker, since you frequently appeal to the law, what do you think
this suggests about the knowledge of law at our university, if all eighteen
members of a university committee, presumably the most legally observant
committee at the
university, cannot see legal violations that are obvious to an appeal
committee outside the university? As a professor, indeed, an official, at
our university, do you feel any sense of shame in this?
Professor Ker, I point out merely the egregious violations committed in
the university's vendetta against me. There were countless others, such as
returning a case back to a lower committee, when the case should have been
terminated by the superior committee; or missing deadlines to file a case
against me but filing the case anyway (if I missed a deadline to appeal, do
you think the university would allow
this?).
The violations are obvious. But apart from legal violations, there is
the abiding issue of moral standards. University officials who observe a
lesser moral standard than is required of our students should be dismissed
from the university. For without moral credibility, a university has no
academic credibility.
Thus I would like to conclude by appealing to your moral sense,
including moral principles such as good faith, treating others as you wish
to be treated, honesty, keeping one's word, and so forth. So I ask you and
your morally awakened colleagues to do the right thing.
The right thing is for you and your colleagues to compel the university
to honor the law, to observe moral and legal standards at our university, to
punish reprobate students who maliciously accused a teacher, and to put this
scandal behind us so that we can uphold the reputation of our university and
protect the inheritance of our students.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
3/11/2002 10:36 AM
11 March 2002
Professor Ker,
There are a number of issues we discussed over the telephone, which,
since you claim to want to do the right thing, I would like to explore into
a little more detail here.
You claim, for example, that the student's case is confusing and it is
difficult to decide the truth of the matter. I would be the first to agree
with this. However, this admirable standard of testing hearsay by legal
(not to mention moral) standards should have been applied BEFORE the
student's accusation was
accepted, not AFTER it was accepted to discredit a professor.
But this devious double standard is common at our university, where an
appeal to law is made only to conceal abuses of the law and not to prevent
or correct them. If a student secretly and maliciously discredits a
professor, standards of law and decency are ignored. But when the injured
teacher tries to effect justice for abuses of the law, the university
appeals to the law!
I would like to remind you that, not only laws, but moral standards,
were violated when this student's secret accusation was accepted by a
previous dean. What reasonable official would accept a secret accusation,
much less one that was clearly written with a malicious intent and referred
to unsupported accusations of many
years before? At my Alma Mater, for example, graduate students had a public
book where they could evaluate their professors. But the scrapbook also
contained a warning that malicious comments about a professor would be
ripped out of the book.
Professor Ker, students have rights, but also responsibilities, usually
regulated by legal channels of complaint. This student elected not to
pursue her complaint through regular legal channels and within a restricted
period of time when the testimony of other students and comparison with
other students' exams could easily have discredited her complaint. Even
several years later, when most reasonable people would agree that I had no
obligation to respond to her complaint, I did so, suggesting I could go to
my office and locate her exam. She ignored my letter and, as I was
informed, advised my colleague that she would contact a lawyer if I pursued
the matter further. Then, five years later, she files a SECRET complaint,
which was so obviously malicious that it should have discredited itself.
Indeed, no reputable chairman or dean would have accepted it, much less
credited it. On the contrary, a reputable dean or chair at a reputable
university would have cautioned the student to submit only legitimate
complaints in the future.
Professor Ker, did it ever occur to you the kind of letter I could
write, if I so chose, against this student? Believe me, it would make her
own letter appear mild in comparison. But, being an honorable person, I am
aware that my opinions of this student are personal and should have no
special relevance to that student's academic standing or professional
employment. If you notice, my current complaints against this student are
based on documented facts; on her own letter of complaint, which most
reasonable persons would find hostile; and on specific issues that concern
legal rights at our university. I am not interested in a general character
assassination of this student, especially since the facts speak for
themselves.
But did the facts speak for themselves in the student's letter?
Professor Ker, there were no facts! Even without the documentation I have
referred to in
previous faxes, no worthy official should have allowed that secret
accusation.
I ignore other, more routine, legal rights issues, such as that, as an
appellant, new
accusations should not have been accepted against me. The whole point of an
appeal is to defend against old accusations, not be subject to new ones.
The fact that these new accusations were apparently intended to "save" the
department's weak case against me only adds to the injury. A dean of an
appeal committee is supposed to protect an appellant's rights, not
compromise them.
(Only a naive person would imagine that this student's letter was NOT
solicited at that special time in order to effect my dismissal, however
illegally. The fact that the letter was even accepted, although dated
months after the department's initial accusations, only adds to the witches'
brew of legal rights violations at our university.)
The facts are plain. The former dean who handled this case should have
reversed it as soon as he realized the department's accusations against me
were not proved. But he chose a social conformity over a conformity to the
law. Perhaps this dean observed his conscience. But observing one's
conscience is not sufficient if one's conscience does not recognize the law.
I have been informed that the dean accepted this secret accusation
because the student affirmed she was willing to go to court and repeat her
claim. According to this official, her claim was therefore acceptable as
true.
Professor Ker, if I tell you that I am willing to go to court to swear
that I am Santa Claus, does that prove to your intellectual satisfaction
that I am Santa Claus?
(For the record, in court, this student chastised me for taking this
case to court! She also claimed not to have remembered taking other courses
from me, in which she received high passes, the same year she claims she
failed unfairly. Courtroom testimony also suggested that at least one
university official, a current dean at our
university, committed perjury to discredit me.)
Professor Ker, you appeal to the law to explain why an investigation
into this student's accusation is being delayed. But are you aware how many
violations of
law, whether moral or legal, were necessary in order to effect my dismissal
from the university? I'll list some of them.
1. The former chair of my department accepted secret accusations
against me at a review meeting. These accusations became the basis for my
dismissal at the departmental review meeting. I was never informed of these
accusations, although the chairman had one year to do so.
(This same chairman had the wisdom to inform me early in the first
semester that he needed a teacher for a night class. I informed him that,
in sympathy with his new chairmanship, I would accept an additional night
course. Yet this same chairman did not see fit to inform me of accusations
used in the department dismissal motion against me many months later, in
March.
Professor Ker, apart from legal rights violations, does the chairman's
behavior represent the best in principles of Chinese reciprocity to your
mind?)
2. These secret accusations were never properly investigated, according
to
Ministry regulations.
3. They were never proved, according to Ministry standards of proof.
4. Accusers included members of the review committee!
5. A review committee isn't even supposed to make accusations against a
professor, but merely "review" accusations against him.
Professor Ker, since you recognize the law, where is the observance of
law in these instances?
To be frank, I think very few people at our university have the
slightest knowledge of democratic process or even interest in it. Those few
who do don't care enough to challenge the rest who don't. Perhaps you're
one of them, since you told me it's all very confusing. I don't think so.
I think violations here were flagrant, if not outrageous. In any case, an
official at a university does not have the same right to be confused about
observance of the law.
To take the student complaint, all that is necessary for you to know is
that a student was allowed to accuse me and I was not allowed to defend
myself against her complaint, or even informed of it. If that does not
outrage your sense of moral conscience, then, frankly, your moral sense is
different from mine. But I'll say one thing for certain. If your child was
expelled from an American university based on another student's secret
complaint, you would no longer be confused about either the moral or legal
issues involved.
Professor Ker, we cannot square our conscience with acts such as I've
detailed here, anymore than we can square a circle. The law is a public
thing, not a private opinion. You cannot square the circle of justice by
saying you will obserrve one law, ignore that law, select this law, and
interpret another law. Democracy is a govenrment of laws; but it is also a
government of Law, which means an impartial and routine execution of laws.
For example, do you seriously believe that if this student had written the
same complaint against Kao Chiang or Lee Chen-er that it would have been
accepted? I think you would agree that the student's complaint would have
gone straight to the trash can; or worse: straight to the accused party so
he could chastise the student himself.
Professor Ker, you appeal with confidence to university laws. Do you
think that our committees have the same confidence in these laws?
Previously, a chairman in 1994 tried to effect my dismissal. He used
several "student evaluations" against me. In the same manner related above,
I was never informed of these evaluations, nor was I allowed a chance to
defend myself against them, nor were they even official
evaluations. Rather, they were solicited by the chairman in order to
discredit me and then effect my dismissal. This chairman was never punished
for this offense. On the contrary, according to the routine indifference to
law at our university, this individual (who also perjured himself in court
on behalf of the student who accused me) was elected dean of a college last
academic year.
As for my teaching contract, you know I won a Ministry of Education
award, canceling my dismissal. Presumably, this means my dismissal is not
in effect. Yet the university administration has interdicted the
enforcement of this ruling.
Professor Ker, you mention observance of law. Do you think the
Ministry of Education represents law in Taiwan? If not, what does it
represent? Or, put differently, who represents the law? Kao Chiang or the
university lawyers? Believe me, Professor Ker, if the Taiwan constitution
wanted university lawyers to represent the law of the land, it would say
so. If the Taiwan constitution wanted individual lawyers to interpret the
law of the land, it would say so. But, so far as I know, only the judiciary
in any democracy, including Taiwan, is authorized to interpret the law; all
other officials are obligated to enforce it.
Do you think an appeal decision in an appellant's favor can be
interpreted to mean that appellant merely has the right to appeal again?
Does this sound like a
rational point of view? Does it sound like a moral point of view?
If all a person could win by appealing was the right to appeal again, do
you think anyone would waste time to appeal? What would be the point? Even
if the university believed this, they would have had to make this clear from
the very beginning.
In law, many things are assumed. When you point to a picture of a
car and pay NT500,000, it is assumed, in law, you are buying the car, not
the picture of the car. But what if a devious lawyer claimed you had merely
bought the picture of a car? Would you still be "confused" over right and
wrong?
What if you owned a restaurant and a customer had an expensive meal
and then said he would pay you when he had the money. What if
he brought along a devious lawyer who claimed the menu did not say
payment had to be immediately after consumption of the meal and he
"interpreted" the menu to mean the customer could pay anytime before his
death?
Or perhaps this devious lawyer advises payment in weaker currency,
amounting to one-third the value in the exchange rate. The devious lawyer
claims the menu did not specify which currency should be paid and therefore
"interprets" it to mean any currency rather than local currency. Would you
still claim to be "confused" as to
the right and wrong of the situation, Professor Ker?
Or what if your student copied answers off his hand during an
examination. He claims that he is not cheating, since he is merely copying
answers he already knows. Would you still claim to be confused over the
right and wrong of the situation?
Finally, what if your child takes money from your purse but denies he is
stealing, since, as your son, what belongs to you belongs to him too. At
least, if he had the acquaintance of a devious lawyer, that's what he would
think of saying.
Professor Ker, the university had an appeal process, in which both of
us participated. Participation in a legal process implies, in law, consent
to the routine obligations that process entails, based upon commonsense
understandings. If you eat a meal in a restaurant, this implies consent to
certain obligations (for example, you will pay in local currency, and
immediately after consuming it). You cannot,
after consuming the meal, claim the meal was "inedible" and therefore you
are not obligated to pay. If you thought the food was not good enough to be
eaten, you were obligated to express that thought at the beginning not the
end.
The university's participation in the appeal process implies consent to
duties and obligations of the appeal process. But, in December, 1999, after
I won a university appeal, the university claimed that, as a foreigner, I
should be reviewed again!
Professor Ker, would you like your child to pass qualifying exams at a
foreign university only to be told, after he passed, that, as a foreigner
from Taiwan, he had to pass them again? Would you be "morally confused"
about the issue? I think not.
Lacking further confidence in observance of law, or even moral
standards, at our university, I appealed to the Ministry of Education. The
Ministry of Education wrote a strongly-worded appeal decision in my favor,
pointing out countless
irregularities in the university dismissal, a dismissal, I remind you, that
was UNANIMOUSLY passed by the university committee of eighteen members!
Professor Ker, since you frequently appeal to the law, what do you think
this suggests about the knowledge of law at our university, if all eighteen
members of a university committee, presumably the most legally observant
committee at the
university, cannot see legal violations that are obvious to an appeal
committee outside the university? As a professor, indeed, an official, at
our university, do you feel any sense of shame in this?
Professor Ker, I point out merely the egregious violations committed in
the university's vendetta against me. There were countless others, such as
returning a case back to a lower committee, when the case should have been
terminated by the superior committee; or missing deadlines to file a case
against me but filing the case anyway (if I missed a deadline to appeal, do
you think the university would allow
this?).
The violations are obvious. But apart from legal violations, there is
the abiding issue of moral standards. University officials who observe a
lesser moral standard than is required of our students should be dismissed
from the university. For without moral credibility, a university has no
academic credibility.
Thus I would like to conclude by appealing to your moral sense,
including moral principles such as good faith, treating others as you wish
to be treated, honesty, keeping one's word, and so forth. So I ask you and
your morally awakened colleagues to do the right thing.
The right thing is for you and your colleagues to compel the university
to honor the law, to observe moral and legal standards at our university, to
punish reprobate students who maliciously accused a teacher, and to put this
scandal behind us so that we can uphold the reputation of our university and
protect the inheritance of our students.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Thursday, February 28, 2002
Letter from Dean of Student Affairs (28 February 2002)
Below is typical of the responses from university officials. The university acted on Lily Chen's defamatory letter immediately, though the student had no proof about a disputed grade eight years earlier (see other posts on my blog for an overview of the case); but when I want to file a legal (formal) complaint against the student all obstacles are placed in my path. Note typical phrases I'm familiar with in administrative handling of my case: "thoroughly discussed," and "law specialists" (presumably the same ones who advised defiance of a legal Ministry ruling for nearly two and a half years; who said "foreign" teachers were not protected by the Teachers Law; who held appeal hearings at the university then said "foreigners" had no right to appeal). It's so nice to read that "official meeetings" were called "many times i the past three months," when almost any other university in the world would have called the student into the office the day of the complaint! And there's that memorable phrase again, "according to the university administrative laws," presumably the same "university administrative laws" that said "foreigners" were not protected by the Teachers Law, that canceled a dismissal then returned the case to the department for "further evidence," and "according to" the same process that the current president, Dr. Hwung, and his Secretary-General, C. C. Chen, now claim, on the official NCKU web page (March, May 2011) was fully observed in my 1999 illegal dismissal in their Orwellian revisionist version of the dismissal. Then the final coup de grace, namely the university is waiting for the court to tell them what to do, the way that an editor of an English-language newspaper told me he was waiting for "further developments" in my case before publishing about it, as if thirteen years did not supply enough "further developments" in the case for a newspaper in a reputed democracy with a reputed "free press." As if that "coup de grace" was not enough I'm informed that the student who violated my rights has her rights, presumably a priority over my rights, since he's a citizen I'm not, and then an official of a university that violated all laws to dismiss me concludes with a rhetorical flourish about the necessity of acting "according to the university laws." I should add that Dr. Huei-Chen Ko later became an official with the Student Conduct Commission under the Ministry of Education (http://ph.news.yahoo.com/taiwan-passes-law-punish-sexual-bullying-111003233.html), despite my many letters complaining of her handling of the case! It's good to know that voices are heard in Taiwan. Presumably she's defending students in her new capacity with the same alacrity with which, as Dean of Student Affairs at NCKU, she defended the student who wrote a defamatory letter against me. Note the symbolic date in the Taiwan calendar, showing how far Taiwan has come since the original 2/28 incident.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Letter from Dean of Student Affairs regarding a Formal Complaint against Ms. A. C. Chen
February 28, 2002
Dear Dr. de Canio:
Your letter and facsimile message on November 21, 2000 and January 2, 2002,
respectively, proposing investigating the case regarding Ms. A. C. Chen,
doctorate student of Foreign Languages & Literature Department, had been
thoroughly discussed in the office. In responding to your request, I
appointed the Deputy Dean of Students as the chairman of the investigating
committee. This committee, consisting of university staff members related
to student affairs and law specialists, had called the official meetings
many times in the past three months to discuss the details of this case.
The following conclusion was made by the committee according to the
university administrative laws:
The university understands that you have initiated a lawsuit against Ms. A.
C. Chen and the case is being proceeded in the court at the moment.
According to the laws, no administrative decisions should be made upon any
students or staff members of this university while they are being involved
in any legal procedures until the lawsuit is closed in the court. Thus, the
Office of Student Affairs will make further judgement upon Ms. Chen
according to the university laws of awarding and punishing students after
the lawsuit is closed in the court.
Furthermore, the university is an educational institution, which also
assumes the responsibility of protecting the rights of its students**** and
staff members. Thus, proceeding this case regarding a student according to
the university laws is necessary.
Yours sincerely,
Huei-Chen Ko, Ph.D.
Dean of Office of Student Affairs
****MY FOOTNOTE: Apparently at National Cheng Kung University the student has "rights" when a teacher files a formal complaint against her but the teacher has no rights when the student writes a secret letter against him!
__________________________________________________________________________________
Letter from Dean of Student Affairs regarding a Formal Complaint against Ms. A. C. Chen
February 28, 2002
Dear Dr. de Canio:
Your letter and facsimile message on November 21, 2000 and January 2, 2002,
respectively, proposing investigating the case regarding Ms. A. C. Chen,
doctorate student of Foreign Languages & Literature Department, had been
thoroughly discussed in the office. In responding to your request, I
appointed the Deputy Dean of Students as the chairman of the investigating
committee. This committee, consisting of university staff members related
to student affairs and law specialists, had called the official meetings
many times in the past three months to discuss the details of this case.
The following conclusion was made by the committee according to the
university administrative laws:
The university understands that you have initiated a lawsuit against Ms. A.
C. Chen and the case is being proceeded in the court at the moment.
According to the laws, no administrative decisions should be made upon any
students or staff members of this university while they are being involved
in any legal procedures until the lawsuit is closed in the court. Thus, the
Office of Student Affairs will make further judgement upon Ms. Chen
according to the university laws of awarding and punishing students after
the lawsuit is closed in the court.
Furthermore, the university is an educational institution, which also
assumes the responsibility of protecting the rights of its students**** and
staff members. Thus, proceeding this case regarding a student according to
the university laws is necessary.
Yours sincerely,
Huei-Chen Ko, Ph.D.
Dean of Office of Student Affairs
****MY FOOTNOTE: Apparently at National Cheng Kung University the student has "rights" when a teacher files a formal complaint against her but the teacher has no rights when the student writes a secret letter against him!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)