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