Letter to Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR)
10/14/2003 1:00 AM
Subject: Letters to TAHRTo: TAHR@yahoo.com
Taiwan Association for Human Rights
Hsin-sheng S. Road, Section 3
Lane 25, No. 3, 9th Floor
Taipei, TAIWAN
Telephone:886-2-23639787
Facsimile:886-2-23636102
E-mail:tahr@seed.net.tw
cc: Scholars at Risk
University of Chicago
9 August 2003
Dear Ms. Wu,
Since you spoke to me about understanding human rights violations at
National Cheng Kung University, I thought that, apart from previously
emailed and faxed documents, I'd summarize the human rights principles on
which I am requesting your intervention:
First, a foreign professor has the same rights as native Taiwan
citizens, including the right to due process of law and appeal. These
protections should be enforced according to Taiwan's laws and international
principles: A final appeal is final. Issues rejected on appeal cannot be
revived. Remedy includes complete compensation and formal apology.
Regarding general principles of law, a university official must
promptly comply with a legal ruling. No official has the right to
"interpret" a ruling. Only the judiciary has the right to interpret laws,
within constitutional limits.
If a government official does not understand a ruling or how to execute
it, he should resign his office or be subject to administrative and criminal
penalties. No official can claim not to understand what a final appeal
ruling means! It means compliance.
No official has a right to impede or obstruct or otherwise delay prompt
execution of rulings. An official involved in such misconduct should be
promptly dismissed, subject to further penalties or censure.
Yet the university president defied a Ministry ruling for more than two
years. Not only wasn't he punished, but he was recently re-elected to a
second term. At a public forum, he deplored a lack of university funding.
Yet he allowed the university to contest a legal Ministry ruling for more
than two years, costing millions of dollars.
I was told the president would not over-rule a committee decision.
This is commendable policy, unless a committee violates the law. Public
officials are obligated to over-rule committees that transparently violate
laws. No committee can defy a Ministry ruling.
The practical consequences of this injures appellants, which invites
further abuses. Since no one is held accountable for errant committee
rulings, committee rulings can be used punitively, to punish an appellant.
Regardless if the decision is overturned, most appellants could not
realistically commit themselves to administrative remedy, undermining the
purpose of final appeal, which is to limit harassment of appellants.
Officials must execute legal rulings in a transparent manner, according
to the face value of the ruling or law; what "the common citizen would
understand or do." A "final appeal" is universally considered final.
That's why it's called a "final" appeal.
This would be obvious to a fourth grade student. Yet our university
committees concluded that a final appeal subjects faculty, at least if he's
American, to further "review."
Then a final appeal is not final: It is, in other words, a square vase,
as Confucius put it. Indeed, an appeal is pointless. It's better being
dismissed sooner than later. Like the turtle in the Chinese fable who
protests, "If you want to eat me, say so in the first place. Why do it in a
roundabout way?"
Democratic law does not discriminate. As a representative from
Taiwan's Administrative Court protested four years ago: "Taiwan is a
democracy. One law applies to everyone." But university officials needed
more than four years to figure this out, at taxpayers' expense.
Part of the problem is the special status committees have at our
university. This is partly based on a culture of subservience
("relationships") and partly on a general passivity or indifference among
faculty members.
Yet democracy is a government of laws, not committees. Committee
members should uphold the law, not replace it.
But law is either misunderstood or scorned at National Cheng Kung
University. Because of a culture of subservience, an official soon convinces
a committee to accept a baseless accusation or a law is “interpreted” to
suit committee aims. It takes years contesting abuses only to have
committees punitively repeat them. Meanwhile, committee members stonewall
inside their bureaucratic caves, each official referring to another in a
chain of irresponsibility. In this way, no one is responsible instead of
everyone.
Because of the special status that committees and officials have in a
culture of subservience, the appellant is presumed guilty rather than
innocent. Committees routinely ratify ("rubber-stamp") decisions rather
than deliberate them, favoring colleagues over an outsider. But democratic
principle favors a petitioner to balance the power of the many.
In view of an appellant’s limited resources, the principle of final
appeals limits harassment of an appellant and discourages reckless
accusations. The fact that the Ministry of Education Appeal Committee
bold-faced countless legal rights violations shows that our committee
members are either grievously under-educated about, or actually scornful
towards, legal principles. One official even told me he didn't care about
the law!
Yet why should officials care about the law if the law does not care to
censure their misconduct? Defiant, they hide in their bureaucratic caves
until a petitioner gets tired of the chase.
The results are plain in the history of my dismissal case. The
chairman of my department used secret accusations to dismiss me. The Dean
of the College of Liberal Arts, who could have promptly terminated the
injustice, instead accepted a secret student letter merely on the student's
claim. I suppose if I claim I'm Santa Claus he'd believe that too. Three
times I asked the chair of the university review committee about the
contents of that secret letter and he silently stared at me. But after
winning a university appeal, I was told nonetheless, as a foreigner, I would
have to be reviewed again.
After the Ministry ruling, I requested discipline of the student who
wrote the letter. The Dean and Vice Dean of Student Affairs gave me the
run-around for more than two years, like the turtle in the Chinese fable. I
heard every improbable excuse why no action could be taken. Rights are
ignored to injure a professor but invoked to prevent remedy:
“The student was not a student when she wrote her letter.” “She
insisted what she wrote was true.” “The case is pending in the courts.”
“The court ruling prevents further action.” “The student doesn’t want to
come.” “Her mother doesn’t want her to come.” “God will punish her.”
After countless summary faxes and emails, periodically, and with comic
dignity, I was asked to write yet another summary of my complaint. Or I was
told the vice-dean or dean was "collecting evidence."
Although I read of such a bureaucratic maze, in Franz Kafka's The
Trial, I never thought I’d live it myself. Recently I learned the vice-dean
resigned over a sex scandal. If based in fact, I wasted two years appealing
to moral principles he was violating.
Yet democracy is a government of laws as well as moral principles. We
call those principles "human rights."
So apart from laws, what dean has the right to prevent a supervised
meeting between a student and a professor for disciplinary reasons?
Obviously university officials are protecting themselves as well as the
student, since they solicited the student's letter in the first place.
On what moral principle can university officials claim an appellant is
entitled to only half pay since he wasn't teaching during the years of his
illegal dismissal? Or that he should be denied annual increments for those
years? On what moral basis would officials delay a formal apology and
compensation or expect an appellant to fight for benefits he won?
Yet no official at National Cheng Kung University has yet been punished
for flagrant violations of laws and for human rights abuses a fourth grade
student would recognize. Certainly delaying the enforcement of a Ministry
ruling would be called obstruction of justice in my country. Using official
authority to slander and libel a professor is a serious offense, subject to
criminal penalties in many countries. Using one's office to "investigate" a
professor on accusations already rejected in an appeal ruling is abuse of
office, regardless what it's called in Taiwan.
If Taiwan pursues international membership it must, as Confucius said,
"rectify the names" and call things by the proper words, which common
citizens recognize. Using committees to repeatedly harass a professor with
accusations never proved and already rejected on appeal is wrong, even if a
university calls it "review."
Ironically, I encouraged officials to investigate accusations before my
final dismissal in 1999, but was ignored. After the Ministry ruling in my
favor, the university claimed the right to review and investigate me again.
If accusations repeatedly rejected on review and appeal are always
subject to revival a final appeal is pointless. It's better the Taiwan
government warned foreign teachers about risks teaching in Taiwan.
The Taiwan Association for Human Rights should recognize the dangerous
precedent of conduct that establishes the university as a final judicial
agency. Apart from issues of law and human rights, this also threatens
academic freedom, since teachers lose confidence in remedy outside the
university.
These actions reflect the indifference of superior agencies that,
rather than discipline subordinates for misconduct or incompetence, request
another cycle of hearings. Routinely, university officials oblige by
stubbornly repeating their mistakes.
This punishes the appellant rather than the officials, who benefit from
such dilatory tactics, as my case, now in its fifth year, shows. Ideally, a
petitioner quits the fight and transfers.
Indeed, the secretary-general at our university defiantly told a
Chinese colleague in my presence that if university officials had acted
improperly, the Ministry of Education would have punished them. Yet a few
weeks later, the university finally (if only partly) complied with the
Ministry ruling.
But by treating legal rights violations as administrative errors rather
than criminal acts, the Taiwan government fosters a culture of lawlessness.
Indeed, someone at the Ministry of Education informed a Chinese colleague
and me that, "In our society, teachers are considered above the law."
Yet it's not enough to espouse democratic principles at international
conferences but abide by authoritarian values at home. Taiwan officials
seem indifferent about "face" when accusing their Mainland Chinese
counterparts over the issue of Taiwan's rights. Yet they put face above
democratic principles when protecting their colleagues against a foreigner's
rights.
The SARS scandal at Ho Ping Hospital in Taipei shows the dangerous
consequences when officials put face above the public interest. Prompt
punishment of these officials showed that the Taiwan government is able to
act to defend the public interest.
Unfortunately, libel against a foreign professor is not considered of
public interest. The District Attorney rejected my libel suit against
university officials on hearsay testimony. When a Faculty Union member
later contradicted the hearsay testimony, the D.A. apologized but did not
reopen the case.
Similarly, an accusation by review committee members was not considered
libel because it was based on a signed letter. Yet members of the same
committee signed the letter. The accusation was neither investigated or
proved, I was not informed of it or allowed to defend myself, and it
resulted in my dismissal. Yet the case was dismissed.
Finally, I lost my libel case against a student who wrote a secret
accusatory letter because, according to the judge, it was "reasonable" for a
student to believe she failed unfairly, even though the student complained
eight years later and without basis. Using this case precedent, any student
can accuse a teacher of unfair grading many years before. Why should
foreign faculty risk their careers here?
That student's malicious letter was used at my dismissal hearings. The
letter was solicited. Yet the court ruled that since the student's letter
circulated secretly, against university regulations, committee members could
not have accredited the letter.
Then why was it solicited and circulated? Evidence that should have
inculpated the student as well as university officials was used to excuse
them.
Transcripts showed the student concealed high passes in my classes and
low grades in other classes. A letter proved I offered to locate this
student's exam as late as 1994 (the class was in 1988).
But without adversarial cross-examination, all testimony is equally
accredited. Judicial inquiry is complaisant and avuncular, pleasing both
sides with a show of judicial equality. But how does that benefit the
victim?
Presumably this shows a foreigner has a right to judicial action in
Taiwan. But if a student can write a secret spiteful letter accusing a
professor of an unfair grade eight years before, on no basis than her claim;
and it is shown the letter was solicited by university officials and
secretly circulated at dismissal hearings, resulting in dismissal; and if
the student's claims are further discredited when a letter shows the
professor offered to locate her exam as late as 1994 and the student ignored
the letter; and if the student claims to "forget" she took other courses
from this teacher in which she received high passes the same year she claims
she unfairly failed; if, after months of litigation, with months between
sessions, a litigant cannot prove libel and thus restore his honor, then I
suggest that foreigners be advised of risks teaching in Taiwan.
True, many people in Taiwan are kind. But they naively succumb to
pressure from powerful colleagues. Two of my former students admitted their
defamatory letters against me were solicited and unmerited and they
regretted writing them.
They wrote formal retractions.
Older Taiwan academics are less reluctant to admit abuses at our
university. Few probably consider them abuses, since anything done in the
name of relationships is a virtue.
One dean responded incredulously when told the president was defying
the law by not complying with a Ministry ruling. She protested that could
not be, since the university had a lawyer. As it turned out, a colleague
with no background in law defeated that lawyer in court.
Official naiveté, feigned or real, is not conducive to the advancement
of human rights in Taiwan. It's commonly assumed here that officials act
for the best. But democracy advances on a two-sided politics of suspicion,
expecting the best but suspecting the worst.
The worst is that officials maintain official routines. Thus official
complaints have been useless, only increasing the registered documents I
have to pick up at post offices all over Tainan.
Taiwan's newspapers publish numerous letters applauding Taiwan's
democracy and affirming human rights, including the right to
self-determination. But they seem curiously indifferent to human rights
abuses at one of their own universities.
Yet a conflict of interest at a Hong Kong university a few years ago
captivated the Hong Kong media, while campus activists protested. That's
commonplace in a robust democracy.
So far, contacts with human rights organizations have been futile. One
human rights activist told me no one was interested in human rights. Yet
when students at National Cheng Kung University were cited for downloading
MP3 files, Taipei lawyers promptly volunteered pro bono assistance. I've
been hoping for pro bono representation for more than four years, to no
avail. Yet the students, whatever sympathy I feel for them, did not have
the law on their side. I do.
This case is now in its fifth year. It has affected my medical care,
my income, and my academic career. I’ve been harassed by countless illegal
university hearings intended to humiliate me and force my resignation from
the university. Professional colleagues, among the privileged few with
regard for human rights at our university, have dedicated countless hours to
effect justice while other faculty seem indifferent.
Thus despite warnings from the Faculty Union, the Ministry of
Education, the Taiwan courts, and an international human rights
organization, university officials, with tactical naiveté, continue to defy
the law, at no cost to themselves. Instead they have cost taxpayers
millions of dollars and recklessly brought National Cheng Kung University,
the Ministry of Education, and the Taiwan government to the brink of
scandal. Abiding by neither moral principles nor a sense of shame,
university officials will not acknowledge the authority of the law until
they stand in judgment before it.
You wonder what's going on at National Cheng Kung University when it's
obvious: It’s a culture of subservience, where relationships are put above
laws; and where a pattern of unpunished human rights abuses going back many
years reflects a public tolerance of these abuses.
I believe abuses at National Cheng Kung University should concern
anyone dedicated to human rights in Taiwan. Therefore I urge your
commitment to this case, until there is complete closure, compensation, and
penalties where appropriate. The university should admit wrongdoing and
promise to educate faculty on human rights principles. You will not only be
aiding an American citizen, returning the favor received from civil
activists in America; you'll also be advancing the cause of human rights in
Taiwan.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
Monday, October 13, 2003
Letter to Dean of Student Affair (13 October 2003)
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
10/13/2003 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: Please arrange a meeting between me and the student involved in
misconduct by the end of next weekTo: mengli_2
CC: moe
Dear Dean Ko,
Thanks for the invitation for a November 5, 2003 meeting with the
student, Ms. Chen.
However, there are several issues I must address:
First, why does it take more than two years for you to respond to a
colleague's request for a supervised meeting with a student? In what other
university does it take this long to satisfy such a request? If there's an
"Office of Student Affairs" it must respond to such requests promptly. The
ethical behavior of students is no less important than the ethical behavior
of faculty. In addition, the willingness of officials to do the job that
they were appointed to do is necessary if Taiwan's universities are to
compete against universities elsewhere.
Second, despite your claim in your email and your "official" letter,
this case is not over. It will not be over until this student admits to
wrongdoing and apologizes for her behavior. I will pursue every legal
channel until this goal is achieved. The student made a formal complaint;
that complaint was formally accepted by the College of Liberal Arts; that
complaint was used at my dismissal hearings; and that complaint must be
formally nullified, including an apology from the student and the university
administration. Any other "solution" is not a solution and is unacceptable
to me.
In condoning or overlooking this student's behavior, the current
administration is fostering a culture of immorality and lawlessness and this
should be unacceptable. This student is currently a graduate student: What
kind of values are you passing on to the next generation of this nation's
leaders: that it's not what you do in life that matters? Good and evil are
irrelevant, so long as you know influential people? Those are not the
values that are the basis of a great society.
So please let's cooperate on a full and just resolution of this case.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
(06) 237 8626
2757575 52235
10/13/2003 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: Please arrange a meeting between me and the student involved in
misconduct by the end of next weekTo: mengli_2
CC: moe
Dear Dean Ko,
Thanks for the invitation for a November 5, 2003 meeting with the
student, Ms. Chen.
However, there are several issues I must address:
First, why does it take more than two years for you to respond to a
colleague's request for a supervised meeting with a student? In what other
university does it take this long to satisfy such a request? If there's an
"Office of Student Affairs" it must respond to such requests promptly. The
ethical behavior of students is no less important than the ethical behavior
of faculty. In addition, the willingness of officials to do the job that
they were appointed to do is necessary if Taiwan's universities are to
compete against universities elsewhere.
Second, despite your claim in your email and your "official" letter,
this case is not over. It will not be over until this student admits to
wrongdoing and apologizes for her behavior. I will pursue every legal
channel until this goal is achieved. The student made a formal complaint;
that complaint was formally accepted by the College of Liberal Arts; that
complaint was used at my dismissal hearings; and that complaint must be
formally nullified, including an apology from the student and the university
administration. Any other "solution" is not a solution and is unacceptable
to me.
In condoning or overlooking this student's behavior, the current
administration is fostering a culture of immorality and lawlessness and this
should be unacceptable. This student is currently a graduate student: What
kind of values are you passing on to the next generation of this nation's
leaders: that it's not what you do in life that matters? Good and evil are
irrelevant, so long as you know influential people? Those are not the
values that are the basis of a great society.
So please let's cooperate on a full and just resolution of this case.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
(06) 237 8626
2757575 52235
Thursday, October 9, 2003
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs (9 October 2003)
Regarding the issue of the student involved in misconduct
Subject:
Regarding the issue of the student involved in misconduct
Date:
Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:34:13 +0800
To:
Huei-chen Ko
CC:
moe , Control Yuan
Dean Ko Huei-chen
Office of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan
Dear Dean Ko,
Please let's resolve the matter concerning Lily (An-chuen) Chen as soon
as possible. Please contact Ms. Chen and let's
get together and put an end to this business. I cannot spend much more time
on this issue (I've spent more than two years
already).
Please let's establish this university on an ethical foundation, where
students are responsible for their behavior and officials
are responsible to the law. Your policy of continual delay is unacceptable
to me (and I would imagine most people). This
week is already practically over and I'm still hearing excuses, such as "She
doesn't answer the phone." An Office of Student
Affairs should be able to contact a student registered at its university
with no problem.
Please remember, professors at our university are your colleagues and
they should be treated with respect and courtesy.
At the very least, you should be keeping in touch with me on this issue
every single day until it is resolved satisfactorily,
according to law and moral principles that universities all over the world
recognize. It's a serious issue. A professor's
reputation was tarnished and it must be repaired and the matter remedied.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
National Cheng Kung University
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
(06) 2757575 52235
Subject:
Regarding the issue of the student involved in misconduct
Date:
Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:34:13 +0800
To:
Huei-chen Ko
CC:
moe , Control Yuan
Dean Ko Huei-chen
Office of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan
Dear Dean Ko,
Please let's resolve the matter concerning Lily (An-chuen) Chen as soon
as possible. Please contact Ms. Chen and let's
get together and put an end to this business. I cannot spend much more time
on this issue (I've spent more than two years
already).
Please let's establish this university on an ethical foundation, where
students are responsible for their behavior and officials
are responsible to the law. Your policy of continual delay is unacceptable
to me (and I would imagine most people). This
week is already practically over and I'm still hearing excuses, such as "She
doesn't answer the phone." An Office of Student
Affairs should be able to contact a student registered at its university
with no problem.
Please remember, professors at our university are your colleagues and
they should be treated with respect and courtesy.
At the very least, you should be keeping in touch with me on this issue
every single day until it is resolved satisfactorily,
according to law and moral principles that universities all over the world
recognize. It's a serious issue. A professor's
reputation was tarnished and it must be repaired and the matter remedied.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
National Cheng Kung University
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
(06) 2757575 52235
Tuesday, September 30, 2003
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs (9 September 2003)
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
From:
From:
9/30/2003 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: Please arrange a meeting between me and the student involved in
misconduct by the end of next weekTo: mengli_2
CC: em50000@email.ncku.edu.tw, higher@mail.moe.gov.tw
Professor Ko Huei-chen
Office of Student Affairs
30 September 2003
Dear Dean Ko,
Thanks for your response to my last email.
You refer to your belief that "punishment and blame" are not the best
way to handle this case. I fully agree with you. Compassion and
forgiveness are wonderful virtues ("to forgive [is] divine").
But somewhere we differ. You believe this student should be forgiven
without even admitting she did anything wrong. I believe forgiveness can
only follow a sincere admission of wrongdoing. The great religions believe
this too.
Our student did not commit her offense once but several times (and I
have proof of this). Each time I challenged her, she backed down; until she
had the chance to repeat her accusation in secret and at a time when she
thought I was unable to contest it.
There are several issues to consider in Lily's case:
First, she repeated her malicious accusations many times.
Second, her accusations resulted in my dismissal from the university or
contributed to that dismissal.
Third, she has never shown a sense of shame over what she did; in fact
she repeated her accusations in court and, only recently, to your former
vice-dean (which belies the claim she was not a student when she made her
accusation).
Fourth, her accusation may be related to her employment at our
university, which makes it more serious. Many graduates of our and other
universities would love to receive similar employment, based on merit. But
our student may have received special treatment because of her letter.
Fifth, as you know, she was for a while employed in the president's
office, which also suggests a relationship between her letter and her
employment, as if it was a reward for her letter.
Whether this can be proved is another issue. But most reasonable
people would at least suspect a relationship between this student's letter
and benefits she enjoyed at our university. If based in fact, her letter
not only harmed me, but graduates who otherwise might have been hired, on
merit, instead of her.
To believe that this student can become a better person if we simply
ignore her misconduct is not only wrong, but, I would say, seriously wrong.
And I don't think many people would agree with you on this issue. Clearly a
person involved in wrongdoing should be taught right and wrong, even if she
is not punished.
And this is a point you have repeatedly ignored about my request. I
have never asked for Lily's dismissal or even serious punishment. But I do
want a formal warning to the student for her misconduct. This is my right,
considering the harm this student did as well as the strong proof that she
did not act in sincere belief she failed unjustly.
Finally, as I've repeatedly said, this student has a better chance to
resolve this case as quietly as possible, within the university, than with
publicity outside the university. This is something that even she should
understand.
So I would appreciate a supervised appointment with this student.
Indeed, if she were telling the truth, she would appreciate this too.
I also appreciate your willingness to set up such a meeting and, with
advance notice, will accept almost any time that I'm not teaching classes.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
2757575-52235
237 8626
From:
From:
9/30/2003 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: Please arrange a meeting between me and the student involved in
misconduct by the end of next weekTo: mengli_2
CC: em50000@email.ncku.edu.tw, higher@mail.moe.gov.tw
Professor Ko Huei-chen
Office of Student Affairs
30 September 2003
Dear Dean Ko,
Thanks for your response to my last email.
You refer to your belief that "punishment and blame" are not the best
way to handle this case. I fully agree with you. Compassion and
forgiveness are wonderful virtues ("to forgive [is] divine").
But somewhere we differ. You believe this student should be forgiven
without even admitting she did anything wrong. I believe forgiveness can
only follow a sincere admission of wrongdoing. The great religions believe
this too.
Our student did not commit her offense once but several times (and I
have proof of this). Each time I challenged her, she backed down; until she
had the chance to repeat her accusation in secret and at a time when she
thought I was unable to contest it.
There are several issues to consider in Lily's case:
First, she repeated her malicious accusations many times.
Second, her accusations resulted in my dismissal from the university or
contributed to that dismissal.
Third, she has never shown a sense of shame over what she did; in fact
she repeated her accusations in court and, only recently, to your former
vice-dean (which belies the claim she was not a student when she made her
accusation).
Fourth, her accusation may be related to her employment at our
university, which makes it more serious. Many graduates of our and other
universities would love to receive similar employment, based on merit. But
our student may have received special treatment because of her letter.
Fifth, as you know, she was for a while employed in the president's
office, which also suggests a relationship between her letter and her
employment, as if it was a reward for her letter.
Whether this can be proved is another issue. But most reasonable
people would at least suspect a relationship between this student's letter
and benefits she enjoyed at our university. If based in fact, her letter
not only harmed me, but graduates who otherwise might have been hired, on
merit, instead of her.
To believe that this student can become a better person if we simply
ignore her misconduct is not only wrong, but, I would say, seriously wrong.
And I don't think many people would agree with you on this issue. Clearly a
person involved in wrongdoing should be taught right and wrong, even if she
is not punished.
And this is a point you have repeatedly ignored about my request. I
have never asked for Lily's dismissal or even serious punishment. But I do
want a formal warning to the student for her misconduct. This is my right,
considering the harm this student did as well as the strong proof that she
did not act in sincere belief she failed unjustly.
Finally, as I've repeatedly said, this student has a better chance to
resolve this case as quietly as possible, within the university, than with
publicity outside the university. This is something that even she should
understand.
So I would appreciate a supervised appointment with this student.
Indeed, if she were telling the truth, she would appreciate this too.
I also appreciate your willingness to set up such a meeting and, with
advance notice, will accept almost any time that I'm not teaching classes.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
2757575-52235
237 8626
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs (16 September 2003)
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
9/16/2003 11:07 AM
Subject: Concerning the Lily Chen
matterTo: Huei-chen Ko
CC: moe ,
Kao Chiang
BCC: Ray Dah-tong ,
Paul
Dean Ko Huei-chen
Dean of Student Affairs
Office of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
cc: Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education, Professor Kao
Chiang, President National Cheng Kung University
Dear Dean Ko,
Let me remind you again that the matter of the student who wrote a
secret letter complaining of a grade eight years after she received it has
not been properly or formally resolved.
I have waited two years for your office to handle this case. I have
been given every excuse why this student has not been called in, such as a
court case is pending or the student was not a student when she wrote her
letter or your office is "collecting evidence" (evidence for a murder trial
is "collected" in quicker time) or (absurd as it sounds) the student
doesn't want to come or the student's mother doesn't want her to come or the
student claims she's a "good girl" or "God will punish her" or most recently
the court decision has closed the case.
As the saying goes, two reasons are as bad as none, since if one of
them is sincere one would be enough.
Regarding the most recent reason, that the court closed the case, this
cannot be so. My case was a legal case, not a ethics case. The court never
resolved on this issue since it was not a matter addressed to the court nor
is it a matter for a court. I did not ask the court do decide whether
Lily's letter was proper for a student to write, but whether her letter
caused my dismissal. I sued her for libel, not for student misconduct.
In any case, as I've repeatedly said, courts rule on legal, not
ethical, issues. It rules on acts, not conduct. It makes legal decisions,
not moral judgments. A person not guilty of a crime may still be guilty of
misconduct. A student acquitted of drunk driving may still be accountable
(to parents or teachers or church leaders) for being drunk.
Such actions concern ethical codes of families, businesses, churches,
or schools. Is there an ethical code at National Cheng Kung University? Do
we expect students to live up to ethical standards at our university?
Apart from ethical codes, is there a formal code on how to make a
complaint against a student or teacher? Is there a code that allows a
student to complain of a grade received eight years before? If so, please
cite it. If not, why was this student's complaint accepted?
These questions must be answered. But I'm not going to waste more time
on this matter. Especially since it seems to be your responsibility to
resolve this matter, not mine.
The facts are plain: A student wrote a secret letter complaining of a
grade she received eight years before. The letter seems to have been
solicited by department officials to insure my dismissal from the
university. The complaint was formally accepted by the Dean of the College
of Liberal Arts.
Let me repeat one more time: Because the letter was formally accepted,
it must be formally rejected. How this is done is not my concern. It can
be done by having a dean write a formal letter saying that the complaint was
false and should not have been accepted. Or it can be done by having the
student admit she lied.
But the complaint must be formally rejected in substance not merely in
form. Let me advise you that there is no compromise possible on this issue.
In addition, as I have repeatedly said, it seems to me to be your duty
as Dean of Student Affairs to call a student into your office, upon request,
for a supervised meeting with a student concerning issues of
student-teacher affairs. A student has that right and so does a teacher.
Otherwise there is no point in having an Office of Student Affairs.
Please schedule a supervised meeting between me and this student as
soon as possible this semester.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
06) 237 8626
9/16/2003 11:07 AM
Subject: Concerning the Lily Chen
matterTo: Huei-chen Ko
CC: moe ,
Kao Chiang
BCC: Ray Dah-tong ,
Paul
Dean Ko Huei-chen
Dean of Student Affairs
Office of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
cc: Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education, Professor Kao
Chiang, President National Cheng Kung University
Dear Dean Ko,
Let me remind you again that the matter of the student who wrote a
secret letter complaining of a grade eight years after she received it has
not been properly or formally resolved.
I have waited two years for your office to handle this case. I have
been given every excuse why this student has not been called in, such as a
court case is pending or the student was not a student when she wrote her
letter or your office is "collecting evidence" (evidence for a murder trial
is "collected" in quicker time) or (absurd as it sounds) the student
doesn't want to come or the student's mother doesn't want her to come or the
student claims she's a "good girl" or "God will punish her" or most recently
the court decision has closed the case.
As the saying goes, two reasons are as bad as none, since if one of
them is sincere one would be enough.
Regarding the most recent reason, that the court closed the case, this
cannot be so. My case was a legal case, not a ethics case. The court never
resolved on this issue since it was not a matter addressed to the court nor
is it a matter for a court. I did not ask the court do decide whether
Lily's letter was proper for a student to write, but whether her letter
caused my dismissal. I sued her for libel, not for student misconduct.
In any case, as I've repeatedly said, courts rule on legal, not
ethical, issues. It rules on acts, not conduct. It makes legal decisions,
not moral judgments. A person not guilty of a crime may still be guilty of
misconduct. A student acquitted of drunk driving may still be accountable
(to parents or teachers or church leaders) for being drunk.
Such actions concern ethical codes of families, businesses, churches,
or schools. Is there an ethical code at National Cheng Kung University? Do
we expect students to live up to ethical standards at our university?
Apart from ethical codes, is there a formal code on how to make a
complaint against a student or teacher? Is there a code that allows a
student to complain of a grade received eight years before? If so, please
cite it. If not, why was this student's complaint accepted?
These questions must be answered. But I'm not going to waste more time
on this matter. Especially since it seems to be your responsibility to
resolve this matter, not mine.
The facts are plain: A student wrote a secret letter complaining of a
grade she received eight years before. The letter seems to have been
solicited by department officials to insure my dismissal from the
university. The complaint was formally accepted by the Dean of the College
of Liberal Arts.
Let me repeat one more time: Because the letter was formally accepted,
it must be formally rejected. How this is done is not my concern. It can
be done by having a dean write a formal letter saying that the complaint was
false and should not have been accepted. Or it can be done by having the
student admit she lied.
But the complaint must be formally rejected in substance not merely in
form. Let me advise you that there is no compromise possible on this issue.
In addition, as I have repeatedly said, it seems to me to be your duty
as Dean of Student Affairs to call a student into your office, upon request,
for a supervised meeting with a student concerning issues of
student-teacher affairs. A student has that right and so does a teacher.
Otherwise there is no point in having an Office of Student Affairs.
Please schedule a supervised meeting between me and this student as
soon as possible this semester.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
06) 237 8626
Saturday, August 16, 2003
Letter to Taiwan Association for Human Rights (2003)
Letter to Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR)
Taiwan Association for Human Rights
Hsin-sheng S. Road, Section 3
Lane 25, No. 3, 9th Floor
Taipei, TAIWAN
Telephone:886-2-23639787
Facsimile:886-2-23636102
E-mail:tahr@seed.net.tw
cc: Scholars at Risk
University of Chicago
16 August 2003
Dear Ms. Wu,
I appreciate the involvement of TAHR in the case of human rights abuses at
National Cheng Kung University, in Tainan. From what I understand, a
lawmaker, upon request, contacted the Ministry of Education and was advised
issues were in administrative process.
However, this case should not be reduced to an administrative matter.
Rather it involves a history of abuses, as well as basic problems in
administrative remedy at all institutional levels.
An appeal that drags on for years (in my case, more than four)
undermines the purpose of administrative remedy. A process without
conclusion or punishment of officials is no remedy, but delays remedy.
These are causes for concern and reflect a wider problem.
Abuses have become routine at our university. Several professors have
resigned, frustrated by administrative remedy.
University regulations, presumably protecting faculty, are vague and
easily ignored by officials indifferent to democratic principles. Advised
the university president was defying the law, one dean expressed disbelief.
After all, she said, the university had a lawyer.
Perhaps such naivete is feigned. Even uneducated people know that
lawyers represent a client, not the law, while democracy is rule by law, not
lawyers.
But the fact that a Ministry of Education committee boldfaced countless
violations in its ruling of 8 January 2001 shows our officials are
undereducated about human rights. This lack of education should concern
human rights groups.
Indeed, our officials routinely adopt democratic forms while basing
decisions on relationships. Vague regulations make this easy, such as
(translated): “The chairman may see the need to invite an accused professor
for the purpose of defense,” making that rule open to arbitrary application,
allowing or barring a professor’s defense.
Rights, such as the right to appeal, turn out, in reality, to be no
rights at all. Rules insuring due process seem good on paper. But these
regulations are easily ignored.
Laws are differently used or interpreted, as happened in my case. A
committee is considered legal so long as the right number of committee
members is present, regardless of the number of rights violated. Principles
of right and wrong are replaced by rules of right and wrong procedures.
Committee members are not even certain of what they voted for until a
committee chairman writes it. In my case, committee members thought they had
voted to cancel my dismissal, according to law, and were surprised to read a
decision that referred my case for further “review.”
So law at our university is in the hands of a few officials who advance
their designs against the public interest. Is there a difference between
Mainland Chinese officials writing selective laws to punish the Falun Gong
and a few officials using laws arbitrarily to punish some and reward
others? Is there a difference between unjust laws and interpreting just
laws for unjust goals?
As everyone knows by now, the university “interpreted” a Final Ministry
Appeal to mean the appellant, an American, should be reviewed again.
Indeed, not merely again, but again and again, endlessly reviving
accusations rejected on appeal. This is the form of democracy without its
substance and a travesty of its purpose.
Human rights officials should not be deceived by a process that took so
long and continues, with revivals of accusations rejected in the Ministry
ruling of 8 January 2001, forcing another appeal. How long will this
mockery of law be tolerated before someone voices public concern?
The purpose of administrative appeal is to allow for a time-limited
remedy, preventing a stronger party from harassing the weaker. This
discourages misconduct while encouraging appeal. Principles of human
rights, including final appeal, insure that justice, not power, prevails.
The alternative is what happened in my case, even worse when a foreign
professor has visa concerns. Except for a few enlightened colleagues who
dedicated themselves to justice, and the sacrifice I myself made, I could
not have outlasted the delay tactics of university officials who violated
laws with impunity.
Their violations were not technical errors but human rights abuses.
Officials should not solicit secret letters, suborn students to write them,
or collude to secretly circulate them. These abuses are documented,
including letters from former students retracting suborned accusations.
In addition, when the president of a university ignores a Ministry
ruling for more than two years, I call that obstruction of justice,
regardless what it’s called in Taiwan. A president of the United States was
forced to resign for obstruction of justice, while the president of our
university was re-elected.
These abuses are typical, not isolated examples. It's commonly hoped
officials act for the best. But democracy advances by suspecting the worst.
However, based on a culture of subservience ("relationships"),
committee members presume the best. The assumption seems to be that whatever
an official did was right or he would not have done it.
Thus committees routinely ratify ("rubber-stamp") decisions rather
than deliberate them. Since nobody is held accountable, misconduct is
commonplace.
In a culture of face, a petitioner is considered outside the system
instead of part of it. He is wrong rather than trying to right wrongs.
Review becomes revenge. Officials convince committees to accept
baseless accusations. Or laws are “interpreted” to suit committee aims.
Other officials then “close ranks” in support.
Committees protect each other instead of the law. Yet democracy is a
government of laws, not committees. Committee members should uphold the
law, not replace it.
Reversals on technical grounds delay remedy. Afterwards, committees
spitefully repeat the same accusations or invent new ones, saving face while
the appellant loses time and finally gives up.
Meanwhile, officials stonewall by passing responsibility to others.
The assumption is no one is responsible.
But in a democracy, everyone is responsible, from the top down, or
there are laws, but no Law. A human rights group should be concerned about
this, since human rights issues cannot be separated from human welfare, as
the cover-up at Ho Ping hospital showed.
When a dean ignores a request for a supervised meeting with a student
who wrote a secret accusatory letter, human rights are at stake but also the
common welfare. Professors have a right to request a supervised meeting
with a student, or why have an Office of Student Affairs? How can there be
academic standards if no officials enforce them? And if there are no
academic standards, the future of Taiwan education is dim.
Court decisions, reviewed in a previous email, should be of related
concern. A district attorney should not be allowed to dismiss a complaint
on hearsay testimony. Nor should he excuse review members of libel because
their accusation was based on a letter they themselves signed. And if a
court concludes it is reasonable for a student to complain of a grade
received eight years before, this undermines confidence in judicial remedy
in Taiwan and discourages international association.
I think human rights groups should be concerned about these issues,
affecting education as well as the general welfare. No faculty member aware
of my case, as most are, will defend academic standards against peer
pressure knowing administrative remedy is futile. But if education is
compromised, so is the future of Taiwan.
Finally, a human rights group should be concerned that faculty, instead
of advancing human rights, are indifferent to, or in violation of, them. In
view of these issues, it seems to me concern should be publicly voiced to
encourage development of human rights here.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
Taiwan Association for Human Rights
Hsin-sheng S. Road, Section 3
Lane 25, No. 3, 9th Floor
Taipei, TAIWAN
Telephone:886-2-23639787
Facsimile:886-2-23636102
E-mail:tahr@seed.net.tw
cc: Scholars at Risk
University of Chicago
16 August 2003
Dear Ms. Wu,
I appreciate the involvement of TAHR in the case of human rights abuses at
National Cheng Kung University, in Tainan. From what I understand, a
lawmaker, upon request, contacted the Ministry of Education and was advised
issues were in administrative process.
However, this case should not be reduced to an administrative matter.
Rather it involves a history of abuses, as well as basic problems in
administrative remedy at all institutional levels.
An appeal that drags on for years (in my case, more than four)
undermines the purpose of administrative remedy. A process without
conclusion or punishment of officials is no remedy, but delays remedy.
These are causes for concern and reflect a wider problem.
Abuses have become routine at our university. Several professors have
resigned, frustrated by administrative remedy.
University regulations, presumably protecting faculty, are vague and
easily ignored by officials indifferent to democratic principles. Advised
the university president was defying the law, one dean expressed disbelief.
After all, she said, the university had a lawyer.
Perhaps such naivete is feigned. Even uneducated people know that
lawyers represent a client, not the law, while democracy is rule by law, not
lawyers.
But the fact that a Ministry of Education committee boldfaced countless
violations in its ruling of 8 January 2001 shows our officials are
undereducated about human rights. This lack of education should concern
human rights groups.
Indeed, our officials routinely adopt democratic forms while basing
decisions on relationships. Vague regulations make this easy, such as
(translated): “The chairman may see the need to invite an accused professor
for the purpose of defense,” making that rule open to arbitrary application,
allowing or barring a professor’s defense.
Rights, such as the right to appeal, turn out, in reality, to be no
rights at all. Rules insuring due process seem good on paper. But these
regulations are easily ignored.
Laws are differently used or interpreted, as happened in my case. A
committee is considered legal so long as the right number of committee
members is present, regardless of the number of rights violated. Principles
of right and wrong are replaced by rules of right and wrong procedures.
Committee members are not even certain of what they voted for until a
committee chairman writes it. In my case, committee members thought they had
voted to cancel my dismissal, according to law, and were surprised to read a
decision that referred my case for further “review.”
So law at our university is in the hands of a few officials who advance
their designs against the public interest. Is there a difference between
Mainland Chinese officials writing selective laws to punish the Falun Gong
and a few officials using laws arbitrarily to punish some and reward
others? Is there a difference between unjust laws and interpreting just
laws for unjust goals?
As everyone knows by now, the university “interpreted” a Final Ministry
Appeal to mean the appellant, an American, should be reviewed again.
Indeed, not merely again, but again and again, endlessly reviving
accusations rejected on appeal. This is the form of democracy without its
substance and a travesty of its purpose.
Human rights officials should not be deceived by a process that took so
long and continues, with revivals of accusations rejected in the Ministry
ruling of 8 January 2001, forcing another appeal. How long will this
mockery of law be tolerated before someone voices public concern?
The purpose of administrative appeal is to allow for a time-limited
remedy, preventing a stronger party from harassing the weaker. This
discourages misconduct while encouraging appeal. Principles of human
rights, including final appeal, insure that justice, not power, prevails.
The alternative is what happened in my case, even worse when a foreign
professor has visa concerns. Except for a few enlightened colleagues who
dedicated themselves to justice, and the sacrifice I myself made, I could
not have outlasted the delay tactics of university officials who violated
laws with impunity.
Their violations were not technical errors but human rights abuses.
Officials should not solicit secret letters, suborn students to write them,
or collude to secretly circulate them. These abuses are documented,
including letters from former students retracting suborned accusations.
In addition, when the president of a university ignores a Ministry
ruling for more than two years, I call that obstruction of justice,
regardless what it’s called in Taiwan. A president of the United States was
forced to resign for obstruction of justice, while the president of our
university was re-elected.
These abuses are typical, not isolated examples. It's commonly hoped
officials act for the best. But democracy advances by suspecting the worst.
However, based on a culture of subservience ("relationships"),
committee members presume the best. The assumption seems to be that whatever
an official did was right or he would not have done it.
Thus committees routinely ratify ("rubber-stamp") decisions rather
than deliberate them. Since nobody is held accountable, misconduct is
commonplace.
In a culture of face, a petitioner is considered outside the system
instead of part of it. He is wrong rather than trying to right wrongs.
Review becomes revenge. Officials convince committees to accept
baseless accusations. Or laws are “interpreted” to suit committee aims.
Other officials then “close ranks” in support.
Committees protect each other instead of the law. Yet democracy is a
government of laws, not committees. Committee members should uphold the
law, not replace it.
Reversals on technical grounds delay remedy. Afterwards, committees
spitefully repeat the same accusations or invent new ones, saving face while
the appellant loses time and finally gives up.
Meanwhile, officials stonewall by passing responsibility to others.
The assumption is no one is responsible.
But in a democracy, everyone is responsible, from the top down, or
there are laws, but no Law. A human rights group should be concerned about
this, since human rights issues cannot be separated from human welfare, as
the cover-up at Ho Ping hospital showed.
When a dean ignores a request for a supervised meeting with a student
who wrote a secret accusatory letter, human rights are at stake but also the
common welfare. Professors have a right to request a supervised meeting
with a student, or why have an Office of Student Affairs? How can there be
academic standards if no officials enforce them? And if there are no
academic standards, the future of Taiwan education is dim.
Court decisions, reviewed in a previous email, should be of related
concern. A district attorney should not be allowed to dismiss a complaint
on hearsay testimony. Nor should he excuse review members of libel because
their accusation was based on a letter they themselves signed. And if a
court concludes it is reasonable for a student to complain of a grade
received eight years before, this undermines confidence in judicial remedy
in Taiwan and discourages international association.
I think human rights groups should be concerned about these issues,
affecting education as well as the general welfare. No faculty member aware
of my case, as most are, will defend academic standards against peer
pressure knowing administrative remedy is futile. But if education is
compromised, so is the future of Taiwan.
Finally, a human rights group should be concerned that faculty, instead
of advancing human rights, are indifferent to, or in violation of, them. In
view of these issues, it seems to me concern should be publicly voiced to
encourage development of human rights here.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs (22 July 2003)
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
7/22/2003 1:44 AM
Subject: Regarding your failure to supervise a meeting between me and a
studentTo: Huei-chen Ko
CC: Control Yuan , moe ,
Kao Chiang
BCC: Ray Dah-tong ,
Paul
Professor Ko Heui-Chen,
Dean of Student Affairs
Office of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
cc: Control Yuan, Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education,
Office of the President, NCKU
21 July 2003
Dear Dean Ko,
As you know, I have repeatedly requested that you set up a supervised
meeting between me and a student who wrote a spiteful letter.
Although I have been requesting either such a meeting or disciplinary
action against this student for what may be nearly two years now, I have
been denied this simple request.
It seems to me that every professor is entitled to request a supervised
meeting with a student, or there is no point to an Office of Student
Affairs.
As you know, in 1999 this student wrote a secret and spiteful letter,
accusing me of unfairly failing her eight years before she wrote her
letter. The letter was apparently solicited by officials who wished to
insure my dismissal and then secretly circulated at university hearings
upholding my dismissal.
The fact that this letter was even accepted, without questioin, by an
official at a university is, in itself, an outrage against legal, moral, and
academic standards. Apart from the violation of human rights, it places the
reputations of all professors who fail students in jeopardy, however many
years pass between the recording of a grade and a student's challenge of the
grade. It also undermines confidence in the sincerity of honest student
complaints, leading to a climate of mistrust and fear among both students
and faculty.
Finally, a teacher has a right to protect his reputation and a
university is bound, by law, to cooperate with him in doing this.
Apart from disciplinary issues, every teacher should have the right to
request a supervised meeting with a student, for whatever reason. It is not
your job to preempt the mediation process but to facilitate it.
I request yet again, that you set up a supervised meeting between me
and this student within days.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
National Cheng Kung University
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
7/22/2003 1:44 AM
Subject: Regarding your failure to supervise a meeting between me and a
studentTo: Huei-chen Ko
CC: Control Yuan , moe ,
Kao Chiang
BCC: Ray Dah-tong ,
Paul
Professor Ko Heui-Chen,
Dean of Student Affairs
Office of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
cc: Control Yuan, Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education,
Office of the President, NCKU
21 July 2003
Dear Dean Ko,
As you know, I have repeatedly requested that you set up a supervised
meeting between me and a student who wrote a spiteful letter.
Although I have been requesting either such a meeting or disciplinary
action against this student for what may be nearly two years now, I have
been denied this simple request.
It seems to me that every professor is entitled to request a supervised
meeting with a student, or there is no point to an Office of Student
Affairs.
As you know, in 1999 this student wrote a secret and spiteful letter,
accusing me of unfairly failing her eight years before she wrote her
letter. The letter was apparently solicited by officials who wished to
insure my dismissal and then secretly circulated at university hearings
upholding my dismissal.
The fact that this letter was even accepted, without questioin, by an
official at a university is, in itself, an outrage against legal, moral, and
academic standards. Apart from the violation of human rights, it places the
reputations of all professors who fail students in jeopardy, however many
years pass between the recording of a grade and a student's challenge of the
grade. It also undermines confidence in the sincerity of honest student
complaints, leading to a climate of mistrust and fear among both students
and faculty.
Finally, a teacher has a right to protect his reputation and a
university is bound, by law, to cooperate with him in doing this.
Apart from disciplinary issues, every teacher should have the right to
request a supervised meeting with a student, for whatever reason. It is not
your job to preempt the mediation process but to facilitate it.
I request yet again, that you set up a supervised meeting between me
and this student within days.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
National Cheng Kung University
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs (22 July 2003)
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
7/22/2003 12:17 PM
Subject: Misconduct of an NCKU student, in
TainanTo: moe
From:
"mengli_2" |
To:
"¨f¥Ì·ç"
CC:
"¹p¤j¦P" ,
higher@mail.moe.gov.tw, em50000@email.ncku.edu.tw, "¾Ç°È³B³B¥»³¡"
Subject:
¾Ç°È³B¦^ÂШf¥Ì·ç±Ð±Â«H¨ç_92.7.21
Date:
Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:03:50 +0800
Office of the Dean of Student Affairs
Dean of Students
Ko Huei-chen
21 July 2003
Dear Dean Ko,
The substance of your email has been translated for me. But your
arguments are still invalid and unacceptable.
A student wrote a secret, malicious letter, accusing a teacher of
failing her eight years before. There was no basis for her accusation
but her own claim that it was true.
Incredibly, officials at our university then accepted and
circulated this letter to insure my dismissal in 1999. That dismissal,
as you know, was canceled. But the rumors that I failed a student
unfairly continue. Just recently a woman on the street asked if it was
true I failed a student unfairly. For this reason, this case must be
resolved with a formal apology and retraction. This case will never be
closed until this formal apology and retraction is made.
You give three reasons for why you think this case is closed.
The first is that there is no new evidence. But the old evidence
would have been enough for other universities to have acted on this case
long ago.
Second, you refer to a court decision. A court decision is a
judicial, not a moral, decision. It's a decision about legal codes, not
ethical codes; about acts, not behavior. Driving a car drunk is a
criminal act; getting drunk is bad behavior. A court may find a student
did not drive a car when drunk, but that does not prevent a school from
disciplining the student for being drunk.
In addition, the court decision merely ruled on the issue of
whether this student's letter was directly responsible for my
dismissal. It did not rule on the ethics of the student's behavior nor
does it prevent the university from ruling on this issue; no more than
being acquitted in court of theft prevent the defendant's mother from
punishing her child for stealing.
A court does not judge moral behavior but criminal acts. Breaking
a window may not be a crime in a court's eyes but may be punished as
misconduct by a child's parents.
No responsible parent would use legal definitions as moral guides.
In the same way, no responsible university official should use legal
definitions as moral guides. This student engaged in misconduct by any
reasonable standard and should be punished for doing so.
Finally, your argument that she was not a student at the time is
wrong, since she repeated her claim to your vice-dean, insisting that
what she said was the truth. When she repeated her claim (last year)
she was (and is now) currently a student.
Consult with your vice-dean about this matter. By repeating her
claim she no longer falls under the umbrella of protection that you have
opened for her. I would not be so determined to have this student
punished if she had disowned her letter when spoken to by your vice-dean
recently.
If she had simply said, "I never wrote that letter and disclaim it"
or "I wrote the letter then, but I wasn't a student and I do not now
repeat my claims," that would be a different matter.
But she did not do so. Indeed, she insisted that what she said was
the "truth"; and, indeed, this was the very basis that your vice-dean
used as an excuse not to punish her: "She insists she was telling the
truth," as I recall your vice-dean saying.
You seem to want it both ways, or many ways. First I was told your
office could not handle such a complaint. Then I was told the FLLD
department must begin the complaint. Then I was told the student
insists she was telling the truth. Then I was told the court case was
pending. Then I was told the student was not a student. Then I was
told the vice-dean was gathering evidence. (Why would he gather
evidence if he thought the student was not liable in the first place?)
Then I was told it was my word against hers. (Apparently the
evidence convinced your office that it was not only my word but strong
documentation). Then I was told the student's mother did not want her
to go to a meeting. Finally I was told that God would punish the
student.
Now there's a famous French film with a very famous line:
"The terrible thing is that everyone has his reasons."
But we know that reasons are not excuses. There are many good
reasons to steal or murder; in fact, there are hundreds of them. You
can find them out by talking to those confined in the nearest jail or
prison. But these people found out the hard way that reasons were not
excuses.
But now there are other issues I wish to address in this email.
First, when a professor requests a supervised meeting with a
student, that seems to be a reasonable request to make. In universities
all over the world professors request such meetings and these are
usually set up within a day or two, or a week at most.
But you have delayed this case now for about two years. This kind
of delay should not be acceptable at a university.
In addition, a question that officials outside the university
should reasonably ask is why officials are protecting this student and
why would the student avoid coming to a supervised meeting with the
professor she accused? One would think she would pursue such a meeting
rather than the other way around.
The answer is simple: She knows her claim is unbelievable on the
face of it. Moreover, officials who conspired with her know this to be
the case.
None of this matters, really. I have long since lost confidence in
administrative remedy at our university. I will continue to pursue this
case within the university as a matter of principle. But my main avenue
of remedy will be far outside the university, to Taiwan lawmakers, the
Taiwan press, and to international human rights organizations, who
already know the details of this case. I assure you, once this case is
exposed, all parties involved in obstructing remedy at our university
may wish the case had been handled differently from the first.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
7/22/2003 12:17 PM
Subject: Misconduct of an NCKU student, in
TainanTo: moe
From:
"mengli_2" |
To:
"¨f¥Ì·ç"
CC:
"¹p¤j¦P" ,
higher@mail.moe.gov.tw, em50000@email.ncku.edu.tw, "¾Ç°È³B³B¥»³¡"
Subject:
¾Ç°È³B¦^ÂШf¥Ì·ç±Ð±Â«H¨ç_92.7.21
Date:
Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:03:50 +0800
Office of the Dean of Student Affairs
Dean of Students
Ko Huei-chen
21 July 2003
Dear Dean Ko,
The substance of your email has been translated for me. But your
arguments are still invalid and unacceptable.
A student wrote a secret, malicious letter, accusing a teacher of
failing her eight years before. There was no basis for her accusation
but her own claim that it was true.
Incredibly, officials at our university then accepted and
circulated this letter to insure my dismissal in 1999. That dismissal,
as you know, was canceled. But the rumors that I failed a student
unfairly continue. Just recently a woman on the street asked if it was
true I failed a student unfairly. For this reason, this case must be
resolved with a formal apology and retraction. This case will never be
closed until this formal apology and retraction is made.
You give three reasons for why you think this case is closed.
The first is that there is no new evidence. But the old evidence
would have been enough for other universities to have acted on this case
long ago.
Second, you refer to a court decision. A court decision is a
judicial, not a moral, decision. It's a decision about legal codes, not
ethical codes; about acts, not behavior. Driving a car drunk is a
criminal act; getting drunk is bad behavior. A court may find a student
did not drive a car when drunk, but that does not prevent a school from
disciplining the student for being drunk.
In addition, the court decision merely ruled on the issue of
whether this student's letter was directly responsible for my
dismissal. It did not rule on the ethics of the student's behavior nor
does it prevent the university from ruling on this issue; no more than
being acquitted in court of theft prevent the defendant's mother from
punishing her child for stealing.
A court does not judge moral behavior but criminal acts. Breaking
a window may not be a crime in a court's eyes but may be punished as
misconduct by a child's parents.
No responsible parent would use legal definitions as moral guides.
In the same way, no responsible university official should use legal
definitions as moral guides. This student engaged in misconduct by any
reasonable standard and should be punished for doing so.
Finally, your argument that she was not a student at the time is
wrong, since she repeated her claim to your vice-dean, insisting that
what she said was the truth. When she repeated her claim (last year)
she was (and is now) currently a student.
Consult with your vice-dean about this matter. By repeating her
claim she no longer falls under the umbrella of protection that you have
opened for her. I would not be so determined to have this student
punished if she had disowned her letter when spoken to by your vice-dean
recently.
If she had simply said, "I never wrote that letter and disclaim it"
or "I wrote the letter then, but I wasn't a student and I do not now
repeat my claims," that would be a different matter.
But she did not do so. Indeed, she insisted that what she said was
the "truth"; and, indeed, this was the very basis that your vice-dean
used as an excuse not to punish her: "She insists she was telling the
truth," as I recall your vice-dean saying.
You seem to want it both ways, or many ways. First I was told your
office could not handle such a complaint. Then I was told the FLLD
department must begin the complaint. Then I was told the student
insists she was telling the truth. Then I was told the court case was
pending. Then I was told the student was not a student. Then I was
told the vice-dean was gathering evidence. (Why would he gather
evidence if he thought the student was not liable in the first place?)
Then I was told it was my word against hers. (Apparently the
evidence convinced your office that it was not only my word but strong
documentation). Then I was told the student's mother did not want her
to go to a meeting. Finally I was told that God would punish the
student.
Now there's a famous French film with a very famous line:
"The terrible thing is that everyone has his reasons."
But we know that reasons are not excuses. There are many good
reasons to steal or murder; in fact, there are hundreds of them. You
can find them out by talking to those confined in the nearest jail or
prison. But these people found out the hard way that reasons were not
excuses.
But now there are other issues I wish to address in this email.
First, when a professor requests a supervised meeting with a
student, that seems to be a reasonable request to make. In universities
all over the world professors request such meetings and these are
usually set up within a day or two, or a week at most.
But you have delayed this case now for about two years. This kind
of delay should not be acceptable at a university.
In addition, a question that officials outside the university
should reasonably ask is why officials are protecting this student and
why would the student avoid coming to a supervised meeting with the
professor she accused? One would think she would pursue such a meeting
rather than the other way around.
The answer is simple: She knows her claim is unbelievable on the
face of it. Moreover, officials who conspired with her know this to be
the case.
None of this matters, really. I have long since lost confidence in
administrative remedy at our university. I will continue to pursue this
case within the university as a matter of principle. But my main avenue
of remedy will be far outside the university, to Taiwan lawmakers, the
Taiwan press, and to international human rights organizations, who
already know the details of this case. I assure you, once this case is
exposed, all parties involved in obstructing remedy at our university
may wish the case had been handled differently from the first.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs (15 July 2003)
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
15 Jul 2003 14:14:10 -0700
To:
Huei-chen Ko
CC:
Kao Chiang , moe
Ko Heui-chen
Dean of Student Affairs
cc: President's Office, Ministry of Education, Department of Higher
Education
15 July 2003
Dear Dean Ko
I am not satisfied with the constant delays in your handling of the
case of the student, Chen An-chuen, who wrote a secret
malicious letter accusing a professor.
I have reminded you repeatedly that this is a simple case. Nowhere
in any country in the world that I'm familiar with is
there a law preventing a dean from calling a student into her office for
any reason whatsoever, whether it's to confirm a
phone number or in response to a complaint from faculty or students.
Furthermore, I remind you, as I've reminded another official at our
university, the responsibility of an elected or
appointed official can be delegated but not transferred. As far as I'm
concerned, the responsibility for handling this Lily
Chen case rests with you and accountability for not handling this case
rests with you too. Your vice-dean may be
accountable to you, but you are accountable to faculty at our university
and, ultimately, to the Department of Higher
Education and the Ministry of Education.
As a professor of this university I have the right to ask the Dean
of Students to call a student into her office. Moreover,
the student is required to appear. The student has no right to ask for
what reason. The student will find out the reason soon
enough in the proper way.
No deep study of documents is necessary for doing this. All you
need to do this is an air-conditioned room with a door.
And, if necessary, we could do without the air conditioner.
As for whether this student was a student when she wrote her
letter, that would be of no concern anyway. But for the
record, Ms. Chen told your vice-dean, Professor Tsai, at a meeting
several months ago, that everything in her letter was
"true." So the issue of when Ms. Chen wrote her original complaint is
without relevance anyway.
Finally, as for "studying" the court documents, that has no
relevance to this case either.
First, a professor has a right to ask the Dean of Students to
arrange a meeting with a student, for whatever reason.
Second, the Dean of Students has the responsibility to arrange such
a meeting.
Third, all current students are required to respond to such a
request when made.
Fourth, a university meeting has no judicial status. If it did, a
judge would have to preside at it. But we don't have judges
who preside at such meetings, we have deans or chairpeople.
Please arrange a meeting with this student, you, me, and other
persons you think necessary within days.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
15 Jul 2003 14:14:10 -0700
To:
Huei-chen Ko
CC:
Kao Chiang , moe
Ko Heui-chen
Dean of Student Affairs
cc: President's Office, Ministry of Education, Department of Higher
Education
15 July 2003
Dear Dean Ko
I am not satisfied with the constant delays in your handling of the
case of the student, Chen An-chuen, who wrote a secret
malicious letter accusing a professor.
I have reminded you repeatedly that this is a simple case. Nowhere
in any country in the world that I'm familiar with is
there a law preventing a dean from calling a student into her office for
any reason whatsoever, whether it's to confirm a
phone number or in response to a complaint from faculty or students.
Furthermore, I remind you, as I've reminded another official at our
university, the responsibility of an elected or
appointed official can be delegated but not transferred. As far as I'm
concerned, the responsibility for handling this Lily
Chen case rests with you and accountability for not handling this case
rests with you too. Your vice-dean may be
accountable to you, but you are accountable to faculty at our university
and, ultimately, to the Department of Higher
Education and the Ministry of Education.
As a professor of this university I have the right to ask the Dean
of Students to call a student into her office. Moreover,
the student is required to appear. The student has no right to ask for
what reason. The student will find out the reason soon
enough in the proper way.
No deep study of documents is necessary for doing this. All you
need to do this is an air-conditioned room with a door.
And, if necessary, we could do without the air conditioner.
As for whether this student was a student when she wrote her
letter, that would be of no concern anyway. But for the
record, Ms. Chen told your vice-dean, Professor Tsai, at a meeting
several months ago, that everything in her letter was
"true." So the issue of when Ms. Chen wrote her original complaint is
without relevance anyway.
Finally, as for "studying" the court documents, that has no
relevance to this case either.
First, a professor has a right to ask the Dean of Students to
arrange a meeting with a student, for whatever reason.
Second, the Dean of Students has the responsibility to arrange such
a meeting.
Third, all current students are required to respond to such a
request when made.
Fourth, a university meeting has no judicial status. If it did, a
judge would have to preside at it. But we don't have judges
who preside at such meetings, we have deans or chairpeople.
Please arrange a meeting with this student, you, me, and other
persons you think necessary within days.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
The Robert Chung Affair at a Hong Kong University
The Robert Chung Affair at a Hong Kong University
It's instructive to compare the wide exposure this case received in Hong Kong, making headline and lead news in the media, whereas the case of NCKU's defiance of a legal Ministry ruling and related human rights abuses at that university has received almost no national exposure.
7/15/2003 4:05 PM
Subject: HONG KONG: The Robert Chung Incident. This is a summary of the
scandal at the University of Hong Kong that made headline news in July,
2000, discussing a "culture of subservience," where relationships replace
"accountability" (law) at the university.
http://www.ahrchk.net/hrsolid/mainfile.php/2000vol10no12/770/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Asian Human Rights Commission - Human Rights SOLIDARITY
HONG KONG: The Robert Chung Incident
n July 7, Hong Kong awoke to a front-page story
in the local South China Morning Post in which
Dr. Robert Chung Ting-yiu, director of the Public
Website Opinion Programme of the Journalism and Media
Studies Centre at Hong Kong University (HKU),
said that he had received political pressure from
Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa through a 'special
channel' to discontinue his public opinion polls
on Tung's popularity and the Hong Kong
government's credibility. A week later Chung
revealed that the 'special channel' was the head
of the university, Vice Chancellor Cheng
Yiu-chung, and his deputy, Pro Vice Chancellor
Wong Siu-lun. Although the allegations were
quickly denied by Tung and the two HKU
administrators, a controversy immediately erupted
in Hong Kong over questions of government
interference in the work of academics. As a
result of these concerns about the state of
academic freedom in Hong Kong, the university set
up a three-member panel to investigate Chung's
claims. The panel was led by Justice Noel Power,
a non-permanent member of the Court of Final
Appeal (CFA) and a former acting chief justice,
and included Ronny Wong Fook-hum, a senior
counsel and former Bar Association chairman, and
Pamela Chan Wong-shui, chief executive of the
Consumer Council.
Through the 11 days of open hearings in August,
the panel heard that Andrew Lo Cheung-on, a
senior special assistant to the chief executive,
met with Vice Chancellor Cheng on Jan. 6, 1999,
in which the topic of Robert Chung's public
opinion polls was discussed. Lo asked whether the
polls were done in Chung's personal capacity or
were carried out in the name of the university,
whether the polls were monitored by the
university and who chose the topics for the
polls. The vice chancellor responded that the
academic environment at HKU prohibited any
interference in the work of its professors.
During the meeting, Lo also inquired whether
Chung's polls could be considered to be neutral
as Chung was a political commentator in the
community as well as a pollster. Lo raised this
issue, he said, because Chung was often quoted in
newspapers on political topics and because he had
sent a letter to Tung before the handover in 1997
with suggestions on political reform.
The panel also learned that this meeting was
followed by two others initiated by Prof. Wong on
Jan. 29 and Nov. 1 between himself and Robert
Chung. It was at these meetings that Chung claims
political pressure was exerted on him to stop his
polls on Tung and the government. However, Wong,
who was Chung's Ph.D. thesis supervisor and
mentor, maintains he met Chung to share with him
the concerns of others in the community about his
work, including the vice chancellor and the
office of the chief executive. According to
Chung, Wong also raised a concern about the
university's name being attached to his polls,
especially at the Nov. 1 meeting since Martin Lee
Chu-ming, leader of the Democratic Party, had
used an HKU opinion poll reflecting Tung's
unpopularity in the Legislative Council (Legco)
to complain about passage of a motion of thanks
to Tung for his annual policy address. Chung
quoted Wong as saying that, 'if the University of
Hong Kong were to continuously be deemed as
politically not neutral, it would affect the
university's future development.' As a result of
the first meeting, Chung testified at the hearing
that he became more careful about the choice of
his opinion poll topics and that he stopped
publishing a review of his polls as he could no
longer claim that they were free from political
pressure.
At the second meeting in November, Chung said
that Wong also expressed again the vice
chancellor's displeasure with his polls and
wanted an explanation of them and whether they
would continue. Wong added, says Chung, that what
the vice chancellor thought, as well as Wong, was
that it would be best if the polls on Tung's
popularity were discontinued. If not, Chung says
he was told by Wong that the vice chancellor
'would dry up our research programme'-a remark
that Wong denied making.
In addition, the panel was told during its
hearings that Tung Chee-hwa had directly told
Vice Chancellor Cheng that he was concerned with
Robert Chung's polls on his popularity and the
government's credibility. In their testimonies,
Pro Vice Chancellor Cheng Kai-ming and Prof.
Felice Lieh-mak, head of the Department of
Psychiatry and a former member of the Executive
Council (Exco), Hong's Kong's cabinet, said that
in a meeting with Cheng on May 11, 1999, that the
vice chancellor had said that Tung had raised
concerns about the opinion polls with him.
According to Prof. Cheng Kai-ming and Prof.
Lieh-mak, the vice chancellor though did not ask
them to take any action nor did he indicate any
specific response requested by the chief
executive, although, they said, the vice
chancellor was worried about the chief
executive's views.
Prof. Cheng Kai-ming added that he was aware of
allegations in late 1998 or early 1999 that
political pressure was being applied on the
university.
'I developed the impression,' he said, '[that]
the university was under very unfavourable
considerations by either the government or even
people who are near to the Beijing government. .
. . [A]t one point, we felt very conspicuously
that most of the committees that were newly
established for very, very high-powered
decision-making in the government very
conspicuously did not include any member from the
Hong Kong University.'
At the conclusion of the hearing, the panel
released their 74-page report to the public on
Sept. 1. They stated that they found Robert Chung
to be 'an honest witness who was telling the
truth in relation to the matters he is
complaining about.' However, the panel found
Andrew Lo Cheung-on, the chief executive's senior
special assistant, to be a 'poor and untruthful
witness' and that neither Lo nor the vice
chancellor 'disclosed the full and truthful
extent of what was said in [the] meeting [of Jan.
6].' Moreover, the panel continued, 'We are sure
that it was in consequence of a discussion
between the vice chancellor and Prof. S. L. Wong
that Prof. S. L. Wong met and spoke to Dr. Chung
in January 1999,' adding that 'the January and
November conversations were both covert attempts
to push Dr. Chung into discontinuing his polling
work.' They reached this conclusion, the panel
explained, because 'there is a secretive air
about both meetings.' They argued, 'It is this
failure to have open discussion through
recognised channels that weighs heavily with the
panel when considering whether these were illicit
endeavours to silence Dr. Chung because of
political considerations. We have no doubt that
political consideration was the principal reason
that motivated the Jan. 29, 1999, meeting. We are
further satisfied that, while there are other
reasons that led to the Nov. 1, 1999, meeting,
political consideration remained an operative
one.'
As a result of the panel's findings, Vice
Chancellor Cheng Yiu-chung and Pro Vice
Chancellor Wong Siu-lun resigned on Sept. 6 just
before the university council met to vote on
whether or not to accept the panel's report.
Because of their resignations, the university
council decided neither to accept nor reject the
report of the panel, which the university council
itself had selected and empowered with the task
of uncovering the truth about the issues raised
by Dr. Chung. The chairperson of the council,
Yang Ti-liang, said afterwards that the
possibility of legal action, which had been
threatened by the vice chancellor, had played a
role in the council's decision.
In spite of the findings of the panel and the
ensuing resignations at the university, questions
still remain about the role, if any, of the chief
executive, who chose not to testify at the
panel's hearings, saying that he has 'the
responsibility to protect the dignity of the post
and ensure [that] the government can operate
efficiently and normally.'
However, the controversy itself has raised
questions about the dignity and integrity of the
office of the chief executive. Tung could have
restored respect for the office by volunteering
to testify before the panel, especially since
Tung claimed that he was innocent and had nothing
to hide. His mere denials without testifying
before an independent body has not erased the
questions in people's minds.
Because of Tung's refusal to testify and the lack
of credibility attributed to Lo by the panel,
questions remain unanswered about Tung's role in
the Robert Chung incident as well as continuing
uncertainty about Lo's involvement in the
controversy. These unresolved issues have acted
as an impetus for Legco to hold its own inquiry.
Consequently, after the Sept. 10 Legco elections,
Martin Lee Chu-ming of the Democratic Party
sponsored a proposal to create a select committee
to investigate the Robert Chung saga further, a
committee that, unlike the university panel,
could compel Tung to testify. On Oct. 20,
however, the proposal was defeated 32-20 in Legco
by the pro-China and pro-business political
parties that dominate the legislature after the
government lobbied against the proposal,
indicating again that it is less than forthcoming
about revealing all of the facts about the
affair, that it fears further public scrutiny.
Naturally, this episode has evoked concerns about
academic freedom as well as guarantees of freedom
of speech in Hong Kong three years after its
sovereignty was transferred to China. Do
academics, for instance, have the space to
conduct opinion polls about the government and
its leader? Is a mechanism for gauging the views
of the people of Hong Kong, of feeling the pulse
of the community, being restrained? Is an avenue
for expressing one's views being suppressed? What
is most worrisome is that features of the
political culture of the mainland are perhaps
being imported consciously or unconsciously by
Hong Kong's officials into the community, a
political culture built on a suffocating control
of dissent that gives the mistaken appearance of
political stability and consensus.
As Prof. Ying Chan, Chung's current boss, stated
at the hearing and other commentators have noted,
there is apparently now a 'culture of
subservience' in Hong Kong in which too many
people seek to appease or not lose favour with
those in authority or to neuter any possible
political implications of their work. Because of
the presence of this new culture, many people in
important responsible positions in the community
seem to second-guess what others in authority
want them to do or say. This attitude has
implications for policies and responses to
events, such as the actions of HKU's leaders
involved in the Robert Chung incident, for it
seems clear from the panel's investigation that
the top levels of the university administration,
especially the vice chancellor, were overly
sensitive to the political implications of the
university's work and thus sought to take steps
in order to be seen as a politically neutral
institution in the community and in the eyes of
those in power in Hong Kong and probably in
Beijing as well. Tung Chee-hwa himself has been
accused of succumbing to this subservient
culture, and it can be said, in fact, to be the
basis of his philosophy for implementing the 'one
country, two systems' formula that undergirds the
basis for the transfer of Hong Kong's sovereignty
to China. Indeed, it perhaps explains why Tung
has been able to carry out the concept of 'one
country, two systems' so 'successfully'-'success'
being defined here as a frictionless relationship
between Hong Kong and Beijing-and why many people
believe that China will give its blessing for
Tung to serve a second term as chief executive in
2002.
Another ramification of the 'culture of
subservience' is censorship, both self-censorship
as people alter their work to align the products
of their labour with the perceived desires of
those in authority and control over the work of
others as is evident in the Robert Chung affair.
Lost in this process of conformity are a
diversity of views about the solutions to the
community's problems as well as people's freedom.
Life becomes harmonious, but monotonous and dull.
Society loses the energy that is needed to
invigorate itself and to generate new ideas, new
ways of thinking and doing things, new responses
to the needs of society.
Overall, the attitudes and events in Hong Kong
that seem to indicate the adoption of a 'culture
of subservience' point to a basic conflict
between two basic characteristics of
relationships between superiors and subordinates,
i.e., between loyalty and accountability. The
first characteristic-loyalty-is usually based on
personal relations developed between two people
over a period of time. However, the second
characteristic-accountability-is grounded in the
structure, practices, rules and regulations of an
institution. In China, much of what takes places
in society-the implementation of government
policies and laws, business deals, etc.-is based
on personal relationships or guanxi, i.e., on
loyalty and trust. The concept of accountability,
on the other hand, is not well-established on the
mainland, although the continual and ongoing
campaigns against corruption in China seem to
reflect a greater level of awareness and respect
for the notion of accountability. However, guanxi
is such a powerful force within the political
fabric of the mainland that it can presently
overcome the practise of accountability.
In the Robert Chung affair, the support shown by
Tung Chee-hwa for his senior special assistant,
Andrew Lo Cheung-on, even after the HKU panel
deemed him to be a 'poor and untruthful witness,'
indicates that Tung prefers loyalty over
accountability, for Tung immediately defended Lo
after the panel's report was released, saying
that Lo, who worked for Tung's shipping company
before following Tung into the government in
1997, was a 'reliable and honest person' and
stating that Lo would not lose his job. This
stance, however, raises questions about the
sincerity of Tung's insistence on making senior
government officials more accountable, a major
theme of his annual policy address in Legco in
October.
The Robert Chung incident also reveals another
aspect of the emerging political culture in Hong
Kong that is seemingly being influenced by the
customs on the mainland: the use of third-party
intermediaries to influence one's words and
actions through informal and quiet contacts. This
practice, like loyalty, is also based on personal
relationships, although the relationships need
not be as well-established as in those involving
loyalty. This custom, of course, was quite
evident in the case of Robert Chung as Prof. Wong
became the messenger of Vice Chancellor Cheng and
perhaps Andrew Lo Cheung-on was Tung's emissary.
Thus, there is a fear in Hong Kong that the
political culture of China is beginning to infect
the political culture of Hong Kong. Prior to the
transfer of Hong Kong's sovereignty in 1997, some
commentators hoped that the more democratic
system in Hong Kong would have a positive
influence on the development of democracy on the
mainland. However, in the intervening three years
since Hong Kong became a part of China, it is
becoming clear that, if anything, the reverse
process is at work. To counter this trend, people
must make public the attempts to politically
exert influence and apply pressure that are done
privately. More Robert Chungs must be willing to
step forward in order to preserve Hong Kong's
present open political culture before it quietly
is eroded into silence.
It's instructive to compare the wide exposure this case received in Hong Kong, making headline and lead news in the media, whereas the case of NCKU's defiance of a legal Ministry ruling and related human rights abuses at that university has received almost no national exposure.
7/15/2003 4:05 PM
Subject: HONG KONG: The Robert Chung Incident. This is a summary of the
scandal at the University of Hong Kong that made headline news in July,
2000, discussing a "culture of subservience," where relationships replace
"accountability" (law) at the university.
http://www.ahrchk.net/hrsolid/mainfile.php/2000vol10no12/770/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Asian Human Rights Commission - Human Rights SOLIDARITY
HONG KONG: The Robert Chung Incident
n July 7, Hong Kong awoke to a front-page story
in the local South China Morning Post in which
Dr. Robert Chung Ting-yiu, director of the Public
Website Opinion Programme of the Journalism and Media
Studies Centre at Hong Kong University (HKU),
said that he had received political pressure from
Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa through a 'special
channel' to discontinue his public opinion polls
on Tung's popularity and the Hong Kong
government's credibility. A week later Chung
revealed that the 'special channel' was the head
of the university, Vice Chancellor Cheng
Yiu-chung, and his deputy, Pro Vice Chancellor
Wong Siu-lun. Although the allegations were
quickly denied by Tung and the two HKU
administrators, a controversy immediately erupted
in Hong Kong over questions of government
interference in the work of academics. As a
result of these concerns about the state of
academic freedom in Hong Kong, the university set
up a three-member panel to investigate Chung's
claims. The panel was led by Justice Noel Power,
a non-permanent member of the Court of Final
Appeal (CFA) and a former acting chief justice,
and included Ronny Wong Fook-hum, a senior
counsel and former Bar Association chairman, and
Pamela Chan Wong-shui, chief executive of the
Consumer Council.
Through the 11 days of open hearings in August,
the panel heard that Andrew Lo Cheung-on, a
senior special assistant to the chief executive,
met with Vice Chancellor Cheng on Jan. 6, 1999,
in which the topic of Robert Chung's public
opinion polls was discussed. Lo asked whether the
polls were done in Chung's personal capacity or
were carried out in the name of the university,
whether the polls were monitored by the
university and who chose the topics for the
polls. The vice chancellor responded that the
academic environment at HKU prohibited any
interference in the work of its professors.
During the meeting, Lo also inquired whether
Chung's polls could be considered to be neutral
as Chung was a political commentator in the
community as well as a pollster. Lo raised this
issue, he said, because Chung was often quoted in
newspapers on political topics and because he had
sent a letter to Tung before the handover in 1997
with suggestions on political reform.
The panel also learned that this meeting was
followed by two others initiated by Prof. Wong on
Jan. 29 and Nov. 1 between himself and Robert
Chung. It was at these meetings that Chung claims
political pressure was exerted on him to stop his
polls on Tung and the government. However, Wong,
who was Chung's Ph.D. thesis supervisor and
mentor, maintains he met Chung to share with him
the concerns of others in the community about his
work, including the vice chancellor and the
office of the chief executive. According to
Chung, Wong also raised a concern about the
university's name being attached to his polls,
especially at the Nov. 1 meeting since Martin Lee
Chu-ming, leader of the Democratic Party, had
used an HKU opinion poll reflecting Tung's
unpopularity in the Legislative Council (Legco)
to complain about passage of a motion of thanks
to Tung for his annual policy address. Chung
quoted Wong as saying that, 'if the University of
Hong Kong were to continuously be deemed as
politically not neutral, it would affect the
university's future development.' As a result of
the first meeting, Chung testified at the hearing
that he became more careful about the choice of
his opinion poll topics and that he stopped
publishing a review of his polls as he could no
longer claim that they were free from political
pressure.
At the second meeting in November, Chung said
that Wong also expressed again the vice
chancellor's displeasure with his polls and
wanted an explanation of them and whether they
would continue. Wong added, says Chung, that what
the vice chancellor thought, as well as Wong, was
that it would be best if the polls on Tung's
popularity were discontinued. If not, Chung says
he was told by Wong that the vice chancellor
'would dry up our research programme'-a remark
that Wong denied making.
In addition, the panel was told during its
hearings that Tung Chee-hwa had directly told
Vice Chancellor Cheng that he was concerned with
Robert Chung's polls on his popularity and the
government's credibility. In their testimonies,
Pro Vice Chancellor Cheng Kai-ming and Prof.
Felice Lieh-mak, head of the Department of
Psychiatry and a former member of the Executive
Council (Exco), Hong's Kong's cabinet, said that
in a meeting with Cheng on May 11, 1999, that the
vice chancellor had said that Tung had raised
concerns about the opinion polls with him.
According to Prof. Cheng Kai-ming and Prof.
Lieh-mak, the vice chancellor though did not ask
them to take any action nor did he indicate any
specific response requested by the chief
executive, although, they said, the vice
chancellor was worried about the chief
executive's views.
Prof. Cheng Kai-ming added that he was aware of
allegations in late 1998 or early 1999 that
political pressure was being applied on the
university.
'I developed the impression,' he said, '[that]
the university was under very unfavourable
considerations by either the government or even
people who are near to the Beijing government. .
. . [A]t one point, we felt very conspicuously
that most of the committees that were newly
established for very, very high-powered
decision-making in the government very
conspicuously did not include any member from the
Hong Kong University.'
At the conclusion of the hearing, the panel
released their 74-page report to the public on
Sept. 1. They stated that they found Robert Chung
to be 'an honest witness who was telling the
truth in relation to the matters he is
complaining about.' However, the panel found
Andrew Lo Cheung-on, the chief executive's senior
special assistant, to be a 'poor and untruthful
witness' and that neither Lo nor the vice
chancellor 'disclosed the full and truthful
extent of what was said in [the] meeting [of Jan.
6].' Moreover, the panel continued, 'We are sure
that it was in consequence of a discussion
between the vice chancellor and Prof. S. L. Wong
that Prof. S. L. Wong met and spoke to Dr. Chung
in January 1999,' adding that 'the January and
November conversations were both covert attempts
to push Dr. Chung into discontinuing his polling
work.' They reached this conclusion, the panel
explained, because 'there is a secretive air
about both meetings.' They argued, 'It is this
failure to have open discussion through
recognised channels that weighs heavily with the
panel when considering whether these were illicit
endeavours to silence Dr. Chung because of
political considerations. We have no doubt that
political consideration was the principal reason
that motivated the Jan. 29, 1999, meeting. We are
further satisfied that, while there are other
reasons that led to the Nov. 1, 1999, meeting,
political consideration remained an operative
one.'
As a result of the panel's findings, Vice
Chancellor Cheng Yiu-chung and Pro Vice
Chancellor Wong Siu-lun resigned on Sept. 6 just
before the university council met to vote on
whether or not to accept the panel's report.
Because of their resignations, the university
council decided neither to accept nor reject the
report of the panel, which the university council
itself had selected and empowered with the task
of uncovering the truth about the issues raised
by Dr. Chung. The chairperson of the council,
Yang Ti-liang, said afterwards that the
possibility of legal action, which had been
threatened by the vice chancellor, had played a
role in the council's decision.
In spite of the findings of the panel and the
ensuing resignations at the university, questions
still remain about the role, if any, of the chief
executive, who chose not to testify at the
panel's hearings, saying that he has 'the
responsibility to protect the dignity of the post
and ensure [that] the government can operate
efficiently and normally.'
However, the controversy itself has raised
questions about the dignity and integrity of the
office of the chief executive. Tung could have
restored respect for the office by volunteering
to testify before the panel, especially since
Tung claimed that he was innocent and had nothing
to hide. His mere denials without testifying
before an independent body has not erased the
questions in people's minds.
Because of Tung's refusal to testify and the lack
of credibility attributed to Lo by the panel,
questions remain unanswered about Tung's role in
the Robert Chung incident as well as continuing
uncertainty about Lo's involvement in the
controversy. These unresolved issues have acted
as an impetus for Legco to hold its own inquiry.
Consequently, after the Sept. 10 Legco elections,
Martin Lee Chu-ming of the Democratic Party
sponsored a proposal to create a select committee
to investigate the Robert Chung saga further, a
committee that, unlike the university panel,
could compel Tung to testify. On Oct. 20,
however, the proposal was defeated 32-20 in Legco
by the pro-China and pro-business political
parties that dominate the legislature after the
government lobbied against the proposal,
indicating again that it is less than forthcoming
about revealing all of the facts about the
affair, that it fears further public scrutiny.
Naturally, this episode has evoked concerns about
academic freedom as well as guarantees of freedom
of speech in Hong Kong three years after its
sovereignty was transferred to China. Do
academics, for instance, have the space to
conduct opinion polls about the government and
its leader? Is a mechanism for gauging the views
of the people of Hong Kong, of feeling the pulse
of the community, being restrained? Is an avenue
for expressing one's views being suppressed? What
is most worrisome is that features of the
political culture of the mainland are perhaps
being imported consciously or unconsciously by
Hong Kong's officials into the community, a
political culture built on a suffocating control
of dissent that gives the mistaken appearance of
political stability and consensus.
As Prof. Ying Chan, Chung's current boss, stated
at the hearing and other commentators have noted,
there is apparently now a 'culture of
subservience' in Hong Kong in which too many
people seek to appease or not lose favour with
those in authority or to neuter any possible
political implications of their work. Because of
the presence of this new culture, many people in
important responsible positions in the community
seem to second-guess what others in authority
want them to do or say. This attitude has
implications for policies and responses to
events, such as the actions of HKU's leaders
involved in the Robert Chung incident, for it
seems clear from the panel's investigation that
the top levels of the university administration,
especially the vice chancellor, were overly
sensitive to the political implications of the
university's work and thus sought to take steps
in order to be seen as a politically neutral
institution in the community and in the eyes of
those in power in Hong Kong and probably in
Beijing as well. Tung Chee-hwa himself has been
accused of succumbing to this subservient
culture, and it can be said, in fact, to be the
basis of his philosophy for implementing the 'one
country, two systems' formula that undergirds the
basis for the transfer of Hong Kong's sovereignty
to China. Indeed, it perhaps explains why Tung
has been able to carry out the concept of 'one
country, two systems' so 'successfully'-'success'
being defined here as a frictionless relationship
between Hong Kong and Beijing-and why many people
believe that China will give its blessing for
Tung to serve a second term as chief executive in
2002.
Another ramification of the 'culture of
subservience' is censorship, both self-censorship
as people alter their work to align the products
of their labour with the perceived desires of
those in authority and control over the work of
others as is evident in the Robert Chung affair.
Lost in this process of conformity are a
diversity of views about the solutions to the
community's problems as well as people's freedom.
Life becomes harmonious, but monotonous and dull.
Society loses the energy that is needed to
invigorate itself and to generate new ideas, new
ways of thinking and doing things, new responses
to the needs of society.
Overall, the attitudes and events in Hong Kong
that seem to indicate the adoption of a 'culture
of subservience' point to a basic conflict
between two basic characteristics of
relationships between superiors and subordinates,
i.e., between loyalty and accountability. The
first characteristic-loyalty-is usually based on
personal relations developed between two people
over a period of time. However, the second
characteristic-accountability-is grounded in the
structure, practices, rules and regulations of an
institution. In China, much of what takes places
in society-the implementation of government
policies and laws, business deals, etc.-is based
on personal relationships or guanxi, i.e., on
loyalty and trust. The concept of accountability,
on the other hand, is not well-established on the
mainland, although the continual and ongoing
campaigns against corruption in China seem to
reflect a greater level of awareness and respect
for the notion of accountability. However, guanxi
is such a powerful force within the political
fabric of the mainland that it can presently
overcome the practise of accountability.
In the Robert Chung affair, the support shown by
Tung Chee-hwa for his senior special assistant,
Andrew Lo Cheung-on, even after the HKU panel
deemed him to be a 'poor and untruthful witness,'
indicates that Tung prefers loyalty over
accountability, for Tung immediately defended Lo
after the panel's report was released, saying
that Lo, who worked for Tung's shipping company
before following Tung into the government in
1997, was a 'reliable and honest person' and
stating that Lo would not lose his job. This
stance, however, raises questions about the
sincerity of Tung's insistence on making senior
government officials more accountable, a major
theme of his annual policy address in Legco in
October.
The Robert Chung incident also reveals another
aspect of the emerging political culture in Hong
Kong that is seemingly being influenced by the
customs on the mainland: the use of third-party
intermediaries to influence one's words and
actions through informal and quiet contacts. This
practice, like loyalty, is also based on personal
relationships, although the relationships need
not be as well-established as in those involving
loyalty. This custom, of course, was quite
evident in the case of Robert Chung as Prof. Wong
became the messenger of Vice Chancellor Cheng and
perhaps Andrew Lo Cheung-on was Tung's emissary.
Thus, there is a fear in Hong Kong that the
political culture of China is beginning to infect
the political culture of Hong Kong. Prior to the
transfer of Hong Kong's sovereignty in 1997, some
commentators hoped that the more democratic
system in Hong Kong would have a positive
influence on the development of democracy on the
mainland. However, in the intervening three years
since Hong Kong became a part of China, it is
becoming clear that, if anything, the reverse
process is at work. To counter this trend, people
must make public the attempts to politically
exert influence and apply pressure that are done
privately. More Robert Chungs must be willing to
step forward in order to preserve Hong Kong's
present open political culture before it quietly
is eroded into silence.
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs (10 July 2003)
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
Date:
Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:22:37 -0700
To:
Huei-chen Ko
CC:
moe , Kao Chiang
Professor Ko Heui-chen
Office of the Dean of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
cc: Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education
Professor Kao Chiang, President, NCKU
10 July 2003
Dear Dean Ko,
I am puzzled why it's taking your office so long to resolve the case
of the student, Chen An-chuen, who submitted a
secret letter of accusation contesting a grade she received eight years
earlier. The case has already gone on for years now.
If the Office of Student Affairs is unable to request the attendance of
a student at an office meeting with the person she
accused, then there are serious questions to be raised about that
administration.
I am enclosing the email I sent yesterday. Your response to that
email was not satisfactory. In fact, you elected not to
respond. Instead, your vice-dean sent me a message, which hinted of
more delays.
I am not interested in more delays. I am interested in resolving
this case now so we can all get on with our lives.
I repeat: There are no complex legal issues involved here. A
professor has the right to face a student accuser. This is
known as due process. The Office of Student Affairs has the right to
call in any student any time to resolve problems at the
university. If you don't have that right, or are reluctant to exercise
that right, then it seems to me there is no purpose to an
Office of Student Affairs at our university.
Regarding this student, don't you think it odd that she eagerly
responded to a request to write a secret letter, and did so
within 24 hours. Yet now that she must discuss this issue publicly,
before the Dean and the professor she accused and who
can contest her accusation, she is trying everything possible to avoid
doing so?
Enclosed is the letter I sent yesterday. Please understand, I
expect you to set up a meeting, in your office, between me
and this student, including as many other people as you think necessary
to be present. This is your right as Dean. It is also
your responsibility as Dean.
I expect to hear from your office very soon regarding the
appointment date and time. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
(06) 237 8626
Date:
Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:22:37 -0700
To:
Huei-chen Ko
CC:
moe , Kao Chiang
Professor Ko Heui-chen
Office of the Dean of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
cc: Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education
Professor Kao Chiang, President, NCKU
10 July 2003
Dear Dean Ko,
I am puzzled why it's taking your office so long to resolve the case
of the student, Chen An-chuen, who submitted a
secret letter of accusation contesting a grade she received eight years
earlier. The case has already gone on for years now.
If the Office of Student Affairs is unable to request the attendance of
a student at an office meeting with the person she
accused, then there are serious questions to be raised about that
administration.
I am enclosing the email I sent yesterday. Your response to that
email was not satisfactory. In fact, you elected not to
respond. Instead, your vice-dean sent me a message, which hinted of
more delays.
I am not interested in more delays. I am interested in resolving
this case now so we can all get on with our lives.
I repeat: There are no complex legal issues involved here. A
professor has the right to face a student accuser. This is
known as due process. The Office of Student Affairs has the right to
call in any student any time to resolve problems at the
university. If you don't have that right, or are reluctant to exercise
that right, then it seems to me there is no purpose to an
Office of Student Affairs at our university.
Regarding this student, don't you think it odd that she eagerly
responded to a request to write a secret letter, and did so
within 24 hours. Yet now that she must discuss this issue publicly,
before the Dean and the professor she accused and who
can contest her accusation, she is trying everything possible to avoid
doing so?
Enclosed is the letter I sent yesterday. Please understand, I
expect you to set up a meeting, in your office, between me
and this student, including as many other people as you think necessary
to be present. This is your right as Dean. It is also
your responsibility as Dean.
I expect to hear from your office very soon regarding the
appointment date and time. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
(06) 237 8626
Monday, June 23, 2003
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs (26 June 2003)
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
Dean Ko,
Dean of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
26 June 2003
Dear Dean Ko,
I hope you understand why I have lost patience with your
department's handling of my complaint against a student named
Lily Chen (Chen An-chuan). I have sent countless emails and faxes to
your office and received only vague responses about
"trying to do something," "gathering facts," etc.
The case is simple and should be simply handled: A student wrote a
secret and spiteful letter accusing a professor and
should be punished, whether a student then or now.
A student with an honest complaint will do so in proper, not
spiteful, language.
Second, there are acceptable means of complaint, subject to formal
controls and time limits.
But this student claimed in secret and without evidence that she
unfairly failed a course eight years before.
Third, soon after her exam, I pleaded with her over the telephone
to take back her exam and she refused, saying: "I see
no point. It's history. I don't want to talk about it."
In 1994, hearing gossip I unjustly failed her, I phoned her. She
denied she was behind the rumor, saying, "Why would I
say something silly like that?"
To be sure, I sent her a five-page letter and suggested I look for
her exam in my office.
Next day, a friendly colleague, acting as a go-between, told me
that this student said if I followed the matter further she
would contact a lawyer!
This student claimed in court she failed unjustly and that I told
the chairman I destroyed the exam. My letter of 1994
disproves both claims.
Why, if I had destroyed her exam and told the chairman so, would I
say, in writing, that I had the exam? (No professor
is required, or expected, to keep exams indefinitely.) Why would a
student who claimed she failed unjustly refuse a chance
to prove her claim?
The answer is clear to any reasonable person. This student ignored
my letter because,
1. She believed I had her exam (disproving her claims); and
2. She believed the exam would show she failed with reason.
With many chances to complain, this student on purpose and
therefore with malice made a secret complaint, so I couldn't
defend myself and her word would be final.
There is more evidence of this student's habit of speaking falsely.
First, she hid important facts, such as receiving three high passes
from me the year of her failing grade.
She denied taking these classes. After I showed grade records, she
claimed she forgot. Can a student forget passing
one class but remember failing another the same year?
In court she claimed she avoided me by sitting in the back of the
class. But she asked at the time if she could call me by
my first name! She received high passes in my conversation class that
same year. But students were separated in small
groups (about four) and there was no "back of the class"! Why sit in
the back of one class but not in the back of another
with the same teacher?
In court, she said she was a superior student. Her grade
transcripts don't show this:
She received several just-passing grades of low 60s and many grades
in the 70s. As a graduate student, she received a
minimal passing grade of 70 in at least one class.
Indeed, I gave this student among her highest grades as an
undergraduate, including a 90+. But she accused me because
of one failing grade, as if students never failed before. (I failed
one-third of her classmates that year, and my colleague failed
another third in the make-up class the following year.)
This student claimed in court, under oath, that nobody asked her to
write her letter. But talking to Vice-Dean Tsai, she
admitted a university official asked for her letter. Either she lied in
court or she lied to Professor Tsai.
Now usually the person telling the truth seeks a formal hearing.
In this case, Ms. Chen has tried to avoid one, even
saying so to the Vice-Dean!
Worse, the dean's office has allowed this student to dictate policy
of student discipline? That's the dean's job, according
to laws and common sense. Ms. Chen's letter was formally accepted and
it must be formally rejected.
University officials accepted her letter; they kept it secret and
circulated it; and they used it at my dismissal hearings. The
fact that my dismissal was reversed is no credit to Ms. Chen, who
recently repeated her accusation. Moreover, gossip
continues that I unfairly failed a student.
Therefore, this matter must be resolved at a formal meeting. I am
requesting this meeting for next Monday, 30 June. The
meeting should include me, Ms. Chen, one dean, and at least one member
of the Faculty Union.
At this meeting, unless Ms. Chen can prove her accusation and
explain why she wrote a secret and spiteful letter eight
years later, I will ask that she be formally censured and write a letter
of admission and apology. Only then will I consider
this case closed.
Please respond as soon as possible. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(06) 237 8626
Dean Ko,
Dean of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
26 June 2003
Dear Dean Ko,
I hope you understand why I have lost patience with your
department's handling of my complaint against a student named
Lily Chen (Chen An-chuan). I have sent countless emails and faxes to
your office and received only vague responses about
"trying to do something," "gathering facts," etc.
The case is simple and should be simply handled: A student wrote a
secret and spiteful letter accusing a professor and
should be punished, whether a student then or now.
A student with an honest complaint will do so in proper, not
spiteful, language.
Second, there are acceptable means of complaint, subject to formal
controls and time limits.
But this student claimed in secret and without evidence that she
unfairly failed a course eight years before.
Third, soon after her exam, I pleaded with her over the telephone
to take back her exam and she refused, saying: "I see
no point. It's history. I don't want to talk about it."
In 1994, hearing gossip I unjustly failed her, I phoned her. She
denied she was behind the rumor, saying, "Why would I
say something silly like that?"
To be sure, I sent her a five-page letter and suggested I look for
her exam in my office.
Next day, a friendly colleague, acting as a go-between, told me
that this student said if I followed the matter further she
would contact a lawyer!
This student claimed in court she failed unjustly and that I told
the chairman I destroyed the exam. My letter of 1994
disproves both claims.
Why, if I had destroyed her exam and told the chairman so, would I
say, in writing, that I had the exam? (No professor
is required, or expected, to keep exams indefinitely.) Why would a
student who claimed she failed unjustly refuse a chance
to prove her claim?
The answer is clear to any reasonable person. This student ignored
my letter because,
1. She believed I had her exam (disproving her claims); and
2. She believed the exam would show she failed with reason.
With many chances to complain, this student on purpose and
therefore with malice made a secret complaint, so I couldn't
defend myself and her word would be final.
There is more evidence of this student's habit of speaking falsely.
First, she hid important facts, such as receiving three high passes
from me the year of her failing grade.
She denied taking these classes. After I showed grade records, she
claimed she forgot. Can a student forget passing
one class but remember failing another the same year?
In court she claimed she avoided me by sitting in the back of the
class. But she asked at the time if she could call me by
my first name! She received high passes in my conversation class that
same year. But students were separated in small
groups (about four) and there was no "back of the class"! Why sit in
the back of one class but not in the back of another
with the same teacher?
In court, she said she was a superior student. Her grade
transcripts don't show this:
She received several just-passing grades of low 60s and many grades
in the 70s. As a graduate student, she received a
minimal passing grade of 70 in at least one class.
Indeed, I gave this student among her highest grades as an
undergraduate, including a 90+. But she accused me because
of one failing grade, as if students never failed before. (I failed
one-third of her classmates that year, and my colleague failed
another third in the make-up class the following year.)
This student claimed in court, under oath, that nobody asked her to
write her letter. But talking to Vice-Dean Tsai, she
admitted a university official asked for her letter. Either she lied in
court or she lied to Professor Tsai.
Now usually the person telling the truth seeks a formal hearing.
In this case, Ms. Chen has tried to avoid one, even
saying so to the Vice-Dean!
Worse, the dean's office has allowed this student to dictate policy
of student discipline? That's the dean's job, according
to laws and common sense. Ms. Chen's letter was formally accepted and
it must be formally rejected.
University officials accepted her letter; they kept it secret and
circulated it; and they used it at my dismissal hearings. The
fact that my dismissal was reversed is no credit to Ms. Chen, who
recently repeated her accusation. Moreover, gossip
continues that I unfairly failed a student.
Therefore, this matter must be resolved at a formal meeting. I am
requesting this meeting for next Monday, 30 June. The
meeting should include me, Ms. Chen, one dean, and at least one member
of the Faculty Union.
At this meeting, unless Ms. Chen can prove her accusation and
explain why she wrote a secret and spiteful letter eight
years later, I will ask that she be formally censured and write a letter
of admission and apology. Only then will I consider
this case closed.
Please respond as soon as possible. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(06) 237 8626
Monday, May 19, 2003
Letter from FLLD Chair, C. C. Chang (19 May 2003)
Letter from FLLD chair, C. C. Chang
wrote:
> Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 16:13:50 +0800
> From: linam
> Subject: Re: FW: ATTN: C.C. Chang, regarding
> scheduling of Professor de Canio's
> classes for next academic year
>
>
> Dear Dr. DeCanio,
> If you do not have the contract of NCKU from August
> 2003, I cannot
> arrange the teaching courses for
> you. Any other questions, you can contact with the
> Personnel Office of
> NCKU.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Chairman Chang
> Dept. of Foreign Languages & Literature of
> National Cheng Kung University
5/19/2003 10:04 PM
Subject: ATTN: C.C. Chang, regarding scheduling of Professor de Canio's
classes for next academic yearTo: em52200@email.ncku.edu.tw
CC: moe ,
Kao Chiang
Professor C.C. Chang
Chairman
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
19 May 2003
Dear Chairman Chang
Please be reminded of my repeated requests, either to you or to your
academic assistant, that we agree on my courses for next academic year.
Out of respect to me, to our students, and to your duties as chairman
of our department, this should have been already done, in belated compliance
with the Ministry appeal ruling of 8 January 2001, which reactivated my
teaching contract.
I hereby request that you contact either me or a member of the Faculty
Union no later than this afternoon, regarding the scheduling of those
classes, pursuant to your duties as chairman of our department and to the
Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001.
Also, regarding rumors about a planned "review" of my employment
status, I urge you to consider that the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001 is
final and not up to review or even approval by subordinate officials. And
all accusations rejected on "final" Ministry appeal are "final," or it
would not be called a "final" appeal.
Finally, in view of the reactivation of my teaching contract, I am
formally requesting that a teaching assistant be assigned to me, my name be
established outside my office door, and that all other privileges of an
Associate Professor at our university, including an Identity Card, be
returned.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
email: vertigo@ms22.hinet.net
wrote:
> Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 16:13:50 +0800
> From: linam
> Subject: Re: FW: ATTN: C.C. Chang, regarding
> scheduling of Professor de Canio's
> classes for next academic year
>
>
> Dear Dr. DeCanio,
> If you do not have the contract of NCKU from August
> 2003, I cannot
> arrange the teaching courses for
> you. Any other questions, you can contact with the
> Personnel Office of
> NCKU.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Chairman Chang
> Dept. of Foreign Languages & Literature of
> National Cheng Kung University
5/19/2003 10:04 PM
Subject: ATTN: C.C. Chang, regarding scheduling of Professor de Canio's
classes for next academic yearTo: em52200@email.ncku.edu.tw
CC: moe ,
Kao Chiang
Professor C.C. Chang
Chairman
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
19 May 2003
Dear Chairman Chang
Please be reminded of my repeated requests, either to you or to your
academic assistant, that we agree on my courses for next academic year.
Out of respect to me, to our students, and to your duties as chairman
of our department, this should have been already done, in belated compliance
with the Ministry appeal ruling of 8 January 2001, which reactivated my
teaching contract.
I hereby request that you contact either me or a member of the Faculty
Union no later than this afternoon, regarding the scheduling of those
classes, pursuant to your duties as chairman of our department and to the
Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001.
Also, regarding rumors about a planned "review" of my employment
status, I urge you to consider that the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001 is
final and not up to review or even approval by subordinate officials. And
all accusations rejected on "final" Ministry appeal are "final," or it
would not be called a "final" appeal.
Finally, in view of the reactivation of my teaching contract, I am
formally requesting that a teaching assistant be assigned to me, my name be
established outside my office door, and that all other privileges of an
Associate Professor at our university, including an Identity Card, be
returned.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
email: vertigo@ms22.hinet.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)