Regarding problems at a Taiwan university
3/24/2004 10:27 AM
Subject: Regarding problems at a Taiwan
universityTo: editor@asianresearch.org
Editor,
Asian Research
24 March 2004
Dear Editor,
I have an ongoing problem with human rights violations here and I'm
wondering if you can give me some advice or assistance.
In January 2001, Taiwan's Ministry of Education canceled a 1999
dismissal by a Taiwan university due to countless legal rights
violations. Despite eight warning letters, the university defied the
Ministry ruling for more than two years. It even contested the
ruling in court, claiming (after I won) that foreigners had no right to
appeal in the first place. Due to pressure from outside channels, the
university finally issued retroactive contracts in May 2001.
Partly compliant, officials spitefully revived accusations rejected
in the Ministry ruling, as if that ruling never happened and officials
are the law. In addition, they now maintain I'm entitled to only half
pay the years of my dismissal since I wasn't teaching those years,
although the dismissal (reversed on appeal) was by defnition illegal and
the appeal ruling was defied for two years!
Meanwhile, Taiwan's Ministry of Education has, over four years, not
punished a single official involved in this case, including the
president of the university who defied the Ministry ruling for more than
two years. The Control Yuan has found no wrongdoing on the part of
university officials, despite secret meetings, secretly circulated
letters, and noncompliance with a Ministry ruling for more than two
years.
Apparently, university officials are above the law in Taiwan.
They're allowed to "interpret" laws against recognized principles of
human rights, to which Taiwan subscribes, such as the principle of final
appeal, compliance, compensation, apology, and protections against
malicious revival ("double jeopardy").
By not apologizing, by reviving accusations rejected on final
appeal, and by denying compensation or even full retroactive pay, the
university is, in effect, defying the legal benefits of the appeal
ruling, as if that ruling never happened. Instead of enforcing its own
ruling, the Ministry of Education advises me to file a lawsuit against
the university!
A national university in a country that advances human
rights principles should not condone discriminatory policy against
foreign faculty, especially when that university has sister universities
in democratic countries such as the USA and England. A Ministry of
Education that sanctions appeal should enforce its appeal rulings.
Instead the Ministry advises individual litigation rather than routine
enforcement. Is Taiwan a government of laws or litigation? Does every
ruling have to be litigated before it is enforced?
Although with many sister universities in the States, England, and
other democracies, this university claimed foreign (in this case,
American) teachers were not protected by the Teachers' Law, which
prevents dismissal without due cause. Even if foreign faculty were not
protected by the Teachers' Law (which is not true), that would not
condone violations of human rights, due process of law, and other
principles the Taiwan government and most universities in democratic
nations subscribe to. Yet the university held secret meetings,
circulated secret letters, and twice defied final appeal rulings.
There's also the outrageous factor of duplicity, or trickery.
After the first university appeal ruling, in December, 1999, the
university claimed that foreigners had to appeal again. The university
repeated this tactic even after the Ministry ruling in January, 2001.
Finally, in May 2003, pressured by outside channels to issue retroactive
contracts, the university spitefully revived and passed accusations
rejected in the Ministry ruling, as if the appeal process had no binding
force. Yet at the same time it claims foreigners (Americans) have no
right to appeal!
Despite international recognition of Taiwan as a democracy,
the Ministry of Education has delayed complete enforcement of its own
sanctioned ruling. But if the Ministry of Education refuses to enforce
its rulings, the appeal process is a sham and one can place little
confidence in other so-called legal rights protections in Taiwan's
universities. If a university wins, it will claim to the world (and its
sister universities in the USA, England, and elsewhere) that it has an
appeal process and it won fairly. But if it loses, it will defy
the Ministry ruling.
This appeal is already in its FIFTH year. Regardless of final
disposition of this case, what foreign professor will likely appeal
facing five years or more of delays? Unable or unlikely to appeal,
foreign faculty will more likely comply with academic injustices here.
In reality, regardless of laws on the books, there are no
practical protections for foreign faculty at Taiwan universities. The
Ministry of Education tolerated the university's defiance for more than
two years. Only when I contacted outside channels did I receive,
belatedly, my contracts.
Human rights groups here have given me no help at all. Why doesn't
their appreciation for American support of "Taiwan democracy" translate
into legal advocacy for American rights here? Why do they attack human
rights abuses in Mainland China instead?
Taiwan's national human rights group (Taiwan Commission for
Human Rights) never responds to my countless emails, nor do Ministry or
other government officials, except by routine paperwork or robot mail.
Another national rights group claimed my case was best handled through
administrative remedy. But "remedy" here is merely a cathartic process
instead of a legal process. (The appellant is apparently supposed to
let off steam (or even feel grateful to have the right to file a formal
complaint, even though nothing is ever concluded or enforced.) My
Chinese colleagues and I spent years waiting for a ruling by the Control
(Censor Yuan), supposedly the "watchdog" body here, only to be told
there were no violations, despite evidence listed above and boldfaced in
the Ministry ruling rejecting my dismissal!
Instead this case has been a nightmare of paperwork, including
around 150 pieces of registered mail! This time-consuming "remedy" is
even more of a burden on foreigners, who have to renew their visa every
two months, as was my case before the university finally issued the
contracts, under outside pressure.
Officials here appeal to international human rights agencies for
support of Taiwan. They loudly condemn human rights violations in
Mainland China. English-langage newspapers constantly print letters
from American-based writers lauding Taiwan democracy. Yet not a single
Engling-language newspaper has reported this case, despite many
contacts. (Only a Chinese-language newspaper published an item about
this case, clearly stating facts that put the university in the
wrong.) The English-language newspapers prefer to make Mainland China
a human rights issue rather than deal with the human rights issues in
Taiwan.
My Chinese colleagues and I have contacted several well-known
"human rights" groups here, to no effect. It's always the same
bureaucratic routine: a courteous exchange of "documentation," delays
of many weeks, and final advice that I hire a lawyer!
It's unimaginable that human rights groups would ignore a case where a
president of a university defies a legal Ministry ruling for more than
two years and human rights abuses so blatant that the Ministry Appeal
ruling actually boldfaced them in their ruling "you've got to PROVE,"
etc.! In a more robust democracy, the case of Robert Chung and the
University of Hong Kong in 2000 was a scandal in the Hong Kong media for
weeks and caused the resignations of two top university officials.
Here, except for a very few dedicated Chinese colleagues, nobody seems
to care. They are content with democratic laws on the books regardless
whether those laws are enforced or not. (It looks good at international
conferences and it insures support from activists in other countries.)
But democracy here has clearly been adapted to a culture of
relationships as to lose all resemblance to the real thing. The laws
are written, but the final say on how to interpret them or when to
enforce them is left to each official.
This allows face-saving human rights laws on the books, while at
the same time allowing face-saving ways for officials to defy those
laws. So everyone's happy, except the victim. The government gets
to talk about "laws," saving face with the international community on
which it depends; while officials get to ignore those laws, interpret
them, delay them, and defy them. This is called "administrative
remedy." Meanwhile human rights groups here focus all their attention
on Mainland China, as if all human rights problems had been solved
here.
To be fair, the court rejected the university's legal challenge to
the Ministry ruling and told the university to "settle." Even then, two
university officials warned me in front of Faculty Union members, that
the university would delay the case in the courts for years unless I
quit the university with half pay! I told them they should be ashamed of
themselves and, with pressure from outside channels, I got my contracts
a few weeks later (but nothing else).
I'm grateful the court ruled in my favor. But why did the
court allow litigation in the first place? Litigation seems to have
replaced routine enforcement of laws here. In the law that I know, a
lawyer can't invent an appeal because he's a sore loser. The university
participated in the appeal process. Then, after it lost, it claimed I
had no right to appeal!
Is this legal or moral principle, especially from a university,
presumably in advance of human rights? An American lawyer here told me
that cannot be done, at least in American law. But he also warned me
that in Chinese culture it's common to litigate a contract or ruling
that is not to one's advantage.
I would like to add that litigation is longer here than in the
States. Court sessions are intermitted by months! A case that might
last 3-5 days in the States might last longer in months here.
In addition, there seems to be no concept of the "preponderence of
evidence" in civil cases. The litigant apparently must prove guilt
instead of showing probability. The judge who ruled on my lawsuit
against a student who wrote a secret letter complaining of a grade
received EIGHT YEARS BEFORE argued (despite strong evidence the student
was lying)that it was "reasonable" for a student to think she deserved a
higher grade! (The fact that the complaint was eight years later, in
secret, solicited on the day of my dismissal appeal hearing, secretly
circulated at that and later hearings; the fact that the student lied
about taking other classes from me in which she received high passes,
were all ignored in the ruling.)
This is a summary of the case. If nothing else, I want to be sure
the facts of this case are preserved. In sum, I am frustrated not only
by the university's human rights abuses and failure to admit wrongdoing
and compensate, but by the lack of concern I sense from people here.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Letter to Humanistic Foundation (19 February 2004)
Letter to Humanistic Education Foundation
2/19/2004 8:55 PM
Subject: Regarding rights violations at National Cheng Kung
University
To: tainan@hef.org.tw
Humanistic Education Foundation
Tainan, Taiwan
19 February 2004
Dear Humanistic Education Foundation:
In a letter dated 8 January 2001, the Ministry of Education Appeals
Committee canceled my dismissal at National Cheng Kung University in
Tainan. The university president, Kao Chiang defied that ruling and
eight Ministry letters for more than two years.
Instead, the university held “hearings” on accusations rejected in
the Ministry ruling. The university lawyer used tax-paid money to
contest the Ministry ruling in court, saying (after the ruling favored
me) that foreigners had no right to appeal. (This lawsuit, which cost
the university millions of dollars in back pay, could have funded dozens
of scholarships for needy students.) Meanwhile university officials
warned me to quit the university or the administration would contest the
Ministry ruling for as long as possible.
Forced to comply with the Ministry ruling to issue teaching
contracts, officials prevented other benefits of that ruling. Promptly,
as if to show contempt for the Ministry ruling, a College Review
committee approved accusations rejected in that ruling and, as
punishment, denied me increments and promotion for six years.
Only recently, Professor Kao publicly claimed it was “reasonable” I
be denied teaching pay the years of my illegal dismissal. Yet an appeal
ruling insures full compensation to the favored party.
President Kao's office has yet to issue an apology for human rights
abuses,
including the use of secret and unproved accusations to insure my
dismissal in 1999. The student who wrote a letter secretly circulated
at dismissal hearings has not been punished, although now a graduate
student and teacher at our university.
These are violations of moral principles as well as law. Taiwan is
a democracy, yet the university
denies the Teacher’s Law protects foreigners. The university accepted
my appeal but claimed, after I won, that foreigners have no right to
appeal. The university attended the Ministry hearing but, after I won,
defied its ruling.
This case is now in its fifth year. Administrative “remedy” that
continues this long is laughable and mocks the word “remedy.”
Who will seek remedy knowing it will last years? But if there is no
remedy there is no hope, either for teachers or for education in Taiwan.
No respectable university should allow abuses listed here. Just
recently our College Review Committee ignored a University Appeals
ruling, as if neither the Ministry nor its own University Appeals
Committee had legal force.
Is this a democracy? Is Taiwan a government of laws? Can school
officials say what a law means, when to obey a
law, and which laws to use?
A committee is not above the law but subject to the law, in its
plain sense. The rights of a university do not include the right to
interpret laws or defy them, any more than the rights of a citizen allow
this.
To appear lawful, university officials quote lawyers instead of
laws. But democracy is a government of laws, not lawyers. Yet an
official who defied a Ministry ruling for more than two years goes
unpunished because (he says) a lawyer “interpreted” the law to mean what
the university wanted it to mean.
If allowed, all citizens can do the same thing. This way there'll
be laws, but no law.
In law, a final ruling prevents further action on issues already
decided. Accusations rejected on appeal cannot be revived, or final
appeals are useless, or, worse, a form of harassment.
Taiwan is a democracy. Its citizens receive legal protections when
they live in lawful countries. It is a recognized principle of law
that a final appeal ruling insures final settlement of the accusations,
apology, compensation, and remedy. Yet accusations rejected in the
Ministry ruling have been revived, I have received no just compensation
or apology
In the meantime, officials should be punished for misconduct, even
if they have transferred to another university, as two have. I expect
the student who wrote a secret spiteful letter to be punished. I
deserve full compensation and a formal apology from the university. The
settlement should be enforced, as Taiwan law requires.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
2/19/2004 8:55 PM
Subject: Regarding rights violations at National Cheng Kung
University
To: tainan@hef.org.tw
Humanistic Education Foundation
Tainan, Taiwan
19 February 2004
Dear Humanistic Education Foundation:
In a letter dated 8 January 2001, the Ministry of Education Appeals
Committee canceled my dismissal at National Cheng Kung University in
Tainan. The university president, Kao Chiang defied that ruling and
eight Ministry letters for more than two years.
Instead, the university held “hearings” on accusations rejected in
the Ministry ruling. The university lawyer used tax-paid money to
contest the Ministry ruling in court, saying (after the ruling favored
me) that foreigners had no right to appeal. (This lawsuit, which cost
the university millions of dollars in back pay, could have funded dozens
of scholarships for needy students.) Meanwhile university officials
warned me to quit the university or the administration would contest the
Ministry ruling for as long as possible.
Forced to comply with the Ministry ruling to issue teaching
contracts, officials prevented other benefits of that ruling. Promptly,
as if to show contempt for the Ministry ruling, a College Review
committee approved accusations rejected in that ruling and, as
punishment, denied me increments and promotion for six years.
Only recently, Professor Kao publicly claimed it was “reasonable” I
be denied teaching pay the years of my illegal dismissal. Yet an appeal
ruling insures full compensation to the favored party.
President Kao's office has yet to issue an apology for human rights
abuses,
including the use of secret and unproved accusations to insure my
dismissal in 1999. The student who wrote a letter secretly circulated
at dismissal hearings has not been punished, although now a graduate
student and teacher at our university.
These are violations of moral principles as well as law. Taiwan is
a democracy, yet the university
denies the Teacher’s Law protects foreigners. The university accepted
my appeal but claimed, after I won, that foreigners have no right to
appeal. The university attended the Ministry hearing but, after I won,
defied its ruling.
This case is now in its fifth year. Administrative “remedy” that
continues this long is laughable and mocks the word “remedy.”
Who will seek remedy knowing it will last years? But if there is no
remedy there is no hope, either for teachers or for education in Taiwan.
No respectable university should allow abuses listed here. Just
recently our College Review Committee ignored a University Appeals
ruling, as if neither the Ministry nor its own University Appeals
Committee had legal force.
Is this a democracy? Is Taiwan a government of laws? Can school
officials say what a law means, when to obey a
law, and which laws to use?
A committee is not above the law but subject to the law, in its
plain sense. The rights of a university do not include the right to
interpret laws or defy them, any more than the rights of a citizen allow
this.
To appear lawful, university officials quote lawyers instead of
laws. But democracy is a government of laws, not lawyers. Yet an
official who defied a Ministry ruling for more than two years goes
unpunished because (he says) a lawyer “interpreted” the law to mean what
the university wanted it to mean.
If allowed, all citizens can do the same thing. This way there'll
be laws, but no law.
In law, a final ruling prevents further action on issues already
decided. Accusations rejected on appeal cannot be revived, or final
appeals are useless, or, worse, a form of harassment.
Taiwan is a democracy. Its citizens receive legal protections when
they live in lawful countries. It is a recognized principle of law
that a final appeal ruling insures final settlement of the accusations,
apology, compensation, and remedy. Yet accusations rejected in the
Ministry ruling have been revived, I have received no just compensation
or apology
In the meantime, officials should be punished for misconduct, even
if they have transferred to another university, as two have. I expect
the student who wrote a secret spiteful letter to be punished. I
deserve full compensation and a formal apology from the university. The
settlement should be enforced, as Taiwan law requires.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
Sunday, February 15, 2004
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs (15 February 2004)
Student Misconduct
2/15/2004 1:14 PM
Subject: Concerning the issue of student misconduct at National Cheng Kung
UniversityTo: Huei-chen Ko
CC: hefpp@hef.org.tw, tahr@seed.net.tw, moe ,
Control Yuan ,
Vice-President Lu ,
eyemail@eyemail.gio.gov.tw, peu03@mail.gio.gov.tw,
Kao Chiang
Professor Ko Huei-chen
Dean of Student Affairs
Office of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University (NCKU)
Tainan, Taiwan
06-2757575-50300
cc: Prime Minister's Office, Taiwan Human Rights Commission, Ministry
of Education, Department of Higher Education, Control Yuan, Taiwan
Association for Human Rights, Humanistic Education Foundation, National
Cheng Kung University President's Office (06-2757575-5000)
15 February 2004
Dear Dean Ko,
Before I take further action, I think it important that I try again to
make you understand the administrative, moral, and legal issues
regarding the case of student misconduct at our university.
In 1999, several NCKU committees circulated a secret letter written
by a former student of mine, who claimed I failed her unfairly eight
years before. She had no proof of this. Documented evidence, including
a letter she ignored in 1994 and high passes I gave her the year of her
failure discredit the student. In addition she lied about not taking
my classes in which she received high grades. In court she claimed, “I
forgot.” As if a student could remember one grade but not three others!
All this is beside the point of course. No rational official
would accept a secret complaint from a student about a grade eight years
before. Indeed, the letter was solicited by a university official and
dated the day of my dismissal hearing.
No one can believe in the innocence of this student or the
officials who secretly circulated her letter. If university officials
cared about my rights the way you now appeal to the student’s rights,
this case would never have happened. Appealing to a student’s rights
after I spent four years getting my job back is insulting, Dean Ko.
These are serious human rights violations and I am committed to
defending my rights as well as the dignity of American professors at our
university, whatever the cost.
Also bear in mind this student was admitted into our graduate
program, worked in the university president’s office, and is currently a
part-time teacher at our university. The taxpaying public has a right
to know if a student has achieved this on merit or by deceit.
Since you’re the dean of “students,” remember that other students
wish to be admitted to our graduate programs and to obtain employment at
our university. It is unfair to them if they have lost out on the
chance because they behave well while another student succeeded because
she behaved badly.
Now let us review, for you and for concerned agencies, your
response to my complaint.
First, you took way too much time to begin with. You and your
vice-dean, who has since resigned over a scandal, delayed handling this
case for years, claiming you were “investigating” or “gathering
evidence.”
Since when does it take years to call a student into your office?
What kind of “investigation” are you talking about? What kind of
“evidence” needed to be gathered?
The facts are plain. The student wrote the letter. The letter was
circulated. Her claim of failing eight years before is absurd on the
face of it, but more so since it was made in secret and circulated in
secret. The letter was clearly spiteful. The letter was solicited and
dated on the day of my dismissal hearing. The student concealed
receiving a high pass the semester after her failure. She lied about
not taking another class that year in which she received two high
passes.
As late as 1994, when I heard malicious gossip about her grade, I
wrote her a letter offering to locate her exam. She ignored that letter
and, according to my colleague who was her instructor, she told him if I
pursued the matter further she would talk to a lawyer acquaintance.
The student didn’t want her complaint made public, because she knew
it was false. She could not write a secret complaint at the time
because she had to wait until officials were willing to accept and
circulate her letter. One of these officials, former Dean Tu, is now
teaching at another college. Another, Professor Lee Chen-er, ran for
president of our university.
I have an email from a colleague dated one year before the student
wrote her secret letter. He warned me the student was planning to
accuse me in exchange for employment.
You claim there is no username on this email. Of course I blocked
it out to protect the professor. But the court accepted the email; and,
of course, I would be perfectly willing to show the original email to a
confidential committee whose moral integrity could be trusted to protect
the name of this professor. After all, it was a confidential letter and
your concern should be to expose the student, not the name of the
teacher who wrote the email.
Do you think our administration is interested in exposing the
truth, or in exposing the professor? The email warns me of events
almost one year before they happened. Was that a mere coincidence, Dean
Ko?
You also claim the student was not a student when she wrote her
letter. First, she defended her letter as “truthful” to your vice-dean
when he called her into his office. She was a student and teacher when
she did this. It’s not my job to do your job. Did you phone your
former vice-dean? If not, why not? Are you interested in resolving
this matter or in delaying it? Administrators at our university may
have all the time in the world. I don’t.
Your office seems to be playing an obstacle game. In this
game--which I don’t like playing--it’s up to me to spend weeks or months
surmounting an obstacle. When I do, another obstacle is placed in front
of me: Your vice-dean is “gathering evidence.” Or you’re judging
evidence. Or a court decision is pending. Or a court judgment prevents
action. Or the student was not a student when she wrote her letter. Or
a university lawyer advised you against action. Or there’s no proof.
Or the student claimed she was telling the truth. Or (I like this one)
the student refused to come. Or (I like this one better) the student
said she was a “good girl.” Or (I like this best of all) God will
punish her.
Since when is God a paid official at our university? If God were,
there would be no legal rights abuses such as insured my dismissal in
1999 and delayed my return for two years after a legal Ministry ruling.
For your sake, let me address some serious issues.
First, administrative remedy should have taken days instead of
years. Consult any university in the world about this matter if you
don’t believe me. Administrative remedy that lasts more than days or at
most weeks is a mockery of what the law intends.
Second, the proof is as plain as the nose on the student’s face.
That letter alone should be sufficient since it is available, refers to
a grade eight years before, was without proof, was spiteful, secret,
dated the day of my dismissal hearing, and used at my dismissal hearing.
Third, as I said above, other facts, such as the student hiding
high passes she received from me the year of her disputed grade
discredit the student.
Fourth, you claim the student was not a student when she wrote her
letter. Yet she defended her letter to your vice-dean while a student.
But apart from this, as university dean, you should be concerned
about student misconduct, which is not a legal but a moral issue.
There is no statute of limitations or legal standards for misconduct.
The problem is there may be no standards for student misconduct at our
university. Or if there are, you’re ignoring them.
If my child breaks a window while staying at my brother’s house,
does that mean I cannot punish the child because she was not under my
care at the time? What kind of moral logic is this? If you’re a
mother, would you apply this moral logic in raising your child?
Fifth, you claim the court decision prevents action. The court
decision concerned a criminal offense, while the student’s letter
concerns misconduct. There’s a difference between legal and moral
judgments.
The court decision concerned whether the letter caused my
dismissal. Your concern should be whether the letter is student
mischief, assuming you’re interested in student conduct as Dean
of Student Affairs.
If a student is found innocent of drunk driving in a court, that
does not mean she cannot be punished for being drunk by a university
official. One concerns a legal fact (crime), the other a moral fact
(misconduct). If a student breaks into a house and causes a feeble man
to get a heart attack, she may be found innocent of murder but not of
breaking into the house.
My child may be found innocent of robbing a store; I may be glad
for this, since prisons are bad places. But if I know she robbed that
store I will punish her and no court can prevent this. Misconduct is
subject to “knowledge” in the common sense, not “proof” in the legal
sense. Only a bad mother would raise a child based on legal standards
instead of moral standards.
Sixth, you argue this student will become a better person if she is
not punished. I know of no moral philosopher who would agree with you.
Even if one agrees with the ethic of forgiveness (as I do), forgiveness
must follow admission of wrong, not ignore it. This is written all over
Chinese and Western moral literature: good people admit their mistakes.
Wrongs are forgiven following admission and apology.
But this student has not asked to be forgiven. Nor has she
apologized. Instead she refused to attend a meeting you scheduled
between us. Since when does a student decide policy at our university?
Seventh, you quote a lawyer who advised against action. I remind
you that our university lawyer contested a legal Ministry ruling for
more than two years, an action that would probably fall under
“obstruction of justice” in my country. He then used taxpayers’ money
to contest that legal ruling in court, after the ruling favored me. His
action cost taxpayers millions of dollars in back pay. This money could
have funded dozens of student scholarships. Clearly this lawyer has a
different concept of law and ethics than I and (I assume) most members
of bar associations.
I remind you that Faculty Union members warned university officials
about laws but they were ignored. Instead, the university lawyer used
the courts to delay enforcement of a legal Ministry ruling.
Knowing this, you referred to another lawyer. But democracy is a
government of laws, not lawyers. The failure to understand this is
costing taxpayers money and insuring abuses. Officials should do
the job taxpayers pay them to do. They’re not supposed to refer to
lawyers, officials, or committees, in an endless tactic of delay. They
are bound to laws. This means laws as they are written, not as they are
"interpreted" or selected to suit the occasion. Otherwise there are
laws but no law.
Without law (nondiscriminatory enforcement of laws), there is the
form of democracy but no substance. How is what our university did to
me different from what Mainland Chinese officials do to the Falun Gong?
Are you willing to argue one is wrong while the other is right?
Speaking of right and wrong, the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001
is legal, final, and binding. I expect the full benefits that ruling
insures, including full pay, compensation, apology, and remedial
action. That includes punishment of that student. Any failure on the
part of university officials to understand that I am fully committed to
protecting the rights of American citizens at National Cheng Kung
University will only further discredit our university.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
06-237 8626
2/15/2004 1:14 PM
Subject: Concerning the issue of student misconduct at National Cheng Kung
UniversityTo: Huei-chen Ko
CC: hefpp@hef.org.tw, tahr@seed.net.tw, moe ,
Control Yuan ,
Vice-President Lu ,
eyemail@eyemail.gio.gov.tw, peu03@mail.gio.gov.tw,
Kao Chiang
Professor Ko Huei-chen
Dean of Student Affairs
Office of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University (NCKU)
Tainan, Taiwan
06-2757575-50300
cc: Prime Minister's Office, Taiwan Human Rights Commission, Ministry
of Education, Department of Higher Education, Control Yuan, Taiwan
Association for Human Rights, Humanistic Education Foundation, National
Cheng Kung University President's Office (06-2757575-5000)
15 February 2004
Dear Dean Ko,
Before I take further action, I think it important that I try again to
make you understand the administrative, moral, and legal issues
regarding the case of student misconduct at our university.
In 1999, several NCKU committees circulated a secret letter written
by a former student of mine, who claimed I failed her unfairly eight
years before. She had no proof of this. Documented evidence, including
a letter she ignored in 1994 and high passes I gave her the year of her
failure discredit the student. In addition she lied about not taking
my classes in which she received high grades. In court she claimed, “I
forgot.” As if a student could remember one grade but not three others!
All this is beside the point of course. No rational official
would accept a secret complaint from a student about a grade eight years
before. Indeed, the letter was solicited by a university official and
dated the day of my dismissal hearing.
No one can believe in the innocence of this student or the
officials who secretly circulated her letter. If university officials
cared about my rights the way you now appeal to the student’s rights,
this case would never have happened. Appealing to a student’s rights
after I spent four years getting my job back is insulting, Dean Ko.
These are serious human rights violations and I am committed to
defending my rights as well as the dignity of American professors at our
university, whatever the cost.
Also bear in mind this student was admitted into our graduate
program, worked in the university president’s office, and is currently a
part-time teacher at our university. The taxpaying public has a right
to know if a student has achieved this on merit or by deceit.
Since you’re the dean of “students,” remember that other students
wish to be admitted to our graduate programs and to obtain employment at
our university. It is unfair to them if they have lost out on the
chance because they behave well while another student succeeded because
she behaved badly.
Now let us review, for you and for concerned agencies, your
response to my complaint.
First, you took way too much time to begin with. You and your
vice-dean, who has since resigned over a scandal, delayed handling this
case for years, claiming you were “investigating” or “gathering
evidence.”
Since when does it take years to call a student into your office?
What kind of “investigation” are you talking about? What kind of
“evidence” needed to be gathered?
The facts are plain. The student wrote the letter. The letter was
circulated. Her claim of failing eight years before is absurd on the
face of it, but more so since it was made in secret and circulated in
secret. The letter was clearly spiteful. The letter was solicited and
dated on the day of my dismissal hearing. The student concealed
receiving a high pass the semester after her failure. She lied about
not taking another class that year in which she received two high
passes.
As late as 1994, when I heard malicious gossip about her grade, I
wrote her a letter offering to locate her exam. She ignored that letter
and, according to my colleague who was her instructor, she told him if I
pursued the matter further she would talk to a lawyer acquaintance.
The student didn’t want her complaint made public, because she knew
it was false. She could not write a secret complaint at the time
because she had to wait until officials were willing to accept and
circulate her letter. One of these officials, former Dean Tu, is now
teaching at another college. Another, Professor Lee Chen-er, ran for
president of our university.
I have an email from a colleague dated one year before the student
wrote her secret letter. He warned me the student was planning to
accuse me in exchange for employment.
You claim there is no username on this email. Of course I blocked
it out to protect the professor. But the court accepted the email; and,
of course, I would be perfectly willing to show the original email to a
confidential committee whose moral integrity could be trusted to protect
the name of this professor. After all, it was a confidential letter and
your concern should be to expose the student, not the name of the
teacher who wrote the email.
Do you think our administration is interested in exposing the
truth, or in exposing the professor? The email warns me of events
almost one year before they happened. Was that a mere coincidence, Dean
Ko?
You also claim the student was not a student when she wrote her
letter. First, she defended her letter as “truthful” to your vice-dean
when he called her into his office. She was a student and teacher when
she did this. It’s not my job to do your job. Did you phone your
former vice-dean? If not, why not? Are you interested in resolving
this matter or in delaying it? Administrators at our university may
have all the time in the world. I don’t.
Your office seems to be playing an obstacle game. In this
game--which I don’t like playing--it’s up to me to spend weeks or months
surmounting an obstacle. When I do, another obstacle is placed in front
of me: Your vice-dean is “gathering evidence.” Or you’re judging
evidence. Or a court decision is pending. Or a court judgment prevents
action. Or the student was not a student when she wrote her letter. Or
a university lawyer advised you against action. Or there’s no proof.
Or the student claimed she was telling the truth. Or (I like this one)
the student refused to come. Or (I like this one better) the student
said she was a “good girl.” Or (I like this best of all) God will
punish her.
Since when is God a paid official at our university? If God were,
there would be no legal rights abuses such as insured my dismissal in
1999 and delayed my return for two years after a legal Ministry ruling.
For your sake, let me address some serious issues.
First, administrative remedy should have taken days instead of
years. Consult any university in the world about this matter if you
don’t believe me. Administrative remedy that lasts more than days or at
most weeks is a mockery of what the law intends.
Second, the proof is as plain as the nose on the student’s face.
That letter alone should be sufficient since it is available, refers to
a grade eight years before, was without proof, was spiteful, secret,
dated the day of my dismissal hearing, and used at my dismissal hearing.
Third, as I said above, other facts, such as the student hiding
high passes she received from me the year of her disputed grade
discredit the student.
Fourth, you claim the student was not a student when she wrote her
letter. Yet she defended her letter to your vice-dean while a student.
But apart from this, as university dean, you should be concerned
about student misconduct, which is not a legal but a moral issue.
There is no statute of limitations or legal standards for misconduct.
The problem is there may be no standards for student misconduct at our
university. Or if there are, you’re ignoring them.
If my child breaks a window while staying at my brother’s house,
does that mean I cannot punish the child because she was not under my
care at the time? What kind of moral logic is this? If you’re a
mother, would you apply this moral logic in raising your child?
Fifth, you claim the court decision prevents action. The court
decision concerned a criminal offense, while the student’s letter
concerns misconduct. There’s a difference between legal and moral
judgments.
The court decision concerned whether the letter caused my
dismissal. Your concern should be whether the letter is student
mischief, assuming you’re interested in student conduct as Dean
of Student Affairs.
If a student is found innocent of drunk driving in a court, that
does not mean she cannot be punished for being drunk by a university
official. One concerns a legal fact (crime), the other a moral fact
(misconduct). If a student breaks into a house and causes a feeble man
to get a heart attack, she may be found innocent of murder but not of
breaking into the house.
My child may be found innocent of robbing a store; I may be glad
for this, since prisons are bad places. But if I know she robbed that
store I will punish her and no court can prevent this. Misconduct is
subject to “knowledge” in the common sense, not “proof” in the legal
sense. Only a bad mother would raise a child based on legal standards
instead of moral standards.
Sixth, you argue this student will become a better person if she is
not punished. I know of no moral philosopher who would agree with you.
Even if one agrees with the ethic of forgiveness (as I do), forgiveness
must follow admission of wrong, not ignore it. This is written all over
Chinese and Western moral literature: good people admit their mistakes.
Wrongs are forgiven following admission and apology.
But this student has not asked to be forgiven. Nor has she
apologized. Instead she refused to attend a meeting you scheduled
between us. Since when does a student decide policy at our university?
Seventh, you quote a lawyer who advised against action. I remind
you that our university lawyer contested a legal Ministry ruling for
more than two years, an action that would probably fall under
“obstruction of justice” in my country. He then used taxpayers’ money
to contest that legal ruling in court, after the ruling favored me. His
action cost taxpayers millions of dollars in back pay. This money could
have funded dozens of student scholarships. Clearly this lawyer has a
different concept of law and ethics than I and (I assume) most members
of bar associations.
I remind you that Faculty Union members warned university officials
about laws but they were ignored. Instead, the university lawyer used
the courts to delay enforcement of a legal Ministry ruling.
Knowing this, you referred to another lawyer. But democracy is a
government of laws, not lawyers. The failure to understand this is
costing taxpayers money and insuring abuses. Officials should do
the job taxpayers pay them to do. They’re not supposed to refer to
lawyers, officials, or committees, in an endless tactic of delay. They
are bound to laws. This means laws as they are written, not as they are
"interpreted" or selected to suit the occasion. Otherwise there are
laws but no law.
Without law (nondiscriminatory enforcement of laws), there is the
form of democracy but no substance. How is what our university did to
me different from what Mainland Chinese officials do to the Falun Gong?
Are you willing to argue one is wrong while the other is right?
Speaking of right and wrong, the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001
is legal, final, and binding. I expect the full benefits that ruling
insures, including full pay, compensation, apology, and remedial
action. That includes punishment of that student. Any failure on the
part of university officials to understand that I am fully committed to
protecting the rights of American citizens at National Cheng Kung
University will only further discredit our university.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
06-237 8626
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)