Letter to Judicial Reform Foundation (8 June 2010)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Regarding human rights violations at National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 02:17:20 +0800
From: rdca25@gmail.com
To: contact@jrf.org.tw
CC: scholarsatrisk@nyu.edu


Lin Feng-jeng
Executive Director
Judicial Reform Foundation
8 June 2010

cc: Scholars at Risk

Dear Dr. Lin,

Regarding "Human Rights must be considered" in The Taipei Times (7 June 2010), let's consider human rights violations at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) in Tainan, Taiwan.
In January 2001, Taiwan's Ministry of Education canceled my illegal dismissal (1999-2000). Instead of reinstating me, NCKU argued foreigners had no right to appeal. Yet the university held appeal hearings and attended Ministry hearings.
Apart from discriminatory treatment of foreigners, I'm curious if Taiwan law recognizes the legal principle of estoppel, which prevents a claim contrary to what has been established by a previous assertion or action. Since the university established my right to appeal during appeal hearings, how can it say, without penalty, I had no right to appeal?
In addition the university defied a Ministry of Education (MOE) ruling for nearly two and a half years (Jan 2001-May 2003). How can a public university defy a government ruling, assuming the MOE represents the government?
The university finally reinstated me, but without formal redress. Yet formal redress, including compensation and apology, is part of democratic law and human rights charters.
The current university president, Dr. Michael M. C. Lai, has ignored several requests to discuss this issue. Apart from not honoring an appeal the university itself participated in, the fact that NCKU would try to enforce discriminatory practices against foreign faculty should concern the Judicial Reform Foundation as well as Taiwan citizens who enjoy human rights protections in the US on behalf of themselves or their families. How can American universities maintain academic exchanges with a Taiwan university that claimed, in court, that American professors are not protected by the same laws that protect Taiwan faculty?
Though the university's actions were egregious, willful, and defiant, neither the courts nor the MOE imposed penalties on officials. Apart from back salary and salary from a college where I taught in the meantime, I received no damages. Yet the case interrupted my academic career for four years and has occupied portions of my time (and that of others) for ten years.
Where is the deterrent effect of the law to prevent similar abuses in the future? Indeed, foreign faculty are likely to tolerate academic mischief or risk dismissal.
Taiwan English-language newspapers, which espouse democracy, have ignored my letters, as have Taiwan human rights groups.
It's true that capital cases involve life or death issues. Admittedly an academic career is of lesser importance. But democracy grows or fails on the strength of numerous rulings that uphold or erode legal principles. A fortiori, if a government can't insure human rights at a university, how can it do so in capital cases?
My case repeatedly passed NCKU's oversight committees. Yet not only wasn't the university punished for its violations, but its president, Kao Chiang, despite defying a Ministry ruling for more than two years, was approved by the Ministry for another three-year term as president.
Yes, "let us all remember human rights." But the Judicial Reform Foundation should not look to foreign oceans for fish to fry when there are enough fish in local waters, as the attached documents prove.


Sincerely,

Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University


Letters from Taiwan's Ministry of Education to National Cheng Kung University's President
Regarding Enforcement of an Appeal Ruling


These are English translations of eight letters from the Ministry of Education to National Cheng Kung University concerning my illegal dismissal and the university's refusal to abide by a legal Ministry ruling, even though the university participated in appeal hearings and only challenged my right to appeal after the ruling favored me. It even filed a lawsuit to challenge the Ministry's ruling, then used the court case to try to further delay issuing the contracts!
(The translations are by a member of the NCKU Faculty Union. Chinese copies are attached in JPEG and PDF formats. Below are paraphrases. In any version, the unprincipled conduct of National Cheng Kung University is evident.)

1. April 6, 2001: "The university should make lawful remedy within a month."
2. May 11, 2001 "The university should first revive the contract with Mr. De Canio, which is the proper remedy."
3. June 14, 2001 "If there is no practical revival of the contract, the decision of the MOE Appeals Committee is equivalent to vain words. Procedural justice should be upheld first. The university should not use the results of its previous improper procedures as an excuse to delay reinstating the professor."
4. August 7, 2001 "If the university willfully delays so as to damage the teacher’s rights, the university must bear complete responsibility."
5. May 3, 2002 "The university should first revive the contract with Mr. De Canio starting from August 1, 1999, and compensate his salary. There is no need to wait for the court verdict."
6. October 15, 2002 "The university should immediately process the application of contract extension permit."
7. December 2, 2002 "The university’s request to wait for the court verdict is denied. Revive the contract with Mr. De Canio and compensate his salary as soon as possible."
8. January 17, 2003 "Do as described in the letter of December 2, 2002."