Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Summary History of Human Rights Abuses at National Cheng Kung University
Despite being a high-ranked university in Taiwan, with numerous academic exchanges abroad, such as with Purdue University in the US, National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) has a long history of human rights violations.
In 1994 bogus student evaluations were used to start a dismissal action against me in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature (FLLD). This was overturned by a single vote.
Despite the impropriety of using unsigned student evaluations the department chair was never punished, encouraging further violations.
Thus in 1999 I was again dismissed. The documents related to that dismissal are included on this blog.
Bogus accusations were used. These were never investigated. I did not learn of them until after the department hearing!
When these accusations were challenged by members of NCKU's Teachers Union, a secret letter was solicited and circulated at "review" and "appeal" hearings to insure my dimissal.
I never saw the letter. At one "hearing" I asked the chair to at least inform me of the letter's contents. He stared silently in response. A committee member sympathetically interjected a summary of the letter.
I saw the letter years later when I sued the student who wrote it. She claimed, without proof, I failed her unfairly eight years before.
Neither the courts nor the university saw a need to punish the student. In fact she received a Master's and Doctorate at the university. Her committee was made up almost entirely of faculty members who defended her letter, though she had no proof except her claim, made her claim in secret, and eight years after the disputed grade. She has a part-time position teaching at the university, a role model for the next generation of college graduates and citizens, shaping the future of Taiwan democracy.
The university's "appeal" process was bogus, a charade to delay the case, to outlast me or my visa. Committee members closed ranks to protect colleagues involved in misconduct rather than protect the appellant, as was their duty.
In December 1999 the university canceled my dismissal. But it argued foreigners were not protected by Taiwan's Teachers Law, so returned the case to the department as a hiring rather than a dismissal action.
In NCKU "Newspeak" an appeal cannot favor a foreigner, though foreigners can appeal. After insidious cycles of "review" and "appeal," I appealed to the Ministry of Education.
University officials attended Ministry appeal hearings in Taipei, but after it lost the Ministry ruling, dated 8 January 2001, the university claimed foreigners had no right to appeal and refused to enforce the ruling. Instead it filed a lawsuit to contest the ruling.
Such duplicity is tolerated by Taiwan's courts, which apparently don't recognize legal principles such as estoppel (a party in a dispute cannot contradict a previously uncontested claim, in this case, my right to appeal). Without estoppel or similar judicial principles the court is not an adversarial or inquisitorial means to establish truth, but a test of tenacity and duplicity, regardless of the truth.
Such differences in legal principles jeopardize court rulings, along with punitive and compensatory awards. In this instance the court had to uphold the Ministry of Education's Appeal ruling or it would have undermined the principle of law of its own government.
But the university was not punished or, to my knowledge, admonished, apart from the issue of reinstatement. Later court verdicts avoided admonitory, punitive, compensatory, or deterrent judgments.
The prosecutor rejected my libel suit on the basis the accusations did not circulate outside the university. But all libel or slander statutes I know call falsehoods actionable if a single party apart from the discredited person reads or hears them. Indeed, such accusations would have done less harm to me outside the university than inside, among my colleagues, where the accusations insured my dismissal!
A court dismissed my case against the student who wrote the secret accusation against me on the basis the letter did not cause my dismissal. Yet it was irrefutably solicited and circulated for that purpose. So far as I know, the student wasn't even chastised for writing the letter.
In Taiwan's inquisitorial system, the student's implausible excuses and the preponderance of facts against her were ignored. Forget for the moment the absurdity of complaining of a grade eight years after the class, in secret, and with no proof. Why, if a student thought she failed unfairly the first semester would she continue the course the second semester? Why would a teacher who failed a student unfairly the first semester pass her the second semester? Why would a teacher unfairly fail a student in one class but give three high passes the same year?
The student claimed she feared me, so sat in the back of the failed class. Yet she had to interact with me in an ESL class the same year!
She claimed someone advised her not to respond to a letter in which, after hearing gossip, I promised to locate her exam in my office. I still have that letter and the student never denied receiving it. Why would a student who disputes a grade not seize the chance to prove her claim against her exam, unless she knew the exam would discredit her claim and, moreover, unless she assumed I still had her exam, which contradicts her claim I destroyed it?
An adversarial system, or at least a vigorous inquisitorial system, would have undermined the student's credibility, even if, in view of a complaint eight years late, without proof, and in secret, I was required to do so at all. In an adversarial system, the student would have to explain why she didn't contest her grade immediately, or, if she did, why officials didn't act on the complaint.
From my understanding, an official claimed I told him I destroyed her exam. I dispute that claim; there's reasonable proof in my letter offering to locate her exam, which she ignored. The irony is I denied the official's claim but he implied in court testimony, regardless whether true or not, that he was officially negligent by not acting on the student's complaint!
Regardless of the preponderance of evidence against her, the student escaped punishment. Indeed, the Taiwan courts did not punish a single university official, despite numerous human rights violations detailed in the Ministry of Education ruling dated 8 January 2001 (q.v.).
Nor did the courts impose punitive damages, despite repeated violations by university officials, thus ignoring its deterrent function, a primary goal of judicial rulings.
Such rulings encourage similar actions in the future, as if to say, "It's okay if you violate a professor's rights in Taiwan. You have nothing to lose."
But the appellant will lose, unless he's willing to suspend his academic career for years contesting an illegal action, with no hope for compensatory or punitive awards.
Such rulings impact on education; because faculty will not act conscientiously to insure academic standards, whether in promotion, grading, research, or curriculum, unless their legal rights are guaranteed and officials deterred from arbitrary or malicious actions.
The courts did not even award compensation, such as for travel and accommodation costs to renew my visa while contesting the dismissal. The courts argued there was no need to have stayed in Taiwan during my appeal.
How else could I have contested the dismissal? If I had returned to the US another court could have ruled I forfeited my rights by not attending a scheduled hearing! Indeed, an American father lost custody of his child with its Taiwanese mother because Taiwan's court ruled that by returning to America the father proved he had no interest in the child! In other words, "heads you win, tails I lose."
Taiwan sends equivocal signals, at least to foreigners. It allows the right to litigate but undermines that right in its judicial rulings. In principle there is remedy but in practice there is none.
In a Shakespeare play a character boasts he can call the dead from their graves. Another character sarcastically ripostes, "I can call the dead too. But will they come?" In Taiwan, a foreigner can sue university officials. But will he win?
Recently a Taiwanese colleague sued a Taiwanese student for defaming him on the student BBT (BBS). He received NT$150,000 and a written apology. Those involved in my dismissal did far more damage to my academic career, interrupting it for four years, or five, since my first year back I was given leftover classes.
Even worse, the injurious gossip, which the courts said did not circulate outside the university, continues to the present. Several students have informed me they heard about the student issue and the gossip favored the student. One comment was posted on Facebook as recently as August 2010 (q.v.)!
But the courts excused offiicals of punitive and compensatory liablity. Yet they were not merely involved in technical errors or oversight. They conspired to dismiss a colleague and, though repeatedly warned by members of the Teachers Union, persevered in their course of action even when repeatedly censored by officials outside the university, such as in the Ministry of Education ruling and subsequent warning letters (q.v.).
After that ruling the university continued its dismissal "hearings" as if the university were a law unto itself. It ignored ten warning letters from the Ministry of Education (q.v.), which plainly spelled out my legal rights and the university's violations of those rights, including cited laws.
In the meantime the president of the university, Kao Chiang, assigned two officials to extort my resignation from the university, despite the Ministry ruling in my favor. The officials warned if I did not resign the university would interminably delay the case in the courts. They offered a half pay settlement in exchange.
Even two letters from the human rights group now based in New York, SCHOLARS AT RISK (q.v.), had no effect on the university president. As court rulings show, officials are encouraged to believe they are above the law, or at least outside the penalties of the law. Indeed, after defying the Ministry of Education for nearly two and a half years (see MOE letters), Kao Chiang was approved for another three-year term.
The result is the university has never apologized for its illegal dismissal, nor acknowledged wrongdoing in the case. As late as March and May of 2011 the university posted two commentaries on its web site that completely whitewash the university and imply I was the party involved in wrongdoing (q.v.)!
The lack of appropriate penalties by the courts has emboldened these officials. The problem is complicated not only by courts that avoid deterrent rulings, but by a largely silent faculty, which has ignored my numerous email appeals to them, including full documentation, as included on this blog. As the saying goes, "Democracy is not what you have, it's what you do." If the educated franchise in Taiwan don't "do" democracy, who will?
Despite almost daily attacks on the lack of democracy in Mainland China, the Taiwan media have mainly avoided this case, though it involves a major university in a chronic history of corruption. Compare this with the case at a Hong Kong university in 1999, which was headline and lead-in news for days and involved prompt and material administrative remedy.
Though I have repeatedly emailed letters about this case to the English-language newspapers in Taiwan, none to my knowledge has been published. Since these papers have an international circulation and are online, perhaps the papers fear US officials in the Taiwan lobby might read about a case that discredits Taiwan's democracy.
Only two or three Chinese newspapers have briefly reported this case, without exploring the major legal rights issues involved. Numerous emails sent to the Control Yuan, Ministry of Education, and Taiwan's premier and president are routinely acknowledged by robot mail.
So-called "legal rights" groups in Taiwan have been of no help in a case that involves a high-ranked university in serious rights abuses. But a human rights group from Chicago (now New York), SCHOLARS AT RISK, thousands of miles away, promptly sent two strong letters to the university president.
The state of human rights in Taiwan can be gauged by a legal aid group that recently advised me to contact President Obama about my case! As if human rights in Taiwan were the responsibility of an American president rather than of Taiwan people. As if the US president had nothing to do but to insure human rights at a Taiwan university.
One would think human rights and legal aid groups in Taiwan would commit themselves to these issues. Americans establish human rights protections for Taiwanese and other minority groups; Taiwanese should do the same, if only on the principle of reciprocity.
This is not an issue of passivity or indifference. When Taiwan dignity was at stake, as in the recent Taekowondo incident involving a Taiwan athlete in South Korea, Taiwanese became vocal. The Internet and media buzzed with talk of boycotts. Youtube protest videos circulated. A Taiwanese threw rocks at a South Korean children's school in Taipei.
These same citizens shrug at university officials who egregiously defy Ministry rulings and who shamelessly go to court contesting the rights of an American citizen, even as they engage in "mutual" exchanges with American universities, and, ultimately, expect American citizens to die for their independence.
A recent incident at a California university, where a non-Asian student seemed to ridicule Asians in a youtube video, underlines the difference between activism in the US and in Taiwan. Within hours the university closed ranks against the student and the university president made a public statement deploring the video. Although she violated no rights, student and faculty condemnation of her behavior forced her to quit the university.
The only faculty support I received were a few emails such as "I feel sympathy for you" and "Wish I could help."
Mandatory courses in constitutional principles should be part of the university curriculum here. There should be more focus on democracy than on independence. Presumably the goal of independence is to insure democracy.
Democracy is misunderstood even among the educated franchise. One NCKU dean defended the university's dismissal by protesting, "We have a lawyer!" I told her, "Democracy is government by law, not by lawyers." Common sense should tell her both sides in an adversarial system have lawyers, but only one side wins. Analogies are tendentious, but gangsters have lawyers too.
Some colleagues think committee members make laws rather than enforce them. In a culture of relationships there is as much danger of a cult of personality as in Mainland China during Maoist times. Hence the habit of superior committees rubber stamping decisions of lower committees, undermining the inquisitorial principle of appeal, which must look for mistakes, not complacently assume there are none since familiar faces made up the committee.
Some colleagues think of democracy as a franchise, not as a framework for rights and laws. One student defined democracy as doing what one likes! That is the misguided view of democracy one gets among officials at National Cheng Kung University.
Academic and cultural exchanges between nations can only take place on the basis of mutual respect, not evident in the university's misconduct or in court rulings on my case. Not one human rights group in Taiwan has responded to my request for aid.
Several years ago National Cheng Kung University students were caught illegally uploading copyrighted music. Within hours Taiwan lawyers volunteered pro bono assistance to those students.
I find it odd that Taiwan lawyers promptly volunteered pro bono assistance to students who broke the law but, in thirteen years, not a single Taiwan lawyer has volunteered to take my case to uphold the law!
The Latin words "pro bono" mean "for the good (of the cause)." Taiwan lawyers seem to think that Taiwan students who illegally upload copyrighted music have a more worthy cause than an American teacher who is illegally fired. That's no way to insure law and human rights in Taiwan.
American legal aids volunteer their services to immigrant residents in America who find themselves in legal straits in cases more complicated than mine. Yet there is no attempt in Taiwan to reciprocate treatment to Americans.
English-language newspapers have repeatedly declined to publish letters exposing my case. But within hours of the taekowondo incident Taiwan's press and the Internet bubbled with outrage over the perceived injustice suffered by a Taiwanese citizen and the athlete was promptly offered free legal assistance.
I don't understand the disparity in handling these cases. The Taiwan people are given voice in the American Congress, despite many issues the American government is faced with daily. Yet not a single Taiwan legislator has voiced my case. Apart from law, how is the principle of reciprocity honored in Taiwan?
Democracy should mean something more than that anyone can get elected, regardless whether they respect laws and human rights. The sad fact is democracy may never take root in some places because people think they already have it.
TIMELINE OF NCKU DISMISSAL CASE
TIMELINE OF NCKU DISMISSAL ACTION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. March 29, 1999 - the FLLD review committee passed the "dismissal" decision (no legal reasons.)
2. April 23, 1999 - Appeal to the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee's Appeals group.
3. May 3, 1999 - the College of Liberal Arts Appeals Group decided the "evidences" listed by the FLLD were not objective and solid. The case was sent back to FLLD for them to solidify evidences.
4. June 9, 1999 - the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee's Appeals Group rejected the appeal. (This was based on my former student, Chen An-Chun's secret letter submitted by FLLD chair, Li Chung-hsiung, claiming harassment.)
5. June 14, 2000 - the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee passed the "dismissal" decision. (No legal reasons.)
6. June 25, 1999 - the University Review Committee passed the "dismissal" decision (no legal reasons.)
7. July 28, 1999 - Appeal to the University Appeals Committee.
8. December 3, 1999 - the University Appeals Committee cancelled the "dismissal" decision. (Chairman was university lawyer, Wang)
9. March 10, 2000 - the FLLD Review Committee passed the "dismissal" decision (no reasons.)
10. March 21, 2000 - Appeal to the College of Liberal Arts Appeals group.
11. March 29, 2000 - the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee's Appeals Group rejected the appeal.
12. April 12, 2000 - the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee passed the "dismissal" decision (no reasons.)
13. April 17, 2000 - Appeal to the University Review Committee's Appeals Group.
14. April 28, 2000 - the University Review Committee's Appeals Group decided that for this case, the FLLD and CLA did not list reasons of dismissal. They should re-review.
15. May 5, 2000 - the FLLD review committee passed the "dismissal" decision (the same illegal reasons as previous year.)
16. May 10, 2000 - the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee passed the "dismissal" decision (the same illegal reasons as previous year.)
17. May 24, 2000 - the university review committee passed the "dismissal" decision (the same illegal reasons as previous year.)
18. June 12, 2000 - Appealed to the University Appeals Committee.
19. August 18, 2000 - the University Appeals Committee rejected the appeal (Chairman was Wang)
20. September 5, 2000 - Appeal to the MOE Central Appeals Committee.
21. January 8, 2001 - the MOE Central Appeals Committee cancelled the "dismissal" decision.
22. May 24, 2001 - the university informed that they have started the investigation of plagiarism, requesting "appellant's" "defense."
23. May 24, 2001 - the FLLD review committee passed the "dismissal" decision.
24. June 19, 2001 - the College of Liberal Arts review committee passed the "dismissal" decision.
25. June 28, 2001 - Appeal to the University Review Committee's Appeals Group.
26. July 5, 2001 - the University Review Committee's Appeals Group rejected the appeal.
27. July 23, 2001 - the University Review Committee suspended the "dismissal" decision, and requested that the FLLD provide more evidence to match the requirements of Employment Law: Article 41.
28. September 12, 2001 - the university review committee passed the "dismissal" decision (the same illegal reasons as previous year.)
29. October 23, 2001 - Appeal to the University Appeals Committee.
30. June 18, 2002 - the University Appeals Committee cancelled the "dismissal" decision. (Chairman was a different person).
From May 11, 2001 to April 21, 2003 the MOE sent 8 letters urging the university reinstate the professor.
31. May 6, 2003 - the university notified of issuing the contract and compensated part of the salary.
32. May 20, 2003 - the University Review Committee passed the "plagiarism is a light case, the punishments are：no promotion, no salary increments, no sabbatical leave within next six years."
33. March 22, 2004 - the MOE Central Appeals Committee cancelled the "compensating part of the salary" decision, ordered the university to make proper decision within 20 days.
34. November 1, 2004 - the MOE Central Appeals Committee cancelled the "punishments" decision, based on the reason the law cannot trace back to these cases occurred before its formal execution.
35. August 19, 2004 - the university compensated the rice money but still refused to compensate the four years (1999-2003) yearly salary increment.
36. October 17, 2006 Wang claimed to the Kaohsiung Administrative court: "Foreigners(teachers)are not protected by Educational workers employment law, foreigners are are governed by Employment law, not Teachers law." 37. March 13, 2007 Wang claimed to the Kaohsiung Administrative court: "Foreign teachers are not protected by the Teachers law. When the contract period is fulfilled the hiring-employment relationship spontaneously terminates.38. August 28, 2007 - the university compensated the four years (1999-2003) yearly salary increment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. March 29, 1999 - the FLLD review committee passed the "dismissal" decision (no legal reasons.)
2. April 23, 1999 - Appeal to the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee's Appeals group.
3. May 3, 1999 - the College of Liberal Arts Appeals Group decided the "evidences" listed by the FLLD were not objective and solid. The case was sent back to FLLD for them to solidify evidences.
4. June 9, 1999 - the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee's Appeals Group rejected the appeal. (This was based on my former student, Chen An-Chun's secret letter submitted by FLLD chair, Li Chung-hsiung, claiming harassment.)
5. June 14, 2000 - the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee passed the "dismissal" decision. (No legal reasons.)
6. June 25, 1999 - the University Review Committee passed the "dismissal" decision (no legal reasons.)
7. July 28, 1999 - Appeal to the University Appeals Committee.
8. December 3, 1999 - the University Appeals Committee cancelled the "dismissal" decision. (Chairman was university lawyer, Wang)
9. March 10, 2000 - the FLLD Review Committee passed the "dismissal" decision (no reasons.)
10. March 21, 2000 - Appeal to the College of Liberal Arts Appeals group.
11. March 29, 2000 - the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee's Appeals Group rejected the appeal.
12. April 12, 2000 - the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee passed the "dismissal" decision (no reasons.)
13. April 17, 2000 - Appeal to the University Review Committee's Appeals Group.
14. April 28, 2000 - the University Review Committee's Appeals Group decided that for this case, the FLLD and CLA did not list reasons of dismissal. They should re-review.
15. May 5, 2000 - the FLLD review committee passed the "dismissal" decision (the same illegal reasons as previous year.)
16. May 10, 2000 - the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee passed the "dismissal" decision (the same illegal reasons as previous year.)
17. May 24, 2000 - the university review committee passed the "dismissal" decision (the same illegal reasons as previous year.)
18. June 12, 2000 - Appealed to the University Appeals Committee.
19. August 18, 2000 - the University Appeals Committee rejected the appeal (Chairman was Wang)
20. September 5, 2000 - Appeal to the MOE Central Appeals Committee.
21. January 8, 2001 - the MOE Central Appeals Committee cancelled the "dismissal" decision.
22. May 24, 2001 - the university informed that they have started the investigation of plagiarism, requesting "appellant's" "defense."
23. May 24, 2001 - the FLLD review committee passed the "dismissal" decision.
24. June 19, 2001 - the College of Liberal Arts review committee passed the "dismissal" decision.
25. June 28, 2001 - Appeal to the University Review Committee's Appeals Group.
26. July 5, 2001 - the University Review Committee's Appeals Group rejected the appeal.
27. July 23, 2001 - the University Review Committee suspended the "dismissal" decision, and requested that the FLLD provide more evidence to match the requirements of Employment Law: Article 41.
28. September 12, 2001 - the university review committee passed the "dismissal" decision (the same illegal reasons as previous year.)
29. October 23, 2001 - Appeal to the University Appeals Committee.
30. June 18, 2002 - the University Appeals Committee cancelled the "dismissal" decision. (Chairman was a different person).
From May 11, 2001 to April 21, 2003 the MOE sent 8 letters urging the university reinstate the professor.
31. May 6, 2003 - the university notified of issuing the contract and compensated part of the salary.
32. May 20, 2003 - the University Review Committee passed the "plagiarism is a light case, the punishments are：no promotion, no salary increments, no sabbatical leave within next six years."
33. March 22, 2004 - the MOE Central Appeals Committee cancelled the "compensating part of the salary" decision, ordered the university to make proper decision within 20 days.
34. November 1, 2004 - the MOE Central Appeals Committee cancelled the "punishments" decision, based on the reason the law cannot trace back to these cases occurred before its formal execution.
35. August 19, 2004 - the university compensated the rice money but still refused to compensate the four years (1999-2003) yearly salary increment.
36. October 17, 2006 Wang claimed to the Kaohsiung Administrative court: "Foreigners(teachers)are not protected by Educational workers employment law, foreigners are are governed by Employment law, not Teachers law." 37. March 13, 2007 Wang claimed to the Kaohsiung Administrative court: "Foreign teachers are not protected by the Teachers law. When the contract period is fulfilled the hiring-employment relationship spontaneously terminates.38. August 28, 2007 - the university compensated the four years (1999-2003) yearly salary increment.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)