Wikipedia Edit

Thursday, November 4, 2010
Regarding human rights violations at National Cheng Kung University
Dr. Michael Ming-Chiao Lai
President
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

November 4, 2010

Dear President Lai and Colleagues,

A Wikipedia user named Apache776 deleted one of my edits concerning human rights violations at National Cheng Kung University on the National Cheng Kung University page in Wikipedia. The summary claim was that, "If true, a travesty, but no evidence or specifics provided. Also, sadly, it is a fact that at the time the alleged incident occured, foreign faculty were not protected by the Teachers Law of the ROC."
I am not certain who made this edit or what that person's affiliation with National Cheng Kung University is, if any. Nonetheless I feel compelled to formally address the issue.
As you must know, my edit in the Wikipedia page is true by any reasonable standards of truth, so there's no conditional "if" about my claim that human rights violations were committed at National Cheng Kung University, with neither compensation, apology, nor even acknowledgment on the part of the university that human rights were violated.
In view of a Ministry of Education ruling dated 8 January 2001, eight Ministry letters warning the university to enforce that ruling (finally enforced in May, 2003), and both judicial and Ministry rulings that foreigners were, at the time of the illegal dismissal (1999), protected by the Teachers Law, how is it possible that the statement by Apache776 can be true or in good faith?
Since it is in fact true, then, by this user's own words, my dismissal was indeed a "travesty. As for "evidence or specifics," as much evidence or specifics as are required will be uploaded to the Wikipedia page, including the dates of the Ministry and court rulings.
The claim that, "sadly, it is a fact that at the time the alleged incident occurred, foreign faculty were not protected by the Teachers Law of the ROC" will be discredited in those documents.
Besides, even if what Apache776 wrote in his summary edit were true, that very statement would prove precisely the opposite of his apparent claim, that there were no human rights violations at National Cheng Kung University—unless discriminatory employment policies against foreigners are not considered human rights violations!
Whether Apache776 is related to National Cheng Kung University in any way remains to be seen. What is evident, however, is that Apache776 is merely continuing a policy of revisionist history that is typical of National Cheng Kung University, as is evident in its refusal to issue a formal apology or even acknowledge that human rights were committed at all in my case, despite the documents I mentioned above, including judicial and Ministry rulings. If, in the face of these documents the university's stubborn refusal to acknowledge human rights violations is not a patent example of "revisionism," then I don't know what is.
Indeed, that's all the more reason to pursue this case until it is formally resolved. I, as both a professor and an American citizen, cannot, and will not, allow a revisionist version of events ten or twenty years from now to replace the facts, especially if I, or those informed about the case, can no longer contest them. This will compromise not only my reputation but the reputation of American professors in general, when the revised version of what happened in the years 1999-2003 will imply that an American professor failed ethical or professional standards while teaching at the university, thus, by stereotyping, impugning all American professors. Would you like a Taiwanese professor to be falsely accused at an American university, compromising Taiwanese professors for years thereafter?
In view of the revisionist tactics of the NCKU administration I wish to make clear that, however long it takes, I will pursue a formal resolution of this case and use all channels within the law to do so.
I remind you that Taiwan has subscribed to international human rights charters. Those charters were created precisely to override arbitrary or capricious rulings by rogue agencies with the institutional means to do so, whether money, payroll lawyers, or other resources individuals cannot compete against. Otherwise there would be no need for human rights charters; laws would adequately insure remedy.
But we know this is not necessarily the case. Taiwanese should know this because, after all, Mainland China passed an antisecession law that it calls legal but which, based on international human rights charters, Taiwanese and other peoples who subscribe to democratic principles consider to be rogue legislation (i.e. outside international standards of human rights).
I urge you to recognize once again that the refusal of National Cheng Kung University to acknowledge human rights violations in my illegal dismissal, to apologize for them, and to compensate them falls outside the norms of international standards of human rights, and that it is especially regrettable for a university that enjoys academic exchanges with countries that honor those rights.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio
Formerly, Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
ROC