If names be not correct, language contradicts the truth of things. . . . What the superior man requires is that in his words there is nothing incorrect.
– Confucius, Analects, Book XIII, Chapter 3, trans. James Legge
Below is a textual analysis of National Cheng Kung University's revisionist "explanation" of its illegal dismissal of an American ("foreign") professor in 1999. The two posts are dated March and May, 2011, and signed, respectively, by university president Hwung-Hweng Hwung and Secretary-General, C. C. Chen, and posted on the NCKU web site at
http://news-en.secr.ncku.edu.tw/files/13-1083-78482-1.php (English)
http://news.secr.ncku.edu.tw/files/13-1054-78481-1.php (Chinese)
The MOE ruling in itself should discredit NCKU's revisionist "explanation," as if no laws were violated. The fact that the university defied that ruling for nearly two and a half years further discredits NCKU's "explanation."
On April 6, 2001, the MOE warned the university that its action of noncompliance "has seriously influenced the appellant's rights" and "to do proper amendment in one month" (the university complied in 25 months).
On June 14, 2001, the MOE warns that NCKU "uses investigation as an excuse" and explains that without a "practical revival of the contract" the MOE decision is "vain words." The MOE advises the execution of "[p]rocedural justice" and refers to the university's "improper procedures."
On October 15, 2002, the MOE warns the university to "immeidately start to process the application of contract renewal."
In view of these quotations, please read the university's "explanation" below, with my commentary:
The title itself is deceptive, since an "illegal dismissal" is semantically disguised as "discontinued employment."
March 4, 2011
The date is unintentionally ironic, since the university's exculpatory "explanation" is dated on the tenth anniversary of its defiance of a legal Ministry ruling dated 8 January 2001, which the university did not enforce until May 2003.
Recently, Dr. Richard de Canio, former associate professor of Foreign Languages and Literature Department of National Cheng Kung University (NCKU), has delivered email messages where he conveyed resentment at his being declined for employment renewal in 1999.
Since the university lacks the institutional maturity to admit it acted illegally and address that issue accordingly, it calls my emailed petitions for formal remedy of legal rights abuses at the university mere "resentment."
The periphrastic "declined for employment renewal" is a weasel phrase that refers to the illegal dismissal of 1999, like a thief who refuses to return stolen money "declines monetary reimbursement." The reader is not informed a theft occurred, the way the reader of this "explanation" is not informed an illegal dismissal occurred.
This case, as I understand it, was dealt with by NCKU following the resolution of the Teacher Grievances Committee of the Ministry of Education. Dr. de Canio was re-employed and reimbursed with the overdue salary. Legal procedures were carefully observed. In 2010, Dr. de Canio retired from NCKU at the legal retirement age.
"Dealt with" omits the numerous legal rights abuses the university committed in its illegal dismissal and cleverly refers only to the reversal of that dismissal by the Ministry of Education in 2001, a ruling the university defied for nearly two and a half years. The university wants the reader to believe the illegal dismissal action and violations thereafter were normal. Sadly, as this "explanation" shows, university officials probably believe so. This does not bode well for the university's future as a legitimate academic institution.
The reference to being "reimbursed" omits the fact the university vigorously contested reimbursement in the courts; while the reference to being "re-employed" omits the fact the university defied a legal Ministry ruling and delayed my reinstatement for nearly two and a half years.
The scandalous history of human rights abuses at this university is covered over by a reference to my retirement in 2010 when "Legal procedures were carefully observed." The reader admires a university where "legal procedures" are "carefully observed." This is admittedly a masterpiece of devious rhetoric.
I regret that Dr. de Canio was displeased with how the case was handled. Should similar cases occur in the future, in the administrative procedure, the faculty's rights and interests will be the primal concerns. Emotional, rational, and legal perspectives on the cases will be equally considered to avoid sense of resentment by the faculty concerned. I believe few people are perfect in this society of great variety. It is my hope that we tolerate and encourage each other. With happy mood, we work together to contribute to the society in pursuit of the true, the good, and the beautiful. With this good faith, I hereby express my sincere gratitude for Dr. de Canio's devotion to NCKU for the past 20 years.
There is no mention of legal rights abuses in my dismissal, just "regret" I am "displeased with how the case was handled." As if a rapist regrets, not the rape, but that his victim is "displeased" with being raped.
Not once does the president of a fourth-ranked university in Taiwan, Hwung-Hweng Hwung, admit an illegal dismissal occurred. Yet he admits "in the future . . . the faculty's rights and interests will be the primal concerns." This logically implies that "rights" were not the "primal" concern in the illegal dismissal but that promise of future compliance with laws can whitewash previous noncompliance with laws. As if a murderer avoids punishment by vowing not to murder again.
Dr. Hwung seems less concerned with legal rights abuses of faculty than with "the sense of resentment by" faculty. True, "few people are perfect." But that would not excuse a bank robber or rapist. The law requires compliance, not perfection.
Finally he refers to "the true, the good, and the beautiful," presumably unaware in a democracy those Platonic attributes are represented by the Law, which the university violated in its illegal dismissal. It's true we should "tolerate and encourage each other." But to insure a greater respect for, and enforcement of, human rights. This can only be done through formal remedy, including admission of wrongs, apology, penalties, and compensation. No one in a democracy can be "happy" unless human rights are enforced.
Hwung-Hweng Hwung
President
National Cheng Kung University
The Secretariat's "explanation," dated May 4, 2011, is similarly Orwellian, especially in view of the fact that, when a member of the Teachers Union, he contested my dismissal as illegal whereas now, as Secretary-General, he claims the dismissal was not illegal. As a Chinese proverb says, "When the butt changes the head changes." But democracy is not built on butts, but on heads.
It has been almost 12 years since 1999 when the employment of Associate Professor Richard De Canio was discontinued by National Cheng Kung University (NCKU).
By "discontinued" "employment" he means I was illegally dismissed.
The resolution to discontinue his employment followed the required procedure. It was approved by the Faculty Evaluation Committee of Foreign Languages and Literature Department (where he was teaching) in its four meetings, by the College of Liberal Arts Faculty Evaluation Committee in its four meetings, and by the University Faculty Evaluation Committee as a result of multiple rounds of review.
By "resolution" he means the illegal decision to dismiss me. The administrative word "resolution" disguises the fact the action was illegal and not "administrative" in the way commonly understood in democracies that observe human rights principles and laws. Mainland China's anti-secession law was an administrative resolution too, but China doesn't claim to embrace democratic principles and Taiwan does not consider that law democratic.
The phrase "to discontinue his employment" is a typical NCKU euphemism for its illegal dismissal.
By "required procedure" is meant accusations that were never investigated or proved and a secret defamatory letter that was circulated at university "oversight" committees to insure my dismissal. I would not boast of "multiple rounds of review" that merely rubber stamped previous committee decisions to protect derelict officials instead of the rights of the appellant. Why boast of "multiple rounds of review" that passed a decision that was so egregiously in violation of human rights the Ministry of Education Appeal ruling boldfaced the violations in apparent frustration. The phrase "multiple rounds of review" only underscores the pervasive incompetence, dereliction, or malfeasance of NCKU committees.
However, this discontinued employment case came to an end in 2003 when NCKU reinstated his employment following the district court decision made upon his appeal.
The adverbial conjunction ("However") convinces the reader of a logical and legal sequence of events. The "employment case" refers to the illegal dismissal. Moreover, it came to an end (or should have come to an end) in 2001, when the Ministry of Education issued its ruling, not in 2003, when Kao Chiang belatedly enforced that ruling after defying it for nearly two and a half years.
In addition, the lawsuit concerning his petition for national compensation on his case was judged three times and rejected two times by the Tainan District Court. Eventually, the case was closed in 2007 after it was rejected four times by the Taiwan Supreme Court Tainan Branch.
Judicial rulings are admittedly outside the university's jurisdiction, but the fact the university contested compensation in the first place falls within the university's jurisdiction, and for that the university is morally liable. As a parent I may know my child is guilty of a crime but, based on "he says, she says" testimony, I feel he can be acquitted in court and thus exercise that option instead of a straight apology and compensation to the victim. The parent may win in the short run, but the child will lose in the long run. In this case, the NCKU administration may have won in the short run, but the university will lose in the long run.
The resolution to discontinue the employment of Associate Professor De Canio by NCKU was based on the following reasons. Since his course had been cancelled for a shortage of required number of enrolled students in four consecutive semesters, it would undermine the rights of students to study and the opportunities of local teachers to be employed. NCKU hence discontinued his employment as a foreigner in accordance with the Employment Service Law.
Notice the subtle use of "hence," as if to convince the reader of a logical sequence of events. Similar buzz phrases include "the following reasons," "rights of students," and "in accordance with the Employment Service Law."
It's ironic that the "rights of students" are mentioned, though they were not discriminated against, while the rights of an American teacher are ignored, though he was discriminated against. Yet this kind of equivocal statement passes for an "explanation" at a high-ranked Taiwan university.
In fact courses frequently fail minimal enrollment, but the teacher is not dismissed or the class canceled.
The phrase, "in accordance with the Employment Law," evokes legal legitimacy, though both the Ministry of Education and the courts ruled that law did not apply to foreign teachers. The writer of this text surely knew that since he fought the illegal dismissal in the Teachers Union. Now, as an administrator, he denies an illegal dismissal ever took place.
Moreover, in view of the fact that the work authored by Associate Professor De Canio was involved in plagiarism and sold in public which went in violation of Articles 91 and 94 of the Intellectual Property Rights, NCKU could not continue his employment. However, he appealed to the University Teacher Grievances Committee and the Teacher Grievances Committee of the Ministry of Education; further, he filed the lawsuit for the applicability of Teachers Law to foreign teachers.
The above is especially devious. By "involved in plagiarism" the writer refers to a false accusation of plagiarism. The reference to legal "Articles" is an attempt to justify false accusations with true laws. As if I accused a female colleague of being a prostitute "in violation of Articles 91 and 94 of the Moral Decency Code." The reader thinks the accusation is true since the laws are true; lies are anchored in unrelated facts and thus appear as facts.
This sleight-of-hand trick might just work on a naive reader. The fact is I was falsely accused of plagiarism the way I was falsely accused of unfairly failing a student based on the student's secret defamatory letter about a grade eight years earlier. The fact that the university actually solicited, then secretly circulated, that letter at so-called "oversight" committees (the "multiple rounds of review") undermines whatever credibility these officials pretend to have.
With the decisions of the appeals and the lawsuit, the Ministry of Education stated in its letter to NCKU that the school should reinstate his employment and reimburse his salaries. Accordingly, NCKU issued to him his employment contracts, his salaries, year-end bonuses, and academic research stipends for the period between 1999 and 2003.
In the above "explanation" there is no mention the university president defied a legal Ministry ruling for nearly two and a half years; nor the fact that years after the Ministry ruling the university continued to hold punitive hearings, with penalties that included suspended increments, in defiance of that ruling,
The MOE overturned those decisions, as it previously overturned the illegal dismissal. I remind the reader that, apart from human rights issues, NCKU is ranked fourth in Taiwan and that taxpayers' money was used for these hearings, both at the university and in the courts.
On another front, Associate Professor De Canio filed a request for national compensation for entry and exit visa fees he had paid during his dismissal period. The Tainan District Court ruled that NCKU should refund his expenses for flights, hotel accommodation, lodgings and visa applications. Yet, an appeal by NCKU was approved so that the previous verdict was reversed, allowing the school to retrieve its compensation payments. In response, Associate Professor De Canio filed a complaint to the Taiwan Supreme Court Tainan Branch, which ordered the case be retried at the Tainan District Court. The retrial decision sustained that NCKU should make compensations. NCKU appealed to the Taiwan Supreme Court Tainan Branch, which ruled that NCKU was not required to compensate. Four subsequent appeals for retrial made by Associate Professor De Canio were dismissed. Thus, his lawsuit for national compensation was closed. As well, his lawsuit against a former student was lost and closed.
The above may be true in terms of a judicial ruling but not in terms of human rights principles, which require compensation as part of remedy. The Taiwan lobby in the US Congress should mention these judicial rulings instead of the general claim Taiwan is a "strong democracy" that is committed to "human rights."
"Human rights" include the right to just compensation. The fact a Taiwan judge rules otherwise does not invalidate human rights principles; it just means human rights principles were not observed in that ruling. I would not boast of that.
Similarly, reference to the "lawsuit against a former student" omits the university's collusion with that student and her defamatory letter, which the university secretly circulated at committee hearings to insure my dismissal, absurd as it may seem that a secret letter can insure a dismissal in a democracy! This is rhetoric by omission. Yet Taiwanese citizens are infuriated by omission of the Nanking Massacre and "comfort women" in revisionist histories of World War II.
Over the past few years, Associate Professor De Canio has claimed his rights by means of legal procedures and continued to write to NCKU to express his discontents over its inefficient dealing with his reinstated employment as well as with the allegation of grading imparity by his former student. In spite of all this, and despite the fact that Associate Professor De Canio has retired since 2010 from NCKU at the legal retirement age, NCKU still expresses gratitude for his devotion to teaching in the past twenty years.
Notice how an American professor "claimed his rights by means of legal procedures," so the reader concludes with a sense that NCKU believes in human "rights" and "legal procedures."
Observe too how serious human rights violations are referred to as "inefficient dealing with his reinstated employment," while the student's defamatory letter solicited and circulated by university officials is referred to by the weasel word "allegation," instead of "falsehood" or "defamatory allegation." "Allegation" leaves open the possibility, yet undetermined, that the student's accusation might have been true. For a complete exposure of that student's "allegation" consult other posts on this blog.
In sum, the student complained she failed unfairly eight years before. Her complaint was made in secret. She received three reasonably high passes the year she failed. I failed about one-third of her class and the next year an American colleague also failed about a third of his class in the same course. For years I relentlessly petitioned the administration to set up a meeting where I could confront the student, who was then a teacher, and the administration refused. The salient question is why would an administration that claims to accredit a student's complaint not arrange a meeting between the teacher and the student to administer that complaint--unless they know for certain the accusation is false? Why would an administration that used a student's complaint to effect my dismissal in 1999 not seize the chance to reopen the case and effect my dismissal after my reinstatement? The answer is obvious. The first time the student's letter was secret and could not be contested; the next time her letter would be public and could be contested. That's why there must be a next time.
The final flourish of this "explanation" reinforces the word "legal" by referring to my legal retirement but ignores the illegal dismissal that jeopardized that retirement!
OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR RICHARD DE CANIO
On behalf of the National Cheng Kung University faculty and administration I offer our sincere apologies for the illegal dismissal action against Richard de Canio when he was Associate Professor here in 1999.
The dismissal action was illegal to begin with. Accusations against the professor were neither proved nor investigated. He was not even notified of the initial dismissal hearing.
To insure Dr. De Canio's dismissal, an accusatory letter was solicited by an official and secretly circulated at oversight hearings. Committee chairs, who should have regulated these hearings in accordance with the law, instead colluded with lower committee chairs.
Those committees then closed ranks to protect colleagues who started the illegal dismissal, passing it, instead of protecting the professor's rights. Thus we undermined the integrity of our committees even as we compromised the rights of a professor.
When the dismissal was canceled, in December 1999, the university further undermined the professor's rights by reviving the case as a hiring action, as if an appeal had no legal effect. Our university even defied an appeal ruling by the Ministry of Education that favored the professor, delaying reinstatement by nearly two and a half years.
Since reinstatement, the university has avoided a formal resolution of this case. By refusing an apology for our illegal actions, the university has acted as if we excused those actions or even endorsed them.
Denial is not an option for a reputable academic institution. As partner of numerous universities abroad, we realize no university can stand except on human rights principles shared by those universities.
Thus we publish this formal apology to a professor from a country with which we maintain academic exchanges and where Taiwanese are treated with respect, according to principles of law and equality under the law. We apologize for our failure to reciprocate accordingly.
We cannot undo mistakes of our past. But a university, governed by laws, must remedy them, while insuring they will not be repeated. We hereby publish this apology as part of a formal closure to this case.
In sincere appreciation for Professor De Canio's contribution to our university over his twenty-two years teaching here,
[Signature of university president should be here]
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
