Letter to Taiwan Colleagues
3 December 2011
Colleagues,
In June 1999 I was dismissed from the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature (FLLD) at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) in Tainan, Taiwan. When the Teachers Union warned the dismissal was illegal, a student's defamatory letter was solicited by FLLD's chair and secretly circulated at so-called oversight hearings.
In December 1999 my dismissal was canceled. But this was a ruse, presumably to delay the case to insure my departure. The Appeals Committee ruled, against appellate logic, I should be reviewed again.
After my second appeal, the committee ruled the university didn't need a reason to dismiss a foreigner, so upheld my dismissal. Though I won an appeal in a Ministry of Education (MOE) ruling dated 8 January 2001 (attached), the university defied it for nearly two and a half years, despite MOE's ten warning letters (attached) and two letters from Scholars at Risk, an international human rights group. Instead NCKU contested the ruling in court, claiming foreigners had no right to appeal, though the university held appeal hearings and participated at the MOE appeal!
The court upheld the MOE ruling (October 2002), but NCKU officials threatened to appeal indefinitely unless I resigned. The MOE's warning letters forced the university to reinstate me in May 2003, but it held punitive hearings against me, as if MOE's ruling had no legal effect. The MOE declared the hearings illegal.
This case involves more than a few NCKU officials. Though NCKU president Kao Chiang defied an MOE ruling, he was approved by the MOE for another three-year term. Emboldened, subsequent NCKU presidents have refused to remedy, or apologize for, human rights violations.
Instead, in March and May of this year, on NCKU's official web page, current president Hwung-Hweng Hwung and Secretary-General Chen C. C. Chen, repeated false accusations against me as facts and whitewashed my illegal dismissal as a "discontinued employment." One of them contested NCKU's dismissal action when in the Teachers Union but now claims no illegal dismissal occurred. "When the butt changes, the head changes," as the Chinese proverb says.
Though many matriculated or taught at US universities where they enjoyed equal rights under the law, NCKU's faculty remain silent about the case, despite my numerous petitions. Instead, over thirteen years, only three sent private emails, expressing sympathy. "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends" (Martin Luther King, Jr.).
Tainan's prosecutor dismissed my libel complaint against FLLD review members on the basis the false accusations did not circulate outside the university. But all statutes I know state a falsehood is defamatory if one other person reads or hears it. To add salt to the wound, NCKU used my libel suit to claim, in a dismissal action, I spread rumors about the university.
The student was not punished, on the claim her letter did not cause my dismissal, though it was circulated for that purpose. Now she teaches at NCKU, none the worse for her defamatory letter. The Dean of Student Affairs, who ignored my repeated petitions to punish the student, later assumed an advisory role at the MOE.
The court declined to award punitive and compensatory damages, as are routine in other democracies, but simply told NCKU to reinstate me. It's like telling a kidnapper to return the child or a bank robber to return the money, without penalty.
Not a single person involved in my illegal dismissal was called to account for it. A lack of deterrent rulings will compromise democracy, or at least foreigners, hence foreign exchanges, here. Only a vocal protest by the international community will insure change in Taiwan's treatment of foreigners.
What if US courts treated Taiwanese plaintiffs the same way? Vocal protests over the recent taekwondo incident indicate Taiwanese would not be silent as they are in my case.
Though a few Chinese-language newspapers published the case, it was as a human interest item, not a human rights report. As if there was no right and wrong side, just two sides; a case of arbitration, not justice.
This seems to have been the view of the courts, which mediated a compromise rather than rule on principles of law. They had to uphold a Ministry ruling but also had to protect the dignity of Taiwanese against the rights of a foreigner.
Hence the lack of compensatory, punitive, and remedial judgments. A tribal culture relies on arbitration, but a democracy must use principles of law, legitimated in routine court rulings. But in Taiwan, democracy is enjoyed as a franchise, not enforced as a framework of rights.
Though I have repeatedly petitioned the English-language press to expose this case, I've been ignored. They prefer to expose abuses in Mainland China rather than abuses in Taiwan. Writing editorials about the lack of human rights in Mainland China will not advance human rights in Taiwan.
If Taiwan's press has ignored my officially documented case, what other human rights issues have they ignored? This bodes ill for Taiwan's own citizens. For "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter" (Martin Luther King, Jr.).
Taiwan's human rights groups have proved useless. If a case of a major university guilty of egregious human rights abuses doesn't incite their commitment one wonders what will.
When NCKU students were indicted for illegally sharing files, Taiwan's lawyers promptly volunteered pro bono assistance. But not a single lawyer has volunteered to accept my case on a pro bono basis.
Presumably illegally downloading files is a good ("pro bono") cause while an American professor who is discriminated against by a major Taiwan university is not a good cause. Someone should tell Taiwan's legal profession to get its priorities straight if Taiwan is to be taken seriously by the international community.
A slogan of the US Counterculture movement in the 1960s was, "Democracy is not something you have, it's something you do." Taiwanese must learn to do democracy every day, in issues small and great, whether it's a crosswalk for schoolchildren or human rights at a university.
In the Middle East and in Mainland China citizens stand up for rights at great risk. But in Taiwan educated faculty refuse to challenge an unjust administration.
The censored media in Mainland China find means to expose human rights issues, while the so-called "free press" in Taiwan will not expose my case. Yet those in China risk imprisonment and torture, while those in Taiwan risk nothing. (Cf. http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/search/label/Silence%20of%20the%20Lambs).
Taiwan tends to inculturate Western values, fitting them to its own ways. Despite democratic principles of law, relationships decide if those principles are enforced.
The case at NCKU is a case in point. Under the circumstances, is it a wonder some Americans have become indifferent to Taiwan's democracy?
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Formerly, Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Letter to the Journal and Courier
29 November 2011
Dear Journal and Courier,
Purdue University currently maintains academic exchanges with National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan, despite its documented dismal human rights record and discriminatory policies against American ("foreign") professors.
While teaching there, I was illegally dismissed. When I appealed, my dismissal was canceled, but this was a delay tactic, perhaps in hopes my visa would expire and I would be forced to leave the country. For the university refused to reinstate me. So I appealed again.
Now the university argued "foreign" teachers were not protected by the Teachers Law, which insures contractual renewal for teachers. When I won an appeal at the Ministry of Education the university argued "foreigners" had no right to appeal, though the university held appeal hearings and participated at the MOE appeal! So it defied the MOE ruling for nearly two and a half years, despite ten warning letters from the MOE (attached).
In the meantime it contested the ruling in court and repeated its discriminatory claim that "foreigners" were not protected by Taiwan's Teachers Law, a claim rejected by the court and the MOE (attached). Even after it was forced to honor that ruling it held bogus "hearings" and imposed penalties against me, reversed by the MOE.
Despite official rulings and letters (attached), the university, on its official web page, currently whitewashes my illegal dismissal as "discontinued employment" and claims "legal procedures were carefully observed." This was signed by current NCKU president, Hwung-Hweng Hwung (attached). This whitewash clearly contradicts the MOE Appeal Ruling (attached): "[T]he Appeals Committee’s decision violated the law and was wrong" (trans.).
Nor is this an issue of one rogue university president. The case involves several NCKU presidents, all of whom ignored the rights of an American professor, including Cheng-I Weng, Kao Chiang, and Michael Ming-Chiao Lai. Though many NCKU faculty were accredited by US universities and guaranteed equal protection under the law while matriculated in the US, and despite my repeated appeals for their assistance, they have not petitioned on my behalf.
I don't see how, under the circumstances, Purdue University can, or should, maintain academic exchanges with NCKU. Apart from my case, a university that brazenly defies laws and published rulings, and a faculty silent about such misconduct, has undermined its academic status, guaranteed only through adequate institutional oversight, which, as the MOE ruling states, was clearly lacking in the handling of my case: "It should specifically be pointed out that regarding the protection of the teacher’s legal rights in this dismissal case, the handling of this case by the university’s three-level Review Committees and Appeals Committee makes it hard to conclude it was without flaws" (trans; attached).
I've contacted the president of Purdue University, France A. Córdova; Purdue's Board of Regents; and the Indiana State Board of Education about this issue, to no avail. Instead, despite strongly documented attachments, I received a single response from a Purdue official:
7/25/09
Dear Professor Canio,
Thank you for your email.
Although I empathize with you, this institution is not in the position to comment on your statements.
Sincerely,
[Name redacted]
As we have seen in the recent cases of Penn State and Syracuse University, the priority of academic institutions seems to be to protect its own interests first, regardless of human rights issues involved.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Tainan, Taiwan
Dear Journal and Courier,
Purdue University currently maintains academic exchanges with National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan, despite its documented dismal human rights record and discriminatory policies against American ("foreign") professors.
While teaching there, I was illegally dismissed. When I appealed, my dismissal was canceled, but this was a delay tactic, perhaps in hopes my visa would expire and I would be forced to leave the country. For the university refused to reinstate me. So I appealed again.
Now the university argued "foreign" teachers were not protected by the Teachers Law, which insures contractual renewal for teachers. When I won an appeal at the Ministry of Education the university argued "foreigners" had no right to appeal, though the university held appeal hearings and participated at the MOE appeal! So it defied the MOE ruling for nearly two and a half years, despite ten warning letters from the MOE (attached).
In the meantime it contested the ruling in court and repeated its discriminatory claim that "foreigners" were not protected by Taiwan's Teachers Law, a claim rejected by the court and the MOE (attached). Even after it was forced to honor that ruling it held bogus "hearings" and imposed penalties against me, reversed by the MOE.
Despite official rulings and letters (attached), the university, on its official web page, currently whitewashes my illegal dismissal as "discontinued employment" and claims "legal procedures were carefully observed." This was signed by current NCKU president, Hwung-Hweng Hwung (attached). This whitewash clearly contradicts the MOE Appeal Ruling (attached): "[T]he Appeals Committee’s decision violated the law and was wrong" (trans.).
Nor is this an issue of one rogue university president. The case involves several NCKU presidents, all of whom ignored the rights of an American professor, including Cheng-I Weng, Kao Chiang, and Michael Ming-Chiao Lai. Though many NCKU faculty were accredited by US universities and guaranteed equal protection under the law while matriculated in the US, and despite my repeated appeals for their assistance, they have not petitioned on my behalf.
I don't see how, under the circumstances, Purdue University can, or should, maintain academic exchanges with NCKU. Apart from my case, a university that brazenly defies laws and published rulings, and a faculty silent about such misconduct, has undermined its academic status, guaranteed only through adequate institutional oversight, which, as the MOE ruling states, was clearly lacking in the handling of my case: "It should specifically be pointed out that regarding the protection of the teacher’s legal rights in this dismissal case, the handling of this case by the university’s three-level Review Committees and Appeals Committee makes it hard to conclude it was without flaws" (trans; attached).
I've contacted the president of Purdue University, France A. Córdova; Purdue's Board of Regents; and the Indiana State Board of Education about this issue, to no avail. Instead, despite strongly documented attachments, I received a single response from a Purdue official:
7/25/09
Dear Professor Canio,
Thank you for your email.
Although I empathize with you, this institution is not in the position to comment on your statements.
Sincerely,
[Name redacted]
As we have seen in the recent cases of Penn State and Syracuse University, the priority of academic institutions seems to be to protect its own interests first, regardless of human rights issues involved.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Tainan, Taiwan
Fwd: Regarding Human Rights Abuses at a Taiwan Exchange University
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard John <rdca25@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 10:36 PM
Subject:
To: webmaster@doe.in.gov
Cc: ienmary@aol.com, jennifers@che.in.gov, kens@che.in.gov, info@indianahumanities.org, nconner@indianahumanities.org, pbates@umich.edu, emimms@umich.edu, todd.zoellick@ed.gov, kristine.cohn@ed.gov
Indiana Department of Education
Dr. Tony Bennett, Superintendent of Public Instruction
Statehouse, Room 229
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2795
Phone: (317) 232-6610
Fax: (317) 232-6610
Email: webmaster@doe.in.gov
Website: http://www.doe.in.gov
To State Education Agency (State Department of Education),
19 November 2011
Dear Indiana Department of Education,
I sent a previous email to your agency, dated July 6, 2011, addressed to superintendent@doe.in.gov, but, to my knowledge received no reply except the following:
Thank you for contacting the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE). Due to a high volume of messages received you may encounter a response time that is a bit longer than that to which you are accustomed. However, members of the IDOE's staff will work hard to respond with thorough answers to your questions as quickly as possible. Thank you in advance for your patience.
As it turns out I am still awaiting "thorough answers" "as quickly as possible."
I have contacted Purdue University, including its president and Board of Regents, concerning its academic exchanges with National Cheng Kung University, in Tainan, Taiwan. I documented numerous human rights abuses committed by that university, but received no satisfactory reply. One Purdue official sent me a dismissive email:
7/25/09 Dear Professor Canio, Thank you for your email. Although I empathize with you, this institution is not in the position to comment on your statements. Sincerely,
I am a US citizen. The abuses at National Cheng Kung University are documented in government and court rulings (attached). The university effected my illegal dismissal, maintained "foreign" faculty were not protected by Taiwan's Teachers Law, then deviously held appeal hearings without legal benefit. After losing an appeal at Taiwan's Ministry of Education, it then argued foreign faculty had no right to appeal.
The Ministry sent ten letters over nearly two and a half years, warning the university to comply with the law (attached), which the university ignored until May, 2003 following a court ruling against it. Even then it defiantly held "hearings" against me as if the Ministry of Education ruling had no legal effect, and imposed penalties, subsequently declared illegal and canceled by the MOE.
In a revisionist ploy, as if the MOE ruling did not exist, as late as this year the university claimed, on its official web page, signed by the university president and Secretary-General, that, despite MOE and court rulings (attached), no illegal dismissal or human rights violations occurred, while it repeated accusations against me as if they were facts rather than malicious accusations formally rejected by the Ministry of Education.
How can an American university maintain academic exchanges with a university that brazenly scorns human rights and even fair play (participating in an appeal process but not honoring its ruling)? Surely academic exchanges should involve international principles of human rights and collegial respect, not mere monetary interests.
By those principles, endorsed by both the US and Taiwan governments, National Cheng Kung University is a rogue institution, administered outside the rights and protections of those principles. Assuming those principles are respected, an American university should not, in good faith, maintain academic exchanges with such a university.
I believe the same federal protection of human rights that pertains to our national colleges and universities should apply to academic exchanges abroad. In respect of this, I am formally requesting that the Indiana Department of Education insure a termination of academic exchanges that National Cheng Kung University currently enjoys with Purdue University.
Thank you for your consideration of this petition.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
(Formerly Associate Professor
National Cheng Kung University)
2 University Road
Alley 18
#508
Tainan, Taiwan
886-06-237 8626
From: Richard John <rdca25@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 10:36 PM
Subject:
To: webmaster@doe.in.gov
Cc: ienmary@aol.com, jennifers@che.in.gov, kens@che.in.gov, info@indianahumanities.org, nconner@indianahumanities.org, pbates@umich.edu, emimms@umich.edu, todd.zoellick@ed.gov, kristine.cohn@ed.gov
Indiana Department of Education
Dr. Tony Bennett, Superintendent of Public Instruction
Statehouse, Room 229
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2795
Phone: (317) 232-6610
Fax: (317) 232-6610
Email: webmaster@doe.in.gov
Website: http://www.doe.in.gov
To State Education Agency (State Department of Education),
19 November 2011
Dear Indiana Department of Education,
I sent a previous email to your agency, dated July 6, 2011, addressed to superintendent@doe.in.gov, but, to my knowledge received no reply except the following:
Thank you for contacting the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE). Due to a high volume of messages received you may encounter a response time that is a bit longer than that to which you are accustomed. However, members of the IDOE's staff will work hard to respond with thorough answers to your questions as quickly as possible. Thank you in advance for your patience.
As it turns out I am still awaiting "thorough answers" "as quickly as possible."
I have contacted Purdue University, including its president and Board of Regents, concerning its academic exchanges with National Cheng Kung University, in Tainan, Taiwan. I documented numerous human rights abuses committed by that university, but received no satisfactory reply. One Purdue official sent me a dismissive email:
7/25/09 Dear Professor Canio, Thank you for your email. Although I empathize with you, this institution is not in the position to comment on your statements. Sincerely,
I am a US citizen. The abuses at National Cheng Kung University are documented in government and court rulings (attached). The university effected my illegal dismissal, maintained "foreign" faculty were not protected by Taiwan's Teachers Law, then deviously held appeal hearings without legal benefit. After losing an appeal at Taiwan's Ministry of Education, it then argued foreign faculty had no right to appeal.
The Ministry sent ten letters over nearly two and a half years, warning the university to comply with the law (attached), which the university ignored until May, 2003 following a court ruling against it. Even then it defiantly held "hearings" against me as if the Ministry of Education ruling had no legal effect, and imposed penalties, subsequently declared illegal and canceled by the MOE.
In a revisionist ploy, as if the MOE ruling did not exist, as late as this year the university claimed, on its official web page, signed by the university president and Secretary-General, that, despite MOE and court rulings (attached), no illegal dismissal or human rights violations occurred, while it repeated accusations against me as if they were facts rather than malicious accusations formally rejected by the Ministry of Education.
How can an American university maintain academic exchanges with a university that brazenly scorns human rights and even fair play (participating in an appeal process but not honoring its ruling)? Surely academic exchanges should involve international principles of human rights and collegial respect, not mere monetary interests.
By those principles, endorsed by both the US and Taiwan governments, National Cheng Kung University is a rogue institution, administered outside the rights and protections of those principles. Assuming those principles are respected, an American university should not, in good faith, maintain academic exchanges with such a university.
I believe the same federal protection of human rights that pertains to our national colleges and universities should apply to academic exchanges abroad. In respect of this, I am formally requesting that the Indiana Department of Education insure a termination of academic exchanges that National Cheng Kung University currently enjoys with Purdue University.
Thank you for your consideration of this petition.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
(Formerly Associate Professor
National Cheng Kung University)
2 University Road
Alley 18
#508
Tainan, Taiwan
886-06-237 8626
Fwd: Regarding Human Rights Abuses at National Cheng Kung University, a Purdue exchange university
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard John <rdca25@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:43 PM
Subject: Regarding Human Rights Abuses at National Cheng Kung University, a Purdue exchange university
To: editor@purdueexponent.org, features@purdueexponent.org, newsadviser@purdueexponent.org, help@purdueexponent.org
Cc: webmaster@doe.in.gov, ienmary@aol.com, jennifers@che.in.gov, kens@che.in.gov, info@indianahumanities.org, nconner@indianahumanities.org, pbates@umich.edu, emimms@umich.edu, todd.zoellick@ed.gov, kristine.cohn@ed.gov, trustees@purdue.edu, president@purdue.edu
22 November 2011
Dear Purdue Exponent,
I've contacted the president of Purdue University, France A. Córdova; Purdue's Board of Regents; and the Indiana State Board of Education about long-standing human rights issues with Purdue's exchange university, National Cheng Kung University (NCKU), but to no avail.
AfterTaiwan's Ministry of Education (MOE) reversed my illegal dismissal, NCKU refused to enforce that ruling for nearly two and a half years, despite ten warning letters from the MOE spelling out human rights principles (attached).
Though NCKU participated in the appeal, and held its own bogus appeal hearings, once it lost it argued "foreigners" (I'm American) had no right to appeal. The university has refused to make a formal apology or remedy.
Instead, in March of this year, and despite the plain language of court and MOE rulings (attached), the university whitewashed the illegal dismissal on its official web page, claiming I was "declined for employment renewal" and that "legal procedures were carefully observed." This was signed by current NCKU president, Hwung-Hweng Hwung. Yet the MOE plainly stated the dismissal was "not done through legal dismissal procedures" (attached).
I don't believe Purdue, or other US universities, should maintain academic exchanges on a basis of contempt for due process of law, human rights, administrative duplicity, and misrepresentation of facts based on official government rulings (attached). I don't believe American universities should tolerate disrespect of American faculty in Taiwan.
NCKU faculty know of this case. They were protected by rights and laws when they matriculated or taught in our country. But they allow their administration to deny rights to American faculty in Taiwan.
The English-language Taiwan press has ignored my numerous letters, though it's vocal about human rights abuses in Mainland China.
So far the only reply I've received was from a Purdue official in July, more than two years ago:
7/25/09
Dear Professor Canio,
Thank you for your email.
Although I empathize with you, this institution is not in the position to comment on your statements.
Sincerely,
[Name redacted]
But these email attachments are not "statements." They are official documents proving human rights abuses at NCKU.
Perhaps terminating academic exchanges with NCKU is not an easy decision to make. But neither was exposing sex offenses at Penn State.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Tainan, Taiwan
(886) (06) 237 8626
From: Richard John <rdca25@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:43 PM
Subject: Regarding Human Rights Abuses at National Cheng Kung University, a Purdue exchange university
To: editor@purdueexponent.org, features@purdueexponent.org, newsadviser@purdueexponent.org, help@purdueexponent.org
Cc: webmaster@doe.in.gov, ienmary@aol.com, jennifers@che.in.gov, kens@che.in.gov, info@indianahumanities.org, nconner@indianahumanities.org, pbates@umich.edu, emimms@umich.edu, todd.zoellick@ed.gov, kristine.cohn@ed.gov, trustees@purdue.edu, president@purdue.edu
22 November 2011
Dear Purdue Exponent,
I've contacted the president of Purdue University, France A. Córdova; Purdue's Board of Regents; and the Indiana State Board of Education about long-standing human rights issues with Purdue's exchange university, National Cheng Kung University (NCKU), but to no avail.
AfterTaiwan's Ministry of Education (MOE) reversed my illegal dismissal, NCKU refused to enforce that ruling for nearly two and a half years, despite ten warning letters from the MOE spelling out human rights principles (attached).
Though NCKU participated in the appeal, and held its own bogus appeal hearings, once it lost it argued "foreigners" (I'm American) had no right to appeal. The university has refused to make a formal apology or remedy.
Instead, in March of this year, and despite the plain language of court and MOE rulings (attached), the university whitewashed the illegal dismissal on its official web page, claiming I was "declined for employment renewal" and that "legal procedures were carefully observed." This was signed by current NCKU president, Hwung-Hweng Hwung. Yet the MOE plainly stated the dismissal was "not done through legal dismissal procedures" (attached).
I don't believe Purdue, or other US universities, should maintain academic exchanges on a basis of contempt for due process of law, human rights, administrative duplicity, and misrepresentation of facts based on official government rulings (attached). I don't believe American universities should tolerate disrespect of American faculty in Taiwan.
NCKU faculty know of this case. They were protected by rights and laws when they matriculated or taught in our country. But they allow their administration to deny rights to American faculty in Taiwan.
The English-language Taiwan press has ignored my numerous letters, though it's vocal about human rights abuses in Mainland China.
So far the only reply I've received was from a Purdue official in July, more than two years ago:
7/25/09
Dear Professor Canio,
Thank you for your email.
Although I empathize with you, this institution is not in the position to comment on your statements.
Sincerely,
[Name redacted]
But these email attachments are not "statements." They are official documents proving human rights abuses at NCKU.
Perhaps terminating academic exchanges with NCKU is not an easy decision to make. But neither was exposing sex offenses at Penn State.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Tainan, Taiwan
(886) (06) 237 8626
Fwd: Regarding the role the Department of Education can play in sanctions of human rights abuses at exchange universities
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard John <rdca25@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 3:52 PM
Subject: Regarding the role the Department of Education can play in sanctions of human rights abuses at exchange universities
To:
From: Richard John <rdca25@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 3:52 PM
Subject: Regarding the role the Department of Education can play in sanctions of human rights abuses at exchange universities
To:
23 November 2011
Dear Department of Education,
I wish to inform you of long-standing human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) so federal or state funds will be allocated to universities that honor human rights and respect for American professors.
Although Taiwan's Ministry of Education (MOE) reversed my illegal dismissal, NCKU refused to enforce that ruling for nearly two and a half years, despite ten warning letters from the MOE spelling out human rights principles (attached).
Though NCKU participated in the appeal, and held its own bogus appeal hearings, once it lost it argued "foreigners" (I'm American) had no right to appeal. The university has refused to make a formal apology or remedy.
Instead, in March of this year, and despite court and MOE rulings (attached), the university whitewashed the illegal dismissal on its official web page, claiming I was "declined for employment renewal" and that "legal procedures were carefully observed." This was signed by current NCKU president, Hwung-Hweng Hwung. Yet the MOE plainly stated the dismissal was "not done through legal dismissal procedures" (attached).
A US Department of Education should not support academic exchanges with a university that has documented human rights abuses, particularly against an American professor.
NCKU faculty know of this case. They were protected by rights and laws when they matriculated or taught in our country. But they allow their administration to deny rights to American faculty in Taiwan. The English-language Taiwan press has ignored my numerous letters, though it's vocal about human rights abuses in Mainland China.
Perhaps terminating, suspending, or interdicting academic exchanges with NCKU is not an easy decision to make. But neither was exposing sex offenses at Penn State.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Tainan, Taiwan
(886) (06) 237 8626
Dear Department of Education,
I wish to inform you of long-standing human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) so federal or state funds will be allocated to universities that honor human rights and respect for American professors.
Although Taiwan's Ministry of Education (MOE) reversed my illegal dismissal, NCKU refused to enforce that ruling for nearly two and a half years, despite ten warning letters from the MOE spelling out human rights principles (attached).
Though NCKU participated in the appeal, and held its own bogus appeal hearings, once it lost it argued "foreigners" (I'm American) had no right to appeal. The university has refused to make a formal apology or remedy.
Instead, in March of this year, and despite court and MOE rulings (attached), the university whitewashed the illegal dismissal on its official web page, claiming I was "declined for employment renewal" and that "legal procedures were carefully observed." This was signed by current NCKU president, Hwung-Hweng Hwung. Yet the MOE plainly stated the dismissal was "not done through legal dismissal procedures" (attached).
A US Department of Education should not support academic exchanges with a university that has documented human rights abuses, particularly against an American professor.
NCKU faculty know of this case. They were protected by rights and laws when they matriculated or taught in our country. But they allow their administration to deny rights to American faculty in Taiwan. The English-language Taiwan press has ignored my numerous letters, though it's vocal about human rights abuses in Mainland China.
Perhaps terminating, suspending, or interdicting academic exchanges with NCKU is not an easy decision to make. But neither was exposing sex offenses at Penn State.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Tainan, Taiwan
(886) (06) 237 8626
Fwd: Regarding Taiwan's Democracy
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard John <rdca25@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 4:57 PM
Subject: Regarding Taiwan's Democracy
To: hsiao@project2049.net
Cc: edun@jamestown.org, project2049@project2049.net, tahr@seed.net.tw, tfd@taiwandemocracy.org.tw, hefpp@hef.org.tw, scholarsatrisk@nyu.edu, higher@mail.moe.gov.tw, peu03@mail.gio.gov.tw, lchsiao@taiwandemocracy.org.tw, moemail@mail.moe.gov.tw, david92@mail.moe.gov.tw, letters@taipeitimes.com, editor@it.chinatimes.com.tw, edop@etaiwannews.com, editor@etaiwannews.com, info@chinapost.com.tw, info@taipeitimes.com, louwei.chen@msa.hinet.net, Control Yuan <cymail@ms.cy.gov.tw>, Prime Minister <eyemail@eyemail.gio.gov.tw>
26 November 2011
Dear Dr. Hsiao,
In reply to your article in The Taipei Times (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2011/11/26/2003519231/1), I would like to comment that democracy, like charity begins at home.
It is true enough that Mainland China (or "China," as independence advocates prefer) has a dismal human rights record and the English-language press in Taiwan frequently editorializes on this fact. However this same press is not too eager to expose human rights abuses that occur in Taiwan.
For years I have been sending letters to the three or four English-language newspapers, trying in vain to expose human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan. Yet the case involves egregious human rights issues at Taiwan's fourth-ranked university.
One would think, if democracy was of primary concern in Taiwan, that this case would have been exposed almost immediately, especially since it involves a high-ranked university here and numerous high-ranked university officials, including several university presidents, who have refused to address issues in the case and one of whom defied a legal Ministry ruling for nearly two and a half years.
In 1999, I was illegally dismissed from the university. When original accusations against me were challenged by members of NCKU's Teachers Union, since they were neither investigated nor proved and I wasn't even informed of the accusations before my dismissal, a secret letter was circulated at subsequent so-called "review" and "appeal" hearings to insure my dismissal.
How, in a "democracy," a secret letter can insure someone's dismissal is beyond belief, especially since committee chairs refused to divulge the contents of the letter, which I saw only years later when I took the student to court. It turned out the student said, without proof, I failed her unfairly in a class eight years before (the same year I gave her three high passing grades in two classes).
NCKU's Teachers Union repeatedly warned the administration of human rights abuses, to no avail. Several months later, in December, 1999, my dismissal was canceled. But this was a dilatory tactic, presumably hoping to delay the case long enough so I would give up or be forced to leave Taiwan.
Though the case was canceled, my reinstatement was suspended indefinitely. This was illegal since every appeal guarantees a benefit or it would be pointless to appeal. Even a campus law professor insisted I should go to the personnel office to get my contract, since (and he pointed to a university law text) once a dismissal is canceled reinstatement is automatic. But the university administration would not budge.
After I appealed again in 2000, the university appeals committee upheld the illegal dismissal by ignoring the basis of the dismissal entirely. This decision was based on the bogus legal claim that as an American citizen, I was a "foreigner," and "foreigners" were not protected by Taiwan's Teachers Law, hence could not benefit from an appeal, since the "foreigner" was not guaranteed an automatic contract renewal anyway.
In what democracy in the world does an appellant go through an appeal process only to be told, at the end of it, that it is without benefit? In what democracy in the world would the media ignore this?
Bear in mind that National Cheng Kung University has numerous academic exchanges with American universities, where Taiwan faculty or students are protected equally under American laws. Bear in mind the faculty involved in this decision, or indifferent to it, has many members who matriculated at, or were accredited by, American universities. But, as the Chinese proverb phrases it, "When the butt changes, the head changes."
Finally I appealed to the Ministry of Education, which, in a ruling dated 8 January 2001, canceled the dismissal, bold-facing numerous human rights violations committed by NCKU, and specifically chastising the NCKU Appeals Committee for not following laws and for claiming foreign teachers were not protected by the Teachers Law (attached).
This ruling had no legal effect on NCKU, which ignored it for nearly two and a half years, despite ten warning letters from the MOE (attached). Meanwhile NCKU appealed to the court claiming "foreigners" had no right to appeal.
Even apart from the university's discrimination of foreign faculty, its violation of government laws, and its defiance of a legal Ministry of Education ruling, what reputable institution would contest a decision only after it loses the decision? For that matter, what court would allow it? (From my understanding, the legal principle of estoppel is not recognized in Taiwan.)
Even schoolchildren learn about fair play at very young ages. Yet these officials, including chairs, deans, presidents, and faculty colleagues, many of whom were accredited at American universities, don't observe basic principles of law, human rights, and fair play.
Even after my belated reinstatement in May, 2003, the university continued to harass me with hearings, as if the MOE ruling had no legal effect. It imposed penalties, which were subsequently canceled as illegal by the MOE.
Taiwan's courts did not even see the need to punish the university or to award me compensation for the four-year interruption to my academic career and the immense resources, personal and financial, expended to fight the case. Instead the university was merely told to reinstate me. It's as if a kidnapper is merely told by the court to return a child it has held for four years, with no further penalty against the kidnapper or compensation to the child's parents.
No democracy can endure without strong deterrent rulings. That's why as recently as this year the university whitewashed the illegal dismissal on its official web page, claiming my illegal dismissal was "discontinued employment," that I was "declined for employment renewal" and that "legal procedures were carefully observed." This was signed by current NCKU president, Hwung-Hweng Hwung. Yet the MOE plainly stated the dismissal was "not done through legal dismissal procedures" (MOE ruling, letters, NCKU web page; attached).
My colleagues at National Cheng Kung University, many of whom matriculated at American colleges, have remained silent about the case though I have sent numerous emails requesting assistance. One of them actually published a letter deploring the lack of human rights in Mainland China, but when I emailed him about my case he never replied.
The issue is complicated by the lack of remedial channels common in a democracy. No human rights group has assigned me a pro bono lawyer. The press has virtually censored this case, despite serious issues involved, such as a major university in violation of human rights and in defiance of a legal Ministry ruling.
Local newspapers printed brief items on the case, with no attempt at adversarial journalism. As if there were no right and wrong sides, just two sides.
Taiwan's English-language newspapers have completely ignored the case, perhaps concerned readers might include an enlightened franchise abroad, such as the US Taiwan lobby.
Here is a recent email exchange suggesting de facto censorship at one of the English-language newspapers. The first email, from a reporter presumably nurtured by a more robust Hong Kong democratic press, shows strong interest in a newsworthy event.
But between his first and later emails apparent editorial interference dampened his enthusiasm. The tone of the emails changes after the first of the numbered series below, unedited except to redact names (typography, grammar, and spelling in original):
(1) Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:28 AM
subject about your case
Professor, Good Morning,
I am a reporter with the English-language [newspaper name omitted], hoping to talk to you over you complaints about your rights being violated by National Chengkung University. Our publisher happens to one one of the recipients of you email message dated May 18, hence this request for further information.
I don't you have phone number and I don't know yor whereabouts, so, if you don't mind, I would like to do a written interview with you, hoping you can answer my question asap (We intend to publish the story tomorrow).
My questions are:
1. Where are you now, and how can we contact you, and do you mind giving us a contact phone no?
2. What are you going to do. Are you going to initiate legal proceedings against National Chengkung Univ. again, or are you going to complain to human rights organizations in this country and overseas?
3. Could you briefly explain how you rights have been violated?
4. As you are calling for the university president to step down, what are you going to do if he refuses to do so? Will you fight to the end?
5. What further actions are you planning?
If you have doubts about my identity as a reporter with the paper, please [newspaper name omitted] managing editor [name omitted], who is in the office from 4 p.m. till midnight on a regular day.
My name, as known in the newsroom, is [omitted].
Thank you for your time,
[Name omitted]
(2) date Mon, May 23, 2011 at 3:56 PM
subject RE: Attachment, for Case at National Cheng Kung University, in Tainan, Taiwan
Dear Professor,
Thank for the documents and your time. I am still working on the article but my boss isn't in the office yet. If and when the paper has a decision as to when we are going to publish it, I'll let you know. BTW, I am Chinese, born in Hongkong, but now a ROC citizen.
[Reporter's name omitted]
(3) date Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:50 PM
subject Re: Regarding the article on the university
Professer,
I am not a decision-maker at the paper. I only act on orders. I should have told you earlier my editor has told me not to go further for the time being. That's all I can tell you.
I am sorry for not being able to help.
Regards,
[Reporter's name omitted]
Surprisingly, in response to my letters, I received a response from the newspaper's editor, after being ignored for thirteen years:
date Mon, May 30, 2011 at 4:00 PM
subject Re: Regarding the Question of Censorship at [Name omitted] in Taiwan
Dear Sir:
To know more about your protest against the NCKU, our reporter has checked with you, the NCKU administration and the Ministry of Education (MOE).
It is our understanding that the lawsuit between you and the NCKU has been going on for thirteen years.
After discussing with our reporter, we decided to postpone our report until further developments have come out, which will make our report more newsworthy.
We can assure you that there is never any kind of censorship existed in our newspaper and we have never surrendered our journalism to any kind of power.
Best Regards
[Name omitted]
Notice the euphemistic use of language in the above. A fully documented human rights case (see attachments) is referred to as my "protest," as if a rape victim "protests" being raped instead of reporting a serious crime. The case of egregious human rights abuses at a major Taiwan university is denatured as a "lawsuit." What should be a mandatory exposure of this case in a democracy is rationalized on the basis it is not "newsworthy." Instead, the editor awaits "further developments." What further developments can there be if the media don't expose the case? Apparently the US media is obligated to expose the plight of Taiwan but Taiwan's media is not obligated to expose the plight of an American citizen, both involving issues of democracy and human rights.
In Taiwan, whether Sean Connery marches on behalf of Taiwan independence is newsworthy but major human rights violations at a high-ranked university are not newsworthy? How is this different from China's press censorship, or its routine reference to human rights activists as "hooligans"? Confucius said to "Rectify the names" before there can be justice. And my reference to officially documented human rights abuses at NCKU is not a "protest," but a formal complaint, which, in a democracy, should be exposed by a free (that is, adversarial and inquisitorial) press.
(For documented exchanges I had with this newspaper see my entry on my blog at http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/search/label/Case%20Summary. For lettes documenting the history of this case, see my dedicated case blog at http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/search/label/Summary%20History%20of%20Human%20Rights%20Abuses%20at%20NCKU.)
Despite the fact that several NCKU presidents have completely ignored human rights issues in this case and one actually defied a legal Ministry ruling and ten warning letters to enforce that ruling, NCKU presidents continue to congratulate one another on mundane issues such as the donation of a piano, though both presidents involved in this report have ignored my pleas to formally acknowledge human rights abuses and effect formal remedy (
http://news-en.secr.ncku.edu.tw/files/14-1083-85388,r614-1.php). Can a university survive based on piano donations or on human rights enforcement? Can Taiwan democracy in Taiwan flourish under these conditions, regardless what the US does or does not do?
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
formerly Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(886) 06 2378626
From: Richard John <rdca25@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 4:57 PM
Subject: Regarding Taiwan's Democracy
To: hsiao@project2049.net
Cc: edun@jamestown.org, project2049@project2049.net, tahr@seed.net.tw, tfd@taiwandemocracy.org.tw, hefpp@hef.org.tw, scholarsatrisk@nyu.edu, higher@mail.moe.gov.tw, peu03@mail.gio.gov.tw, lchsiao@taiwandemocracy.org.tw, moemail@mail.moe.gov.tw, david92@mail.moe.gov.tw, letters@taipeitimes.com, editor@it.chinatimes.com.tw, edop@etaiwannews.com, editor@etaiwannews.com, info@chinapost.com.tw, info@taipeitimes.com, louwei.chen@msa.hinet.net, Control Yuan <cymail@ms.cy.gov.tw>, Prime Minister <eyemail@eyemail.gio.gov.tw>
26 November 2011
Dear Dr. Hsiao,
In reply to your article in The Taipei Times (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2011/11/26/2003519231/1), I would like to comment that democracy, like charity begins at home.
It is true enough that Mainland China (or "China," as independence advocates prefer) has a dismal human rights record and the English-language press in Taiwan frequently editorializes on this fact. However this same press is not too eager to expose human rights abuses that occur in Taiwan.
For years I have been sending letters to the three or four English-language newspapers, trying in vain to expose human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan. Yet the case involves egregious human rights issues at Taiwan's fourth-ranked university.
One would think, if democracy was of primary concern in Taiwan, that this case would have been exposed almost immediately, especially since it involves a high-ranked university here and numerous high-ranked university officials, including several university presidents, who have refused to address issues in the case and one of whom defied a legal Ministry ruling for nearly two and a half years.
In 1999, I was illegally dismissed from the university. When original accusations against me were challenged by members of NCKU's Teachers Union, since they were neither investigated nor proved and I wasn't even informed of the accusations before my dismissal, a secret letter was circulated at subsequent so-called "review" and "appeal" hearings to insure my dismissal.
How, in a "democracy," a secret letter can insure someone's dismissal is beyond belief, especially since committee chairs refused to divulge the contents of the letter, which I saw only years later when I took the student to court. It turned out the student said, without proof, I failed her unfairly in a class eight years before (the same year I gave her three high passing grades in two classes).
NCKU's Teachers Union repeatedly warned the administration of human rights abuses, to no avail. Several months later, in December, 1999, my dismissal was canceled. But this was a dilatory tactic, presumably hoping to delay the case long enough so I would give up or be forced to leave Taiwan.
Though the case was canceled, my reinstatement was suspended indefinitely. This was illegal since every appeal guarantees a benefit or it would be pointless to appeal. Even a campus law professor insisted I should go to the personnel office to get my contract, since (and he pointed to a university law text) once a dismissal is canceled reinstatement is automatic. But the university administration would not budge.
After I appealed again in 2000, the university appeals committee upheld the illegal dismissal by ignoring the basis of the dismissal entirely. This decision was based on the bogus legal claim that as an American citizen, I was a "foreigner," and "foreigners" were not protected by Taiwan's Teachers Law, hence could not benefit from an appeal, since the "foreigner" was not guaranteed an automatic contract renewal anyway.
In what democracy in the world does an appellant go through an appeal process only to be told, at the end of it, that it is without benefit? In what democracy in the world would the media ignore this?
Bear in mind that National Cheng Kung University has numerous academic exchanges with American universities, where Taiwan faculty or students are protected equally under American laws. Bear in mind the faculty involved in this decision, or indifferent to it, has many members who matriculated at, or were accredited by, American universities. But, as the Chinese proverb phrases it, "When the butt changes, the head changes."
Finally I appealed to the Ministry of Education, which, in a ruling dated 8 January 2001, canceled the dismissal, bold-facing numerous human rights violations committed by NCKU, and specifically chastising the NCKU Appeals Committee for not following laws and for claiming foreign teachers were not protected by the Teachers Law (attached).
This ruling had no legal effect on NCKU, which ignored it for nearly two and a half years, despite ten warning letters from the MOE (attached). Meanwhile NCKU appealed to the court claiming "foreigners" had no right to appeal.
Even apart from the university's discrimination of foreign faculty, its violation of government laws, and its defiance of a legal Ministry of Education ruling, what reputable institution would contest a decision only after it loses the decision? For that matter, what court would allow it? (From my understanding, the legal principle of estoppel is not recognized in Taiwan.)
Even schoolchildren learn about fair play at very young ages. Yet these officials, including chairs, deans, presidents, and faculty colleagues, many of whom were accredited at American universities, don't observe basic principles of law, human rights, and fair play.
Even after my belated reinstatement in May, 2003, the university continued to harass me with hearings, as if the MOE ruling had no legal effect. It imposed penalties, which were subsequently canceled as illegal by the MOE.
Taiwan's courts did not even see the need to punish the university or to award me compensation for the four-year interruption to my academic career and the immense resources, personal and financial, expended to fight the case. Instead the university was merely told to reinstate me. It's as if a kidnapper is merely told by the court to return a child it has held for four years, with no further penalty against the kidnapper or compensation to the child's parents.
No democracy can endure without strong deterrent rulings. That's why as recently as this year the university whitewashed the illegal dismissal on its official web page, claiming my illegal dismissal was "discontinued employment," that I was "declined for employment renewal" and that "legal procedures were carefully observed." This was signed by current NCKU president, Hwung-Hweng Hwung. Yet the MOE plainly stated the dismissal was "not done through legal dismissal procedures" (MOE ruling, letters, NCKU web page; attached).
My colleagues at National Cheng Kung University, many of whom matriculated at American colleges, have remained silent about the case though I have sent numerous emails requesting assistance. One of them actually published a letter deploring the lack of human rights in Mainland China, but when I emailed him about my case he never replied.
The issue is complicated by the lack of remedial channels common in a democracy. No human rights group has assigned me a pro bono lawyer. The press has virtually censored this case, despite serious issues involved, such as a major university in violation of human rights and in defiance of a legal Ministry ruling.
Local newspapers printed brief items on the case, with no attempt at adversarial journalism. As if there were no right and wrong sides, just two sides.
Taiwan's English-language newspapers have completely ignored the case, perhaps concerned readers might include an enlightened franchise abroad, such as the US Taiwan lobby.
Here is a recent email exchange suggesting de facto censorship at one of the English-language newspapers. The first email, from a reporter presumably nurtured by a more robust Hong Kong democratic press, shows strong interest in a newsworthy event.
But between his first and later emails apparent editorial interference dampened his enthusiasm. The tone of the emails changes after the first of the numbered series below, unedited except to redact names (typography, grammar, and spelling in original):
(1) Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:28 AM
subject about your case
Professor, Good Morning,
I am a reporter with the English-language [newspaper name omitted], hoping to talk to you over you complaints about your rights being violated by National Chengkung University. Our publisher happens to one one of the recipients of you email message dated May 18, hence this request for further information.
I don't you have phone number and I don't know yor whereabouts, so, if you don't mind, I would like to do a written interview with you, hoping you can answer my question asap (We intend to publish the story tomorrow).
My questions are:
1. Where are you now, and how can we contact you, and do you mind giving us a contact phone no?
2. What are you going to do. Are you going to initiate legal proceedings against National Chengkung Univ. again, or are you going to complain to human rights organizations in this country and overseas?
3. Could you briefly explain how you rights have been violated?
4. As you are calling for the university president to step down, what are you going to do if he refuses to do so? Will you fight to the end?
5. What further actions are you planning?
If you have doubts about my identity as a reporter with the paper, please [newspaper name omitted] managing editor [name omitted], who is in the office from 4 p.m. till midnight on a regular day.
My name, as known in the newsroom, is [omitted].
Thank you for your time,
[Name omitted]
(2) date Mon, May 23, 2011 at 3:56 PM
subject RE: Attachment, for Case at National Cheng Kung University, in Tainan, Taiwan
Dear Professor,
Thank for the documents and your time. I am still working on the article but my boss isn't in the office yet. If and when the paper has a decision as to when we are going to publish it, I'll let you know. BTW, I am Chinese, born in Hongkong, but now a ROC citizen.
[Reporter's name omitted]
(3) date Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:50 PM
subject Re: Regarding the article on the university
Professer,
I am not a decision-maker at the paper. I only act on orders. I should have told you earlier my editor has told me not to go further for the time being. That's all I can tell you.
I am sorry for not being able to help.
Regards,
[Reporter's name omitted]
Surprisingly, in response to my letters, I received a response from the newspaper's editor, after being ignored for thirteen years:
date Mon, May 30, 2011 at 4:00 PM
subject Re: Regarding the Question of Censorship at [Name omitted] in Taiwan
Dear Sir:
To know more about your protest against the NCKU, our reporter has checked with you, the NCKU administration and the Ministry of Education (MOE).
It is our understanding that the lawsuit between you and the NCKU has been going on for thirteen years.
After discussing with our reporter, we decided to postpone our report until further developments have come out, which will make our report more newsworthy.
We can assure you that there is never any kind of censorship existed in our newspaper and we have never surrendered our journalism to any kind of power.
Best Regards
[Name omitted]
Notice the euphemistic use of language in the above. A fully documented human rights case (see attachments) is referred to as my "protest," as if a rape victim "protests" being raped instead of reporting a serious crime. The case of egregious human rights abuses at a major Taiwan university is denatured as a "lawsuit." What should be a mandatory exposure of this case in a democracy is rationalized on the basis it is not "newsworthy." Instead, the editor awaits "further developments." What further developments can there be if the media don't expose the case? Apparently the US media is obligated to expose the plight of Taiwan but Taiwan's media is not obligated to expose the plight of an American citizen, both involving issues of democracy and human rights.
In Taiwan, whether Sean Connery marches on behalf of Taiwan independence is newsworthy but major human rights violations at a high-ranked university are not newsworthy? How is this different from China's press censorship, or its routine reference to human rights activists as "hooligans"? Confucius said to "Rectify the names" before there can be justice. And my reference to officially documented human rights abuses at NCKU is not a "protest," but a formal complaint, which, in a democracy, should be exposed by a free (that is, adversarial and inquisitorial) press.
(For documented exchanges I had with this newspaper see my entry on my blog at http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/search/label/Case%20Summary. For lettes documenting the history of this case, see my dedicated case blog at http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/search/label/Summary%20History%20of%20Human%20Rights%20Abuses%20at%20NCKU.)
Despite the fact that several NCKU presidents have completely ignored human rights issues in this case and one actually defied a legal Ministry ruling and ten warning letters to enforce that ruling, NCKU presidents continue to congratulate one another on mundane issues such as the donation of a piano, though both presidents involved in this report have ignored my pleas to formally acknowledge human rights abuses and effect formal remedy (
http://news-en.secr.ncku.edu.tw/files/14-1083-85388,r614-1.php). Can a university survive based on piano donations or on human rights enforcement? Can Taiwan democracy in Taiwan flourish under these conditions, regardless what the US does or does not do?
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
formerly Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(886) 06 2378626
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)