Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Friday, July 27, 2012
To the Esteemed Members of Academia Sinica, regarding human rights issues at a Taiwan university
Dr. Chi-Huey Wong,
President
Academia Sinica
128 Academia Road
Section 2, Nakang
Taipei 115
Taiwan
cc: Academicians of Academia Sinica
American Exchange Universities
Scholars at Risk
Ministry of Education
28 July 2012
Dear Dr. Chi-Huey Wong and Academicians of Academia Sinica,
I am writing because of long-standing human rights abuses at
National Cheng
Kung University
in Tainan, Taiwan.
In 1999, on the basis of illegal procedures,
including a secret letter circulated at oversight hearings, I was dismissed
from the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature. On appeal, the Ministry
of Education ruled in my favor on 8 January 2001 (attached).
Emboldened by a passive or ignorant faculty, the administration
of Kao Chiang contested the ruling, claiming “foreigners” had no right to
appeal and were not protected by the Teacher’s Law, though the university had previously
held bogus appeal hearings.
Despite ten warning letters from the Ministry of Education
(attached), two letters from Scholars at Risk, and a court verdict rejecting
the university’s claim, NCKU delayed for nearly two and a half years before
reinstating me, in May 2003, after which it held more hearings; as if MOE and
court rulings had no legal effect. These hearings were canceled by the MOE.
Despite these abuses, neither the MOE nor the court imposed
penalties on NCKU. Undeterred, and confident of faculty indifference, officials
now defiantly claim on NCKU’s web page that the university did nothing wrong (http://news-en.secr.ncku.edu.
How, in a lawful society, can a university repeatedly violate
the rights of a professor, documented in an MOE ruling (attached), yet post
that "The resolution to discontinue his employment followed the required
procedure"?
First, an illegal dismissal is not the same as “discontinued employment,” no more than theft is the same as a legal transfer of property.
First, an illegal dismissal is not the same as “discontinued employment,” no more than theft is the same as a legal transfer of property.
Second, if violating human rights is "required
procedure" at National
Cheng Kung
University then that
university should be discredited as an academic institution. For a detailed
rebuttal of the English post and a link to the Chinese post, see my dedicated
web page at http://rdca45b.blogspot.tw/
The Secretariat even had the audacity to accuse me of violating Taiwan statutes, though he only repeats malicious accusations rejected by the MOE. If the Secretariat's accusation were true, I would have been indicted under articles mentioned. Repeating a lie does not make it true, it makes it libel.
It's clear university officials were humiliated by losing the case. But they have only themselves to blame. They were repeatedly warned by members of the Teachers Union that their actions were illegal, but defiantly ignored them, as they continue to defy legal rulings years later.
The Secretariat even had the audacity to accuse me of violating Taiwan statutes, though he only repeats malicious accusations rejected by the MOE. If the Secretariat's accusation were true, I would have been indicted under articles mentioned. Repeating a lie does not make it true, it makes it libel.
It's clear university officials were humiliated by losing the case. But they have only themselves to blame. They were repeatedly warned by members of the Teachers Union that their actions were illegal, but defiantly ignored them, as they continue to defy legal rulings years later.
Embarrassed by their foolish misconduct,
they now whitewash their actions, impugning my reputation to save theirs. I
blame the lack of deterrent penalties by the courts and the MOE for their
brazen arrogance.
Does it seem reasonable that
university officials conspire to dismiss a professor and interrupt his academic
career for four years yet escape punitive damages or administrative penalties?
Punitive damages have a
deterrent function in lawful societies. They are awarded to discourage similar misconduct
in the future. They set a deterrent “example” in monetary terms, hence are “exemplary
damages.”
Deterrence, whether by fines
or incarceration, is integral to social order. If thieves were merely told to
return stolen money, would they be discouraged from stealing again? If the
police rescued an abducted child, without penalty to its kidnapper, would that
deter abductions?
I was not even awarded
compensation, which NCKU contested. Yet the dismissal cost me hundreds of
thousands of dollars in legal and travel costs.
Some esteemed colleagues of
this institute have benefited from American laws, hospitality, legal rights, and
remedial channels. I don’t think it’s asking too much to request that you reciprocate
to help formally resolve this case.
Please sign a formal petition to the
responsible government agencies and strongly urge this case be resolved
according to principles of international law, such as the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights your Legislative Yuan ratified on March
31, 2009.
Part II, Article 2, Section 3, paragraph (a) insures “that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity (my emphasis).
Part II, Article 2, Section 3, paragraph (a) insures “that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity (my emphasis).
Effective remedy includes a
formal apology, an admission of wrongdoing, a commitment to reform,
compensation, and, as determined by law, punitive damages.
The president of this
esteemed institute writes that it will “establish standards of academic
integrity, [and] forge closer ties with universities and research institutions
around the world . . . for the benefit of humanity.”
These are fine goals, but they
will not benefit humanity unless government agencies exercise oversight, with
effective punitive sanctions, so all faculty can teach and research without
fear, while academic exchanges with universities abroad are maintained with mutual
respect for the rights of foreign professors.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
formerly, Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Letter to Taiwan and American Universities
26 July 2012
Dear University Presidents,
I am addressing university presidents in Taiwan, as well as in America, in view of long-standing human rights abuses at a Taiwan university.
In 1999, I was illegally dismissed from National Cheng Kung University (NCKU), in Tainan, Taiwan. Defamatory accusations were used, later discredited by the Ministry of Education on appeal (attached).
When the Ministry of Education ruled in my favor on 8 January 2001, the university claimed "foreigners" had no right to appeal. Both the court and the Ministry of Education rejected this. Moreover the university itself had previously held appeal hearings, proving they were bogus.
NCKU faculty maintain academic exchanges with universities in my country, the United States, where their rights are insured. Yet NCKU shamelessly denied an American professor equal protection under the law.
Emboldened by faculty ignorance or passivity, NCKU, under the administration of Kao Chiang, refused to enforce the Ministry ruling for nearly two and a half years, though the Ministry sent ten warning letters (attached). Even when I was reinstated the university tried to impose penalties, as if the MOE ruling had no effect.
This is a brazen defiance of law and human rights as most civilized societies understand them. Still NCKU colleagues did nothing.
My experience with Taiwan's other "democratic" channels proved just as dismal. Emails I sent to Taiwan's premier and president received automated replies.
I went directly to the Office of the Control Yuan in Taipei. Through a translator I asked how university officials could commit abuses without penalty. The official said he would reply to a Chinese colleague at NCKU's Teacher's Union. My colleague said he was never contacted.
The court upheld the Ministry ruling but seemed to go out of its way to protect the university, despite its duplicity and rights abuses.
My libel suit against review members who used unproved accusations failed. The court argued since the accusations did not circulate outside the committee it was not libel.
All statutes I know say defamation is committed if one other party hears (slander) or reads (libel) it. Indeed, those accusations did more damage inside the university than they would have outside it. As recently as two years ago a student told me her classmates believed false claims made in a secret defamatory letter used to insure my dismissal, which I saw only by court order.
Despite willful, malicious, defiant, and repeated violations of laws and human rights, the court imposed no punitive damages against the university. To this day, no official has been punished, either by the courts or the Ministry of Education.
My claim for compensation for costs fighting my appeal, including legal fees and travel to renew my visa, was rejected on the basis I should not have stayed in Taiwan during my appeal.
Other channels of remedy proved futile. No Taiwan human rights group responded with assistance. If brazen human rights violations at a major university are not a concern, what is?
When a taekwondo athlete was disqualified, pro bono assistance was promptly offered. When NCKU students illegally shared copyrighted files online, Taiwan lawyers promptly offered pro bono assistance.
Which is a better cause? Students who share files illegally or an American professor whose rights are violated at a major Taiwan university?
Despite pretentious editorials about human rights abuses in Mainland China, Taiwan's English-language newspapers ignore the case. One reporter was even stopped from reporting it. The editor "explained" he was awaiting "further developments," though the case was 12 years old! The Taiwan press didn't await "further developments" in the taekwondo incident.
In Mainland China, with official censorship, citizens expose human rights abuses. In Taiwan, with a free press, newspapers won't expose human rights abuses at a major university! (See my blog for documentation at http://rdca45b.blogspot.tw/
(NOTE: After 13 years, one paper finally published a letter that referred to the case. See http://www.taipeitimes.com/
At least one Chinese-language newspaper published my case. But the focus was on two sides, as if this was a matter of arbitration, not justice. Yet clearly the university was wrong. The MOE said so. Are legal rulings meaningless in Taiwan?
A lack of legal sanctions against university officials will discourage faculty from contesting abuses, whether in promotion, grading, funding, or research. This will undermine the university system in Taiwan. A society without remedy is a society without hope.
Having exhausted all channels of remedy, I appeal to universities here. As an enlightened franchise, you know this is a test whether there are human rights, law, and lawful remedy in Taiwan. It also tests the role faculties are willing to play to insure human rights in Taiwan.
I lost four years of my career. Yet I have received no compensation, no formal apology, and no official has been punished.
Is violating the rights of an American professor of no consequence here? Yet remedy is guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights your Legislative Yuan ratified on March 31, 2009.
Part II, Article 2, Section 3 states (my emphasis):
Because Taiwan's courts neglected their deterrent function, the university continues to defy legal rulings. Despite human rights violations, it brazenly suggests on its web page it did nothing wrong (http://news-en.secr.ncku.edu.
Do Ministry and court rulings have legal force in Taiwan? How can a university violate a professor's rights yet post that "The resolution to discontinue his employment followed the required procedure"?
If violating human rights is "required procedure" at National Cheng Kung University then that university should be discredited as an academic institution. For a detailed rebuttal of these posts, see my dedicated web page at http://rdca45b.blogspot.tw/
Though NCKU's Secretariat once chaired the Faculty Union that contested my illegal dismissal, he now claims, along with the university president, no illegal dismissal occurred. "When the butt changes, the head changes."
My illegal dismissal included numerous human rights violations. If that is a "discontinued employment," then theft is a transfer of property, kidnapping is a quick adoption, and rape is a one-sided love affair.
Though the Ministry of Education warned the university it must investigate accusations, the Secretariat now, with apparent impunity, repeats malicious accusations as fact:
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.
By quoting real laws, the Secretariat dignifies false claims. It's as if a jilted lover accused a woman of prostitution, "under Article 80 of the Social Order and Maintenance Act." The false accusation seems factual because the law is factual, though the woman never prostituted.
If the Secretariat's accusation were true, I would have been indicted under articles mentioned. Repeating a lie does not make it true, it makes it libel.
It's clear university officials were humiliated by losing the case. Like children, they now whitewash their actions, impugning my reputation to save theirs. I blame the lack of deterrent penalties by the courts and the Ministry of Education for this brazen arrogance.
The basis of a civilized society is remedy. But I have lost faith in remedial channels in Taiwan, as seen in court rulings, the inaction or ineffectual responses of the Ministry of Education and other government agencies, the lack of press exposure, the silence of colleagues, and the indifference of human rights groups.
No university should violate rights with impunity. I ask Taiwan's universities to insure a proper administrative closure to this case so that academic exchanges with universities in democracies abroad can be maintained with mutual respect.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
formerly Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Dear University Presidents,
I am addressing university presidents in Taiwan, as well as in America, in view of long-standing human rights abuses at a Taiwan university.
In 1999, I was illegally dismissed from National Cheng Kung University (NCKU), in Tainan, Taiwan. Defamatory accusations were used, later discredited by the Ministry of Education on appeal (attached).
When the Ministry of Education ruled in my favor on 8 January 2001, the university claimed "foreigners" had no right to appeal. Both the court and the Ministry of Education rejected this. Moreover the university itself had previously held appeal hearings, proving they were bogus.
NCKU faculty maintain academic exchanges with universities in my country, the United States, where their rights are insured. Yet NCKU shamelessly denied an American professor equal protection under the law.
Emboldened by faculty ignorance or passivity, NCKU, under the administration of Kao Chiang, refused to enforce the Ministry ruling for nearly two and a half years, though the Ministry sent ten warning letters (attached). Even when I was reinstated the university tried to impose penalties, as if the MOE ruling had no effect.
This is a brazen defiance of law and human rights as most civilized societies understand them. Still NCKU colleagues did nothing.
My experience with Taiwan's other "democratic" channels proved just as dismal. Emails I sent to Taiwan's premier and president received automated replies.
I went directly to the Office of the Control Yuan in Taipei. Through a translator I asked how university officials could commit abuses without penalty. The official said he would reply to a Chinese colleague at NCKU's Teacher's Union. My colleague said he was never contacted.
The court upheld the Ministry ruling but seemed to go out of its way to protect the university, despite its duplicity and rights abuses.
My libel suit against review members who used unproved accusations failed. The court argued since the accusations did not circulate outside the committee it was not libel.
All statutes I know say defamation is committed if one other party hears (slander) or reads (libel) it. Indeed, those accusations did more damage inside the university than they would have outside it. As recently as two years ago a student told me her classmates believed false claims made in a secret defamatory letter used to insure my dismissal, which I saw only by court order.
Despite willful, malicious, defiant, and repeated violations of laws and human rights, the court imposed no punitive damages against the university. To this day, no official has been punished, either by the courts or the Ministry of Education.
My claim for compensation for costs fighting my appeal, including legal fees and travel to renew my visa, was rejected on the basis I should not have stayed in Taiwan during my appeal.
Other channels of remedy proved futile. No Taiwan human rights group responded with assistance. If brazen human rights violations at a major university are not a concern, what is?
When a taekwondo athlete was disqualified, pro bono assistance was promptly offered. When NCKU students illegally shared copyrighted files online, Taiwan lawyers promptly offered pro bono assistance.
Which is a better cause? Students who share files illegally or an American professor whose rights are violated at a major Taiwan university?
Despite pretentious editorials about human rights abuses in Mainland China, Taiwan's English-language newspapers ignore the case. One reporter was even stopped from reporting it. The editor "explained" he was awaiting "further developments," though the case was 12 years old! The Taiwan press didn't await "further developments" in the taekwondo incident.
In Mainland China, with official censorship, citizens expose human rights abuses. In Taiwan, with a free press, newspapers won't expose human rights abuses at a major university! (See my blog for documentation at http://rdca45b.blogspot.tw/
(NOTE: After 13 years, one paper finally published a letter that referred to the case. See http://www.taipeitimes.com/
At least one Chinese-language newspaper published my case. But the focus was on two sides, as if this was a matter of arbitration, not justice. Yet clearly the university was wrong. The MOE said so. Are legal rulings meaningless in Taiwan?
A lack of legal sanctions against university officials will discourage faculty from contesting abuses, whether in promotion, grading, funding, or research. This will undermine the university system in Taiwan. A society without remedy is a society without hope.
Having exhausted all channels of remedy, I appeal to universities here. As an enlightened franchise, you know this is a test whether there are human rights, law, and lawful remedy in Taiwan. It also tests the role faculties are willing to play to insure human rights in Taiwan.
I lost four years of my career. Yet I have received no compensation, no formal apology, and no official has been punished.
Is violating the rights of an American professor of no consequence here? Yet remedy is guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights your Legislative Yuan ratified on March 31, 2009.
Part II, Article 2, Section 3 states (my emphasis):
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a) To ensure that any person whose
rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed
by persons acting in an official capacity;
Because Taiwan's courts neglected their deterrent function, the university continues to defy legal rulings. Despite human rights violations, it brazenly suggests on its web page it did nothing wrong (http://news-en.secr.ncku.edu.
Do Ministry and court rulings have legal force in Taiwan? How can a university violate a professor's rights yet post that "The resolution to discontinue his employment followed the required procedure"?
If violating human rights is "required procedure" at National Cheng Kung University then that university should be discredited as an academic institution. For a detailed rebuttal of these posts, see my dedicated web page at http://rdca45b.blogspot.tw/
Though NCKU's Secretariat once chaired the Faculty Union that contested my illegal dismissal, he now claims, along with the university president, no illegal dismissal occurred. "When the butt changes, the head changes."
My illegal dismissal included numerous human rights violations. If that is a "discontinued employment," then theft is a transfer of property, kidnapping is a quick adoption, and rape is a one-sided love affair.
Though the Ministry of Education warned the university it must investigate accusations, the Secretariat now, with apparent impunity, repeats malicious accusations as fact:
By quoting real laws, the Secretariat dignifies false claims. It's as if a jilted lover accused a woman of prostitution, "under Article 80 of the Social Order and Maintenance Act." The false accusation seems factual because the law is factual, though the woman never prostituted.
If the Secretariat's accusation were true, I would have been indicted under articles mentioned. Repeating a lie does not make it true, it makes it libel.
It's clear university officials were humiliated by losing the case. Like children, they now whitewash their actions, impugning my reputation to save theirs. I blame the lack of deterrent penalties by the courts and the Ministry of Education for this brazen arrogance.
The basis of a civilized society is remedy. But I have lost faith in remedial channels in Taiwan, as seen in court rulings, the inaction or ineffectual responses of the Ministry of Education and other government agencies, the lack of press exposure, the silence of colleagues, and the indifference of human rights groups.
No university should violate rights with impunity. I ask Taiwan's universities to insure a proper administrative closure to this case so that academic exchanges with universities in democracies abroad can be maintained with mutual respect.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
formerly Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Letter to Taiwan and American Universities
26 July 2012
Dear University Presidents,
I am addressing university presidents in Taiwan, as well as in America, in view of long-standing human rights abuses at a Taiwan university.
In 1999, I was illegally dismissed from National Cheng Kung University (NCKU), in Tainan, Taiwan. Defamatory accusations were used, later discredited by the Ministry of Education on appeal (attached).
When the Ministry of Education ruled in my favor on 8 January 2001, the university claimed "foreigners" had no right to appeal. Both the court and the Ministry of Education rejected this. Moreover the university itself had previously held appeal hearings, proving they were bogus.
NCKU faculty maintain academic exchanges with universities in my country, the United States, where their rights are insured. Yet NCKU shamelessly denied an American professor equal protection under the law.
Emboldened by faculty ignorance or passivity, NCKU, under the administration of Kao Chiang, refused to enforce the Ministry ruling for nearly two and a half years, though the Ministry sent ten warning letters (attached). Even when I was reinstated the university tried to impose penalties, as if the MOE ruling had no effect.
This is a brazen defiance of law and human rights as most civilized societies understand them. Still NCKU colleagues did nothing.
My experience with Taiwan's other "democratic" channels proved just as dismal. Emails I sent to Taiwan's premier and president received automated replies.
I went directly to the Office of the Control Yuan in Taipei. Through a translator I asked how university officials could commit abuses without penalty. The official said he would reply to a Chinese colleague at NCKU's Teacher's Union. My colleague said he was never contacted.
The court upheld the Ministry ruling but seemed to go out of its way to protect the university, despite its duplicity and rights abuses.
My libel suit against review members who used unproved accusations failed. The court argued since the accusations did not circulate outside the committee it was not libel.
All statutes I know say defamation is committed if one other party hears (slander) or reads (libel) it. Indeed, those accusations did more damage inside the university than they would have outside it. As recently as two years ago a student told me her classmates believed false claims made in a secret defamatory letter used to insure my dismissal, which I saw only by court order.
Despite willful, malicious, defiant, and repeated violations of laws and human rights, the court imposed no punitive damages against the university. To this day, no official has been punished, either by the courts or the Ministry of Education.
My claim for compensation for costs fighting my appeal, including legal fees and travel to renew my visa, was rejected on the basis I should not have stayed in Taiwan during my appeal.
Other channels of remedy proved futile. No Taiwan human rights group responded with assistance. If brazen human rights violations at a major university are not a concern, what is?
When a taekwondo athlete was disqualified, pro bono assistance was promptly offered. When NCKU students illegally shared copyrighted files online, Taiwan lawyers promptly offered pro bono assistance.
Which is a better cause? Students who share files illegally or an American professor whose rights are violated at a major Taiwan university?
Despite pretentious editorials about human rights abuses in Mainland China, Taiwan's English-language newspapers ignore the case. One reporter was even stopped from reporting it. The editor "explained" he was awaiting "further developments," though the case was 12 years old! The Taiwan press didn't await "further developments" in the taekwondo incident.
In Mainland China, with official censorship, citizens expose human rights abuses. In Taiwan, with a free press, newspapers won't expose human rights abuses at a major university! (See my blog for documentation at http://rdca45b.blogspot.tw/
(NOTE: After 13 years, one paper finally published a letter that referred to the case. See http://www.taipeitimes.com/
At least one Chinese-language newspaper published my case. But the focus was on two sides, as if this was a matter of arbitration, not justice. Yet clearly the university was wrong. The MOE said so. Are legal rulings meaningless in Taiwan?
A lack of legal sanctions against university officials will discourage faculty from contesting abuses, whether in promotion, grading, funding, or research. This will undermine the university system in Taiwan. A society without remedy is a society without hope.
Having exhausted all channels of remedy, I appeal to universities here. As an enlightened franchise, you know this is a test whether there are human rights, law, and lawful remedy in Taiwan. It also tests the role faculties are willing to play to insure human rights in Taiwan.
I lost four years of my career. Yet I have received no compensation, no formal apology, and no official has been punished.
Is violating the rights of an American professor of no consequence here? Yet remedy is guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights your Legislative Yuan ratified on March 31, 2009.
Part II, Article 2, Section 3 states (my emphasis):
Because Taiwan's courts neglected their deterrent function, the university continues to defy legal rulings. Despite human rights violations, it brazenly suggests on its web page it did nothing wrong (http://news-en.secr.ncku.edu.
Do Ministry and court rulings have legal force in Taiwan? How can a university violate a professor's rights yet post that "The resolution to discontinue his employment followed the required procedure"?
If violating human rights is "required procedure" at National Cheng Kung University then that university should be discredited as an academic institution. For a detailed rebuttal of these posts, see my dedicated web page at http://rdca45b.blogspot.tw/
Though NCKU's Secretariat once chaired the Faculty Union that contested my illegal dismissal, he now claims, along with the university president, no illegal dismissal occurred. "When the butt changes, the head changes."
My illegal dismissal included numerous human rights violations. If that is a "discontinued employment," then theft is a transfer of property, kidnapping is a quick adoption, and rape is a one-sided love affair.
Though the Ministry of Education warned the university it must investigate accusations, the Secretariat now, with apparent impunity, repeats malicious accusations as fact:
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. By
quoting real laws, the Secretariat dignifies false claims. It's as if a
jilted lover accused a woman of prostitution, "under Article 80 of the
Social Order and Maintenance Act." The false accusation seems factual because the law is factual, though the woman never prostituted.
If the Secretariat's accusation were true, I would have been indicted under articles mentioned. Repeating a lie does not make it true, it makes it libel.
It's clear university officials were humiliated by losing the case. Like children, they now whitewash their actions, impugning my reputation to save theirs. I blame the lack of deterrent penalties by the courts and the Ministry of Education for this brazen arrogance.
The basis of a civilized society is remedy. But I have lost faith in remedial channels in Taiwan, as seen in court rulings, the inaction or ineffectual responses of the Ministry of Education and other government agencies, the lack of press exposure, the silence of colleagues, and the indifference of human rights groups.
No university should violate rights with impunity. I ask Taiwan's universities to insure a proper administrative closure to this case so that academic exchanges with universities in democracies abroad can be maintained with mutual respect.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
formerly Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Dear University Presidents,
I am addressing university presidents in Taiwan, as well as in America, in view of long-standing human rights abuses at a Taiwan university.
In 1999, I was illegally dismissed from National Cheng Kung University (NCKU), in Tainan, Taiwan. Defamatory accusations were used, later discredited by the Ministry of Education on appeal (attached).
When the Ministry of Education ruled in my favor on 8 January 2001, the university claimed "foreigners" had no right to appeal. Both the court and the Ministry of Education rejected this. Moreover the university itself had previously held appeal hearings, proving they were bogus.
NCKU faculty maintain academic exchanges with universities in my country, the United States, where their rights are insured. Yet NCKU shamelessly denied an American professor equal protection under the law.
Emboldened by faculty ignorance or passivity, NCKU, under the administration of Kao Chiang, refused to enforce the Ministry ruling for nearly two and a half years, though the Ministry sent ten warning letters (attached). Even when I was reinstated the university tried to impose penalties, as if the MOE ruling had no effect.
This is a brazen defiance of law and human rights as most civilized societies understand them. Still NCKU colleagues did nothing.
My experience with Taiwan's other "democratic" channels proved just as dismal. Emails I sent to Taiwan's premier and president received automated replies.
I went directly to the Office of the Control Yuan in Taipei. Through a translator I asked how university officials could commit abuses without penalty. The official said he would reply to a Chinese colleague at NCKU's Teacher's Union. My colleague said he was never contacted.
The court upheld the Ministry ruling but seemed to go out of its way to protect the university, despite its duplicity and rights abuses.
My libel suit against review members who used unproved accusations failed. The court argued since the accusations did not circulate outside the committee it was not libel.
All statutes I know say defamation is committed if one other party hears (slander) or reads (libel) it. Indeed, those accusations did more damage inside the university than they would have outside it. As recently as two years ago a student told me her classmates believed false claims made in a secret defamatory letter used to insure my dismissal, which I saw only by court order.
Despite willful, malicious, defiant, and repeated violations of laws and human rights, the court imposed no punitive damages against the university. To this day, no official has been punished, either by the courts or the Ministry of Education.
My claim for compensation for costs fighting my appeal, including legal fees and travel to renew my visa, was rejected on the basis I should not have stayed in Taiwan during my appeal.
Other channels of remedy proved futile. No Taiwan human rights group responded with assistance. If brazen human rights violations at a major university are not a concern, what is?
When a taekwondo athlete was disqualified, pro bono assistance was promptly offered. When NCKU students illegally shared copyrighted files online, Taiwan lawyers promptly offered pro bono assistance.
Which is a better cause? Students who share files illegally or an American professor whose rights are violated at a major Taiwan university?
Despite pretentious editorials about human rights abuses in Mainland China, Taiwan's English-language newspapers ignore the case. One reporter was even stopped from reporting it. The editor "explained" he was awaiting "further developments," though the case was 12 years old! The Taiwan press didn't await "further developments" in the taekwondo incident.
In Mainland China, with official censorship, citizens expose human rights abuses. In Taiwan, with a free press, newspapers won't expose human rights abuses at a major university! (See my blog for documentation at http://rdca45b.blogspot.tw/
(NOTE: After 13 years, one paper finally published a letter that referred to the case. See http://www.taipeitimes.com/
At least one Chinese-language newspaper published my case. But the focus was on two sides, as if this was a matter of arbitration, not justice. Yet clearly the university was wrong. The MOE said so. Are legal rulings meaningless in Taiwan?
A lack of legal sanctions against university officials will discourage faculty from contesting abuses, whether in promotion, grading, funding, or research. This will undermine the university system in Taiwan. A society without remedy is a society without hope.
Having exhausted all channels of remedy, I appeal to universities here. As an enlightened franchise, you know this is a test whether there are human rights, law, and lawful remedy in Taiwan. It also tests the role faculties are willing to play to insure human rights in Taiwan.
I lost four years of my career. Yet I have received no compensation, no formal apology, and no official has been punished.
Is violating the rights of an American professor of no consequence here? Yet remedy is guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights your Legislative Yuan ratified on March 31, 2009.
Part II, Article 2, Section 3 states (my emphasis):
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a) To ensure that any person whose
rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed
by persons acting in an official capacity;
Because Taiwan's courts neglected their deterrent function, the university continues to defy legal rulings. Despite human rights violations, it brazenly suggests on its web page it did nothing wrong (http://news-en.secr.ncku.edu.
Do Ministry and court rulings have legal force in Taiwan? How can a university violate a professor's rights yet post that "The resolution to discontinue his employment followed the required procedure"?
If violating human rights is "required procedure" at National Cheng Kung University then that university should be discredited as an academic institution. For a detailed rebuttal of these posts, see my dedicated web page at http://rdca45b.blogspot.tw/
Though NCKU's Secretariat once chaired the Faculty Union that contested my illegal dismissal, he now claims, along with the university president, no illegal dismissal occurred. "When the butt changes, the head changes."
My illegal dismissal included numerous human rights violations. If that is a "discontinued employment," then theft is a transfer of property, kidnapping is a quick adoption, and rape is a one-sided love affair.
Though the Ministry of Education warned the university it must investigate accusations, the Secretariat now, with apparent impunity, repeats malicious accusations as fact:
If the Secretariat's accusation were true, I would have been indicted under articles mentioned. Repeating a lie does not make it true, it makes it libel.
It's clear university officials were humiliated by losing the case. Like children, they now whitewash their actions, impugning my reputation to save theirs. I blame the lack of deterrent penalties by the courts and the Ministry of Education for this brazen arrogance.
The basis of a civilized society is remedy. But I have lost faith in remedial channels in Taiwan, as seen in court rulings, the inaction or ineffectual responses of the Ministry of Education and other government agencies, the lack of press exposure, the silence of colleagues, and the indifference of human rights groups.
No university should violate rights with impunity. I ask Taiwan's universities to insure a proper administrative closure to this case so that academic exchanges with universities in democracies abroad can be maintained with mutual respect.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
formerly Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Friday, February 10, 2012
Regarding the "shameful" attack on a Taiwanese taxi driver
Letters
Taipei Times
14 Fl., No. 399, Ruiguang Rd
Neihu, Taipei
Taiwan
11 February 2012
Editor,
Recently the Taiwan media have been vocal about an abuse of a Taiwanese taxi driver by a "foreigner." Your paper even used the word "shameful" in one headline (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2012/02/11/2003525188). But when a "foreigner" was viciously assaulted by a gang last year you editorialized the incident as "unfortunate."
I'm happy to know this incident is treated as a crime—as it should be. But I'm unhappy to know there seems to be a chauvinistic double standard in Taiwan, where the "dignity" of Taiwanese is treated with more respect than the dignity of "foreigners." This was evident in the media frenzy over a taekwondo incident a while back.
As you know, National Cheng Kung University illegally dismissed me thirteen years ago. The case involved a high-ranked university and numerous human rights abuses, including the refusal to enforce a Ministry of Education ruling for nearly four years. Yet your paper has not exposed the case as "shameful" or editorialized about the dignity of Americans in Taiwan.
In your article, the protesters are quoted as shouting "We want dignity! We want the truth!"
What do you think I want? Is my "dignity," or the "truth" of human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University, of less merit or social import?
A taxi union official thanked Taiwan's media for speaking on behalf of the victim and justice. I wish I could say as much.
I understand this case is different, because the victim was Taiwanese. It has lasted a few days but a taxi official is quoted saying the case "had dragged on for so long."
My case has lasted thirteen years and your paper awaits "further developments," as one of your editors emailed me last year. Apart from the establishment of a genuinely free and adversarial press in Taiwan, I have no idea what those "developments" could be.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Tainan, Taiwan
Taipei Times
14 Fl., No. 399, Ruiguang Rd
Neihu, Taipei
Taiwan
11 February 2012
Editor,
Recently the Taiwan media have been vocal about an abuse of a Taiwanese taxi driver by a "foreigner." Your paper even used the word "shameful" in one headline (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2012/02/11/2003525188). But when a "foreigner" was viciously assaulted by a gang last year you editorialized the incident as "unfortunate."
I'm happy to know this incident is treated as a crime—as it should be. But I'm unhappy to know there seems to be a chauvinistic double standard in Taiwan, where the "dignity" of Taiwanese is treated with more respect than the dignity of "foreigners." This was evident in the media frenzy over a taekwondo incident a while back.
As you know, National Cheng Kung University illegally dismissed me thirteen years ago. The case involved a high-ranked university and numerous human rights abuses, including the refusal to enforce a Ministry of Education ruling for nearly four years. Yet your paper has not exposed the case as "shameful" or editorialized about the dignity of Americans in Taiwan.
In your article, the protesters are quoted as shouting "We want dignity! We want the truth!"
What do you think I want? Is my "dignity," or the "truth" of human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University, of less merit or social import?
A taxi union official thanked Taiwan's media for speaking on behalf of the victim and justice. I wish I could say as much.
I understand this case is different, because the victim was Taiwanese. It has lasted a few days but a taxi official is quoted saying the case "had dragged on for so long."
My case has lasted thirteen years and your paper awaits "further developments," as one of your editors emailed me last year. Apart from the establishment of a genuinely free and adversarial press in Taiwan, I have no idea what those "developments" could be.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Tainan, Taiwan
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Puzzled by Taiwan's Democracy
Taiwan Foundation for Democracy
No.4, Alley 17, Lane 147, Sec. 3, Sinyi Rd., Taipei 106, Taiwan
cc: Scholars at Risk, etc.
25 December 2011
Dear Dr. Lin,
For nearly two and a half years National Cheng Kung University president, Kao Chiang, defied a Ministry of Education ruling that overturned my illegal dismissal.
NCKU officials still refuse to remedy, or apologize for, human rights violations. Current president Hwung-Hweng Hwung defiantly whitewashed my illegal dismissal as a "discontinued employment," while his secretariat, Chin-Cheng Chen, repeated false accusations against me as facts (http://news-en.secr.ncku.edu.tw/files/13-1083-78482-1.php; cf. http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/2011/12/4-december-2011-dear-ncku-colleagues-on.html).
Yet the MOE said NCKU "seriously influenced" my "rights" (April 6, 2001), made "improper procedures" (June 14, 2001), and "repeatedly and deviously" interpreted the law (August 17, 2001) (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCDpwd8lE2WN5jzfNAvBIP4GTM_j6jC3yuA4Gq2IbLlxGTsQ_9s6MDqEK596XXZLrnI7cADZW_L5Fa-TC5LVbKzkMRjdIsrkpXSmu-6_WTYyShiY91YQ0_pMc860OoEu3GSD8WntXOLdM/s1600/moeLetters10-726356.JPG). Taiwan's Higher Court ruled the dismissal "was not lawful" (16 January 2007) and Tainan's District Court concluded NCKU "violated the law" and the dismissal was "full of wrongdoings" (7 April 2007). (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXxA5YqRLRetz1pBDey7do5HdnYdxaDyN52qzQgY1EuF3ezBeq7njDsPF__FbzhHrUtjdU6BeFIomZEnt2R5eOS5Yudr4efrAkudYcpOvGkLzK3KJwuY06Z7WGLbRPr_My38GH_6y1FAQ/s1600/courtRulingsUnderlined.JPG.)
Yet no one was punished. The right to sue government officials is legal show without retribution and compensation.
Tainan's prosecutor dismissed my libel complaint against review members on the claim accusations did not circulate outside the university. But all statutes I know say a falsehood is actionable if one other person reads or hears it.
A student who made defamatory accusations was not punished, on the claim her letter did not cause my dismissal. But it was solicited and secretly circulated at university committees for that purpose.
Though the university defiantly violated laws and interrupted my career for four years, courts issued no penalties or punitive and compensatory damages, routine in other democracies. They just told NCKU to reinstate me, like telling a kidnapper to return the child or a robber to return money, with no penalty.
Taiwan inculturates Western values to suit its ways. It permits the right to sue officials, but prevents punishment of those officials. This is "please and tease" politics, giving with one hand and taking with the other.
Showcasing human rights is not the same as enforcing them. No Taiwan rights group has helped me. Yet the case involves human rights issues at all levels of Taiwan society, including judicial equity, media censorship, and academic integrity.
The fact that NCKU officials and committees defy laws and legal rulings with the toleration of faculty undermines confidence in the university's oversight enforcement, thus the integrity of its grading, promotion, and research.
Awarding honorary degrees is meaningless if a university is itself without honor.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Formerly, Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Friday, December 23, 2011
Letter to Green Island Human Rights Memorial Staff
Green Island Human Rights Memorial Park Staff
23 December 2011
Memorializing human rights abuses in the past is commendable but is no substitute for enforcing human rights in the present.
In 1999, I was illegally dismissed from the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature (FLLD) at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) in Tainan, Taiwan. The appeal process was a ruse to delay the case, against appellate rights, since the university later claimed I had no right to appeal, though it held numerous appeal hearings and participated at one at the Ministry of Education in Taipei. Thus the university not only defied human rights principles but even principles of fair play that schoolchildren are taught at a young age.
After I won an appeal in a Ministry of Education (MOE) ruling dated 8 January 2001, university president, Kao Chiang, defied it for nearly two and a half years. Yet 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 (2011), on NCKU's official web page (http://news-en.secr.ncku.edu.tw/files/13-1083-78482-1.php), current president Hwung-Hweng Hwung whitewashed my illegal dismissal as a "discontinued employment" (http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/ ).
Mr. Hwung asserts "Legal procedures were carefully observed." Yet the MOE warned that NCKU "seriously influenced the appellant's rights" (April 6, 2001), made "previous improper procedures" (June 14, 2001), and cautioned NCKU officials "not to repeatedly and deviously interpret the law" (August 17, 2001) (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCDpwd8lE2WN5jzfNAvBIP4GTM_j6jC3yuA4Gq2IbLlxGTsQ_9s6MDqEK596XXZLrnI7cADZW_L5Fa-TC5LVbKzkMRjdIsrkpXSmu-6_WTYyShiY91YQ0_pMc860OoEu3GSD8WntXOLdM/s1600/moeLetters10-726356.JPG). Taiwan's Higher Court similarly ruled the dismissal "was not lawful" (16 January 2007). Tainan's District Court ruled NCKU "violated the law" and the dismissal was "definitely full of wrongdoings" (7 April 2007).
So why doesn't National Cheng Kung University, presumably the fourth-ranked in Taiwan, and with numerous academic exchanges with US universities, admit wrongdoing, hold its officials accountable, and insure compensation instead of whitewashing the illegal dismissal as "discontinued employment"?
I should add that on that same page (http://news-en.secr.ncku.edu.tw/files/13-1083-78482-1.php) current Secretariat, Chin-Cheng Chen, goes beyond whitewashing the university's illegal actions and actually inculpates me in the university's illegal dismissal, as if legal rulings, by the Ministry of Education as well as Taiwan's courts (attached), have no material effect.
Are there laws in Taiwan, or sanctions by the Ministry of Education, that prevent this kind of equivocal, and even defamatory, language by university officials to protect the rights of "foreign" faculty and insure their reputation and dignity in Taiwan? US laws protect Taiwan faculty and students; why doesn't Taiwan's government honor universal principles of human rights in the same way?
Richard de Canio
formerly, Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Monday, December 12, 2011
Taiwan Foundation for Democracy
No.4, Alley 17, Lane 147, Sec. 3, Sinyi Rd., Taipei 106, Taiwan
Professor Dennis Hickey
Department of Political Science
Missouri State University
901 South National Avenue
Springfield, MO 65897
Tsai Ing-wen
Taiwan Presidential Candidate
Scholars at Risk
New York, N.Y.
12 December 2011
Dear Dr. Jonathan Lin,
In June 1999, based on defamatory accusations, I was dismissed from the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature (FLLD) at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) in Tainan, Taiwan. The appeal process was a ruse to delay the case indefinitely, against appellate rights.
After 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. The MOE's warning letters (attached) 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.
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 repeated false accusations against me as facts and whitewashed my illegal dismissal as a "discontinued employment" (http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/ ).
Tainan's prosecutor dismissed my libel complaint against FLLD review members on the basis their defamatory 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. Moreover the accusations insured my dismissal. To add salt to the wound, NCKU used my libel suit to claim, in another 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 solicited and circulated for that purpose. Moreover her accusations prejudiced students against me more than ten years later (attached). Now she teaches at NCKU, despite her defamatory letter. The Dean of Student Affairs, who ignored 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. To this day no one involved in my illegal dismissal has been punished.
Though a few Chinese-language newspapers published the case, it was as a human interest item, not a human rights report. As if human rights were of no concern here. As if there was no right and wrong side, just two sides—a case of arbitration, not justice. As if Taiwan was a tribal society, not a democratic government.
This seems to have been the view of the courts, which mediated a pragmatic compromise rather than rule on principles of law. They upheld a Ministry ruling but also protected the presumed dignity of Taiwanese against the rights of a foreigner.
Hence the lack of compensatory, punitive, and remedial judgments.
In Taiwan democracy is enjoyed as a franchise, not enforced as a framework of rights. A permissive court is not the same as a just court.
The right to file a lawsuit against government officials is meaningless if judicial rulings deny rights rather than enforce them. In that case, a plaintiff's rights are a smokescreen for injustice.
Accountability and compensation are rights enshrined in international human rights charters endorsed by Taiwan. No Taiwan court should be allowed to nullify those rights.
I know of no democratic court in the world that would make similar rulings in these cases. A university repeatedly defied statutory rulings, yet the court found no liability and awarded no punitive or compensatory damages. Review Committee members were found not liable for circulating defamatory accusations that resulted in my dismissal. A student wrote a defamatory accusation that was solicited and circulated precisely to insure my dismissal yet is not found liable. Yes, an American can file a lawsuit in Taiwan's democracy, but can he win?
Recently I was informed by a Taiwanese colleague that he sued an NCKU student for defamatory remarks on the NCKU bulletin board and was awarded NT$150,000 in damages. Yet I could not win damages from a student whose defamatory letter was solicited and circulated to insure my dismissal. Not only wasn't the student punished but she's now teaching at the university!
Presumably no "foreigner" can win a case of this kind against Taiwanese, especially where the reputation of a so-called high-ranked Taiwan university is at stake. If US courts made similar rulings against Taiwanese perhaps there would be a Taiwan awakening.
Taiwanese are incensed at the mere rumor their taekwondo athlete was discriminated against in South Korea, but they remain silent about my case. Yet their children and colleagues enjoy human rights protections in the United States.
NCKU faculty who enjoyed human rights protections while matriculated in the United States are now completely silent about my case, though I have repeatedly emailed them to speak out on my behalf. "In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends" (Martin Luther King, Jr.).
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. (For a documented exchange with an English-language newspaper in Taiwan, see my dedicated case blog at http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/search/label/Censorship%20in%20Taiwan%27s%20English-Language%20Press).
Of more general concern is, if Taiwan's press has ignored my officially documented case, what other human rights issues have they ignored in Taiwan? This bodes ill for Taiwan's own citizens. "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter" (Martin Luther King, Jr.).
Taiwan's human rights and legal aid groups have proved useless. If a case of a major university guilty of documented 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.
In the Middle East, on the streets of Moscow, and in Mainland China citizens stand up for rights at great risk. But in Taiwan educated faculty refuse to challenge an unjust administration at no risk except their relationships with colleagues who, based on their misconduct, are not worth having relationships with.
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).
Is it a wonder some Americans have become indifferent to Taiwan's democracy when Taiwanese seem indifferent to it?
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Formerly, Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(886) 06 237 8626
PS: For a more complete understanding of events at National Cheng Kung University, consult my dedicated case blog at http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/
Sunday, December 4, 2011
4 December 2011
Dear NCKU Colleagues,
On March 4, 2011 a so-called "explanation," signed by current NCKU president, Hwung-Hweng Hwung was posted on the official NCKU web page (http://news-en.secr.ncku.edu.tw/files/13-1083-78482-1.php), where my illegal dismissal from the university in 1999 is now called "discontinued employment." By this logic a bank robbery is a quick withdrawal of funds.
The MOE ruling of 8 January 2001 explicitly states "the Appeals Committee's decision violated the law and was wrong" (http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/search/label/Ministry%20of%20Education%20Ruling). Why does Mr. Hwung call it "discontinued employment"?
Perhaps for the reason many ignore the 228 incident: "For several decades, the KMT-ruled government prohibited public discussion of the 228 Massacre and many children grew up without knowing this event had ever occurred" (Wikipedia).
So faculty and students at NCKU teach and matriculate "without knowing" my illegal dismissal "had ever occurred." In Mr. Hwung's sanitized language, I was "declined for employment renewal." Perhaps a foreign hostage is "declined for repatriation."
Mr. Hwung asserts "Legal procedures were carefully observed." Yet the MOE warned that NCKU "has seriously influenced the appellant's rights" (April 6, 2001), made "previous improper procedures" (June 14, 2001), and cautioned NCKU officials "not to repeatedly and deviously interpret the law" (August 17, 2001) (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCDpwd8lE2WN5jzfNAvBIP4GTM_j6jC3yuA4Gq2IbLlxGTsQ_9s6MDqEK596XXZLrnI7cADZW_L5Fa-TC5LVbKzkMRjdIsrkpXSmu-6_WTYyShiY91YQ0_pMc860OoEu3GSD8WntXOLdM/s1600/moeLetters10-726356.JPG).
Mr. Hwung concludes his whitewash by saying, "I believe few people are perfect in this society of great variety." I'm not sure what Mr. Hwung means by "this society of great variety," unless he means that some people believe in laws while others do not.
As for his comment that "few people are perfect," the law does not require perfection, but compliance. It's a fact university officials failed to comply with the law. The Ministry ruling says so. If a university president says otherwise he has no business being president.
Mr. Hwung concludes, "With happy mood, we work together to contribute to the society in pursuit of the true, the good, and the beautiful."
In Plato "the true, the good, and the beautiful" refer to justice. In the Republic Socrates evokes a just person who sees "the evil state of man, misbehaving himself in a ridiculous manner" and "tries to make people understand who have never seen real justice" but know only "images of justice" (Book VII).
Mr. Hwung, as president of a university, should seek real justice, not images of justice. He should post an apology, not a whitewash.
Perhaps he failed to read the Ministry ruling: "The university's Appeals Committee did not investigate the faults in the decision made by the university's three-level Review Committees. Moreover, it did not clarify and point out the correct procedures according to laws."
If Mr. Hwung can sustain a "happy mood" in the midst of injustice he should not be president of a university. He should cheer the just execution of laws at his university instead of the donation of a piano by former NCKU president, Michael Ming-Chiao Lai (http://news-en.secr.ncku.edu.tw/files/14-1083-85388,r614-1.php).
Mr. Lai, like other NCKU officials, ignored repeated petitions to resolve my illegal dismissal on just principles of law, including apology, accountability, and compensation. Instead of "the gift of love," why not "the gift of justice"?
As if to prove two wrongs make a right, Mr. Hwung's cohort, Chin-Cheng Chen, the current Secretariat, also signed a post about my illegal dismissal, dated May 4, 2011.
In a game of follow the leader, Mr. Chen refers to my illegal dismissal as my "being declined for employment renewal." He boasts "it was approved . . . as a result of multiple rounds of review," ignoring "the faults in the decision made by the university's three-level Review Committees" (MOE).
Thus "multiple rounds of review" multiplied abuses rather than remedied them. That's not something to boast of in a high-ranked university here.
Moreover, how could my illegal dismissal have "followed the required procedure" by being "in accordance with the Employment Service Law" if the MOE clearly stated that law was not applicable and NCKU "mistakenly claimed 'foreign teachers' hiring relationship ends after the contract period is fulfilled and there is no need to follow the regulations written in Article 14, Item 1 of Teacher's law'" (MOE)?
Mr. Chen's Orwellian Newspeak reaches new lows when he refers to malicious accusations of plagiarism, rejected by the MOE, as a "fact" that I "was involved in plagiarism"! For good measure he adds I was "in violation of Articles 91 and 94 of the Intellectual Property Rights."
In his sleight-of-hand trick, Mr. Chen apparently hopes quoting real laws will dignify false accusations, like accusing one's teetotal neighbor of being "in violation of Articles 55 and 59 of the Public Intoxication Code." The reference to real laws seems to give substance to false accusations.
This is the trick NCKUs "multiple rounds of review" tried. Presumably, if one cites laws and repeats lies long enough they will becloud the truth, a tactic the MOE soundly rejected on the basis NCKU committees "did not clarify and point out the correct procedures according to laws." Citing inapplicable laws does not replace the law in a just society. It might work at NCKU but not at MOE.
As for "the allegation of grading imparity" by my former student, Mr. Chen neglects to mention the letter was solicited by an FLLD chair and secretly circulated at "the multiple rounds of review" Mr. Chen boasts of.
In using the word "allegation" I assume Mr. Chen does not know the word "defamation" or doesn't care to use it. Yet the student had no proof of her "allegation," complained about her grade eight years after her class, did not mention she received three high passes from me the same year, made her claim in secret, was solicited to write her letter by the same committee that had already started an illegal dismissal action against me, was never asked to prove her "allegation" before an independent committee, and is now employed at our university.
Based on official MOE rulings, these two posts are discredited. One of them was signed by a former chair of the Teachers Union, which formally contested my illegal dismissal. Now he claims no illegal dismissal occurred, a case of "When the butt changes, the head changes."
Democracy does not reckon butts or heads, but laws. Both officials who signed these posts should resign to restore credibility to the university.
NCKU faculty are also responsible by their complicity of silence. Other faculties stand up for human rights, why not here?
The lack of deterrent rulings emboldened NCKU officials and discouraged NCKU faculty. If officials are liable, as MOE documents state, why aren't they reprimanded, fined, or dismissed? Why isn't the university compelled to issue an apology and compensation?
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
formerly, Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
For those who wish a more extended treatment of these two posts, please consult my dedicated case blog at http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/search/label/Explaining%20an%20%22Explanation%22.
Dear NCKU Colleagues,
On March 4, 2011 a so-called "explanation," signed by current NCKU president, Hwung-Hweng Hwung was posted on the official NCKU web page (http://news-en.secr.ncku.edu.tw/files/13-1083-78482-1.php), where my illegal dismissal from the university in 1999 is now called "discontinued employment." By this logic a bank robbery is a quick withdrawal of funds.
The MOE ruling of 8 January 2001 explicitly states "the Appeals Committee's decision violated the law and was wrong" (http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/search/label/Ministry%20of%20Education%20Ruling). Why does Mr. Hwung call it "discontinued employment"?
Perhaps for the reason many ignore the 228 incident: "For several decades, the KMT-ruled government prohibited public discussion of the 228 Massacre and many children grew up without knowing this event had ever occurred" (Wikipedia).
So faculty and students at NCKU teach and matriculate "without knowing" my illegal dismissal "had ever occurred." In Mr. Hwung's sanitized language, I was "declined for employment renewal." Perhaps a foreign hostage is "declined for repatriation."
Mr. Hwung asserts "Legal procedures were carefully observed." Yet the MOE warned that NCKU "has seriously influenced the appellant's rights" (April 6, 2001), made "previous improper procedures" (June 14, 2001), and cautioned NCKU officials "not to repeatedly and deviously interpret the law" (August 17, 2001) (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCDpwd8lE2WN5jzfNAvBIP4GTM_j6jC3yuA4Gq2IbLlxGTsQ_9s6MDqEK596XXZLrnI7cADZW_L5Fa-TC5LVbKzkMRjdIsrkpXSmu-6_WTYyShiY91YQ0_pMc860OoEu3GSD8WntXOLdM/s1600/moeLetters10-726356.JPG).
Mr. Hwung concludes his whitewash by saying, "I believe few people are perfect in this society of great variety." I'm not sure what Mr. Hwung means by "this society of great variety," unless he means that some people believe in laws while others do not.
As for his comment that "few people are perfect," the law does not require perfection, but compliance. It's a fact university officials failed to comply with the law. The Ministry ruling says so. If a university president says otherwise he has no business being president.
Mr. Hwung concludes, "With happy mood, we work together to contribute to the society in pursuit of the true, the good, and the beautiful."
In Plato "the true, the good, and the beautiful" refer to justice. In the Republic Socrates evokes a just person who sees "the evil state of man, misbehaving himself in a ridiculous manner" and "tries to make people understand who have never seen real justice" but know only "images of justice" (Book VII).
Mr. Hwung, as president of a university, should seek real justice, not images of justice. He should post an apology, not a whitewash.
Perhaps he failed to read the Ministry ruling: "The university's Appeals Committee did not investigate the faults in the decision made by the university's three-level Review Committees. Moreover, it did not clarify and point out the correct procedures according to laws."
If Mr. Hwung can sustain a "happy mood" in the midst of injustice he should not be president of a university. He should cheer the just execution of laws at his university instead of the donation of a piano by former NCKU president, Michael Ming-Chiao Lai (http://news-en.secr.ncku.edu.tw/files/14-1083-85388,r614-1.php).
Mr. Lai, like other NCKU officials, ignored repeated petitions to resolve my illegal dismissal on just principles of law, including apology, accountability, and compensation. Instead of "the gift of love," why not "the gift of justice"?
As if to prove two wrongs make a right, Mr. Hwung's cohort, Chin-Cheng Chen, the current Secretariat, also signed a post about my illegal dismissal, dated May 4, 2011.
In a game of follow the leader, Mr. Chen refers to my illegal dismissal as my "being declined for employment renewal." He boasts "it was approved . . . as a result of multiple rounds of review," ignoring "the faults in the decision made by the university's three-level Review Committees" (MOE).
Thus "multiple rounds of review" multiplied abuses rather than remedied them. That's not something to boast of in a high-ranked university here.
Moreover, how could my illegal dismissal have "followed the required procedure" by being "in accordance with the Employment Service Law" if the MOE clearly stated that law was not applicable and NCKU "mistakenly claimed 'foreign teachers' hiring relationship ends after the contract period is fulfilled and there is no need to follow the regulations written in Article 14, Item 1 of Teacher's law'" (MOE)?
Mr. Chen's Orwellian Newspeak reaches new lows when he refers to malicious accusations of plagiarism, rejected by the MOE, as a "fact" that I "was involved in plagiarism"! For good measure he adds I was "in violation of Articles 91 and 94 of the Intellectual Property Rights."
In his sleight-of-hand trick, Mr. Chen apparently hopes quoting real laws will dignify false accusations, like accusing one's teetotal neighbor of being "in violation of Articles 55 and 59 of the Public Intoxication Code." The reference to real laws seems to give substance to false accusations.
This is the trick NCKUs "multiple rounds of review" tried. Presumably, if one cites laws and repeats lies long enough they will becloud the truth, a tactic the MOE soundly rejected on the basis NCKU committees "did not clarify and point out the correct procedures according to laws." Citing inapplicable laws does not replace the law in a just society. It might work at NCKU but not at MOE.
As for "the allegation of grading imparity" by my former student, Mr. Chen neglects to mention the letter was solicited by an FLLD chair and secretly circulated at "the multiple rounds of review" Mr. Chen boasts of.
In using the word "allegation" I assume Mr. Chen does not know the word "defamation" or doesn't care to use it. Yet the student had no proof of her "allegation," complained about her grade eight years after her class, did not mention she received three high passes from me the same year, made her claim in secret, was solicited to write her letter by the same committee that had already started an illegal dismissal action against me, was never asked to prove her "allegation" before an independent committee, and is now employed at our university.
Based on official MOE rulings, these two posts are discredited. One of them was signed by a former chair of the Teachers Union, which formally contested my illegal dismissal. Now he claims no illegal dismissal occurred, a case of "When the butt changes, the head changes."
Democracy does not reckon butts or heads, but laws. Both officials who signed these posts should resign to restore credibility to the university.
NCKU faculty are also responsible by their complicity of silence. Other faculties stand up for human rights, why not here?
The lack of deterrent rulings emboldened NCKU officials and discouraged NCKU faculty. If officials are liable, as MOE documents state, why aren't they reprimanded, fined, or dismissed? Why isn't the university compelled to issue an apology and compensation?
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
formerly, Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
For those who wish a more extended treatment of these two posts, please consult my dedicated case blog at http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/search/label/Explaining%20an%20%22Explanation%22.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Human Rights in Taiwan
3 December 2011
Dear Editor,
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 repeated false accusations against me as facts and whitewashed my illegal dismissal as a "discontinued employment." One official 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 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. Moreover the accusations insured my dismissal. 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 and her accusations prejudiced students against me more than ten years later (attached). 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. "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
(886) 06 237 8626
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Human Rights in Taiwan
2 December 2011
Dear Forum-Asia,
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" (attached). 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 American citizens and officials 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; an issue of arbitration rather than 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 society can survive by means of arbitration, but a democracy can endure only on principles of law, legitimated in routine court rulings.
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.
But if Taiwan's press has ignored my officially documented case, what other human rights issues have been 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 that democracy has to be done every single 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, while 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 espouse Western values by inculturation, rather than acculturation. Regardless of democratic principles of law, relationships determine 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
(886) (06) 237-8626
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Letter to Taiwan Colleagues
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)