-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: | Regarding Formal Remedy for Human Rights Abuses at National Cheng Kung University |
|---|---|
| Date: | Fri, 21 May 2010 12:19:48 +0800 |
| From: | rdca25@gmail.com |
| To: | em50000@email.ncku.edu.tw |
Office of the President
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
21 May 2010
Dear President Lai,
As you know, in March 1999 I was illegally dismissed in a department action under Li Ching-hsiung as chair. A meeting was held and a secret letter from a former student, Chen An-chun, was circulated then and at subsequent hearings.
One of these hearings was chaired by Lee Chian-er. Mr. Lee refused to reveal the injurious contents of the letter, which I discovered after taking Ms. Chen to court.
Subsequently several colleagues, some of whom sit on our "review" committee (Raymond Lai, Rufus Cook, Aaron Chiou), supported Ms. Chen in a court letter. Worse, the typed letterhead made it look like the letter was on behalf of the department.
By defending a student who contested a grade eight years late, in secret, and without proof these "colleagues" not only discredited themselves but also our university, in a culture supposed to honor teachers.
Since Ms. Chen claimed in court I never returned her exam, on what basis did they believe her? On what basis would they call her "modest and virtuous"? Where's the modesty in thinking you're entitled to pass a class? Where's the virtue in accusing a teacher without proof?
If they didn't believe her then they colluded to discredit a teacher, presumably to protect officials already involved in the case. (Cf. JOHN 11:50)
One of them was a former student of mine for whom I wrote a reference letter in 1995 to insure his admission to a university abroad. I'm not sure if he saw the humor in discrediting a teacher on whose reputation he relied to advance his academic career.
Another signatory is now chair of our department.
How can faculty members who defended the character of a student who wrote a secret defamatory letter represent our university with credibility? A university must stand on legal principles.
What do legal principles mean here anyway? An appellant who wins an appeal (January 2001) is told, after he wins, that foreigners have no right to appeal at all (see attachment 1).
A university that doesn't guarantee equal rights to Americans should not be allowed to maintain academic exchanges with an American university. Barring administrative remedy at our university, I will use all legal channels in America to insure those academic exchanges are terminated or suspended.
Besides equality under the law, how can a university lawyer, Wang Cheng-bing, participate at Ministry appeal hearings in Taipei, or sit at university appeal hearings, then claim the appellant has no right to appeal? I assume the Taipei Bar Association knows of the legal principle of estoppel, defined on one web site as
"A legal principle that prevents a person from asserting or denying something in court that contradicts what has already been established as the truth."
By accepting my appeal at the university level, and by participating at the Ministry level, the university "established as the truth" my right to appeal.
In Mainland China a lone individual stood up to a moving tank but in Taiwan not one colleague stood up to a university president to demand the rights of an American.
The facts speak for themselves.
My dismissal was canceled at the university level but the university ruled my case should be returned to the department. Yet common sense shows that an appeal must have benefits or why appeal?
Instead the university treated the illegal dismissal action as a hiring case, jeopardizing my employment despite the Teacher's Law. So the case was repeatedly returned to the department in a dilatory tactic that lasted four years.
If a Taiwan student in America passes his doctoral exams should he be examined again because he's Taiwanese? Would you stand for that? If not, you shouldn't stand for Americans being mistreated here.
Besides, many of you matriculated at universities in democracies abroad and were treated fairly under the law. So why don't you insure equal treatment here?
The Ministry of Education sent eight letters over two years and four months to NCKU president, Kao Chiang, advising enforcement of the Ministry ruling (see attachment 2). Either Mr. Kao is a slow reader or he doesn't believe in the law.
Instead Mr. Kao assigned two officials, Fang Ming-chuan and Peng Fu-sheng, to convince me to quit at half pay or the university would delay enforcement of the Ministry ruling indefinitely in the courts. One marvels at democracy in Taiwan.
This is not a case of a few bad apples. My case repeatedly passed all university committees, including department, college, and university levels, with the same result, even after the Ministry of Education highlighted legal rights abuses.
Administrative collusion is not democracy. Rubber stamping human rights abuses is not the same as rational oversight and censure of those abuses.
In view of documented violations one would expect a sincere attempt to resolve these issues with a formal apology and just compensation determined by an impartial committee, such as the Faculty Union.
Instead university officials used dilatory tactics from the beginning. Consider this email (December 2007):
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:33:27 +0800
From: em50000 <em50000@email.ncku.edu.tw>
To: <rdca25@gmail.com>
CC: <wslee@mail.ncku.edu.tw>
References: <4758A02B.2060900@gmail.com>
Dear Professor De Canio,
Sorry to have you wait for this reply due to President Lai's heavy load of NCKU's affairs.
President Lai will assign representatives to study and communicate with you directly.
Thank you for your patience.
Sincerely Yours,
Officie of The Secretariat,
National Cheng-Kung University
Of course I never heard from him again. One wonders what "affairs" are more important than human rights.
The university interrupted my academic career for four years. Numerous university officials violated human rights. Our committees shirked their oversight duties. Yet President Lai's "affairs" are more important. If American universities suspend academic exchanges here he might think otherwise.
I fought my dismissal case for four years, costing me and others money and time away from our academic careers. Is compensation just, especially in view of the university's defiance?
If your child was kidnapped would you call it justice to get your child back after four years? Or would you want a formal resolution to the case and whatever compensation you're entitled to under the law?
I ask you one last time. Take a stand on these issues.
Review members who signed a letter supporting Ms. Chen's undocumented claim should be removed from that committee. Exercising charity they failed to show me, I will not pursue their dismissal (they do have families). But I want the satisfaction of knowing their letter had consequences.
Other officials should be penalized, including Lee Chian-er and Li Ching-hsiung, who circulated Lily Chen's letter at committee hearings; and Kao Chiang, who, as president, delayed enforcement of the Ministry ruling.
The two students, Chen An-chun and Liu Gi-zen, who accused me of an unfair grade should be punished. They not only discredited a teacher but also honest students who, they implied, received high grades unfairly.
The Golden Rule, shared by Western and Chinese cultures, is still the gold standard.
Would Liu Gi-zen like me to accuse him of unfairly failing a student based merely on a student's claim? If not, he did something wrong and must apologize.
Would Chen An-chun want unproved accusations against her secretly circulated at a dismissal hearing? If not, she did something wrong and must apologize.
Would members of the Review Committee wish to be discredited by a student without proof? If not, they did something wrong and must apologize.
Taiwan culture is supposed to honor teachers. Then punish those who discredited a teacher.
The university acted on Chen An-chun's improper complaint in two weeks but has ignored my legitimate complaint against her for more than ten years. This compromises not only Americans but also the reputation of our university.
Do you think it's fair her improper complaint against me was promptly circulated at dismissal hearings while I'm denied formal remedy against her? I cannot accept this, nor, I believe, will students and faculty in the US once this case is exposed.
Her classmate at the time, now on our faculty, Liu Gi-zen, supported her claim. He couldn't have seen her exam, which she said I never returned. So he either recklessly libeled me or did so as part of a conspiracy, as did another student, who at least had the decency to apologize (see attachment 3).
I hope my commitment to effect a just resolution in this case helps my colleagues understand that ignoring these human rights violations is not an option. You will not protect a few officials from scandal but involve your entire university in one.
As an American it has fallen on me to insure the future rights of Americans in Taiwan. I intend to meet that responsibility.
I hope wiser heads prevail before I expose this case online, as well as to faculty and student bodies (including campus newspapers) of sister and other universities in the US. Americans should not maintain academic exchanges with a university that brazenly discriminates against Americans.
This case is fully documented. Pretending it never happened is not an option.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment