Abuses at National Cheng Kung University

11 FEB 2004 15:17:46
¥D¡@¡@¦®: Abuses at National Cheng Kung University
ªþÀɼƶq: 0 ­ÓÀÉ®×

President Kao Chiang
Office of the President
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

11 February 2004

Dear President Kao,

Despite repeated reminders to enforce laws at National
Cheng Kung
University, you continue to delay final enforcement of the
Ministry
ruling of 8 January 2001. As president of our university,
you should
consider its reputation as an academic institution
upholding moral and
legal principles. As president of a university with sister
universities
that observe these principles, even if you defy these
principles
yourself (you failed to comply with the Ministry ruling for
more than
two years), you should at least act in accordance with
Chinese (indeed,
common) principles of reciprocity: not doing to others what
you don't
want others to do to you or your relatives in other
countries.
These principles are clear to most parties informed about
the facts
of the case. As in the recent case of the Brazilian child,
in law
legal rulings must be obeyed. The custodians of the child
wished to
"interpret" the law their own way and this was not allowed.
But
consider the harm it did to the child. Consider the harm
your defiance
will continue to do to the university.
The full benefits of an appeal ruling must be enforced,
including
apology, full compensation, and protections against
malicious revival of
accusations rejected on appeal. Your continued defiance of
compliance
with these legal principles will only bring more discredit
to our
university. If necessary, I will make it very clear to
students that I
did everything humanly possible to allow the university
reasonable time
to comply. But tolerance of delay is not the same as
tolerance of
injustice. The full legal benefits of the Ministry ruling
of 8 January
2001 must be enforced, no matter what.
Moral issues are also clear. Even young students know a
final exam
is final. A final exam doesn't mean a student, if from
another country,
should be examined again.
Young children know enough to play fair and not be "sore
losers,"
assuming they were taught moral values. These moral values
go way back
in time: Confucius said that gentlemen admit their
mistakes.
Apart from the law, you as president of National Cheng Kung
University should uphold moral and legal principles that
will protect
the reputation of our university. For no university that
defies those
principles can last.
Now I tried my best to behave honorably, despite the
injustice I
suffered at our university. As soon as I got my teaching
contracts I
acted to protect the university's reputation and our
students. Where I
should have been resentful, I acted in sympathy. My
chairman TWICE
asked me to take classes on short notice, and I accepted
them. Both the
chairman and I have behaved with professional regard for
each other and
for the interests as well as the reputation of the
university (a
divided faculty cannot benefit our students).
But officials outside our department have not behaved the
same
way. No sooner did I get my contracts than those officials
revived the
same accusations, forcing me to continue a battle that in
law ended in
the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001.
Let me repeat yet again the issues here: No official or
committee
is above the law. Officials and commitees are bound to the
law.
Otherwise your administration is in defiance of Taiwan's
democratic
constitution and its laws.
It seems like you believe in the discredited authoritarian
idea
that what an official does is right because he did it; what
a committee
does is right because it did it. The way an official
"interprets" a law
is right because he did it.
But this authoritarian principle no longer applies in a
democracy,
where the law has the final say. The uncle in the case of
the Brazilian
child acted the same way that university officials acted
and caused an
international scandal. Let us prevent another such scandal.
The concept of "autonomy," whether of a parent or official,
does
not mean autonomy outside the law but autonomy within the
law. In the
same way, a teacher has autonomy in the classroom. This is
a basic
principle of free education. But that "autonomy" does not
give the
teacher the right to harass students or to teach
Shakespeare's plays in
a class on American Literature. Parental autonomy does not
give a
parent the right to abuse a child. The autonomy of a
university does
not give a university the right to harass a professor and
call it
"review"; or defy accepted principles of equal rights and
final appeals.

I will never compromise on these issues because to do so
would be
to deny the legal benefits of the Ministry ruling of 8
January 2001 and
protections that Americans are due in Taiwan no less than
Taiwan
citizens are due in America, under the law. Whether I like
it or not,
the burden of defending legal rights of Americans has
fallen on my
shoulders and I will do whatever it takes within the law to
defend those
rights.
Those rights include the right of final appeal; the right
to
compensation following a ruling in one's favor; the right
to an apology;
full back pay; special consideration for interrupting my
academic career
when I apply for promotion; and punishment of the student
who slandered
and libeled me, which, so far, neither you nor Professor Ko
Huei-chen,
Dean of the Office of Student Affairs, has insured.
As guardian of the university's reputation, apart from law
and
moral principles, you should be concerned about enforcing
principles of
official conduct that are recognized in most advanced
countries in the
world. Regardless, I am committed to full enforcement of
the Ministry
ruling of 8 January 2001.

Sincerely,

Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
R.O.C.