National Cheng Kung University
Office of the President,
President Kao Chiang
cc: Control Yuan, Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education
21 July 2003
Dear President Kao,
I have written you repeatedly regarding issues related to my illegal
dismissal in 1999 and the Ministry ruling canceling that
dismissal on 8 January 2001, which the university, during your
administration, defied for more than two years.
In addition, after defying the Ministry ruling for more than two
years, apparently to show scorn for that ruling, a
committee hearing, in May 2003, quickly passed accusations rejected in
that ruling.
But when I request administrative remedy, I am told to follow
"proper procedures."
Based on the evidence of this case, when has the university
followed "proper procedures"?
There is a pattern of human rights abuses and then obstruction of
remedy of those abuses that is well-known to people
familiar with my dismissal case.
Consider the facts, which by now are well known:
Professor LEE CHUNG-HSIUNG held a closed meeting, using unproved
accusations to effect my dismissal.
Professor TU YUNG-CHING accepted a secret letter from a student on
no other basis than the student's claim she
was telling the truth.
Professor LEE CHIAN-ER allowed that letter to circulate at
university hearings that passed my dismissal.
Professor KO HUEI-CHEN, current Dean of Student Affairs, has
repeatedly prevented a meeting between me and a
student who wrote that letter, although a professor is entitled to
protect his reputation and students are subject to ethical
codes.
You yourself defied a Ministry ruling for more than two years.
When I repeatedly challenge the university hearing in
May, 2003, you refer me to the Dean of Academic Affairs.
As president of a university, I would think you would consider
contempt for a Ministry ruling and due process of law a
serious issue. I fought this case for four years. Do you expect me to
fight another four years to remedy more abuses
committed immediately after my contracts are issued? That meeting, at
which I wasn't even invited, deliberately showed
scorn for law and due process of law. Why should I be asked to have
confidence in due process of law here?
As you know, when forced to comply, at least partially, with the
Ministry ruling, instead of issuing a prompt apology to
the appellant, which a reputable administration would have done, the
university promptly weakened the legal benefits of that
ruling: repeating accusations already rejected in that ruling; claiming
I'm only entitled to partial retroactive pay; ignoring
compensatory claims; and showing unconcern for disciplining the student
who falsely accused me, although she is currently
a student and teaching part-time at our university.
Besides well-documented legal rights abuses at our university,
there is a pattern of passing responsibility from one official
to another in an endless cycle of irresponsibility: The Office of the
President refers me to the Dean of Student Affairs, the
Dean of Student Affairs refers me to the Vice-Dean of Student Affairs,
the Vice-Dean of Student Affairs quotes the
student, who says she doesn't want to come to a meeting.
Despite countless officials at our university, university policy is
finally dictated by a student.
What kind of policy is that?
An official can delegate responsibility, but never transfer it,
which remains his or hers by law, as the tragic case at Ho
Ping Hospital makes plain. If an official thinks a subordinate can do
the job, then there's no problem. But if the
subordinate fails to do so, the responsibility remains with the official
in charge.
You used the phrase "proper procedures."
First, as I said earlier, the university has a history of not
following proper procedures, so why do you invoke that phrase
to obstruct remedy but not to prevent abuses?
After defying the Ministry of Education Appeal ruling for more than
two years, within days of partial compliance with
that ruling, the university held a meeting repeating accusations against
me rejected in that ruling. Then when I apply for
remedy, I am told to follow "proper procedures."
Your so-called "proper procedures" has repeatedly delayed a
supervised meeting between me and the student who
falsely accused me, when such a meeting should be arranged in a day or
two. Apart from disciplinary action, a professor
has a right to request a supervised meeting with a student, for whatever
reason.
Still the question remains: Why hasn't disciplinary action been
taken against this student? Making false accusations
against a professor not only undermines confidence in all teachers, but
also in the sincerity of honest student complaints.
You refer to "proper procedures." But this seems to be a reason
for improper delay:
How much time does it take to arrange a supervised meeting between
a teacher and a student, for whatever reason?
How much time does it take to comply with a lawful Ministry ruling?
How much time does it take to issue a formal apology to the
appellant following a ruling?
How much time does it take to compensate an appellant?
How much time does it take to nullify the May 2003 university
meeting that undermined the legal benefits of the Ministry
ruling of 8 January 2003? If it took only days to arrange such a
meeting it should take even less time to nullify it.
If you were sincere when you referred to "proper procedures" you
would immediately begin those procedures and
inform me of specific action you're taking and a specific deadline,
probably of no more than days. Evasively referring to
"proper procedures" is unacceptable. My reputation and honor are at
stake and there should be no doubt that I am
committed to defending them, whatever the legal channels I must use.
Just the fact that your Dean of Student Affairs, Professor Ko
Huei-chen has delayed calling a meeting between me and
this student for years would cause an international scandal, when
officials in other countries could have done this in a day or
two.
Are you telling me there is no prompt and routine administrative
process for handling these issues?
Are you going to ask the Ministry of Education what to do every
time there's a routine request and then defy the same
Ministry when it's convenient to do so?
I won a Ministry ruling in 8 January 2001. You are bound, by law,
to protect the full benefits of that ruling, sincerely
and promptly. You are also bound, by law, to protect the reputation of
all professors at our university, whether native or
foreign. It is my right, by law, to use whatever legal means and
outside channels to uphold my rights at our university and to
request your cooperation in this goal.
This means immediate nullification of that university hearing in
May, 2003.
This means a formal apology.
This means an apology from that student.
This means full compensation.
This means considering the interruption to my academic career when
I apply for promotion this year.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(06) 237 8626
No comments:
Post a Comment