Letter to Taiwan Association for Human Rights

From:
8/9/2003 5:22 PM
Subject: Summary of Human Rights Abuses at National Cheng Kung University
(1999 - present)To: tahr@seed.net.tw
CC: rquinn@midway.uchicago.edu
BCC: Ray Dah-tong ,
Paul , vertigo

Taiwan Association for Human Rights
Hsin-sheng S. Road, Section 3
Lane 25, No. 3, 9th Floor
Taipei, TAIWAN
Telephone:886-2-23639787
Facsimile:886-2-23636102
E-mail:tahr@seed.net.tw

cc: Scholars at Risk
University of Chicago

9 August 2003

Dear Ms. Wu,

Since you spoke to me about understanding human rights violations at
National Cheng Kung Universtiy, I thought that, apart from previously
emailed and faxed documents, I'd summarize the human rights principles on
which I am requesting your intervention:
First, a foreign professor has the same rights as native Taiwan
citizens, including the right to due process of law and appeal. These
protections should be enforced according to Taiwan's laws and international
principles: A final appeal is final. Issues rejected on appeal cannot be
revived. Remedy includes complete compensation and formal apology.
Regarding general principles of law, a university official must
promptly comply with a legal ruling. No official has the right to
"interpret" a ruling. Only the judiciary has the right to interpret laws,
within constitutional limits.
If a government official does not understand a ruling or how to execute
it, he should resign his office or be subject to adminsitrative and criminal
penalties. Otherwise, I know of no official who claims, as our university
officials do, that he doesn't understand what a final appeal ruling means!
It means compliance.
No official has a right to impede or obstruct or otherwise delay prompt
execution of rulings. An official involved in such misconduct should be
promptly dismissed, subject to further penalties or censure.
Yet the university president defied the Ministry ruling for more than
two years. Not only wasn't he punished, but he was recently re-elected to a
second term. At a public forum, he recently deplored a lack of university
funding. Yet he allowed the university to contest a legal Ministry ruling
for more than two years, costing millions of dollars.
I was told the president would not over-rule a committee decision.
This is commendable policy, unless a committee decision is in violation of
the law. Public officials are obligated to over-rule committee decisions
that transparently violate laws. Clearly no committee can defy a Ministry
ruling.
Officials must respond to legal rulings in a transparent manner,
according to the face-value of the ruling or law; what "the common citizen
would understand or do." All over the world a "final appeal" is considered
final. That's why it's called a "final" appeal.
This would be obvious to a fourth-grade student. Yet our university
committees concluded that a final appeal subjects faculty, at least if he's
American, to further "review."
If so, a final appeal is not final: It is, in other words, a square
vase, as Confucius put it. Indeed, an appeal is pointless, since it's
better being dismissed sooner than later, like the turtle in the Chinese
fable who protests, "If you want to eat me, say so in the first place. Why
do it in a roundabout way?"
Democratic law, in any case, does not discriminate. As a
representative from Taiwan's Administrative Court protested four years ago:
"Taiwan is a democracy. One law applies to everyone." But university
officials needed more than four years to figure this out, at taxpayers'
expense.
Part of the problem is the charismatic status committees have at our
university. This is partly based on a culture of subservience (what are
called "relationships") and partly on a general passivity or indifference
among faculty members.
Yet democracy is a government of laws, not committees. Committee
decisions must be based on laws. Laws justify a committee decision, not the
other way around. Committee members must uphold the law, not replace it.
But law is misunderstood or deliberately scorned at National Cheng Kung
University, where committee members believe what they vote is law. Many
committees seem to ratify ("rubber stamp") lower decisions rather than
deliberate them.
The fact that the Ministry of Education Appeal Committeee bold-faced
countless legal rights violations shows that our committee members are
grievously under-educated about, if not actually scornful towards, legal
principles. One high official even told me he didn't care about the law!
The results are plain in the history of my dismissal case. The
chairman of my department used secret accusations to dismiss me. The Dean
of the College of Liberal Arts accepted a secret student letter merely on
the student's claim. I suppose if I claim I'm Santa Claus he'd believe that
too. Three times I asked the chair of the university review committee about
the contents of that secret letter and he silently stared at me. After
winning a university appeal, I was told that, as a foreigner, I would have
to be reviewed again.
After the Ministry ruling, I requested discipline of the student who
wrote the letter. The Dean and Vice-Dean of Student Affairs gave me the
runaround for more than two years, like the turtle in the Chinese fable. I
heard every improbable excuse why no action could be taken:
The student was not a student when she wrote her letter. She insisted
what she wrote was true. The case was pending in the courts. A court
decision prevented further action. The student didn't want to come. The
student's mother didn't want her to come. God would punish her.
Periodically, and with official dignity, I was asked to write yet
another summary of my complaint. Or I was told that the vice-dean or dean
was "collecting evidence."
When I first read of such a bureaucratic maze, in Franz Kafka's The
Trial, I never thought I would live it myself. Recently I learned the
vice-dean resigned over a sex scandal. If based in fact, then I wasted two
years appealing on moral principles he was violating.
Yet democracy is a government of laws as well as moral principles. We
call those principles "human rights."
Apart from laws, what dean has the right to prevent a supervised
meeting between a student and a professor for disciplinary reasons?
Obviously university officials are protecting themselves as well as the
student, since they accepted the student's letter in the first place.
On what moral principle can university officials claim an appellant was
entitled to only half-pay since he wasn't teaching during the years of his
illegal dismissal? Or that he should be denied annual increments for those
years? On what moral basis would officials delay a formal apology and
compensation or expect an appellant to fight for benefits he won?
Yet no official at National Cheng Kung University has thus far been
punished for flagrant violations of laws and for human rights abuses a
fourth-grade student would recognize. Certainly delaying the enforcement of
a Ministry ruling would be called obstruction of justice in my country.
Using official authority to slander and libel a professor is a serious
offense, subject to criminal penalties in many countries. Using one's
office to "investigate" a professor on accusations already rejected in an
appeal ruling is abuse of office, regardless what it's called in Taiwan.
If Taiwan pursues international membership it must, as Confucius said,
"rectify the names" and call things by the proper words, which common
citizens recognize. Using committees to repeatedly harass a professor with
accusations never proved and already rejected on appeal is wrong, even if at
our university it's called "review."
Ironically, I pleaded to have officials investigate accusations before
my final dismissal in 1999, only to be ignored. After the Ministry ruling
in my favor, the university claimed the right to review and investigate me
again.
If accusations repeatedly rejected on review and appeal are always
subject to revival a final appeal is pointless. It's better the Taiwan
government be up front about this and warn foreign teachers about risks
teaching in Taiwan.
The Taiwan Association for Human Rights should recognize the dangerous
precedence of conduct that establishes the university as a final judicial
agency. Apart from issues of law and human rights, this also threatens
academic freedom, since teachers lose confidence in remedy outside the
university.
These actions reflect the indifference of superior officials who,
instead of dismissing subordinates for misconduct or incompetence, merely
tell them to redo a decision. This punishes the appellant rather than the
officials, who benefit from such dilatory tactics, as my case, now in its
fifth year, shows.
Indeed, the Secretary-General at our university defiantly told a
Chinese colleague in my presence that if university officials had acted
improperly, the Ministry of Education would have punished them. Yet a few
weeks later, the university finally (if only partly) complied with the
Ministry ruling.
Thus responsibility for routine human rights abuses at our university
lies with regulatory agencies that protect or excuse negligent conduct, only
advising it be redone. Routinely, university officials oblige by stubbornly
repeating their mistakes.
But by treating legal rights violations as adminstrative errors rather
than criminal acts, the Taiwan government is fostering a culture of
lawlessness. Indeed, someone at the Ministry of Education informed a
Chinese colleague and me that, "In our society, teachers are considered
above the law."
Yet it's not enough to espouse democratic values but live by
authoritarian values. Taiwan officials seem indifferent about "face" when
accusing their Mainland Chinese counterparts over the issue of Taiwan's
rights. Yet they put face above democratic principles when protecting their
colleagues against a foreigner's rights.
The SARS scandal at Ho Ping Hospital in Taipei shows the dangerous
consequences when officials put face above the public interest. Prompt
punishment of these officials showed that the Taiwan government is able to
act to defend the public interest.
Unfortunately, libel against a foreign professor is not considered of
public interest. My libel suit against university officials was rejected by
the District Attorney partly on hearsay testimony. When a Faculty Union
member later contradicted the hearsay testimony, the D.A. apologized but did
not reopen the case.
Similarly, an accusation by review committee members was not considered
libel because it was based on a signed letter. Yet the letter was signed by
members of the same committee. The accusation was never investigated or
proved, I was not informed of it or allowed to defend myself, and it
resulted in my dismissal. Yet the case was dismissed.
Finally, I lost my libel case against a student who wrote a secret
accusatory letter because, according to the judge, it was "reasonable" for a
student to believe she failed unfairly, even though the student complained
eight years later and without basis. Using this case precedent, any student
can accuse a teacher of unfair grading many years before. Why should
foreign faculty risk their careers here?
That student's malicious letter was used at my dismissal hearings. The
letter was solicited. Yet the court ruled that since the student's letter
circulated secretly, against university regulations, the letter could not
have been accredited by committee members.
Then why was it solicited and circulated? Evidence that should have
inculpated the student as well as university officials was used to excuse
them.
Transcripts showed the student concealed high passes she received from
me and low grades she received from other teachers. A letter proved I
offered to locate this student's exam as late as 1994 (the class was in
1988). But without adversarial cross-examination, all testimony is equally
accredited. Judicial inquiry is complaisant and avuncular, pleasing both
sides with a show of judicial forbearance. Yet one side suffered injury
while the other side was not held accountable.
If a student can write a secret spiteful letter accusing a professor of
an unfair grade eight years before, on no other basis than her claim; and it
is shown that the letter was solicited by university officials and secretly
circulated at a professor's dismissal hearings, resulting in his dismissal;
and if the student's claims are further discredited when a letter shows the
professor offered to locate her exam as late as 1994 and the student ignored
the letter; and if the student claims to "forget" she took other courses
from this teacher in which she received high passes the same year she claims
she unfairly failed; if, after months of litigation, with months between
sessions, a litigant cannot prove libel and thus restore his honor, then I
suggest that foreigners be advised of risks teaching in Taiwan.
True, many people in Taiwan are kind. But they naively succumb to
pressure from powerful colleagues. Two of my former students admitted their
defamatory letters against me were solicited and unmerited and they
regretted writing them. They wrote formal retractions.
Older Taiwan academics are less reluctant to admit abuses at our
university. Few probably consider them abuses, since anything done in the
name of relationships is a virtue.
One dean responded incredulously when told the president was defying
the law by not complying with a Ministry ruling. She protested that could
not be, since the university had a lawyer who certainly knew the law. As it
turned out, a colleague, with no background in law, defeated that lawyer in
court.
Such official naiveté, whether feigned or real, is hardly conducive to
the advancement of human rights in Taiwan. Official complaints have
been useless, only increasing the registered documents I have to pick up at
post offices all over Tainan.
Taiwan's newspapers publish numerous letters applauding Taiwan's
democracy and affirming human rights, including the right to
self-determination. But they seem curiously indifferent to human rights
abuses at one of their own universities.
Yet a conflict of interest at a Hong Kong university a few years ago
captivated the Hong Kong media, while campus activists protested. That's to
be expected in a robust democracy.
So far, contacts with human rights organizations have been futile. One
human rights activist told me no-one was interested in human rights. Yet
when students at National Cheng Kung University were cited for downloading
MP3 files, Taipei lawyers promptly volunteered pro bono assistance. I've
been hoping for pro bono representation for more than four years, to no
avail. Yet the students, whatever sympathy I feel for them, did not have
the law on their side. I do.
This case is now in its fifth year. It has affected my medical care,
my income, and my academic career. I’ve been
harassed by countless illegal university hearings intended to humiliate me
and force my resignation from the university. Professional colleagues,
among the privileged few with regard for human rights at our university,
have dedicated countless hours to effect justice while other faculty seem
indifferent.
Thus despite warnings from the Faculty Union, the Ministry of
Education, the Taiwan courts, and an international human rights
organization, university officials, with tactical naivete, continue to defy
the law, at no cost to themselves. Instead they have cost taxpayers
millions of dollars and recklessly brought National Cheng Kung University,
the Ministry of Education, and the Taiwan government to the brink of
scandal. Abiding by neither moral principles nor a sense of shame,
university officials will not acknowledge the authority of the law until
they stand in judgment before it.
You wonder what's going on at National Cheng Kung University when it's
obvious: It's a culture of subservience, where relationships are put above
laws; and where a pattern of unpunished human rights abuses going back many
years reflect a public tolerance of these abuses.
I believe abuses at National Cheng Kung University should concern
anyone dedicated to human rights in Taiwan. Therefore I urge your
commitment to this case, until there is complete closure, compensation, and
penalties where appropriate. The university should admit wrongdoing and
promise to educate faculty on human rights principles. You will not only be
aiding an American citizen, returning the favor received from civil
activists in America; you'll also be advancing the cause of human rights in
Taiwan.

Sincerely,


Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626