Saturday, July 31, 2010

Letter to Taiwan Ministry of Education

±H¥ó¥Á²³: "vertigo@ms22.hinet.net"
±H¥ó¤é´Á: WED, 18 FEB 2004 11:58:11
¥D¡@¡@¦®: Concerning human rights violations at National
Cheng Kung University
ªþÀɼƶq: 0 ­ÓÀÉ®×

The Ministry of Education

Department of Higher Education

18 February 2004

Dear Ministry and Higher Education Officials,

You cannot have an official who defies the law head a
national university
in Taiwan. It's impossible, without discrediting not only
the university
but the Ministry that regulates these universities.

The facts are plain. Professor Kao Chiang,
currently president of National Cheng Kung University
(06-2757575-50000)
defied a legal Ministry ruling for more than two years. No
amount
of denial or defense can whitewash these facts, assuming
there is law and
moral principle in Taiwan.

No claim to "interpreting" the Ministry ruling
is acceptable, if there is law in Taiwan. No citizen or
official
has the right to defy a law by claiming to "interpret" it,
especially when
that interpretation goes against universal common sense.
To "interpret"
menu prices to mean "play money" is absurd and no court
would accept that
interpretation. For a bank robber to expect a court to
accept that
his holdup note for money was a mere request for money is
absurd.
To interpret a No Parking sign to mean no parking of
bicycles when it clearly
intends to mean motor vehicles is absurd.

In the same way, to "interpret" a final Ministry
appeal ruling to mean the appellant should be reviewed
again is absurd.
A government that allows such officials should seriously
question the consequences
of doing so.

A person or official can legally contest a
ruling after compliance. Even then, a judge would chastise
a laywer who brought a case without merit (there must be
legal substance
to a challenge).

Even when it is the right of a citizen or
institution to contest a ruling, this must follow
compliance not obstruct
or delay it. The university should have first complied
with the
Ministry ruling, issued the contracts, and then contested
it, however absurdly.
But to defy and then litigate a ruling instead of
compliance is obstruction
of justice, at least in the law system I know.

Here we're talking about law. But moral
principles are no less important, especially when it
concerns the head
of a university, whose reputation is equally based on moral
standing and
academic standing..

Here the facts are also plain.

A university with sister universities in democracies
such as England and the USA publicly declares itself to
have discriminatory
policies against foreign faculty. It is more insulting
when that
foreign faculty belongs to a country that has insured the
survival of Taiwan.

Our university holds appeal hearings for foreigners.
After the foreigner wins, the university claims that
foreigners are subject
to further review of the same accusations!

This is plain trickery. No legitimate
academic institution can uphold its reputation based on
this kind of trickery.

After losing a Ministry of Education appeal
process, a process it never contested at the time, the
university defied
that ruling for more than two years, claiming, only after
it lost the
ruling, that foreign faculty had no right to appeal, even
using taxpayers'
money to litigate this issue in court. This money could
have been
used to fund dozens of scholarships for poor students.

Even after the court advised the university
to settle, Professor Kao appointed two officials, including
the Vice-Dean
of Academic Affairs, Professor Fang, and a personnel
official, to warn
me that if I did not quit the university with half pay the
university would
contest the Ministry ruling for as long as possible. What
a fine
moral standard for our fourth-ranked university!

Only following pressure from outside channels
did Professor Kao finally comply with the Ministry ruling,
and then partly,
issuing back and current contracts, but still contesting
compensation and
apology.

Then, only days following this partial compliance
with a legal Ministry ruling, a university review committee
approved accusations
against me already rejected in that ruling, as if to show
contempt for
that ruling as well as the law behind it. As if to say, at
this university,
officials are law. This would be called abuse of power,
at
least in my country and I would think any lawful country.
In any
case, it's abuse of legal and moral principles recognized
all over the
world and accepted in international human rights charters.

Since when can officials use tax-paid resources
to repeat accusations decided on appeal? A final appeal
ruling is
final or it's not a final appeal.

A university that defies this principle should
be held in contempt of law. If a Ministry allows this
behavior on
the part of a university official, this is as good as
saying there is no
law in Taiwan, or at least no government regulation of
national universities.
In which case, they are not national universities, but only
private businesses,
subject to litigation, but not law.

Professor Kao still argues that, although
I won the appeal, I'm only entitled to half pay, since I
wasn't teaching.
What kind of legal or moral logic is this? This is even
more tricky
logic since Professor Kao's defiance of the Ministry ruling
is the reason
I wasn't teaching here during those years! Is this the
kind of logic
we expect of the head of a university, especially one
reaching out to the
international community?

I urge the Ministry of Education to act according
to moral principle and law. In all lawful societies, a
final appeal
ruling is final, not subject to further review and insuring
the full legal
benefits of that ruling, including full compensation,
apology, and remedy,
such as punishing officials or faculty involved in
misconduct. In
all lawful societies, an official who defies the law is
promptly removed
from office.

Regardless, I promise all parties concerned
that no American professor will be denied human rights in
Taiwan.
I am committed to this, not only for my sake but for the
sake of all foreign
faculty here. I will do whatever it takes to uphold those
rights
until I receive full legal benefits of the Ministry ruling.

Sincerely

Professor Richard de Canio

Department of Foreign Languages and Literature

Tainan, Taiwan

(06 237 8626

No comments:

Post a Comment