Letter to Dean of Student Affairs

24 April 2002

Dean Ko,

Regarding the three faxes I sent to you yesterday and today, I am
requesting an agreement
from you regarding your responsibility as Dean of Students in my grievance
against my
former student, Chen An-chuen.
Please reply as soon as possible whether you agree with my belief
concerning the extent
and limits of your investigation into my grievance; that it is not to exceed
the fact of Ms.
Chen's letter, the substance of that letter, and the aggravated
circumstances of the letter and
its submission to university officials years after its disputed claims and
at the time of
dismissal action against me.
Needless to say, Ms. Chen is entitled to defend herself, which is a
better chance than I
had. But Ms. Chen's defense must be limited to addressing facts of my
grievance: the fact of
the letter, the fact of its
submission, the fact of secrecy, the fact of withholding material
information, etc.
As part of her defense, Ms. Chen can deny sending the letter. She can
claim the right to
submit the letter. She can protest that she was solicited to submit the
letter and to write the
substance of the letter; or even that she was compelled to do so. She can
argue she made a
mistake but that it was an innocent and pardonable offense. Or she can
admit her mistake and
request leniency.
This kind of defense is proper, if not adequate. The truth of her
claims, or the mitigation
of her offense if she was subject to official coercion or confused moral
values, or if she
submits an apology, is then up to your office to decide.
But Ms. Chen cannot, as part of her defense, simply repeat accusations
and gossip made in
her letter and expect you therefore to treat them as facts that merit
investigation. For to
investigate gossip is to legitimate gossip.
I will not permit this defamation of my character under the guise of
"official
investigation." If I go to you and complain that a student committed an
offense, you are not
therefore authorized to investigate this student's background, contact her
classmates, etc. The
extent and limit of your investigation is, first, to ask me for proof of her
offense (for example,
a court judgment, or reliable witnesses); and then to advise the student of
the proof and
enable her defense.
In Law, if the facts speak for themselves, there is no need to
investigate. If the facts do not
speak for themselves, there is no reason to investigate. Thus, without
reason to investigate,
there is neither legal nor moral justification to do so; an investigation
falls outside the
protection of lawful or authorized action on the part of a university
official.
As Dean of Students, your legal authority is limited to an investigation
of complaints
against students.. You are not otherwise authorized to investigate the
background of a
colleagues, or even of students, for that matter.
Please understand, I have nothing to hide or to be ashamed of. I appeal
to legal and moral
principles, as well as professional respect, by which we all benefit. If we
investigated every
accusation or rumor about a colleague or neighbor, there would be no end to
the mischief
done. The law recognizes this potential for mischief and therefore limits
the inquiry into our
private or professional lives.
Ms. Chen made certain outrageous claims about me in her letter. None
are based on fact,
only on opinions or hearsay, sometimes twice or many times removed from
fact. Therefore,
apart from it being legally and morally wrong to investigate opinions and
hearsay, it would
be impossible to effect a just investigation of gossip within the limits
established by law,
recognized by reason, and respected by custom.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Professor Richard de Canio
(06) 237 8626