National Cheng Kung University
16 January 2006
Dear Colleagues,
Recently I sent you a letter exposing human rights violations at our university. However, there seems to be a general apathy about human rights issues at our university. Or perhaps there's a language problem; so I'm sending that letter again, in a bilingual version.
When you read this letter, try to realize these issues are too serious to ignore and it's best they're resolved within instead of outside the university.
Since some among you seem to prefer to let a university president or lawyer decide what constitutes law or human rights at our university, let me stress the main points:
1. Secret meetings were held at our university to effect the dismissal of a colleague (1999 and thereafter); false accusations were made. For this reason the Ministry appeals committee overturned that decision (January, 2001), using boldfaced type to stress the violations. But there has been neither full compliance with that decision nor a formal apology made. This is unacceptable and violates international human rights principles to which Taiwan subscribes. It also disrespects academic exchanges with universities in other countries that observe those principles.
2. One student, CHEN AN-CHUEN, who made secret, unfounded accusations against that teacher not only hasn't been punished, she is now a doctoral student and part-time teacher at our university. Perhaps it's an odd coincidence that a student who made those secret accusations received employment at our university. Some of you may choose to believe so. Regardless, a student who defames a teacher (especially her former teacher) should not be employed at our university.
Ms. Chen was not the only former student involved in writing secret accusatory letters without cause, as the following apology shows:
Another student, LIU GI-ZEN, who, without proof, supported Ms. Chen's accusation in a court deposition after I filed a court action, was recently hired by our university (August, 2005). This is a culture that supposedly honors teachers. Unless Mr. Liu can reasonably explain his support of Ms. Chen against his own teacher (based only on Ms. Chen's claim), he should face consequences for disrespecting his former teacher.
3. FLLD Department Review Committee members who supported Ms. Chen in a letter to the court should be held accountable for their conduct. Mr. RUFUS COOK may be the only one still on that committee. It's reasonable to expect that committee members arbitrate on moral and legal principles, since the careers of their colleagues are at stake. Unless Mr. Cook can explain on what reasonable basis he would support a student who claimed, without proof, she failed unfairly eight years before, he should be removed from that committee. An ethics committee should decide additional consequences.
4. Regarding the administration's noncompliance with the Ministry Appeal ruling of 8 January 2001, no university president should be allowed to prevent enforcement of legal rulings either by outright defiance or by tactical delays.
5. A president or university lawyer should not be allowed to contest a final Ministry ruling without legal basis. Why have an appeal process if the appellant knows that, even if he wins, the university will delay enforcement by contesting his award in the courts? If my colleagues don't recognize the gravity of this, luckily I do. It's especially improper to claim an appellant has no right to appeal after the appeal process has already favored him. Bear in mind our university has sister universities where human rights are respected. Countless Taiwan citizens have benefitted from those rights when matriculated or teaching abroad or by academic exchanges with those universities.
6. A university lawyer has no business governing a university; a university is governed by laws. I ask you to commit yourselves to rule by law, not to rule by officials, committees, or lawyers.
7. A university committee has no business contravening, "interpreting," "reviewing," or "approving" Ministry decisions. University committees are supposed to make decisions based on laws. No law in any democracy in the world gives a committee the right to "interpret," "review," or "approve" superior or judicial rulings. Yet here's a list of committees convened after the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001:
2001.1.8 MOE appeals meeting (cancels the dismissal);
2001.5.24 Department review meeting (upholds dismissal);
2001.6.19 College review meeting (upholds dismissal);
2001.7.23 University review meeting (solicits additional evidence);
2001.9.12 University review meeting (upholds dismissal);
2002.6.18 University appeals meeting (cancels dismissal);
2003.5.20 University review meeting (imposes new penalties);
2003.6.26 University review meeting (denies salary increment between 1999-2001 academic year);
2003.9.9 University appeals meeting (cancels penalties);
2003.10.27 University review meeting (upholds penalties);
2004.1.16 University appeals meeting (rejects appeal);
2004.3.22 MOE appeals meeting (cancels denial of salary increment between 1999-2001);
2004.11.1 MOE appeals meeting (cancels other penalties);
2005.2.24 Department review meeting (discusses salary increment; no resolution);
2005.4.12 University six-person group meeting (cancels college resolution to deny salary increment);
2005.7.13 University letter (sets conditions for compliance; rejected by professor);
2005.9.9 University letter (sets conditions for compliance; rejected by professor).As can be seen from the above, either committee members are ignorant of the law, indifferent to the law, or ignorant of the facts of the case they're sitting on; for on legal principle, committee members should have boycotted those meetings. Instead one committee member protested she didn't know the facts of my case. If so, why does she sit on committees judging the fates of her colleagues? Committee members must realize that human rights and academic careers are at stake. You're not there to defend officials who violated the law, or to routinely uphold previous decisions, regardless of the law; you're there to uphold principles of law, whatever the inconvenience to your colleagues. In a democracy, relationships are no substitute for human rights, and committee hearings are no substitute for the law.
8. Committee hearings should not be used punitively and tactically, to delay rights enforcement. I'm certain my literate colleagues have read Franz Kafka's nightmare allegory called The Trial, about an interminable legal process that ends only in the appellant's death. Some of you, like the foolish patient who swallows twenty pills to hasten her cure because her doctor prescribed two, may believe that twenty appeal hearings are a stronger cure for human rights abuses than one. But an overdose of good medicine is poison. A major murder trial in America lasts about a month, while this case is now in its eighth year.
9. I remind you our university has sister universities in America where Taiwan students and faculty are protected by the same rights as native faculty. You should not allow a university president to claim foreigners are not protected by the same rights as native faculty here. The fact that he claimed this after the appeal process had already favored the appellant makes the claim not only legally and morally wrong, but shamelessly so.
10. A university administration should not play poker with human rights issues. The goal of a university should be to uphold and advance human rights, not merely to win a case at any cost regardless of human rights or moral principles. If a Ministry ruling is not treated as final and normative by our university administration, then our university will quickly be ostracized by the international community and it will take years, if not decades, to repair the damage.
11. Faculty must become actively involved in defending democracy at our university. Talking democracy at international conferences is no substitute for doing democracy at home. Condemning rights violations in Mainland China is no substitute for advancing human rights at our university. Holding committee hearings is no substitute for enforcing laws and human rights at our university. Yet numerous university committees saw fit to pass a dismissal that violated countless human rights principles grade-school children could have recognized. Worse, as shown above, since the legal Ministry ruling dated 8 January 2001, the university convened no fewer than fifteen meetings to debate that ruling.
Let me sum up:
A university is governed by laws, not by lawyers, officials, or committees. A committee hearing is not an end in itself, but should serve the higher end of justice under the law. With due respect to committee members who didn't recognize this (only the Ministry Appeals Committee recognized this), under the law secret meetings are not allowed; secret accusations are not allowed; unsupported accusations are not allowed; malicious solicitation of accusations are not allowed. Grade-school children know that much. Yet Ms. Chen An-chuen's accusatory letter against me is dated 8 June 1999, the day before a meeting on my case (9 June 1999). Her letter was either solicited or it was an extraordinarily lucky coincidence that a student decided to complain about a grade she received eight years before just on that day.
Committees should not be used punitively, as a tool of harassment. No committee has the right to "review" or "approve" a Ministry ruling. The ruling is final, not subject to review.
A university president who doesn't promptly enforce a Ministry ruling is not fit to be president. If my colleagues do not recognize this then, with due respect, I question your commitment to democracy in Taiwan.
No executive official has the right to set conditions for compliance with judicial rulings. That should be obvious to anyone who understands the separation of powers established in a democracy. Conditions for compliance, if any, are set by the judicial ruling, based on law.
Compliance with legal rulings must be automatic. But Mr. Kao Chiang and his lawyer ignored a legal Ministry ruling and delayed enforcement for more than two years. Since that Ministry ruling, as shown above, the university held no fewer than fifteen meetings and continues to send letters setting conditions for complete compliance with the Ministry ruling.
In a democracy, the law is the final standard, not an official, a lawyer, or a committee. No university lawyer can undo a Ministry ruling or "interpret" laws, no matter what he thinks. If there's a conflict between a lawyer and the law, the lawyer is expendable, not the law. Without law, this university will not stand or (at best) will stand alone.
This case took more than four years out of my academic career and continues to occupy my time. It took more than two years for the appeal process to be completed and another two years before the university complied with the Ministry decision. I cannot let this case disappear without a trace. Nor can the university afford to let it disappear without a trace, thus encouraging further abuses.
My colleagues should realize this case must be resolved according to acceptable legal standards, such as other universities observe and that are guaranteed in human rights charters, as well as by Ministry laws: there must be a formal vindication of the appellant, a formal apology, just compensation, and penalties for those involved in false accusations against him.
This is my final appeal to you as colleagues. Don't risk the reputation of our university to protect those who merit punishment, not protection. I have devoted considerable time trying to balance my rights against the reputation of our university. I cannot continue this juggling act longer and I will not compromise my rights, no matter what. Unless there is prompt action to resolve these issues according to principles of human rights to which both the university and Taiwan subscribe, I must appeal to institutional channels outside the university and, if necessary, outside Taiwan.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
No comments:
Post a Comment