Raymond,
I never accepted an apology from you. I merely accepted the fact that you, like others here, were incapable of making an apology.
This is part of the whole culture of face, where few admit wrongdoing or even know the difference. A true culture of face would prevent one from doing something wrong in the first place.
You have children. If they did what you did, would you make them apologize? I hope so.
Yet all you did was rationalize your action. Your euphemistic "explanation" of the meaning of the letter you signed to the court was risible.
How else can one interpret words such as, "We are . . . fairly well acquainted with former Associate Professor Richard De Canio, and we would certainly trust the word of Lily Chen over that of Prof. De Canio"?
Words like those about one's teacher are an insult. It's even more insulting when you tried, expediently, to make them mean something different. Your refusal to apologize in a straightforward manner added insult to injury.
This is how a normal apology would read:
"Dear Richard, I regret I gave in to political pressure and signed that letter to the court claiming Lily Chen was more trustworthy than you. You certainly didn't deserve to have your character compromised in that way. My only excuse is others put pressure on me and I caved in. It's a mistake I hope I never repeat. I cannot undo it but I can make amends the best way I know how. I will send this letter to the court, and include a retraction of my previous signature. Please accept this as the first step in my sincere apology. Hope we can continue our friendship this way. Sincerely, Raymond."
When people make apologies like that, as in the case of that email I attached to my last letter, then I graciously accept it.
People make mistakes. But they must substantively apologize for those mistakes too. Simply referring to your letter as a "misunderstanding" adds insult to injury.
Character assassination is not a misunderstanding. It's character assassination.
I've always been suspicious of the ease with which postmodern theories have been accepted here. But I think those theories suit traditional values. Now people don't need to worry about facts, since words only indeterminately refer to facts anyway, as in Nietzsche's famous dictum, "There are no facts, only interpretations."
The problem is, it's a fact that Nietzsche wrote that sentence, not an interpretation. It's a fact you signed that letter to the court. It's a fact I won a university, then a Ministry, appeal, not an interpretation.
In our university there are no facts, just interpretations. So it took four years for the university to determine that it was a fact it lost the case.
Your "interpretations" in emails and personal exchanges were similarly laughable. The claim that your letter was not a disparagement of my character would insult the intelligence of anyone who could read. Come to think of it, it would sound worse to someone who couldn't read and heard the words spoken instead.
(Read your letter out loud and hear how it sounds. Better yet, replace your name with mine and hear how it sounds. It'll help you understand the Golden Rule better: "We are also fairly well acquainted with Professor Lai, and we would certainly trust the word of Lily Chen over that of Prof. Lai." I bet you don't like the way it sounds.)
Another equivocation was temporizing about whom to believe. Others whose moral sense was atrophied by departmental politics used the same logic.
It's not an issue of whom to believe. It's an issue of whom not to believe.
It's a principle of law that one doesn't accredit unproved accusations. Or everyone would be victimized that way. There's the Golden Rule in a nutshell.
In your case there were more compelling reasons not to discredit me. I was your teacher. We specifically studied Plato's idea of the Good, as I recall, apparently to no good. You remind me of the old proverb, "You can take the man out of the country but you can't take the country out of the man."
No matter how many years you study Western culture and values you'll probably always fall back on relationships instead of moral principles. Like the biblical prophet Jeremiah said, "A leopard cannot change its spots."
It reminds me of Aesop's fable of the cat that tries to be a gentleman so gets a fine education. But as soon as a mouse scurries past he chases it.
Now Lily spread the rumor that I had failed her unfairly I think as early as 1994, because I wrote her a letter to challenge the claim. As Lily's close friend you almost certainly heard her gossip.
If you believed her, why did you ask me to write a reference letter for you? If you didn't believe her, why did you pretend to believe her in the letter to the court? Let's hope when your head stops spinning it's turned in the right direction.
This is a culture supposed to honor teachers. You not only discredited me, you also discredited your culture.
This is the view of Taiwan I'll take back to the States. And people wonder how stereotypes start.
Don't believe for a moment such misconduct does not rebound on one's life. Unless you have no moral sense at all you must know this. That's why the Bible and Buddhist scriptures have outlasted all the critical theories of the 20th century, at least as practical wisdom.
Your letter was more reprehensible since it was sent to the court with the deliberate purpose of helping Lily Chen defend herself against her own insulting letter, made in secret about a grade eight years late. Why defend an action like that?
I must suppose you thought her action defensible.
What's worse, you never expected I would survive dismissal long enough to view the letter. A case of "out of sight, out of mind." If no one sees you do it, it's okay to do it.
Like the old saying, "He doesn't regret what he did, he regrets getting caught." That doesn't suggest a well developed moral sense.
Frankly, you're not someone I want to call a friend or associate with. If I greet you in the halls that's to be polite. The judge shows the same courtesy to the condemned man.
Many corrupt colleagues involved in this case are gone. The advantage for which they compromised their integrity now seems empty, their actions futile. That's the vanity of human wishes.
Those few who do remain must fight alone. It reminds me of the final lines of a poem by Kipling:
. . . [C]arry my word to the Sons of Men or ever ye come to die:
That the sin they do by two and two they must pay for one by one --
How can you justify signing a letter that says you "would certainly trust the word of Lily Chen over that of Prof. De Canio"? (I love that intensive "certainly." You didn't want to take any chances, did you?)
Lily Chen wrote a secret letter against me contesting a grade eight years late, and without proof. Apart from moral issues, what rational person would accredit such a claim?
[Postscript, 8/17/10: Recently, when the Teachers Union received a summation of the case they sent it back thinking there was a mistake in the date, which should be corrected to read 1999 (the year of dismissal) instead of 1991! That's how ridiculous that secret letter was! No rational person could possibly accredit a letter about a grade eight years before! The fact that there was absolutely no proof, the letter was submitted in secret, and the accused professor was never called to defend himself only makes the offense more ridiculous; "bizarre" is a more suitable word. RDC]
One official in Taipei literally laughed when she heard about it. "How can someone complain about a grade after eight years? That's ridiculous." I replied, "I'm glad you see the humor in it because people in my department don't."
(By the way, did you know my case was used to warn new college administrators of mistakes to avoid? So our officials, thinking to discredit me, discredited their university. What goes around comes around.)
On what basis would you claim that someone who writes an insulting letter against her former teacher is "modest and virtuous"? Where's the modesty in a student thinking she deserves to pass a class? Where's the virtue in writing a secret letter against one's former teacher, accusing him without proof and, in addition, maliciously discrediting him?
Did you see her letter? One Chinese colleague said (using a Chinese expression) it made his hair stand on end! Where's the "good character" in writing a letter like that?
Would it make your hair stand on end? Or would you choose the most expedient reaction? "Gee, this teacher should be fired!"
Did you see my letter to Lily Chen several years before when I offered to locate her exam in my office? She ignored that letter. She preferred secrecy. Why would someone with truth on their side prefer secrecy?
The letter to the court that you co-signed discredits you. One would think in view of such evidence you would have offered a sincerely contrite apology, admit what you did was wrong, and try to make amends, like your colleague did in the letter I attached to this recent email.
Like some of our colleagues you wanted to advance in our university at all costs. Well now you must pay the cost.
Fortunately, other countries, such as America, have standards. This department, and ultimately the university, will be judged accordingly.
The evidence, by rational standards, is indisputable. Whether you accept those rational standards or not, those are the standards that will prevail in the international community.
In a rational society equivocation is not possible in the face of facts. Murderers have their reasons, quite strong ones too, as evidenced in the degree of violence they inflict on their victims. But murderers are still incarcerated.
Our university has sister exchanges with many American universities, not to mention universities in other democracies. These universities are bound by legal statutes and bylaws. Even if some universities resist losing profitable exchanges here, pressure from legal rights activists or state laws might leave them no alternative.
For the record, it's against the law in a democracy to hold secret meetings. Or to make accusations without proof. Or to circulate secret letters.
These are facts, not interpretations, at least under international laws. They are fully documented, including official documents from our department, the university and the Ministry of Education. Many of them have already circulated widely.
What do you think will prevail? These documents or the personal claim of officials they did nothing wrong?
The university lawyer presided over appeal hearings at our university, and attended them in Taipei, then argued in court that foreigners have no right to appeal. There's a basic legal principle called estoppel, which says a person cannot contradict an already established fact. If the university held appeal hearings how can it claim I had no right to appeal?
It's true, the university got away with this in Taiwan. But it will not work in the US.
Not only didn't the university censure abuses when they happened but no one since has thought to close this case with apologies and compensation.
Apologies are basic to a sincere relationship. Our relationship is not sincere but polite, a mere expedience.
I can't respect anyone who would discredit a teacher, much less his former teacher, especially one who wrote him a reference a few years before.
Nor can I respect anyone who would rationalize barbaric behavior such as a student writing a secret malicious letter in order to insure a dismissal as part of a wider conspiracy. Lily's letter was dated just before the secret meeting.
Tolerated, such behavior becomes contagious. Another former student, now on the faculty, Liu Gi-zen, supported Lily's claim as recklessly as Lily made it. As in your case, he benefited from the courtesies and protections of democratic law [in America, where he matriculated] but back in Taiwan he chases after the first advantage.
Did it ever occur to you that soon your children may be registered here, subject to the same calumnies? So the greater task is to advance human rights here.
What I and a few others are doing now for that cause will outlast your academic record. I'm certain of that much.
As Mr. Thoreau said, there are many professors of philosophy but no philosophers. Certainly your letter, referring to "dinners in nice restaurants" and "friendly conversations," hardly suggests a philosophic grasp of the critical issues involved.
We're not talking about "nice restaurants" but about human rights. And understanding a person's "situation and anger" is not going to change it as much as doing something about it.
If you're not responsible as a member of this university, and an official of it, who is? How will democracy ever grow here? Read this item from the Taipei Times.
Finally don't patronize me with instructions to "keep my words." I decide what my words mean, not you.
I never accepted your so-called "apology," as I said above. I merely accepted the fact that you were unwilling or even unable to apologize.
But the real point is the university should keep its word. And people like you and Aaron Chiou and others in our department are as responsible as any to insure our university upholds its integrity.
It can only do this by issuing an apology, by commensurate compensation, etc. In fact an apology should come from Review Committee Members, including the current chair, as well.
This includes yourself. Are you prepared to do that?
Are you and others in our department prepared to go to the president and insist he must follow international procedures in resolving human rights violations, including a formal apology, compensation, and appropriate penalties. Even if this isn't done for the sake of human rights it should be done for the sake of the university.
If not, don't bother writing back because I won't answer. But I assure you this case will be fully resolved according to international principles of law sooner or later.
Sincerely,
Richard.
No comments:
Post a Comment