President, National Cheng Kung University
Da Hsuan Feng,
Senior Executive Vice President
Dr. Hwung-Hweng Hwung,
Senior Executive Vice President
Dr. Chang Kao-Ping,
Dean of the College of Liberal Arts
Professor Huang Cheng Neng,
Chair of the NCKU Faculty Union
3 June 2009
Dear Colleagues,
I remind you that Liu Gi-Zen, whose promotion hearing is scheduled for June 11, wrote an accusatory letter against me to the court in November 2000, implying I failed a student, Chen An-chun, unfairly. Mr. Liu had no proof of Ms. Chen's claim and her claim was improper on the face of it, since she made it eight years after her grade, and in secret.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Liu's action was disreputable, more so in a culture supposed to respect teachers (unless Mr. Liu or our colleagues believe only Chinese teachers deserve respect). Mr. Liu's action is further discredited by the fact that he failed the same class Ms. Chen did.
Not all students respond antagonistically when they fail a class. These two students' actions must be judged by normal responses to failure. (See attachment 1.)
Falsely accusing a teacher of unfair grading compromises the entire grading system of a university. Thus Mr. Liu's insinuations not only discredited me but also our university.
There is also reasonable probability Mr. Liu's employment was a reward for his accusations. Is it coincidence two students who wrote accusatory letters against me were hired by our university (Lily Chen is currently a part-time teacher here)?
Here is a rough translation of Mr. Liu's letter to the court (see attachment, 0):
To the Judge of Tainan District Court,
. . . I and Ms. Chen An-Chun took the sophomore course British Literature. The teacher was Mr. De Canio. According to my memory, Mr. De Canio didn’t invite all students of the class to a dinner, only invited three students: [names omitted] and Chen An-Chun. The two former went and their final exams were 100. This is unfair. I hope the judge looks into the details. . . . Liu Gi Jen.
What especially irks is Mr. Liu's pretense to high moral principles, though the accusation is based on insinuations, hearsay, and flimsy "logic" that would embarrass a school child ("post hoc, ergo propter hoc"). Mr. Liu is masking malicious gossip as a morally conscientious deposition to the court. In this way he can damage the reputation of his teacher without incurring risks to himself.
The fact that his deposition cannot be punished under legal statutes should not absolve him from moral censure by our colleagues. I can depose that, "Professor Martha Chen had a male student in her office and the student got a 100 in the class. This is unfair." That would not be perjury if based on facts. But it would not reflect moral principles or probity either.
Mr. Liu, with equal perspicuity, could have written, "Two students wore skirts during the exam and received 100s. I wore pants and failed. This is unfair."
Perhaps Mr. Liu believes the rooster causes the sun to rise each morning. With more plausibility I could fax to the court, "Two students wrote accusatory letters against me and were hired by the university. This is unfair."
How did Mr. Liu know other students' grades or if they were fairly earned? He was a sophomore at the time. Who authorized him to evaluate a professor's grades? Besides, Lily Chen told the court I destroyed my exams according to former chairman Ren Shih-yung: on what basis could he judge?
All this is beside the point. A teacher's grading of other students is none of his business. Who made it his business?
If all students behaved as Mr. Liu did, no teacher would be safe from insinuations. He is now a teacher himself. Would he like it if he failed a student and her classmate faxed a similar letter to the court about him?
If Lily thought she failed unfairly there were authorized channels of remedy. Accusations outside those channels are not protected by law or moral principles.
Why didn't Lily file a formal complaint at the time but chose to file a complaint in secret, eight years later, when it was likely I would not learn of her letter or survive dismissal to contest it? How is it that Lily is the only student in 22 years to contest a grade, and she had to do it in secret? Anyone whose conscience hasn't been compromised by departmental politics could answer that question.
In his fax Mr. Liu also discredited two classmates who, he implies, passed unfairly. These students ranked first and second in their graduation year, exactly reflecting the grades they received in my class two years earlier. Thus Mr. Liu not only discredited these students, but our university, which ranked them.
The irony is that the first- and second-ranked students who passed their course were discredited while the two students who failed but wrote accusatory letters are now employed by our university. This doesn't boost university morale. This is what is "unfair," not failing a student who failed her exam.
These students filed complaints under the color of legitimacy, with grievous consequences to a professor, including loss of reputation and dismissal. That they expected to get away with their misconduct is proved by the fact that, up to now, they have gotten away with it. This (to use Mr. Liu's words) is the part that is unfair.
No student should be allowed to insult a teacher with impunity. These accusations were formally accredited; they must be formally discredited, with appropriate penalties to deter similar misconduct in the future.
As a student in America, Mr. Liu benefited from our legal principles: One can't accuse someone without proof or make reckless accusations with impunity. It is our responsibility to insure he learns those principles and observes them hereafter.
Moral probity should be one criterion of promotion. Unless Mr. Liu has proof I failed Ms. Chen unfairly, he must be held accountable.
But how can he have proof? Ms. Chen deposed to the court I destroyed my exams.
If an accuser has no proof, Mr. Liu assumes she must be telling the truth! Excuse me, but I thought it was the other way around.
Repeating a claim does not make it true. In some cases it makes it libel.
The circulation of the claim at formal hearings did not accredit the claim. It discredited officials who circulated it.
Colleagues even endorsed Lily's character to a court to justify her action, using our official address, as if on behalf of the university. (See attachment, 2.) In their letter they assured the judge that a student who wrote a secret and malicious letter contesting a grade eight years late was "a modest and virtuous young woman of good character."
The irony is, by defending the moral character of a student who contested a grade eight years late, in secret, and without proof, they proved themselves as unworthy to give a character reference as Lily was to receive it.
Some of them sat, or now sit, on our review committee, which secretly circulated the accusation. One was a former student of mine!*
As is obvious, respect for teachers in Taiwan is more virtual than real. A culture that honors teachers in precepts dishonors them in practice.
Another former student at least had the integrity to admit what he did was wrong and under duress (see attachment, 3). Still, one questions the moral fiber of a university where students are routinely solicited to discredit teachers and routinely oblige.
One colleague even solicited my vote, alleging not to recall signing the letter discrediting me! How can one discredit a colleague and not remember doing so? It boggles the mind of anyone with moral principles. That itself should disqualify him from ever sitting on our committees or holding office.
Indeed, all professors who signed that letter and who now sit on the Review Committee, including Rufus Cook and Aaron Chiou, must recuse themselves from Mr. Liu's review. If we upheld moral standards they should not be on that committee in the first place.
No professor in an American or British university would defend the character of a student who submitted a secret accusation against a teacher alleging an unfair grade eight years after the fact. No professor who defended a student's unproved accusation (or worse, claims not to remember doing so) can be expected to have the moral probity to make official decisions, least of all involving matters related to this case.
I will contest any hearing for Mr. Liu at which colleagues who signed that letter sit. Obviously if they supported Ms. Chen's accusation they will condone Mr. Liu's accusation.
If Mr. Liu still passes our department review committee, I urge the college committee to consider the facts related here and overturn that decision at their scheduled meeting on August 10. Beyond that there are legal options available to me.
Our university must protect foreign teachers if it is to maintain academic exchanges with universities abroad. Yet Lily Chen's secret and unproved accusations were accepted in ten days while my legitimate complaint against her has been ignored for ten years. Now Mr. Liu, who accused me without proof, is up for promotion instead of censure or dismissal!
When faculty defend students who improperly accuse a colleague, they discredit their univeristy as well as the teacher. Since officials, including former chair Li Chung-hsiung, circulated Lily Chen's letter at official hearings, it is part of the official record and must be formally removed from the record, with penalties to insure the gravity of the action.
Mr. Liu's letter, based solely on innuendo, must also be officially discredited. Although addressed to the court, it involves university matters against a faculty member and Mr. Liu is now a faculty member.
Since the accusations are on the record, discrediting those accusations must be on the record too. Since those accusations had grievous effect, including dismissal, the penalty must be commensurate. One doesn't deter bank robbers simply by returning the stolen money!
In a society that honors Confucian principles, no student should discredit a teacher with impunity. That the teacher was a foreigner should magnify the offense, not minimize it.
One often hears of Taiwan hospitality and Confucian respect for teachers. Both values have been discredited in this case.
But the much vaunted Taiwan advocacy of democracy has also been discredited. No colleague, to my knowledge, has voiced a protest, or even concern, over this case. Yet the facts are transparent unless one obstinately refuses to acknowledge them.
In a society that respects legal rights, no teacher should be accused outside due process of law. This includes the right to defend oneself.
No university committee in a democracy should have passed a dismissal based on grievous violations of human rights that the Ministry of Education Appeals Committee promptly recognized and corrected. No president of a university, such as Kao Chiang, should be allowed to defy a legal Ministry ruling. Taiwan democracy must begin in Taiwan, not in Beijing.
In a society where many, like Mr. Liu, are protected under the law when they matriculate or teach abroad, their former hosts should be protected under the law when studying or teaching here.
I was irreparably harmed by the collusion of students and university officials to discredit me. It cost me four years of my academic career and considerable expense.
The worst of it is many believed I could not stay in Taiwan long enough to contest their accusations or even learn about them, since they were made in secret. Only by court order, for example, was I allowed to read Lily Chen's letter. This aggravates the disgrace.
Do my colleagues want democracy in Taiwan? Then you must acknowledge the gravity of what happened and finally act to effect just closure. This case will not disappear otherwise. I guarantee that.
Though I "won" my case, I will not regain my reputation and dignity until all issues related to my illegal dismissal in 1999 are formally resolved. This includes an official apology, remedy, and compensation.
I appeal to my principled colleagues to effect closure in this case; not just to protect the rights of a foreign colleague and so reciprocate the justice you receive abroad or expect your children to, but also to protect the reputation of your university.
As an American I am obligated to insure that hereafter American professors are treated with respect in Taiwan. As Taiwanese you must insure the continuance, with mutual respect, of Taiwan-American academic exchanges.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
*Postscript (August 8, 2010): The name of this former student is Lai Chung-hsiung (Raymond Lai, now Dean of the College of Liberal Arts), for whom I wrote a strong reference letter five years before he discredited me in favor of Chen An-chun. My reference letter is dated 17 February 1995 (see attachment, 4), the letter to the court, obviously intended to discredit me in favor of Chen An-chun, is dated November 27, 2000.
What happened to the boasted respect for teachers in Taiwan? Or does that only apply to Taiwanese teachers, not to foreign teachers? To this day, Mr. Lai denies he discredited me in that letter to the court! He claims he was merely saying he knew Lily Chen longer than he knew me. Presumably the others who signed the letter also knew Lily Chen longer than they knew me! Presumably Mr. Lai makes judicial decisions based on how long he's known someone. In other words, we're back to the Chinese concept of "relationships" all over again, despite the fact that Mr. Lai teaches critical theory as one of his specialties!
But what reasonable person would make judicial decisions based on knowing a person longer rather than knowing the facts of the case? This applies doubly to Mr. Lai who not only deposed to a court but is a member of the judicial Review Committee. Does Mr. Lai make decisions on the Review Committee based on how long he's known someone? Then that's one more reason why he should be removed from that committee.
I should add that four of the signatories of that letter to the court were also on Ms. Chen's doctoral oral committee on January 18, 2007, including Professors Cook, Chiou, Ren Shyh-jong, and Lai.
The final irony is that the letter to the court defending Lily Chen as "a modest and virtuous young woman of good character" discredits the signatories to the letter instead of me. For no reasonable person (much less faculty of an accredited university) would defend a student who wrote a secret accusatory letter against her former teacher, complaining of a grade eight years after it was recorded, and without a single document as evidence other than her own claim. As I wrote in my original letter (above): "The irony is, by defending the moral character of a student who contested a grade eight years late, in secret, and without proof, they proved themselves as unworthy to give a character reference as Lily was to receive it."
Keep in mind several of the signatories of that letter are now on the important department Review Committee, holding the fates of their colleagues in their hands. If they use the same criteria to judge their colleages that they used in judging me (i.e. hearsay, gossip, innuendo, secret accusations, collusion) then the question must be asked if National Cheng Kung University is a legitimate academic institution, much less a reputable one. That letter to the court, based on no evidence but Lily Chen's claim and in defiance of all democratic principles (presumption of innocence, evidence, defense, statutory limits, etc.) not only discredits the faculty members who signed that letter but can only suggest collusion in the dismissal process. Where in any other university in the civilized and democratic world could you get seven faculty members to defend a student who accused a teacher in secret, without evidence, about a grade eight years before?
I remind my readers that several of the faculty members mentioned above now hold important positions at our university: Liu Ge-Zen, the student who supported Chen An-chun's accusation of an unfair grade without proof is now Director of the Foreign Language Center, a position formerly held by Lai Chung-hsiung. Mr. Lai himself is now Dean of the College of Liberal Arts. Aaron Chiou is now Chair of the Department of Foreign Languages of Literature. Lily Chen herself is listed on her Facebook page as Adjunct Assistant Professor. Apparently the only way to get ahead at National Cheng Kung University is to engage in collusion against a professor, even one's former teachers! The end result is these professors, attempting to discredit me, not only discredited themselves, but also their university, with consequences that may last for years, if not decades.
No comments:
Post a Comment