Letter to Scholars at Risk

Dear Professor Quinn,
Thanks very much for your considerate response. I have delayed
responding a few days, hoping to contact concerned Chinese colleagues
regarding your letter.
There is divided opinion here concerning the best route to take. A
Chinese colleague in Tainan insists that congressional contact is the
most important route. He is convinced that officials here are more
sensitive to this kind of international pressure than to legal
authority.
As is well known, Taiwan is still very much a culture of
relationships. Hence my inquiry about congressional appeal. In this
context, the web page of Scholars at Risk was also forwarded by a
Chinese colleague concerned with mobilizing outside pressure to resolve
this case.
The facts are officially documented and plain. I won my case after a
long appeal process. The Ministry of Education has sent no fewer than
three warning messages for the university to issue the contract.
Instead, the university is dishonorably acting as if the process of
appeal is never final until it favors the university.
Apart from universal principles of law and justice involved
here, there are the additional issues of honesty, good faith, and fair
play: the values we presumably teach our students and our children
("keep your promises," "abide by your previous agreement," etc.).
I should add that the university never contested the appeal process
until after I won following a two-year battle. If this does not go
against commonly accepted principles of fair play (apart from legal
issues), I don't know what does. Imagine if a student kept passing an
exam and the teacher and Dean of the College kept telling her she would
have to repeat the exam--indefinitely, or until she failed.
I believe this kind of refusal to play by the rules on the part of any
university should be of concern to academics anywhere in the world.
Taiwan parents would be the first to protest if their child suffered the
same duplicit treatment while studying or working abroad. Principles of
justice and reciprocity require one country to protect rights of
foreigners the same way they rely on these rights, indeed take them for
granted, when they themselves live abroad.
Concerning your two suggestions for action, I see them as short-term
and long-term objectives. I believe a letter to the Ministry of
Education would definitely be helpful in the short-term goal concerning
the issuance of the contract and to remind the Ministry of international
community and norms.
(I should point out that the Ministry has favored me, but the
university has thus far ignored the Ministry. Still, in proper
democratic process, of course, the Ministry should legally contest the
university, not I.)
If Scholars at Risk is willing to send such a letter, the address is,

THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
5 CHUNG SHAN S. ROAD
TAIPEI, TAIWAN 100
R.O.C.
ATTN: DR. OVID TZENG,
MINISTER OF EDUCATION

I am not certain if staff at Scholars at Risk can read Chinese. But,
if so, feel free to request faxed (or emailed) documents of
the appeal decision and later warning letters from the Ministry of
Education to the university.

As for your other suggestion of having a letter published, this seems
useful in the long-term goal of establishing principles of equity for
foreign faculty in Taiwan. Right now, it seems, even foreign faculty
associated with a university for more than ten years can be dismissed
without legal appeal or protections.
Thank you again for your consideration of this case.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio.