Dr. Hwung-Hweng Hwung
President
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
bcc: Concerned parties
25 February 2011
Dear President Hwung,
On consideration of recent events, including a meeting with the new Secretary-General, I must say that I am dissatisfied with the dilatory handling of a case that has lasted twelve years and where the facts are transparent, including serious human rights violations and the university's stubbornly defiant refusal to be accountable for them.
Please understand, this case is a serious violation of human rights. To pretend otherwise is not an option. The marginal way it's being handled only adds insult to injury. Forcing an American professor to continually petition for remedy is unacceptable.
After nearly twelve years I should not have had to contact the new administration about this case. The new administration should have considered the case serious enough to have contacted me, especially since I contacted the current president last year when he was Secretary-General, who then assigns the current Secretary-General to discuss the case. Hoping the case disappears through such dilatory maneuvers is not the way a reputable academic institution should handle a human rights case of this magnitude.
In sum, in 1999 I was illegally dismissed. The university circulated a secret malicious letter from a former student who had no proof whatsoever about a grade eight years before. This letter was solicited. It was circulated at all subsequent hearings, including appeal and review.
The university stubbornly ignored urgent warnings by members of its Teachers Union that the entire dismissal process was illegal, since it was based on malicious and unproved accusations. A lawyer, presumably a member of Taiwan's Bar Association, presided over some of these hearings, despite conflict of interest. When the dismissal action is canceled on appeal in December 1999 the lawyer then returns the case back to the department, now as an employment, not a dismissal matter, on the basis that foreigners are not protected by the Teachers Law. To make matters worse, once I won the case in a Ministry of Education Appeal ruling dated 8 January 2001, the lawyer then argued that a foreigner I had no right to appeal.
How can the same lawyer who presided over a university appeal then argue I had no right to appeal? Don't you see the duplicity here? I'm curious how Tainan citizens would react if we treated a Taiwan appellant the same way.
Finally, the university refused to honor the Ministry ruling for nearly two and a half years. In the process of contesting my rights the university also insulted all American professors, indeed all foreign professors, by saying that we were not protected by the same rights as Taiwan citizens, even though Taiwan citizens expect to be protected by equal rights when they matriculate or teach at American universities or at other universities in democracies abroad. Moreover, even as they are outraged at the mere possibility of a slight to a Taiwan citizen, such as in the recent taekwondo incident where most of the country, including the media, was incensed by a perceived insult to a Taiwan citizen. Yet except for a few articles in Chinese newspapers, the Taiwan press and human rights groups have been silent about my case.
I have deep respect for that superb Taiwan athlete, but as an American citizen I am outraged at the double standard shown compared to the university's response in my case, especially considering that those involved in violating my rights or retarding remedy for those abuses, including the current administration, are highly educated, many of them from universities in my own country.
I hope you understand that, as in the case of the taekwondo incident, my case is not just about me. It's about respect accorded American citizens in Taiwan. As an American citizen it is my responsibility to insure fair treatment of American professors here. I cannot and will not compromise on the matter of a complete administrative resolution of this case, including my right to face the student who accused me (so far as I know she is still teaching part time at our university); my right to receive formal apologies from those who discredited me by their illegal and malicious actions; and compensatory and punitive administrative actions insured by human rights charters recently endorsed by Taiwan's president.
The notion that an American professor must repeatedly, for twelve years, petition a university administration for such closure is unacceptable, especially for a university with numerous academic exchanges with American universities and other universities in established democracies.
Please understand, one more time, that I am committed to a fair and full remedy in this case and I will continue to use all legal options guaranteed under Taiwan law, international human rights charters, and laws that govern academic exchanges of American universities with universities abroad.
This is not an issue that requires dilatory review. The facts are plain and transparent. There is no dispute that a secret letter was circulated to insure my dismissal. There is no dispute the university refused to enforce a legal Ministry ruling for nearly two and a half years. There is no dispute the university claimed foreign faculty were not protected by the Teachers Law. There is no dispute the same lawyer who presided over university appeal hearings then claimed in court that foreign faculty had no right to appeal! The claim that foreigners had no right to appeal in itself should discredit the university. The fact that it was made after the university itself held appeal hearings only underscores the shameless duplicity of the university in its treatment of foreign, specifically American, faculty.
I urge you once more to consider the gravity of the issues and my commitment to insure a full, fair, and formal resolution of them. The time for prudent delay should have been at the beginning of the illegal dismissal action in 1999, not now when remedy is urgent by international standards of rights and laws. It took sixteen days to pass my dismissal but nearly twelve years to deny remedy it. It seems to me reasonable that if the university can illegally dismiss someone in sixteen days it can, and should, legally remedy that action in the same amount of time.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Formerly Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan.
No comments:
Post a Comment