Human Rights at a Taiwan university

U.S.-Asia Law Institute
110 West 3rd Street
Room 218, New York
New York 10012
Telephone: (212) 992-8837
Facsimile: (212) 995-3664
Email: usasialaw@nyu.edu

Jerome A. Cohen
Professor Frank Upham

31 March 2011

Dear Professors,

I have had long-standing problems with human rights violations at
National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan.

In March 1999 I was illegally dismissed as Associate Professor at that
university. I was not even informed of accusations against me until
after the dismissal hearing, of which I was similarly uninformed.

When original accusations were contested by the NCKU Teachers Union, a
secret letter from a student was then circulated at so-called
oversight committees to insure my dismissal. (The chair refused to
inform me of the contents of the letter, which I discovered only when
I took the student to court several years later.)

The dismissal was canceled in December, 1999 but the university lawyer
argued that a foreign teacher was not protected by the Teachers Law,
which prevented dismissal except for misconduct. The courts and the
Ministry of Education rejected this claim later, but the lawyer's
claim undermined the legal right to benefit from a favorable appeal
ruling. Thus the appeal was a legal sham, presumably a dilatory tactic
to insure my visa would expire.

Under US law at least such actions would violate the principle of
estoppel. But from what I understand that principle does not exist in
Taiwan.

After numerous hearings that obstinately repeated discredited
accusations, I gave up expecting justice at the university and
appealed to the Ministry of Education in Taipei, which ruled in my
favor on 8 January 2001. However, Kao Chiang, the university
president, refused to honor that appeal for nearly two and a half
years, until May 2003. Instead the university filed a lawsuit,
claiming foreigners had no right to appeal, despite the fact the
university held numerous appeal hearings and attended the one in
Taipei, another violation of the estoppel principle.

In the meantime two university officials tried to extort my
resignation from the university, at half pay, or threatened to delay
the case indefinitely in the courts.

Even when the university finally reinstated me in May, 2003 it held
further hearings and imposed penalties, despite the Ministry ruling.
Those were also overturned by the Ministry of Education.

University officials were repeatedly warned by members of the Teachers
Union and Ministry of Education officials that their actions were
illegal (see attachments) but persisted in their misconduct. Yet apart
from retroactive salary, I received no compensation nor was the
university required to pay punitive damages. In addition, the
university has never apologized.

Court rulings were puzzling (see attached). The court imposed no
damages on the university nor even awarded me compensation for travel
expenses incurred repeatedly renewing my visa. The court argued there
was no need for me to have stayed in Taiwan to fight the case!

How can an appellant contest a case without being present to do so?
The university could have insisted on my presence at a meeting,
forcing my return, delayed the meeting, and so on in a cycle of
attrition that would both discourage and impoverish me. Besides, in
another case a Taiwan judge awarded child custody to a Taiwanese
mother on the basis the American father did not remain in Taiwan,
suggesting he had no paternal interest in the child! "Heads I win,
tails you lose."

Review committee members and the student who wrote the secret letter
were similarly found not liable for libel on the basis their false
accusations did not circulate outside the university. But all libel
statutes I know state an action constitutes libel if a single third
party hears a false accusation.

What can be done with this case? The Ministry of Education, despite
its ten warning letters to the university president (see attached) not
only did not punish him but approved him for another three-year term
as president. The Control Yuan has done nothing. The three major
English-language newspapers never publish my letters about the case,
despite many editorials about human rights violations in Mainland
China.

Taiwan has recently endorsed international human rights charters,
which insure remedy in human rights cases. But the way this case has
been handled at Ministry and judicial levels suggests human rights is
a nebulous concept here.

I'm concerned what my legal options are, not only in Taiwan but in
America, since I am an American citizen. National Cheng Kung
University has numerous academic exchanges with reputable US
universities. Are there US laws or university bylaws that prohibit
academic exchanges with a university that has a documented record of
human rights abuses? Are there media or human rights groups willing to
expose this case in the US, since those options are virtually
nonexistent in Taiwan? Presumably Taiwan's media and government are
more concerned with the rights of a Taiwan taekowondo athlete than
with those of an American professor.

I am not merely fighting an individual case, but I hope to insure
proper treatment of American faculty in the future. Thank you for
whatever advice you give.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626

Re: The case at National Cheng Kung University

MEGAN LU
Legal Aid Foundation

24 March 2011

Dear Ms. Lu,

Nice meeting you this afternoon. I am sending documents that may help,
assuming you have not received them in hard copy.

I would like to clear up one matter we briefly touched upon this
afternoon, namely the difference between American and Taiwan law. Of
course there will always be differences; there are differences between
American state laws too (some have capital punishment, some don't;
some give harsher sentences for the same crimes, etc.); but there are
legal guidelines too! I know of no US state or foreign country that
would not prosecute child abuse, for example; and federal law prevents
wide disparity in sentencing. All countries have libel laws, statutes
against bodily harm, sexual offenses, etc.

My criticism does not concern a difference or mild disparity of
rulings between nations. I don't expect the large punitive damages one
is used to in American law; but when the university is not ordered to
pay any damages, then that's an issue. It undermines confidence is
legal channels in Taiwan.

I feel judges in Taiwan do not strictly apply laws in their rulings,
as can be seen in other cases. A person kisses a stranger on the
street and it's ruled not a sexual act because the kiss lasted only a
few seconds. A person takes photographs of a woman in a changing room
and that's ruled not a sexual offense because it was in a public
place. One judge ruled a child should have resisted sexual advances,
etc.

Every lawyer knows that democracy is won or lost in thousands of court
cases daily. That's why lawyers fight so hard for defendants who don't
seem to deserve it. Why defend a person who killed three babies, even
when he admits to doing so? The answer is the lawyer isn't fighting
for that criminal so much as fighting for principles of law, which are
won or lost in courtrooms daily.

I wish people in Taiwan would see my case in that perspective. A
society is risking social chaos if it allows officials to do what they
did to me without punishment;. A society undermines the law if it
allows a student to accuse a teacher of failing her eight years
before, without proof, and with evidence clearly showing she was
lying.

Certainly one of the purposes of legal redress is to serve as a safety
valve, to prevent injured parties from taking the law into their own
hands. Without confidence in fair judicial rulings, a father would
kill the man who raped his child. Three strong men would beat a person
who owed one of them money and never repaid it. A person whose house
was burned down by another would burn down that person's house too,
possibly killing innocent people.

Therefore the average citizen must have trust in judicial rulings. I
can honestly say I don't trust judicial rulings in Taiwan. My case
speaks for itself. But it doesn't speak only for me; it speaks (or
should speak) for all citizens.

I suppose some people in Taiwan think what happened to a foreigner
cannot happen to them. First, that's a selfish way of thinking.
Second, it's not even true, like I argued above; because principles of
law are eroded or firmly established in every case brought before the
law. That's what we know as "common law" and "case law" and "case
precedent."

So those who fight for a case today on behalf of someone else will
insure justice for themselves or their family in the future. The same
judge who ruled that a student who wrote a secret letter against me
did nothing wrong can rule, next year, against a Taiwanese, in a
similar type of case.

So democracy is a job of work. I'm fond of the saying, "Democracy is
not something you have, it's something you do."

How true. Democracy is "done" every day, in court rooms, at school
meetings, among parents who complain there's no stop light on the
school corner, or that a child was bullied in school, and in similar
cases.

It's not only selfish, but short-sighted, for my colleagues to think
my illegal dismissal only concerns me; like it's short-sighted to
ignore discrimination based on race if one belongs to a "favored"
race; because tomorrow the same company will discriminate based on
religion or based on gender or based on who you know. That's how legal
rights are daily eroded and lost.

Consider the erosion of legal principles in my case. A secret letter
was circulated by high officials at a high-ranked university. Neither
the student nor officials were punished. The student is now teaching
part-time at the university; faculty who defended her are now
department chair and Dean of Liberal Arts. A president who refused to
enforce a legal Ministry ruling was not only never punished but
approved for another three-year term as president! Yet these officials
control the minds of the next generation of citizens in Taiwan! What
does that say about the future of Taiwan?

You told me you knew of the principle of estoppel; that one cannot
contradict a claim previously made or assumed in court. Yet the
university lawyer, Wang Cheng-bin, held appeal hearings at the
university then said I had no right to appeal, after I won the case.
Instead of dismissing the lawyer's case the court accepted it and I
won only after months of testimony.

But a court should be a forum based on legal principles, not a place
where people argue out of both sides of their mouth at the same time.
I can't fire someone for being drunk and when I lose the case claim I
fired him for being late!

Not only wasn't this lawyer punished but, from what I've been told,
he's treated with respect in court! I am certain he would have been
disciplined or even dismissed by an American Bar Association.

In sum, I hope the Legal Aid Foundation sees the wider legal
principles involved in my case: equality under the law; the right to
remedy, including compensation and apology; penalties as a deterrent
factor, which encourage lawful conduct in the future; fair judicial
rulings, which discourage personal vengeance or people taking the law
into their own hands; the need to treat foreign litigants fairly,
which encourages cultural and economic exchanges between countries
(capital investment, etc.). In the long run, every society benefits
from the best laws and the best judicial rulings.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio
(06) 237 8626

Our meeting on Thursday morning at 8:45 a.m.

LEGAL AID FOR FOREIGNERS
Tainan, Taiwan

Dear Iris,

Professor Ray Dah-ton, who has participated in this case from the
beginning, and has attended almost all the court hearings, summed up
and criticized the court's ruling in several of these cases, attached
here in pdf format. Professor Ray has all the legal documents and I'm
sure he can send them upon request, or he can bring them with him if
he is not busy on Thursday morning, the time of my scheduled
appointment at the Legal Aid Foundation.

I will ask him if he can appear at the new scheduled time on Thursday
morning, 24 March, at 8:45 a.m. In the meantime, I think he will be
available in his office after noon today to address questions by
telephone.

Ahead of our meeting, I just wish to say I am deeply disappointed with
legal remedy in Taiwan. It's worse than having no legal channels at
all, because it's disheartening to go through the motions of legal
remedy (court depositions, etc.), not to mention the cost of legal
remedy, when the rulings don't seem to address the issues and facts of
the case.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio.
(06) 237 8626

Contact: Ray Dah-ton (06) 2757575-62831

Regarding Richard's appointment on Wednesday March 23, 3:30 p.m.

LEGAL AID FOR FOREIGNERS
Tainan, Taiwan
 
21 March 2011

Dear Iris,

We spoke over the phone around 4 p.m. on Monday. I asked for legal assistance. I have an appointment on Wednesday, March 23, at 3:30 p.m. but I thought I would sum up the issues here too.

In June 1999 I was illegally dismissed from National Cheng Kung University. When the first accusations against me were challenged, a student letter was secretly circulated at hearings to insure my dismissal. The student, Chen An-chun ("Lily" Chen) accused me of failing her unfairly. She had no proof. She never contested her grade at the time but only eight years later in secret. (I saw the student's letter only after taking her to court a few years later.)

The dismissal was canceled in December, 1999 but the university lawyer argued, against all legal principles, that a foreign teacher was not protected by the Teacher's Law, which prevented dismissal except for misconduct. The courts and the Ministry of Education rejected this claim later, but the lawyer's claim contradicted the legal right to benefit from a favorable appeal ruling.

In US law the lawyer's action would have been prevented by the principle known as estoppel: that is, one party in a dispute cannot contradict a previous claim, either implicit or explicit. If the university held an appeal the university should be bound to honor an appeal that favors the appellant.

After numerous tricky hearings I gave up expecting justice at the university and appealed to the Ministry of Education in Taipei, which ruled in my favor on 8 January 2001. However, Kao Chiang, university president, refused to honor that appeal for nearly two and a half years, until May 2003. Instead the university filed a lawsuit, claiming foreigners had no right to appeal, despite the fact the university held numerous appeal hearings and attended the one in Taipei, another violation of the estoppel principle.

In the meantime two university officials invited me to a meeting with representatives of NCKU's Teachers Union. At that meeting the two officials tried to extort my resignation from the university, at half pay, and threatened to delay the case indefinitely in the courts unless I did so. I believe this would fall under the felony known as extortion under US law, which involves coercion (threats,force, blackmail, etc.).

Even when the university finally reinstated me in May, 2003 it held further hearings and imposed penalties despite the Ministry ruling! Those were also overturned by the Ministry of Education.

The legal misconduct committed by university officials in this case should be considered an outrage if Taiwan is considered as a democracy. I am certain, for example, that the university lawyer would have been disbarred under principles of the US Bar Association. University officials would have been dismissed under ethical regulations and laws in the US. I am certain I would have been awarded considerable damages by a United States court for the university's willful and malicious misconduct, both to compensate me and to deter similar misconduct in the future.

But apart from retroactive salary, I received no compensation nor was the university required to pay punitive damages. I should add university officials were repeatedly warned by members of the Teachers Union and Ministry of Education officials that what they were doing was illegal (see attachments) but persisted in their misconduct anyway. Such willful, defiant, and malicious misconduct usually insures high punitive damages in US courts as a deterrent. Not only have I been denied compensation but the university has refused to apologize. Democracy in Taiwan cannot mature if this kind of misconduct is tolerated, without penalty or accountability.

Court rulings on this case are puzzling. The court never sanctioned university officials and instead of stopping the university's lawsuit contesting my rights under the Ministry of Education ruling (estoppel) actually heard the case, when it should have been dismissed on principle.

Presumably, the legal system is based on human rights and ethical principles and is not just a forum for any kind of claim! I can't take someone to court for wearing a black suit on the claim it depresses me! US lawyers are fined for bringing unprincipled cases to court.

Similarly, the court never punished the student, Chen An-chun, though I appealed at several levels. As I was told, the judge ruled it was "reasonable" the student believed she failed unfairly! But that's not why I took her to court! I took her to court not because she believed she failed unfairly but because she argued that as if it were a fact. The judge ignored "the preponderance of evidence," as it's known in US civil law: The student received three high passes from me apart from her failure. She accused me in secret. Her letter was solicited by a university official in order to be used in my dismissal. She accused me without proof. She accused me eight years after the class. Yet the judge found nothing wrong in her conduct!

The judge also ruled that Lily's accusation was not libel since it was not circulated outside the university. But all libel laws I know of state that a false accusation is libel if just one other person, apart from the person being defamed, hears it. If I falsely accuse Bob of being a thief and only Bob hears it, it's not libel. But if John hears it too, it's libel. But the judge ruled against me!

Finally the judge ruled against compensation on the basis that I did not have to stay in Taiwan to fight my illegal dismissal and therefore could not claim compensation for hotel costs, airplane fees, etc. when I renewed by visa every few months.

How could I have fought my case by moving back to the United States? As soon as I moved back the university would have held a hearing and insisted on my presence. When I flew back to Taiwan the university would have found a reason to delay the hearing, or held numerous other hearings. It would have cost me even more money.

Besides, another judge made a completely opposite ruling in a case of an American's attempt to gain custody of his child with a Taiwanese wife. Because the American returned to the United States in the meantime the judge ruled that proved he did not really love his child and awarded custody to the Taiwanese mother! In other words, "heads I win, tails you lose"! If I had returned to the United States the court might have ruled against me in the university case, because my return to the US proved I was not sincere about my attempt to fight my dismissal; or that I missed an appeal hearing and thus forfeited my appellant rights!

Apparently judges in Taiwan can rule either way. Does it seem reasonable that an appellant should leave Taiwan while fighting an illegal dismissal at a Taiwan university? A democracy is established on numerous rulings such as these; that's why US lawyers fight so hard for principles of human rights in American courtrooms.

That's why I can't let this case disappear. This is not just my issue; it concerns the future of Taiwan democracy, because democracy is established on thousands of daily rulings.

Besides, Taiwan citizens receive justice in the United States; moreover, rational judicial rulings discourage misconduct. I think an American citizen should receive justice (not merely legal rulings) in Taiwan.

I therefore ask for your assistance.

My question is what can be done with this case? Taiwan has recently signed international human rights charters, which insure remedy in human rights cases. There is also the Control Yuan, the Ministry of Education and other civil remedies. Please advise me.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626

Unresolved human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan

Ministry of Education
Dr. Wu Ching-Ji,
Minister of Education
Taipei, Taiwan

cc:Dr. Hwung-Hweng Hwung
President
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

Scholars at Risk
New York, N.Y.

15 March 2011

Dear Minister Wu,

National Cheng Kung University has a chronic history of human rights violations that began in 1999 with my illegal dismissal. University officials circulated a secret letter, invented accusations against me after other accusations were discredited, then canceled my dismissal on appeal but refused to honor its own ruling on the basis that foreigners were not protected by the Teachers Law, a claim rejected by the Ministry as well as the courts.

When your Ministry ruled in my favor on 8 January 2001, the university refused to honor that ruling for nearly two and a half years, despite ten warning letters (attached). Instead it used tax-paid money to contest a legal appeal at which the university deposed and never contested until it lost.

In the meantime, university officials tried to extort my resignation by threatening to delay the case in the courts indefinitely. After it reinstated me, the university contested my right to retroactive salary and held further hearings to penalize me.

To the present day the university has not apologized, issued compensation, or punished faculty and students in their conspiracy to obstruct justice and deny an American professor his rights.

Several presidents, including the present one, have failed to resolve this case according to principles guaranteed by international law. One president, Kao Chiang, defied the Ministry for years, as if NCKU were a rogue institution instead of a top-ranked university in Taiwan.

Academic exchanges cannot and should not be maintained except on a basis of mutual respect. There are also principles called "human rights," which Taiwan has recently endorsed as a guarantee of both law and appeal, if necessary, above the law, based on universal ideals rather than local prejudices.

Only prejudice could explain why Kao Chiang's administration was extended by another three-year term even after he defied the Ministry of Education (see attachments)? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights insures officials will be punished despite official position, power, or nationality.

Similarly, the Taiwan student who made secret accusations against me not only has never been punished but is teaching part-time at the university where she discredited me. An American professor is not without honor, except in Taiwan. Only nationalistic prejudice could explain why a Taiwan student was allowed to discredit a teacher without proof and eight years after a disputed grade.

The Golden Rule is part of Western and Chinese moral codes, but apparently is only observed under the American justice system, where the student would have been discredited, not the teacher. That's called due process of law, which is no respecter of persons.

The university's refusal to punish this student has impacted my life to the present, as, twelve years later, NCKU students still think I failed a student unfairly (see attached student Internet post, dated August 2010). Similarly, in a Wikipedia Edit dated 20 October 2010, it's claimed my illegal dismissal never occurred (see attachment)!

Whether the writer is associated with NCKU is irrelevant. The university's refusal to formally close this case has fostered a revisionist history that exculpates the university, though NCKU officials repeated  human rights violations defiantly and obstinately (see MOE attachment).

Thus there can be no compromise on the issues of a formal apology, compensation, and punishment of the student. Apart from losses in time and money, compensation is an earnest of sincerity. If I sincerely apologize for breaking someone's window I will pay for it. If I don't, my apology is insincere since it ignores the harm caused.

Recently an NCKU official drafted an "apology" that appealed to "the True, the Good, and the Beautiful." As if those could exist without human rights and a remedy that insures them. When Plato used those words he meant justice, not the denial of justice.

A university that does not observe those principles must be considered a rogue institution, with no right to academic exchanges with American universities or universities that guarantee human rights.

This case will soon be in its thirteenth year. I regret to say if I don't receive an adequate reply to this petition by Thursday, I will, as a further step, circulate this letter to the student newspapers of universities with which NCKU has academic exchanges. Perhaps if American students expose this case it will force an open discussion of these issues on college campuses to insure a just resolution so far denied me in Taiwan.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio
formerly, Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University

Concerning human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University that we discussed over the telephone this morning.

Mr. David Wu
Ministry of Education
Taipei, Taiwan

11 March 2011

Dear Mr. Wu,

You asked to know the facts of my illegal dismissal at National Cheng Kung University in 1999. The case is well known and has appeared in the news but is still unresolved due either to defiant or incompetent officials at NCKU, including several former presidents, up to the current one, Hwung-Hweng Hwung.

One former president, Kao Chiang, defied the Ministry of Education for years, without penalty. In fact, he was approved for a second three-year term even after he defied the Ministry. How can Taiwan's universities expect to maintain academic exchanges with American universities if Taiwan allows discrimination against American professors?

In 1999 a secret accusatory letter was circulated at several review hearings to insure my dismissal when previous accusations were challenged for being improperly investigated.

After my dismissal was canceled in December 1999 the university denied reinstatement on the claim that "foreigners" were not protected by Taiwan's Teachers Law. Thus the dismissal case was returned to the department, now as a "hiring"  case, contradicting the purpose of appeal. (This claim was rejected by both Taiwan's Ministry of Education and Taiwan's Courts.)

After many bogus university hearings, which repeated the same unproved and defamatory accusations with the same results, I appealed to the Ministry of Education and won a ruling dated January 8, 2001. The university then claimed foreigners were not entitled to appeal, though it held numerous appeal hearings and attended the one in Taipei. Instead of obeying the law, which is what officials do in a democracy, the university filed suit to contest the Ministry ruling.

When the court ruled against the university, it defied court and Ministry rulings, ten warning letters from the Ministry (attached), and two advisory letters from Scholars at Risk, a human rights group based in New York.

Four years after my dismissal, and nearly two and a half years after the Ministry ruling, the university reinstated me, but held illegal hearings to deny me promotion and increments for seven years. That decision was also overturned by the Ministry of Education.

To this day several university presidents have ignored my many petitions to resolve this case according to principles of law and international law to which Taiwan subscribes.

The student who wrote a secret malicious letter against me, which I saw only by court order years later, was never punished and is now teaching at our university after receiving her Master's and Doctorate at NCKU. However her graduate committees were made up almost entirely of the same professors who defended her for writing a secret letter against me. This calls into question the impartiality of NCKU's accreditation process, since I know of no professor in any democracy that would defend a student for secretly accusing a teacher, especially when it was solicited by one of the professors who defended her action.

The officials who violated my rights by circulating unproved accusations and a secret letter were never punished. Committee members and chairs who chose to protect their colleagues instead of my rights, discrediting formal remedy at our university, were never held accountable. Apart from retroactive salary, I received no compensation for the interruption to my career and the costs, in time and money,  fighting this case to the present day.

The current president, Hwung-Hweng Hwung, is engaged in the same dismissive and delay  tactics of his predecessors. But if Dr. Hwung doesn't take this case seriously I will pursue his dismissal in the courts and also argue for the termination of academic exchanges with American universities. Should a university that has no internal means to remedy its abuses be allowed to maintain academic exchanges with US universities governed by human rights principles, laws, and administrative remedy?

The discriminatory actions against a foreign professor would be called "racism" under most definitions of that word. When a young Taiwan student accuses her American professor of unfairly failing her eight years before, without proof, and in secret, and is favored by university officials over the professor himself, undermining principles of due process, proof, and equal rights under the law (including the right to challenge the accuser), that should be considered institutionalized racism at National Cheng Kung University; and on that basis I will argue under US laws that academic exchanges with NCKU should be terminated, in the same way that was done during apartheid in South Africa.

National Cheng Kung University's stubborn refusal to issue a formal apology addressing the serious legal rights issues involved, make compensation, and insure penalties against those who conspired during the university's illegal dismissal action has added insult to injury.

This is not only an issue of principle. The university's refusal to issue a formal apology has caused grievous harm to the present time.  For example, a student wrote on the Internet just last year that most NCKU students heard of Lily Chen's accusations against me and favor her over me! (See attached.)

An Edit for Wikipedia's NCKU entry, dated October 20, 2010, even denies my illegal dismissal ever happened and, contrary to court and Ministry rulings, claimed foreign teachers were not protected by the Teacher's Law. (See attached.)

Thus the university's refusal to handle this case according to principles established in most democracies and under international laws Taiwan's president recently endorsed is adding insult to injury and makes it all the more necessary that this case be formally resolved. I will not accept the university's revisionist history of this case. History will know what happened, not what NCKU says happened.

Dr. Hwung should understand that this case will be resolved according to principles shared by all democracies, including a formal apology, just compensation, and penalties against officials involved. There will be no compromise, and time is running out for Dr. Hwung as NCKU president.

If the administration thinks it's going to play hide-and-seek with me the way past administrations did it is grievously mistaken. Essentially, I will use international human rights charters that Taiwan's president signed to insure Dr. Hwung's dismissal as NCKU president. I will also continue my petition to have NCKU's exchanges with American universities terminated on the basis of discriminatory acts against American professors.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio
formerly Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626

Dr. Hwung-Hweng Hwung
President
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

Dear President Hwung,

If you read the attached printscreen of a document from the Edit History page of NCKU's Wikipedia entry, you will see why a formal resolution of my dismissal case is imperative.

Whether the Wikipedia editor, APACHE776, is associated with National Cheng Kung University remains to be seen. If NCKU is sincere about its apology it should investigate this issue.

In the meantime, it's irrelevant. What matters is that a revisionist history of my 1999 dismissal, and the human rights violations that continued in the years following, was possible because National Cheng Kung University has delayed an apology for nearly thirteen years and the illegal actions have not been reasonably published or exposed.

The Wikipedia Edit shows how imperative a formal apology is, as well as punitive and compensatory actions integrally related to an apology, whether by moral or legal standards; not only in themselves, but as an earnest, or token, of real administrative change in the university to prevent a repeat occurrence of what happened.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio
formerly, FLLD
NCKU

Updated Ministry of Education Documents to National Cheng Kung University concerning human rights violations

March 4, 2011

Dear American Colleagues and Human Rights Officials,

I have just received from a representative of the Teachers Union of National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) a more complete copy of the warning letters sent by Taiwan's Ministry of Education to NCKU president, Kao Chiang over a period of nearly two and a half years warning the university to abide by a legal Ministry ruling. I have enclosed copies in both jpeg and pdf formats.

There were actually ten letters, not eight as I had previously understood. Moreover, the new English-language translations, by a member of the university's Teachers Union, cover more of the Chinese-language text this time so as to give a stronger sense of the university's human rights violations for those who only read English.

I'm sorry for sending a copy of these letters again, but, because of the obduracy and revisionist schemes of the university, either pretending this case never happened or marginalizing what happened as if it were of minimal importance (apparently Taiwan's taekwondo athlete's disqualification is of more importance here), I want to be sure, for the sake of Americans, indeed, of all foreign faculty, who follow me in Taiwan, that this case will not disappear and that there will be a permanent record of the history of human rights violations at National Cheng Kung University should this case never be resolved according to due process of law or international principles of law, as indeed seems to be the aim of the present administration as of the ones before.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio
formerly, Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

Human Rights Issues at National Cheng Kung University

cc: Dr. Hwung-Hweng Hwung
President
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

cc: Taiwan Administrative and News channels, American Universities, Scholars at Risk, Chronicle of Higher Education
bcc: NCKU Faculty

3 March 2011

To the American Academic Community,

There is a long-standing unresolved human rights case at National Cheng Kung University that should be remedied if academic exchanges are to continue on the basis of mutual respect and principles of law.

In 1999 I was illegally dismissed. A secret accusatory letter was circulated at several review hearings to insure my dismissal when previous accusations were challenged for not being properly investigated.

After my dismissal was canceled in December 1999 the university denied reinstatement on the claim that "foreigners" were not protected by Taiwan's Teachers Law, which insured employment except upon punitive dismissal. Thus the case was returned to the department, now as a "hiring" rather than a dismissal case, contradicting the purpose of appeal. (This claim was rejected by both Taiwan's Ministry of Education and Taiwan's Courts.)

After numerous futile university hearings, I appealed to the Ministry of Education and won in a ruling dated January 8, 2001. The university then claimed foreigners were not entitled to appeal, though it held numerous appeal hearings and attended one in Taipei. The university instead filed suit to contest the Ministry ruling.

When the court ruled against the university, it defied court and Ministry rulings, eight warning letters from the Ministry (attached), and two advisory letters from Scholars at Risk, a human rights group based in New York.

Finally,  four years after my dismissal, and nearly two and a half years after the Ministry ruling, the university reinstated me, but promptly held punitive hearings to deny me promotion and increments for seven years. That decision was similarly overturned by the Ministry of Education.

To this day several university presidents have ignored my many petitions to resolve this case according to principles of international law to which Taiwan subscribes.

The student who wrote a secret malicious letter against me, which I saw only years later by court order, was never punished and is now teaching at our university. The officials who violated my rights by circulating unproved accusations and a secret letter were never punished. Committee members and chairs who chose to protect their colleagues instead of my rights, discrediting formal remedy at our university, were never held accountable. Apart from retroactive salary, I was never awarded due compensation for the interruption to my career and the financial costs in fighting this case to the present day.

The faculty has been mainly silent, at best expressing private sympathy and hope that I win. Administrative officials are merely urged by their more enlightened colleagues to follow laws, not told to do so. This allows the university to ignore laws to violate human rights then invoke laws to argue against remedy, which is the stand the university is now taking. Should a university that has no internal protocol to remedy its abuses be allowed to maintain academic exchanges with universities governed by human rights principles, laws, and prompt administrative remedy?

The English-language press, which almost daily publishes editorials about human rights issues in Mainland China, has ignored my letters, as have Taiwan's human rights groups. Ironically, only Scholars at Risk, thousands of miles away, responded to my petition for help, for which I remain grateful.

I feel American academics and human rights groups should insure the rights, dignity, and careers of American professors in Taiwan. The recent taekwondo incident demonstrated how sensitive Taiwanese are to their rights and dignity, though they seem indifferent to those of an American professor in Taiwan. This is not a just basis on which to establish the moral legitimacy of a university or its right to maintain academic exchanges with American universities.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio
formerly Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

Forward of email from a faculty member and my reply

Dear Dr. [De Canio]

 

I received your previous mail, and the one before, and the even earlier one before that.  I have been in this university for [omitted] years, and

I also had received some other mails during the past few years.  So although I wouldn't say I've fully understood the very details,

I am kind of familiar with your case.  I also have seen the news on the Liberty News before, but I was surprised to know as you indicated in your 2/27 mail that "In nearly twelve years that I've periodically emailed such letters, not a single faculty member has responded."

I feel bad about it, so I responed to you this time.

 

I had not respond to your mail until today, so I have no right to blame anyone.  People may have different kind of reasons or concerns, and some of these I think I can understand because it may apply to my case, including (1) busy (no kidding, very busy) with teaching and research and the pressure behind; (2) not knowing the details well enough so often hesitate to jump in; but (3) unfortunately also not having enough time to get to know the details; (4) not knowing how to help; and finally but perhaps often unconciously (4) many Taiwanese intellectualities, such as university faculties, have been trained or intimidated or habitualized not to against the organizational machine. 

Today is the 228 Memorial Day, and I assume you have known the history of Taiwan. The White Terror is not really over, it has become an invisible ghost rooted in countless Taiwanese for generations.  Similar things happen everywhere and  happen in the past, like Germany before and during the World War II and the MacCarthyism in the US in the late 1940s to 1950s.  It is sad when people behave this way, but often it is hard for everyone to be brave and to act righteously. I disagree with this behavior and I don't like this behavior, and I think

there must be other faculties who are like me. YOU ARE SYMPATHIZED AND SUPPORTED.

 

Twelve years are a long time already, but you already made this far.  Wish you the strength and the persistence.  You will get the justice.

 

Best regards

 

Sincerely yours
[name omitted]


Dear Professor [courtesy omission],

Needless to say I appreciate your well thought out email. I admit it's disappointing, but not unexpected, that so few faculty members are concerned about issues related to my case. Because these are issues, not just a case. A student shouldn't be allowed to discredit a teacher with impunity, especially in a culture that supposedly honors teachers. This impacts on all of us, assuming we have any self-respect. Are professors supposed to live in fear of such students in the future or of a similar collusion?

Bear in mind this student was allowed to teach here part-time even after this case! (Her name is still on the official NCKU faculty list.) How is such a thing possible in a lawful society? She should have been punished, instead she's teaching and is presumably a role model for students, and implicitly, by her very presence at the university, is impugning me, as if to say she did nothing wrong or she would not be teaching here. But if she did nothing wrong, that means she did something right, namely accuse me of failing her unfairly. And what does that say to other students who may be tempted to gain advantage the same way? Or what does that say to students who declined to accuse me when asked (Lily's letter was solicited)? "Gee. I was a fool. I should have cooperated. I would have had a teaching job here." So you see, punitive actions not only punish wrongdoers but encourage people to continue doing right. If we saw that bank robbers got away with robbing banks many others would start robbing banks too and stake their claim in a profitable crime. That's why we have deterrent prison sentences. Where's the deterrent rulings to discourage similar actions at NCKU in the future?

I should add that the teachers who defended Lily's accusation were on her graduate committees (M.A. and Ph.D), which also undermines the appearance of integrity in grading and accreditation. Of course if the student had proof I failed her unfairly or made her accusation legitimately, as was her right, at the time of the grade,and through proper channels,  that would be a non issue. But in view of the circumstances under which she made her accusation, eight years late, in secret, with no proof, and presumably solicited to do so as a means to insure my dismissal, the presence of several of the signatories of that letter (attached) on her graduate committees should certainly be an issue.

But there are endemic problems with our committees anyway, which repeatedly passed my dismissal even after the Ministry ruling warned them they were violating laws or legal rights.
Committee members shouldn't follow a university lawyer or president or chair like they were sheep. Not a single committee member stood up and asked, "Wait, how can we review this professor again if he won the appeal?" Not a single one to my knowledge protested. Instead their attitude seemed to be if "Daddy" (=chair, president, lawyer) tells us so it must be so. I've always been fond of a quote attributed to Will Rogers or Mark Twain, among others: "It ain't the things you don't know that causes all the trouble. It's the things you do know but that ain't so."

Was there one committee member who protested when the university lawyer canceled my dismissal in December 1999 but then returned the case to the department? When an NCKU law professor learned my dismissal had been canceled he insisted I go to the personnel office to pick up my contract. He pointed to text in a law book to argue that since my dismissal was canceled I should pick up my contract. I told him of the duplicity of the university's action, which insisted on further review—this time to decide whether I would be rehired, not whether I would be fired. This was on the basis that foreigners were not protected by the Teachers Law. Then why go through an appeal at all? The appeal was obviously a charade. Where were the Taiwanese who benefit from laws in my country to stand up for me in their country, thus, apart from law, enforcing the principle of reciprocity that they were raised on? Why do those committee members demand equal rights for their children when they matriculate abroad? But when a Taiwanese is insulted that way there's a veritable feeding frenzy on the Internet and in the Taiwan press, which has pretty much ignored my case (not a single English-language newspaper has, to my knowledge, published anything about this case though they publish attacks on human rights violations in Mainland China almost daily). In view of the feeding frenzy during the taekwondo incident, you can imagine that Taiwanese would be hurling stones at the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) if one of their children were treated with the disrespect I was.

Not a single committee member protested at an appeal decision that undermined the very purpose of an appeal, namely to win, instead of starting a byzantine process of numerous hearings, reviews, appeals. I can't count the meetings convened n my case; but there was quite a number, paid for by taxpayers when the money should have been put to better use. Do taxpayers pay a university lawyer to preside over an appeal hearing only later to say the appellant had no right to appeal? Does the Taipei Bar Association allow this? Are committee members informed of laws, rights, regulations and the history of a case before they sit on a committee? Or do they simply allow a lawyer or chair to tell them what to do?

Frankly I would like to see everyone involved in misconduct in this case dismissed from the university. That includes all committee members—at least in one committee where the vote was unanimously against me. In the other committees where there was at least one vote for me I suppose each member would now claim he or she was the one who voted for me. Therefore I believe in the future all committee members should write a brief report on what basis a decision was made. That would be confidential unless the judgment was appealed on reasonable grounds, in which case the vote would be revealed, at least to an empowered committee. A vote that was made on an illegitimate or uninformed basis would make the committee member liable under the law and to the civil courts. That means the voter could be dismissed and liable to monetary damages to the appellant. I promise you, dismissals such as happened to me would be a thing of the past.

As it is, committee members are protected by anonymity except in the case of a unanimous vote. But that shouldn't protect the chairs of those committees who, in a democracy, are bound by law to uphold the law. Those chairs should be dismissed unless they can argue on what reasonable basis they chaired a committee in the face of illegal accusations or a legal Ministry ruling, or illegal actions on their own part. For example, Lee Chian-er circulated a secret letter against me. Is that legal in Taiwan society? Doesn't a person have the right to face his accuser? Isn't that built into democratic law? Lee Chung-hsiung similarly chaired a departmental "review" to dismiss me. Review? I was not informed of the meeting. I was not informed of accusations against me. The accusations were not properly investigated according to law. Then when those accusations failed Lily's secret letter was solicited, presumably as real proof! A student says she failed 8 years ago and that's real proof? What is this, the Dark Ages or the White Terror? There's only one problem: I'm not easily terrorized. "If God is for us, who can be against us?" (ROMANS 8:31). One either takes it or takes it on. Ive decided to take it on.

I'm attaching a letter signed by 7 faculty members, most of them in positions of distinction. One is now dean, another chair, two others former chairs.

The letter is deeply insulting, impugning my integrity by accrediting the word of a student who had absolutely no proof for her claim, made it in secret, and eight years after the disputed grade. The letter was intended to discredit me but I would think any reasonable person would instead discredit the signatories (those who signed the letter).

Three of them were Americans; one of them, Rufus Cook, is still around to assume responsibility for signing it. I would like to ask him if he thinks any professor at an American college would accredit Lily 's claim and, if not, why would he do so in Taiwan?

Indeed, why would seven "reasonable" faculty members believe a student if she had no proof to her claim, made it in secret, and eight years after the class? Why would they believe one grade was unfair when I failed about one third of the students in the class and, moreover, gave this student three other reasonably high passes in two classes that same academic year? In addition, like I said in my last email, I wrote this student a letter (still in my possession) after hearing gossip about my grade and invited her to pick up her exam. She ignored the letter, claiming someone advised her to. Now why would a student who believed she failed unfairly refuse an invitation to pick up her exam, or delegate someone to do so? But better, why would I risk such an invitation unless (1) I had the exam and it justified my grade (disputing her claim I destroyed it or that she was unfairly graded), or (2) I did not have her exam, but knew for certain that Lily would not ask to pick it up for obvious reasons.

These are fundamental issues that cannot be ignored. The signatories of that letter must be called to a committee hearing to be asked one basic question, namely on what "reasonable" basis would faculty members favor an unproved accusation against their own colleague? Now the principle of Anglo-American law is "what would a reasonable person do"? Would I believe a student who said she unfairly failed your class eight years before, especially if she had no exam to prove it? Of course not. Nor would any reasonable person, and juries are composed of reasonable people, at least while they sit under oath.

(Attached are two letters, one from a normal student who failed but admitted it was her own problem; another from a grad student, who like other students and faculty at NCKU were pressured or solicited to accuse me but had the decency to apologize without equivocation, so I forgave him.)

I add parenthetically that even if, for the sake of argument, the student produced the exam eight years later, what would that prove without comparing that exam to at least several others with high or low grades? That's why we have statutes of limitations even for the worst crimes, usually, I think, of 3 years (except murder which has none). Because the principle of law allows adequate defense, and how can a person defend himself after 3 years, much less 8? Memories fail, documents are lost, witnesses forget, die, or move away, etc. I would be suspicious of a student who complained of a grade 2 or 3 weeks later! "Why did you wait 3 weeks before contesting a grade? The teacher has other things on his mind now, your former classmates may be difficult to reach, they may have destroyed their exam sheets," etc.  My classmates and I used to wait outside a professor's door to contest a grade the next morning! I'm not making this up. We used to have chats outside the office door waiting our turn and ask each other why we were disputing our grades. We never thought the teacher purposely graded low; we just thought we deserved better than we got and we contested the grade immediately.

This student complained eight years later, in secret, and writes a malicious letter that one Chinese teacher said "made my hair stand on end" (I'm not making this up). Obviously she was not contesting a grade but trying to discredit me. Since the letter was solicited and dated right before my dismissal hearing, and since 7 colleagues supported her without a shred of proof, this would suggest collusion as a reasonable assumption (and remember, Anglo-American law is based on what the average reasonable person would think or do).

Now not a single one of those signatories has been punished yet. Not one. In fact some were recently promoted to prestigious positions in the university. Raymond Lai is now Dean. Aaron Chiou is now Chair. A teacher named Liu Ge-Zen, who faxed a letter to the court to support Lily's claim though he could not possibly have seen her exam since Lily said I destroyed it, is now head of a language program, I believe.

In other words, the Liberal Arts department is now represented by people who who discredited a colleague on no reasonable basis. One of them was my former student for whom I wrote a reference letter. Now you know why Shakespeare wrote King Lear: "How sharper than serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child."

The worst of it is I assume many of those involved in these letters thought I would never find out, since I would not stay in Taiwan long enough. So when I got my job back some of them came up with excuses. "I don't remember signing the letter," one said, asking me to vote for him! Another said, "All I meant was I knew Lily longer than I knew you." As if that's a reasonable basis to make judicial judgments anyway. What rational person would make a judicial judgment on how long they knew a person, especially when the other person was their own teacher?

But this kind of byzantine discourse is typical here. It reminds me of talking to one official over the Lily matter. He kept whining, "Oh, I wish I knew who to believe!" What kind of whining lament is that? You give the presumption of truth (i.e. innocence) to the accused, not the accuser. Otherwise if A accused B of stealing money I would respond, "I wish I knew whom to believe!" But I wouldn't respond like that; I would respond, "If you have proof go to the police right now." If he said the theft happened 8 year ago I would respond, "You have a problem, then. You can't expect the police to believe you without proof." Anyway, who would believe an accusation of a failed grade 8 years later?

Many of these people were accredited in advanced democracies abroad but they seem to forget everything they learned, including the hospitality and respect they received, when they return home. It reminds me of Aesop's fable of the cat who trains to be a gentleman but as soon as he sees a mouse he reverts back to his predatory instincts. As the saying goes, "You can take the man out of the country but you can't take the country out of the man."

The consequences of their actions continue to this day. As I showed in a previous email, Lily's accusations are having an impact right to the present time.

First, though I might consider teaching part-time, because of my dubious relationship with this university I cannot rely on a quality reference letter from people in my department, certainly not without compromising myself and my case. Indeed, since I had many students in my Film class, I might be teaching part-time at NCKU.

Second, several students recently told me all their classmates heard of Lily's accusation and, as you saw in one attachment (attached), they favored Lily's side rather than mine.

Third, while I cannot teach part-time at my university, the student who discredited me, instead of being dismissed for doing so, is now teaching part-time, according to the official NCKU web page, implicitly endorsing her secret letter against me, which implies her letter was justified. Can you see the problem here? Can you see why I must and will pursue this case until it's formally resolved according to principles of law?

I should add that no one involved in this case has been punished. Lee Chian-er, who circulated a secret letter at an important committee, was never punished to my knowledge. Li Chung-hsiung, who chaired a department dismissal hearing without even notifying me or trying to prove so-called accusations against me was never punished. Ren Shyg-jong, who illegally dismissed me before the 1999 dismissal (it was overturned because Ren used spurious student evaluations) was never punished for that. One dean, I was told, forged official minutes to make it look like I was advised to be a better teacher at the hearing, presumably to help Ren save face when the dismissal was reversed. He was never punished. As for Kao Chiang, not only wasn't he punished for defying the Ministry of Education for nearly two and a half years but he was actually endorsed for a second term as university president afterwards. This is not tragedy any longer, it's farce.

But it's ironic farce, because the longer this case goes unresolved the more it is exposed, such as one student's comments I recently attached. She made it clear next time those rumors occur she would send students to my blog, where of course they will read the facts, not the gossip. Had those involved in misconduct been punished immediately few would have heard of it or even cared. So the Wheel of Karma works in ironic ways and, to quote Shakespeare, "the whirligig of time exacts its revenges."

Regarding your four points, (1) of course we're all busy at something. If nobody did anything on that basis nothing would ever get done. And I think Taiwanese owe it to other countries to "do democracy" the way other countries do, insuring a hospitable environment when you go to England or Australia or the US, etc. If only based on the principle of reciprocity, important in Chinese tradition, don't you think faculty here should insure our legal rights the way we do theirs?

As for (2) and (3), what "details" are there? This case is transparent, unless one wishes to complicate matters, the way they used to complicate issues when a woman was raped, for example ("Did she wear lipstick? Was her skirt short? Did she wiggle when she walked?"). The rational answer is WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? Either she was raped or she was not. My kind sir, all it takes is a minute or so to read a single MOE letter warning Kao Chiang to issue contracts to realize that the MOE was defied. All it takes is a few minutes to see the MOE ruling that my dismissal was canceled, or a few minutes to see that a student was allowed to submit a secret letter without proof eight years after a grade or that Lee Chain-er circulated that letter.

Remember in law the phrase is "reasonable doubt" not any kind of doubt. And that doubt must be based on principles of law. I cannot reasonably doubt that a paraplegic killed someone just because ten senators claim so if one physician proves it's impossible for the person to walk up the stairs to kill someone. But the university played a game of numbers, thinking that if seven faculty members signed a letter against me that would be seven against one (actually eight if you include Lily). But the law is not a children's game of numbers but of principles. If seven people have no basis to make a claim then seven is as good as none under the law, even if those seven included Pope Benedict and the Dali Lama. That's what "due process" means. One official here once told me, in a matter not related to this case, "I wouldn't lie." I told him I didn't care if he would lie or not, all I cared about was getting a document before I took action. See the difference between rational behavior and irrational behavior?

As for your final point, I refer you to this link to an article called "Silence of the Lambs," which covers the main issue you brought up: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2009/06/13/2003446067

One of my favorite sayings is "Democracy is not something you have, it's something you do." With all due respect, my colleagues have got to start committing themselves to democracy at this university or you will be the laughing stock of the world. I was actually told by a teacher in another college that my case was taught to freshmen officials in order to teach them what not to do in a dismissal action. Yet NCKU is presumably the second-ranked university in Taiwan.

Moreover the greater the delay in resolving this case, the greater exposure it will have, and it will impact NCKU's reputation for years to come. As it is I have no doubt that this case will never disappear; that twenty years from now graduate students writing their theses or dissertations in law or political science will refer to this case. Several human rights groups here and in the US already have all the documents, including most of my letters. Many of those documents are circulating around the globe by now. And keep in mind, the heroes of today (those who colluded in my dismissal) will be the villains of tomorrow, just like in the 2-28 incident you referred to.. That's always the case in histories of human rights.The university's attempt at revisionism, apparent in their failure to apologize or admit wrongdoing and in the still current gossip about me, will never succeed, I guarantee that.

Thanks again for your email. I'll conclude with another relevant quote, from Edmund Burke: "All it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men [and women] to do nothing."

In conclusion, even if NCKU faculty here don't care about "foreigners," they should at least care about the reputation of their university. Because I will continue to expose this case, and use channels of American law if available, until this case is completely resolved according to principles guaranteed under international human rights charters endorsed by Taiwan's own president. I am committed to to upholding  my reputation and the reputation of American professors in Taiwan.We treat professors from Taiwan with dignity in America and I expect the same treatment for us in Taiwan.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio.