[The following sympathetic email from a colleague about student misconduct is nonetheless typical of the mediation method in Taiwan, although (unlike the court) he at least recognizes "how much painful you have been suffering." But notice typical phrases of Taiwan's tribal mediation method where there is no right and wrong just two contestatory sides: "negotiate peacefully," "no anger inside" (the typical technique of personalizing civil or criminal offenses in terms of feeling rather than actions), and, finally, "try to find a proper way solving the problem." Note how the student's libel is a "problem" that needs to be solved instead of an offense that needs to be punished. This is all so typical of the mediation style in Taiwan.]
[Name omitted] wrote:
Dear Professor Canio:
I felt so sorry about the situation happened at that day. As a junior faculty in NCKU, I never heard the things between you and Lily Chen. After reading your letter, I can see how much painful you have been suffering. No one can cease the argument, unless both of you are willing to sit down and negotiate peacefully. I know your feeling, but probably both of you still need to wait until no anger inside and then try to find a proper way solving the problem.
I can serve as a messenger between you and Lily, if you want me to do. What I sincerely wish is no one got hurt in the future.
Best regards,
[Name omitted]
Associate Professor
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health
National Cheng Kung University
Medical College
Tainan, Taiwan
----- Original Message -----
From:
To: [Name omitted]
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 3:26 PM
Subject: Regarding events at yesterday's speech contest
23 May 2004
Dear Professor [Name omitted],
We met yesterday and I was pleased to talk with you. As you know,
there was a problem with one of the co-judges yesterday, which you
witnessed. I wish to explain the background of what happened between
us.
The co-judge, Chen An-chuen (Lily Chen) also a Ph.D. student and
part-time instructor in my department (Foreign Languages and Literature)
wrote a malicious and secret letter against me in 1999, accusing me of
unfairly failing her eight years before. The fact that the letter was
secret and challenged a grade eight years before in itself would subject
this student to severe penalty at other universities.
Even worse, when, in 1994, I heard gossip (obviously coming from
her) that I had failed this student unfairly, I wrote her a letter
reminding her of her exam and that I twice (or three times) offered to
return her exam and she refused. In addition, as late as 1994, in that
letter, I offered to look for her exam, since I sometimes keep old
papers for years in my office.
Not only did she ignore my letter, which was given to her by my
colleague, but she told my colleague that unless I dropped the matter
she would contact her friend, a lawyer! Obviously this student did not
want her exam back, because she knew it would discredit her accusations
she had failed unfairly. It also disproves a claim she made in court
that I told her I had destroyed the exam. If so, she could have
challenged me when I offered to return her exam as late as 1994, in my
letter (I have a copy, if you wish to see it).
Finally, she concealed 3 passing grades she received from me the
same year she received one failing grade. One grade was an 80+ and the
other a low 90. All 3 grades would have discredited her claim that she
had failed unfairly one semester. She might as well claim she passed
unfairly in three other semester classes!
She not only concealed these grades but even denied taking one of
the classes from me, the same year she remembered taking the class she
failed! Not until we showed proof in court did she admit taking that
class, claiming (unbelievable as it may sound), "I forgot." How can a
student remember taking one class from a teacher but forget another?
She "forgot" because the other grades weakened her claim she had failed
unfairly one semester.
But all this is beside the point. No student should be allowed to
write a secret letter to a university to claim she failed unfairly years
before. The fact that the letter was accepted by several university
committees, then circulated secretly in those committees, shows serious
moral failings at our university. It also explains why this student has
not yet been punished. In protecting her, officials are protecting
themselves.
Yet I made it clear to the current Dean of Student Affairs that I
didn't want serious punishment for this student (even though she
deserves it by any moral standard). I was willing to compromise
somewhat with local politics at our university, where one can expect
only limited satisfaction based on moral principles alone. But
officials here don't want to do anything about this student. Instead,
she's been rewarded with admission to our Ph.D. program, part-time
employment, and at one time even worked in the president's office.
(This was following her secret letter, which high officials certainly
knew about, since Professor Lee Chen-er chaired the committees at which
the letter was secretly circulated.)
By my moral standards, a person can be forgiven only after
admission of wrongdoing and apology. To forgive a person otherwise
does not show moral principle but a lack of moral principle. It shows
moral laziness, or taking the easy way out. Yet an official at our
university actually advised me to do this, pretending to be morally
superior, although not a single moral teacher, from Confucius to Jesus
to the decent person in the street would agree with her.
Under the circumstances, I hope you can now understand why it was
impossible for me to be seated with a former student guilty of such
misconduct, especially in a culture where teachers are supposed to be
honored by their students. The fact that this student has not yet been
punished for such misconduct only worsens a situation where I'm supposed
to treat her as a respectable colleague.
Therefore, as I made clear to the student in charge of the speech
contest, unless this student is removed as co-judge, I must respectfully
decline to appear as co-judge again, if invited.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
