[Fwd: Forward of Letter to President Lai of National Cheng Kung University]

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Forward of Letter to President Lai of National Cheng Kung University
Date:	Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:40:17 +0800
From:	rdca25@gmail.com
To:	em50000@email.ncku.edu.tw
CC:	z7908037@email.ncku.edu.tw, ncku.sevp@sevp.ncku.edu.tw, hhhwung@mail.ncku.edu.tw, cymail@ms.cy.gov.tw, scholarsatrisk@nyu.edu, tahr@tpts8.seed.net.tw, tahr@seed.net.tw, academicfreedom@aaup.org, ssmee@aaup.org

Control Yuan
Taipei, Taiwan

Scholars at Risk Network
New York University

Department of Academic Freedom and Tenure
American Association of University Professors
1133 19th Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036

Taiwan Association for Human Rights
Taiwan

Dr. Michael Ming-Chiao Lai
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


13 October 2009

Dear President Lai,

Since you became president of National Cheng Kung University, I have asked several times to make an appointment with you. The purpose is to effect a just resolution in the case of my illegal dismissal in 1999 (a summary of issues is below).
    I hope you understand I cannot compromise on this issue. I will not allow an American professor to be treated unjustly without remedy at a Taiwan university. It's my responsibility as an American, as well as an academic, to effect a just resolution in this case, comparable to the justice a Taiwanese professor or student would receive in my country. Whether from principles of justice or reciprocity, you should be concerned about this case.
    No reputable academic institution would allow the misconduct involved in my illegal dismissal, much less tolerate—or refuse to remedy—them. No president of a reputable university should ignore a case of this magnitude, especially since NCKU has many academic exchanges with American universities. Some universities, such as Purdue, have been especially helpful in NCKU's academic development. Indeed, as I understand, Purdue intends to send representatives to NCKU to honor those exchanges in the near future. Frankly I don't think a Taiwan university that violates the human rights of an American professor should be allowed academic exchanges with an American university.
    My treatment at the hands of NCKU officials can only be described as disgraceful. Only the intervention of the court and the Ministry of Education enabled my reinstatement and even then after an unjust delay (see below) and without remedy.
    A university that lacks a legitimate protocol of internal remedy is at a critical stage. This impacts not only on human rights but on academic integrity, for obvious reasons.
    Not only did the department allow an egregiously illegal dismissal in the first place (including a secret letter, unproved accusations, and a dismissal meeting of which I wasn't even informed), but all subsequent "appeal" and "review" hearings expediently rubber-stamped the dismissal as if it were a foregone conclusion that officials are always in the right even when they're transparently in violation of basic legal rights. A policy whereby officials are always in the right even when they do something wrong is not a recipe for democracy.
    As you may know, former president Kao Chiang defied a legal Ministry ruling, claiming foreigners had no right to appeal even after the university held appeal hearings and attended the MOE appeal in Taipei (see attachments). Taiwan is hailed as a democracy compared to Mainland China. The irony is, in Mainland China officials would at least honor an appeal.
    I have fought this case for more than ten years. During four of those years my academic career was interrupted at National Cheng Kung University. Even after reinstatement by the combined pressure of the court and Ministry of Education, I spent considerable time trying to effect a just resolution to this case, while being ignored by past and current administrations, not to mention faculty colleagues.
    Simply being reinstated is not justice, no more than it is justice if a bank robber returns stolen money or a kidnapper a child. Justice entails apology, compensation, penalties.
    First, as an American, I must insure Americans in Taiwan are not similarly mistreated in the future.
    Second, I have expended considerable resources for which I should be compensated, including expenses abroad to renew my visas. Colleagues with a conscience assisted me at considerable cost to themselves, often until the early morning hours. As Jesus said, the worker is entitled to his wages.
    Third, in lawful societies damages are awarded to punish willful misconduct or negligence. From the first, Faculty Union members warned officials their actions were illegal. (But does an official at a high-ranked university need to be warned it's illegal to circulate a secret letter?) These officials were stubbornly defiant or woefully ignorant. Either way it does not reflect well on National Cheng Kung University.
    Fourth, the university is obligated to issue a formal apology, or else it's assumed the university believes it did nothing wrong or even that it's above the law. Such a policy is untenable for an accredited institution.
    Fifth, the status of officials who defied the law or colluded in doing so should not shield them from penalties of the law, at least if NCKU wishes to uphold its standing as a credible academic institution enforcing human rights principles. Those responsible should be punished, whether it's the student who wrote the secret letter, the committee chairs who circulated it, or the university president who defied a legal Ministry ruling for more than two years. Not to punish them is to condone them as well as their misconduct.
    Sixth, the university should complete remedy by formalizing prescribed steps to prevent similar misconduct in the future. Such protocol at reputable foreign universities minimizes the risk of a Taiwan student or teacher being discriminated against. It's reasonable I want to insure reciprocal protections for Americans in Taiwan. The fact that such an egregiously illegal dismissal would repeatedly pass all levels of appeal and review at our university should be of grave concern to faculty and officials concerned about the future of our university.
   
    Sincerely,

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

Summary of Human Rights Abuses at National Cheng Kung University

    1. National Cheng Kung University is a high-ranked university in Taiwan, which makes its rights violations of international concern. Furthermore it has numerous academic exchanges with American universities and should therefore be bound by shared principles of legal rights.
    2. The university's actions went beyond a violation of human rights and defied even principles of fair play. Surely no reputable academic institution would participate in an appeal then challenge the ruling because it lost.
    3. The university's dismissal action was egregiously improper to begin with, including the circulation of a secret letter I was not allowed to view except by court order.
    4. The university's subsequent appeal hearings were a charade, since the secret letter was circulated. At one hearing, the chair defiantly refused to reveal the contents of the letter.
    5. When the university reversed the dismissal (for technical reasons) the case was returned to the department for "more proof," though it should have been canceled. The university argued foreigners had no employment rights (a claim rejected by the Ministry of Education). University hearings were presumably a delay tactic to outlast my short-term visas.
    6. After the Ministry of Education reversed the dismissal in January 2001 the university defied the ruling, claiming foreigners had no right to appeal, though the university participated in the appeal and held its own appeals.
    7. University president, Kao Chiang, defied the Ministry of Education ruling for more than two years (from January 2001 to May 2003), despite eight warning letters from the MOE (previously attached) and letters from the US-based human rights group, Scholars at Risk (previously attached).
    8. Meanwhile, university officials argued the university would delay the case in the courts indefinitely unless I resigned at half pay.
    9. Even after reinstatement the university held hearings to impose penalties, despite the Ministry ruling in my favor. These penalties were reversed by the MOE.
    10. No official has been punished, either by the courts or the Ministry of Education, though documentation of abuses is transparent (documents previously attached). Even after university president Kao Chiang defied the MOE for more than two years, he was approved for another three-year term. One questions what "democracy" means in Taiwan.
    11. My colleagues have thus far ignored the case and even sat on "review" hearings after the MOE ruling, as if that ruling had no legal force. Mainland China may not be a democracy, but an appeal ruling would be final there.
    12. I have not received a formal apology from the university or compensation, nor did the courts award damages. Yet the case interrupted my academic career for at least four years, involved numerous trips abroad to renew short-term visas, and cost me and at least one colleague countless hours reading dozens of official documents, translating them, sending replies, and attending numerous university and court hearings. Since my reinstatement I have spent considerable time trying to effect just closure in this case.
    From what I learned at another college, my case was actually used at orientation sessions for new college officials to warn what not to do!
    Surely American universities have the authority to sanction such misconduct at an exchange university. Surely Taiwan's academics are not above international laws of human rights and principles of reciprocity and fair play. Surely academic exchanges are not merely financial transactions but are governed by legal and moral principles.

    Sincerely,


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