Letter to THE CHINA TIMES

CHINA TIMES

17 September 2005

Dear CHINA TIMES,

As I think you know, NATIONAL CHENG KUNG UNIVERSITY has been in violation of both laws and human rights

for many years now.
In 1999, officials held secret meetings and used secret letters to effect my dismissal. In 2001, the university

president, KAO CHIANG, refused to comply with a legal Ministry of Education ruling for more than two years. Only

outside pressure forced his compliance.
As of today, university officials are still pretending to "hold meetings" on the issue, which, legally, was closed in

the appeal ruling of January, 2001. The university has still not apologized, nor issued me back increments. I

received back pay only under court order that allowed my bank direct access to the university bank account.
There are a number of important issues involved in this case that a democratic press should consider:

1. There MUST be LAW AND ORDER in a society. No university president should be allowed, without penalty or

dismissal, to defy a legal ruling.

2. If a Ministry of Education allows noncompliance with its rulings, or allows university officials to ignore or delay

its rulings without penalty or dismissal, it not only denies justice, but encourages more violations. Moreover, if

faculty know the Ministry has no control over corrupt officials, professors will quickly give in to peer pressure in

grading, research, etc. This happened during the SARS crisis, which, apart from health risks, caused international

problems for Taiwan.

3. If a university can publicly defy the law, there is no basis on which to build public trust or confidence it is acting

within moral or legal principles in other areas of adminsitration, such as grading, research, etc.

4. Exposure of this case, without settlement, will undermine confidence in Taiwan's commitment to human rights.

Legal violations in themselves are not fatal (they exist elsewhere too). Public indifference to these violations is more

serious. I understand there are corrupt officials here as elsewhere. What I cannot understand is the indifference to

these bold violations. I'm sure others, outside Taiwan, will feel the same.

5. The Western press has helped Taiwan and Taiwan citizens in many ways, including writing out-spoken letters

to English-language newspapers in support of Taiwan. Moreover, a case like this, against a Taiwan professor or

student in America, would be exposed on television channels and in news reports in little time, helping to close the

case quickly, according to principles of justice. The fear of media exposure would prevent something like this

happening in the first place. A scandal at a university in Hong Kong was headline news (I was in Hong Kong at the

time). This resulted in real changes in administration, including several resignations. One reason university

officials continue to defy laws at our university is they don't fear media exposure. So they have nothing to lose.

They're neither fired nor demoted, regardless how long their noncompliance. This breeds a culture of arrogance

among university officials and a culture of fear among faculty. That's not the way to advance a society.

6. Apart from principles of justice, and the rights of an American citizen in Taiwan, there are rights of Taiwan

citizens too.
For example, a student who wrote a secret letter saying she failed my course unfairly eight years before was,

shortly before or afterwards, hired as a part-time instructor and admitted to our doctoral program.
These are questions that should concern a democratic press:
Was this in EXCHANGE for her secret accusation? If not, why hasn't she been punished yet? What about better

students who were denied admission or employment while our student, who wrote a secret letter, was admitted and

employed? Do tax-paying parents have the right to equal employment or admission at our university?
This student has still not been punished for her misconduct, though the facts are plain enough. What right has

a Dean of Students, Ko Huei-chen, to refuse my request for a disciplinary meeting with this student? Is this the way

a public university should be run?
Thomas Jefferson argued that the press was not only the fourth-branch of government but the most important

branch of government. All the laws on the books will not help to advance the interests of society the way the publc

press can. The society we make today (including moral standards and obedience to laws) is the society today's

children will inherit. I think the press has the moral obligation to help make it the best society possible.

Sincerely,

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