Letter to Humanistic Education Foundation

2/16/2004 5:23 PM
Subject: Additional information; copy of letterTo: hefpp@hef.org.tw

Humanistic Education Foundation
Taipei, Taiwan

16 February 2004

Dear Ms. Lu,

In a letter dated 8 January 2001, the Ministry of Education Appeals
Committee canceled my dismissal at National Cheng Kung University in
Tainan. The university president, Kao Chiang defied that ruling and
eight Ministry letters for more than two years.
Instead, the university held “hearings” on accusations rejected in
the Ministry ruling. The university lawyer used tax-paid money to
contest the Ministry ruling in court, saying (after the ruling favored
me) that foreigners had no right to appeal. (This lawsuit, which cost
the university millions of dollars in back pay, could have funded dozens
of scholarships for needy students.) Meanwhile university officials
warned me to quit the university or the administration would contest the
Ministry ruling for as long as possible.
Forced to comply with the Ministry ruling to issue teaching
contracts, officials prevented other benefits of that ruling. Promptly,
as if to show contempt for the Ministry ruling, a College Review
committee approved accusations rejected in that ruling and, as
punishment, denied me increments and promotion for six years.
Only recently, Professor Kao publicly claimed it was “reasonable” I
be denied teaching pay the years of my illegal dismissal. (Show me a
university official outside of our university who would argue this.)
His office has yet to issue an apology for human rights abuses,
including the use of secret and unproved accusations to insure my
dismissal in 1999. The student who wrote a letter secretly circulated
at dismissal hearings has not been punished, although now a graduate
student and teacher at our university.
These are violations not only of law but also of moral principles
that even children respect. Taiwan is a democracy, yet the university
denies the Teacher’s Law protects foreigners. The university accepted
my appeal but claimed, after I won, that foreigners have no right to
appeal. The university attended the Ministry hearing but, after I won,
defied the Ministry ruling.
This case is now in its fifth year. Administrative “remedy” that
continues into a fifth year is laughable and mocks the word “remedy.”
Who will seek remedy knowing it will last years? But if there is no
remedy there is no hope, either for teachers or for education in Taiwan.
No respectable university should allow abuses listed here. Just
recently our College Review Committee ignored a University Appeals
ruling, as if neither the Ministry nor its own University Appeals
Committee had legal force.
Is this a democracy? Is Taiwan a government of laws or of
officials? Can school officials say what a law means, when to obey a
law, and which laws to use?
A committee is not above the law but subject to the law, in its
plain sense. The rights of a university do not include the right to
interpret laws or defy them, any more than the rights of a citizen allow
this.
To appear lawful, university officials quote lawyers instead of
laws. But democracy is a government of laws, not lawyers. Yet an
official who defied a Ministry ruling for more than two years goes
unpunished because (he says) a lawyer “interpreted” the law to mean what
the university wanted it to mean. This sounds like Humpty Dumpty, who
insisted “words mean what I want them to mean.”
If allowed, all citizens can do the same thing. They can pay
prices in the currency of their choice or use play money instead. In a
national emergency, each citizen can “interpret” a public announcement
his own way.
The end result is laws but no law. In law, a final ruling prevents
further action on accusations already heard. Accusations rejected on
appeal cannot be revived, or final appeals are useless.
Taiwan is a democracy. Its citizens receive legal protections when
they live in other democracies. It is a recognized principle of law
that a final appeal ruling insures final settlement, including apology
and compensation. My academic career was interrupted for more than four
years. This should be weighed in my promotion hearings as well.
In the meantime, officials should be punished for misconduct, even
if they have transferred to another university, as two have. I expect
the student who wrote a secret spiteful letter to be punished. I
deserve full compensation and a formal apology from the university. The
settlement should be enforced, as Taiwan law requires.

Sincerely,

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