Letter to the Humanities Education Foundation

2/20/2004 7:47 AM
Subject: Human Rights Abuses at National Cheng Kung
UniversityTo: tainan@hef.org.tw

Humanities Education Foundation
Tainan, Taiwan

20 February 2004

Dear Humanities Education Foundation,

Since I phoned yesterday, I would like to sum up legal rights problems
at National Cheng Kung University.
In 1999, university officials held secret meetings and passed
around a secret letter in order to insure my dismissal in June of that
year. That dismissal was overturned in December 1999. But the
university lawyer argued that, since I was a foreigner, the case should
be returned to the department for further “review.”
First, this assumes that foreign faculty are subject to different
laws from native faculty, which is discrimination, rejected in Taiwan
law and by the Ministry of Education.
Second, it would be pointless to appeal if one were subject to
further review! This is trickery on the part of the university.
The fact is the university had a problem. It knew its legal rights
violations were bold enough to force a Ministry Appeals Committee to
overturn it. So it “canceled” its mistakes by canceling my dismissal.
But at the same time, it delayed the case by reviving accusations on
further “review,” hoping I would not be able to stay in Taiwan long
enough to fight the case. This too is trickery.
On 8 January 2001, the Ministry of Education issued a ruling that
canceled my dismissal. The university president defied that ruling and
eight warning letters for more than two years. Only after a lot of
outside pressure did the president finally issue back and current
teaching contracts as required by the ruling. This was in May 2003.
But soon after a university committee spitefully revived and
approved accusations already rejected in the Ministry ruling, as if that
ruling had no legal benefit. In defiance of the Ministry ruling and to
show contempt for the law behind it, the university committee imposed a
penalty that denied me annual increments and promotion for six years.
How is this contempt of legal and moral principle possible on the
part of a national university in Taiwan? If there is law in Taiwan, no
university should be allowed to defy a legal Ministry ruling. No
official should be allowed to “interpret” a ruling his own way. No
official should be allowed to deny the benefits of an appeal ruling,
which are recognized by human rights principles all over the world.
These benefits include the right to compensation and protection from
revival of accusations decided on appeal. In Anglo-American law this is
called protection against “double jeopardy” from the same accusations.
Regardless what the principle is called, it’s based on common sense. If
accusations could be revived, an appeal is never final. An appellant
could never win and it would be better to accept the accusations sooner
rather than later. If accusations could be revived, the party with more
power (money, resources, time, and lawyers) would win. The appeal
process insures that justice, not power, wins.
As recently as the end of last year, Kao Chiang, the current
president of the university (06-2757575-50000), defended his action when
this case was exposed by The China Times (12-27-03). He claimed he
didn’t know what to do, as if a university president doesn’t know how to
enforce a Ministry ruling. He also claimed it was “reasonable” to deny
me teaching pay, since I wasn’t teaching during the years of my illegal
dismissal. Yet, as I said, I wasn’t teaching because

1. I was illegally dismissed, and
2. Professor Chiang defied a legal Ministry ruling for more than
two years.

I don’t think an official who defies a legal Ministry ruling for
more than two years should be allowed to remain as head of a national
university in Taiwan. I don’t think a lawyer who advises noncompliance
with that ruling should be rewarded with employment at a national
university at taxpayers’ expense. Moreover, a lawyer who advises
noncompliance with the law should be subject to ethical penalties,
assuming there is a bar (lawyer) association in Taiwan. In America,
such an action would probably be called “obstruction of justice,” a
serious offense. Even if it is not a legal offense under Taiwan law, it
certainly scorns moral principles recognized in much of the world and
would be called “moral trickery” by most people abiding by moral
standards.
The law allows the full use of the law, but not a tricky use of the
law. American judges are known to scold devious or incompetent lawyers
and even advise their removal from the bar for misconduct. This
includes bringing a “frivolous” case to court, such as the university
lawyer did, when he contested a legal Ministry ruling in court.
On what legal basis can a lawyer contest a legal Ministry ruling?
Besides, at least in the law that I know, one must challenge a principle
before the case is ruled upon, not after it is ruled upon. This insures
legal honesty and protects against lawyers contesting a case just
because they don’t like to lose.
For example, if the university lawyer claimed, as he did in court,
that foreign faculty had no right to appeal, he should have filed that
claim at the time of the Ministry hearing, not after I won the Ministry
hearing. This is trickery. If the Ministry ruling had favored the
university, the university would have accepted it as legal. But since
the ruling favored me, the lawyer claimed I had no right to appeal in
the first place. Such trickery should not be allowed either in Taiwan
courts or at Taiwan universities. This kind of lawyer should not be
paid at public expense. If there is no bar association in Taiwan
controlling ethics of lawyers then at least let the lawyer work at
private, not public, expense.
Before the university finally issued contracts under pressure,
Professor Kao appointed two officials to extort an unfair settlement.
One of these officials was Professor Fang, Vice-Dean of Academic
Affairs. The two warned me at a meeting attended by Faculty Union
members that if I didn’t quit the university and accept half pay as
settlement, they would use the courts to delay enforcement of the
Ministry ruling for as long as possible. I told them they should be
ashamed of themselves, since I had won a legal ruling and was entitled
to full benefits of that ruling.
It seems that officials without moral or legal principles are in
control at National Cheng Kung University. This is not good for the
future of the university.
Most recently, Professor Ko Huei-chen (06-2757575-50300), Dean of
Student Affairs, has refused to punish the student who wrote a spiteful
and secret letter used at my dismissal hearings in 1999. Her letter was
dated the day of a college hearing in June 1999, which shows that
university officials solicited it for that purpose.
This student accused me of failing her unfairly eight years
before. What decent university committee would accept a letter
contesting a grade eight years before, without proof and in secret? The
Humanities Education Foundation should be aware of the lack of moral and
legal standards at our university.
A colleague had sent me an email one year before this student wrote
her spiteful letter, warning me the student had agreed to accuse me in
exchange for university employment. (I have a copy of this email.)
This student worked in the president’s office, became a graduate
student, and is now a part-time teacher at our university. The
taxpaying public has a right to know if a student has achieved this on
merit or by deceit.
Many students wish to be admitted to our graduate programs and to
obtain employment at our university. It is unfair to them if they have
lost out on the chance because they behave well while another student
succeeded because she behaved badly.
These issues concern the public welfare as well as education goals
of honesty and good conduct. Apart from the issue of human rights and
the denial of those rights to a professor, what kind of values are
current officials at our university teaching the next generation? To
allow these abuses will affect not only the future of education in
Taiwan but the future of democracy here.

Sincerely,

Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
06-2378626
2757575-52235