Subject: ATTN: Legal Rights Abuses at National Cheng Kung
UniversityTo: Kao Chiang
CC: moe
President Kao Chiang
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
cc: Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education
15 June 2003
Dear President Kao,
In your last email (12 June 2003) you advise that the "right procedure"
is to discuss the disputed university hearing with Dean of Academic
Affairs, Su Yan-Kuin, who chaired the committee.
I am puzzled why you refer to a "right procedure" when wrong procedures
are routine at our university, beginning with my illegal dismissal in 1999.
Are you claiming that secret letters and unproved accusations are "right
procedure"? It seems the only time a "right procedure" is mentioned is when
a petitioner tries to right wrongs committed against him.
For example, without investigation, in 1999 a college dean accepted a
secret student letter complaining about a grade she received eight years
before. Yet when the professor tries administrative remedy against the
student, officials use terms such as "rights," "proof," "investigation,"
"facts," and other claims of "right procedure."
Why weren't these terms used to protect the teacher in the first place,
instead of using them only to protect the student who wronged him? Instead,
I'm assured that "God will punish the student." I am certain the official
who said that would not rely on God's justice if his relative suffered
similar abuse in America.
Indeed, an official who appeals to God's justice when his duties
require routine justice should be dismissed. But then, based on a
documented history of abuses at our university, many officials should be
dismissed. The fact that this, indeed, has not yet happened is not
praiseworthy. It shows serious shortcomings in administrative remedy at our
university and has already discredited our university. It reflects poorly
when a foreign professor is presumed guilty, while officials who brazenly
violate Ministry and Taiwan laws are presumed innocent.
As Confucius argued, before there can be justice, one must "rectify the
names." As I understand it, this means to use words correctly, not
deviously; as if to speak of "square vases"; or final appeals that are not
final; or "interpretations" of the law that are audaciously scornful of
common sense.
Once we "rectify the names," the only "right procedure" is justice
based on laws as they are commonly understood. Prices in a menu indicate
local currency, whether currency symbols are printed or not. No Taiwan
citizen would gobble down a lobster dinner then argue that he "interprets"
the price in weaker currency, or even play money.
Yet why not? According to our officials, my appeal was merely "play."
And, like children, they seem to enjoy the game so much they want to
continue playing it. Unfortunately, not until these officials or their
relatives are treated the same way in other countries will they realize that
rights upheld for others today protects them tomorrow.
I will not rehearse the history of abuses in this case again. That
will be done through other channels of legal remedy.
I conclude by reminding you that the only "right procedure" is to
uphold laws at our university, not to protect officials who violate laws or
to pass the responsibility to others.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
No comments:
Post a Comment