Kao Chiang
President
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
cc: Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education,
Prime
Minister, Control Yuan, Taiwan Commission on Human Rights
28 June 2004
Dear President Kao,
As you know, your administration has not yet resolved
remaining
issues regarding human rights abuses committed by
university officials
during my illegal dismissal in 1999. You yourself defied a
legal
Ministry of Education Appeal ruling for more than two
years. Only after
eight warning letters issued by the Ministry of Education
did you
finally comply, and then only partly. What kind of
standards are you
trying to set at our university, when a government official
can decide
when to comply with a legal ruling?
Meanwhile, your administration has still not issued a
formal
apology for abuses committed by university officials before
and during
your administration. Confucius said that gentlemen admit
their
mistakes.
Moreover, the university continues to contest my right to
full
compensation, even though law and human rights principles
require full
compensation. Instead, I'm forced to litigate my rights.
However, a
university cannot be founded on litigation but on law and
rights, the
same law and rights that protect Taiwan citizens when they
teach or
matriculate abroad.
Finally, in defiance of the Ministry ruling, under your
administration, a university committee held hearings
approving
accusations already rejected in that Ministry ruling dated
8 January
2001. This not only defies the Ministry ruling and
universal human
rights principles to which Taiwan subscribes, but also
commonly shared
principles of fair play that even children learn. Children,
after all,
are taught to "play fair" and not to be "sore losers," but
to lose
graciously.
You're the head of a national university in Taiwan; yet
when the
university loses an appeal, your administration responds by
pretending
the appeal has no legal force or practical benefits to the
appellant.
Indeed, your lawyer "interpreted" the ruling to mean I
should be
reviewed again.
Would you like it if a Taiwan citizen won an appeal in
America only
to be told by the school that he had to appeal again? Is
this a moral
principle you would publicly support? Is this a concept of
reciprocity
that justifies our university's ties with "sister
universities" abroad?
Those ties are based on academic integrity, moral
principles, and
mutual repsect. Yet as soon as the university loses a case,
it
disregards all these principles. For the record, let me sum
up our
university's abuses in this case:
1. First, the university held secret meetings, made secret
accusations, and circulated a secret letter in order to
effect my
dismissal in 1999;
2. Second, you defied a Ministry ruling, dated 8 January
2001, for
more than two years, impeding enforcement of a ruling that
canceled my
dismissal;
3. Third, after I won the appeal, your lawyer claimed I had
no
right to appeal in the first place. You might as well claim
after a
foreign student at our university passes all her required
courses for a
Ph.D. that she had no right to take those courses in the
first place.
4. Fourth, despite making this outrageous claim, and
without even
issuing me a contract in compliance with the Ministry
ruling of 8
January 2001, the university continued to convene "review"
meetings
subject to appeal using the same accusations disposed of in
the Ministry
ruling of 8 January 2001!
In sum, so that others may be able to follow the deviant
"legal"
logic here:
(a) the university held an appeal meeting in my case in
1999; (b)
after it lost a Ministry appeal, it claimed foreigners have
no right to
appeal; (c) even after claiming this, the university, first
to defy the
Ministry ruling, then to punish the appellant, held further
"review"
and "appeal" meetings.
If a foreigner has no right to appeal, what is the
university's
legal basis to review the appellant in the first place?
Since, as you
claim, foreigners have no legal rights at our university,
and therefore
any claim can be made against a foreigner, a so-called
"review" or
"appeal" hearing at our university is simply a clever way
to spread
malicious gossip against foreigners, apparently outside the
jurisdiction
of libel and slander laws.
5. Fifth, although finally complying with the Ministry
ruling of 8
January 2001, the university continues to withhold
compensation and an
apology;
6. Sixth, although the university defied the Ministry
ruling of 8
January 2001 for more than two years, the university now
claims, in
court, that I am not due compensation since the deadline
has passed!
A university cannot stand on money alone; it can only stand
on law
and moral principle, as well as reciprocal relations with
foreign
academics. Your refusal to understand this has discredited
our
university.
Besides these matters, the issue remains of the student who
wrote
a letter secretly circulated by university officials. As
you know, the
current Dean of Student Affairs, Ko Huei-chen, gave me the
"runaround"
for about two years before she claimed she could do nothing
about the
student, even refusing to call the student into her office.
When, on two
different occasions, the Dean and the Vice-Dean finally
called this
student to the Office of Student Affairs, I was told the
student decided
she didn't want to come.
What kind of university administration would allow a
student
accused of misconduct to decide for herself whether to
appear for a
hearing on the matter? Why have an Office of Student
Affairs at all?
Let me repeat yet one more time that a university not
founded on
moral principles has no foundation at all. Apart from laws,
human
rights, moral principles, and academic integrity,
taxpayers' money is
being misspent on contesting a legal Ministry ruling and
the benefits of
that ruling, as if your administration has as little regard
for public
money as it has for public laws and moral principles.
Regardless of your obstinancy and defiance, I assure you, I
will
continue to use every resource and channel, within Taiwan
and outside
Taiwan, to resolve these matters according to principles
that protect
both the rights and the dignity of professors under
democratic law,
regardless how long you defy that law.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
No comments:
Post a Comment