Subject: Rights at NCKU,
TainanTo: rquinn@uchicago.edu, Paul Chow
Ray Dah-tong
Dr. Robert Quinn
c/o Human Rights Program
University of Chicago, Pick 124
5828 South University Avenue
Chicago, IL 60637
tel: 773-834-4408
fax: 773-702-9286
e-mail: rquinn@uchicago.edu
21 September, 2000
Dear Dr. Quinn,
In light of your request for further documentation and laws concerning a
recent dismissal at National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan, I wish
to put the events at that university in a broader perspective, one more
germane to the concern of a human rights organization.
Since the late 1980s there has been documented abuses committed against
foreign, specifically American, professors at the Department of Foreign
Languages (sometimes, FLLD) at National Cheng Kung University (sometimes,
NCKU). These abuses are fully documented by the NCKU Faculty Union and some
have been published in its annual bulletin. Specific abuses included the
intimidation of American faculty and their interdiction from departmental
meetings.
In addition, in 1994, an FLLD chairman solicited three libelous and
scurrilous evaluations against a professor. One evaluation contained the
scribbled words, "this professor lusts after beautiful women."
Evaluations were obviously solicited; they gave no proof for any assertion;
they were not signed or officially registered with the Department of
Academic Affairs. Yet those evaluations were used at a secret departmental
Review meeting to effect the professor’s dismissal.
Despite obvious abuses, that dismissal was just barely reversed at the
College level. Only the courageous personal intervention of one committee
member assured the minimal votes (3) to reverse the dismissal. There were
maybe six or more members, however, who voted to sustain the dismissal.
One committee member, when challenged why, in the light of the illegal and
libelous accusations, he wanted to vote to sustain dismissal, reportedly
responded, "You vote your way and I’ll vote mine." Perhaps you can call
this "mature" democracy in action at NCKU.
Despite the dismissal, the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts, in apparent
collusion with the FLLD Chair (they were friends), and in order to "save
face," wrote in the official minutes that, although the dismissal was
overturned, "the professor was cautioned to improve his teaching and to
co-operate with colleagues." But an honorable member of that committee
(referred to, above) insisted that no discussion, much less vote, took
place.
I wish to call to your attention, already evident in the previous
rehearsal, a pattern of using the forms of democracy, with none of its
substance, which will be repeated throughout the dismal history of abuses
related here.
Apparently emboldened by the indifference of their superior officials, an
American professor was illegally dismissed in 1999. To effect this, a
secret Review meeting was held. A document signed by 3 members of that
Review committee (adversaries of the impugned professor), was used by that
Review committee to "prove" accusations against that professor at the Review
committee!
(Other than this letter signed by 3 members of the Review committee, the
accusations were never proven. Rather the letter, signed by 3 members of
the Review committee, were used as proof by the other 2 members of that
committee.)
The professor was never notified about the scheduled Review committee. He
had no idea of accusations against him, although the department Chairman had
an entire year, or more, to investigate the accusations, inform the
professor of them, and enable the professor’s defense. This was never done,
although, apart from common sense and common decency, as well as
internationally accepted norms of democratic process, the Ministry of
Education has a rule that all accusations must be proven.
But such a violation of democratic etiquette was hardly new to the
department. Previously, the department chair made accusations against an
American professor that he "bribed" his students by giving them high
grades. This unsupported statement was then used at an official meeting to
deny promotion to that professor, who then resigned to teach at a university
in Kaohsiung.
Regarding the dismissal case, the professor’s dismissal was facilitated by a
controversial new "employment law." There are a number of issues related to
this law that should concern a human rights organization.
First the legality of such a law. Should such a law, enjoining
discriminatory policy against foreign teachers, be acceptable in a so-called
democratic society?
Second, should any new law lack a grandfather clause, i.e. a retroactive
clause exempting those previous to the passage of the law?
Third, the Employment law has been abused to initiate an annual "review" and
potential dismissal of foreign professors in a discriminatory and demeaning
way, and regardless how many years they’ve been associated with their
universities. Not only is this discriminatory in itself, but it leads to
further grievous abuses, as this complaint demonstrates. Would civil rights
groups in Western countries tolerate the passage of a similar employment law
against foreigners, especially without any retroactive protections in the
law? I hardly think so.
In addition to being a bad law in itself, the Employment law was clearly
used selectively to persecute "undesirables" in the department (NCKU was the
only university of which we are aware that actually used this law punitively
against faculty). This is clearly an abuse of lawful process, however good
or bad a law may be in itself.
But this selective use of laws is quite common at the Department of Foreign
Languages and Literature. To give an obvious example, plagiarism is rampant
in Taiwan’s educational system; so rampant, in fact, that a Chinese
colleague has informed me that American journals have blacklists for Taiwan
faculty with well-known reputations for plagiarism. Moreover these reputed
plagiarists include high-profile faculty and administrators, among them
college deans and ministry officials.
Yet laws and due process are firmly enforced in these cases to favor the
accused. In those cases, the accusation must be "proven." Moreover, even
if obvious, the plagiarism is never used as a basis for dismissal. Yet an
accusation of plagiarism against foreign faculty, at least one in disfavor
with the department, is apparently a legitimate basis for dismissal, even
when there is no legitimate basis for the accusation.
But due process is a farce at NCKU anyway. At a college appeal meeting,
convened precisely to enable an appeal by the professor unfairly "reviewed"
and then dismissed by the department review committee, further "evidence"
was solicited by the members of that committee in order to further
"incriminate" the professor.
I wish to emphasize that in all of this "travesty of justice" (as a Chinese
colleague has phrased it), many abuses aren’t even concealed and they can be
confirmed in official minutes. It’s as if these committee members are so
ignorant or negligent of democratic process that they don’t even know what
facts might embarrass or incriminate them; or else, they are so confident
that they are above the law here (as a Ministry official suggested), that
they just don’t care.
For example, it is a known fact that the three accusatory student letters
solicited by the College Appeal committee were actually dated in June,
1999. The original departmental review meeting was held in late March,
1999.
It is difficult to unpack all the legal absurdities or abuses here. First,
how can an appeal meeting, established for the benefit of the accused, be
used to further accuse him? How can issues that had no bearing on the
review dismissal be introduced at an appeal hearing? How can accusations
not even proven, but rather solicited, even have a substantive legal status
at an appeal hearing?
(One accusation claimed the professor had punitively failed a student ten
years ago! Even a Ministry official said, in a phone conversation, that she
found such an accusation, ten years old, "incredible"!)
In addition, how can documents solicited by an appeal committee be used as
impartial evidence by that appeal committee? How can the egregious abuses
committed by the department review committee be overlooked by the appeal
committee? How can documents dated in June be used to discuss issues of a
review meeting held in March of the same year?
For rhetorical purposes I am being redundant, but any reader can begin to
see the ridiculously dubious status that democracy has at National Cheng
Kung University. In addition, as a Chinese colleague has affirmed,
university law makes plain that an appeal committee cannot return a case
back to the review committee, which was done several times in the case now
under discussion.
I wish to emphasize that further accusations solicited by the appeal
committee were entirely secret and were revealed to the accused professor
only by just committee members who felt morally obligated to do so in
confidence. Indeed, even as late as the final university hearing, in June
of 1999, the secret accusations were not willingly revealed to the
professor. Rather, in defiance of the committee chair, one morally
conscientious committee member rehearsed the (until then, secret)
accusations for the benefit of the professor’s defense. This defense, by
the way, such as it was, was limited to about ten minutes and the professor
was invited to appear only at the last minute, under pressure from
conscientious faculty.
Months later, in December of 1999, the professor won an appeal decision by
the university. The vote was unanimous, 7-0. His dismissal was
"canceled."
But the university lawyer apparently exercised devious control over the
proceedings, to the advantage of the university.
First, he curtailed the hearing, which, it had been hoped, would expose all
the abuses and corruption in the department and subject them to a future
investigation. Instead, the university lawyer overturned the dismissal on a
relative technicality, obviating further discussion of many other grave
violations. Once this was accomplished, the vote was unanimous and the
meeting was adjourned very quickly.
This, of course, conveniently exonerated the chair from exploring other,
grievous abuses committed by university officials. Now the university
lawyer, despite an obvious conflict of interest, not only sat on the appeal
committee and voted, but actually framed the committee decision, apparently
against strong protest from other committee members. And, in this decision,
it was decided that, although the professor had won his appeal, nonetheless,
as a foreign employee, he had to be reviewed again by his department,
starting a new chain of farcical democratic abuses at National Cheng Kung
University.
(I should point out that a professor of law, whom many consider the leading
expert on university law in Taiwan, was certain, following the appeal
victory, that the professor was legally entitled to a teaching contract and
strongly urged him to go to the personnel office and request it!)
Indifferent to norms against double jeopardy, during the new academic year,
a new review committee was empowered, hand-picked by the professor’s
adversaries, most, as I’ve been informed, with minimal academic credentials.
It should be pointed out that the university had missed the deadline set by
university regulations. However, apparently, those regulations are only
enforced against an accused professor, not a university committee. In other
words, if the professor had not filed an appeal before the deadline, he
would have lost his right to appeal. But if the university misses the
deadline, the university does not forfeit its right to appeal. It will
simply be reminded that it has missed the deadline and to file its appeal as
soon as possible!
Similarly, if the university wins the appeal decision, the appeal decision
is final. The professor does not get a second chance. But if the professor
wins, the university gets a second chance to dismiss the professor, at least
if he’s a foreign professor. Therefore the case is returned to the
department for further review. This is "mature democracy" at National Cheng
Kung University. And all of this has been fully documented.
At its second hearing, the Review committee gave no reasons for its
dismissal vote. On appeal, the College committee insisted that reasons for
dismissal must be given.
Yet the College, according to university regulations, cannot return a case
back to the Review committee. Once again, the case should have been
terminated; instead it was again returned to the Review committee for
further jeopardy of the professor.
(This is reminiscent of the case against the Irish writer, Jonathan Swift,
when, every time the jury announced an acquittal, the trial judge enjoined
further deliberations, hoping for a guilty verdict.)
Compelled to give reasons, the Review committee repeated the reasons of the
previous year. But these accusations had neither been investigated nor
proven the previous year or since, as university regulations require.
For good measure, there were additional accusations. Although the first
dismissal was based on the fact that the professor was *not* teaching his
specialty, the claim instead became that the professor *was* teaching his
specialty but had problems getting enough students five years ago.
Apart from whether a professor can be dismissed for not getting enough
students, and apart from other professors who cannot get enough students and
are not dismissed, how can a professor be dismissed for something that
happened five years before the year of review? This is another example of
how the Employment law has been used as a tool of terror, giving any
university carte blanche to engage in unjust persecution of foreign faculty.
Despite these egregious and chronic violations, the final university
committee approved the dismissal. The university appeal committee, once
again chaired by the university’s own legal consultant, subsequently
approved the university decision.
It should be emphasized that the university’s dismissal notice, including
unproven accusations of wrongdoing made against the professor, functions as
a legal document, yet effected without the legal protections guaranteed by
basic human rights and democratic process. This document not only upholds
the dismissal of the professor, but jeopardizes his future employment at
other universities.
I understand that there are more critical examples of human rights abuses
all over the world, but depriving a university professor of his reputation
and therefore his means of making a living is comparable to an illegal
incarceration. In one way, it’s worse; for a person may be finally released
from his incarceration, but the dismissal notice, including unjust
accusations, is permanent.
My intent in this letter is not to argue according to Taiwan law or legal
experts. To quote a line from Hamlet, "it needs no ghost to tell us" the
obvious. It needs no local laws to tell legal rights and human rights
activists the obvious. Either the law allows this, in which case the law is
at fault; or the law does not allow this, in which case law enforcement is
at fault and not the law itself. Either problem should concern human rights
organizations when it clearly violates human rights, including the right to
legal protection in a foreign country.
We recognize this, for example, whenever Mainland Chinese authorities put
Falun Gong members into prison based on selective and punitive (as distinct
from just) laws. We recognize this when citizens are denied due process,
basic rights, and credible legal representation or appeal.
Regardless of legal details of Taiwan law, the cumulative facts related
here, all of which can be easily documented by creditable representatives of
the National Cheng Kung University Faculty Union as well as by independent
faculty members and official minutes, clearly discredits any claim to
democratic process or human rights protections at National Cheng Kung
University. And these violations can and do have grievous consequences for
the dignity, reputation, and future employment of foreign professors here.
Documented abuses detailed here are too flagrant and serious to be ignored.
These are not merely technical violations, but a mockery or "travesty" of
justice, which jeopardize the employment, reputation, and careers of foreign
professors here, who, presumably, are vulnerable to any university
conspiracy with no legal protections, including rights outside the
university.
For example, the Tainan District Attorney rejected claims of criminal libel
against members of the Review committee who used a signed letter to effect
the professor’s dismissal,
1. Despite the fact that the letter was signed by Review committee members
who then used their letter to justify their "review";
2. Despite the fact that accusations made were unproven and never
investigated;
3. Despite the fact that a previous Chairman had declined to accept those
accusations, calling them unproven;
4. Despite the fact that the regulations of the Ministry of Education
require that all accusations be immediately investigated;
5. Despite the fact that Taiwan’s Chief Justice has ruled that university
committee members can be held accountable for libel based on unproven
accusations at university meetings;
6. Despite the fact that the accusations were recklessly or maliciously
made (it’s inconceivable that nobody thought to inform the professor of
accusations against him before they were accepted as conditions for his
dismissal);
7. Despite the fact that the accusations were maliciously placed in the
department mailboxes of the professor’s colleagues;
8. Despite the fact that the professor lost his job as a consequence of
those accusations;
9. And despite the fact that the professor’s future employment has been
jeopardized by those accusations.
As for the media, letters to newspapers about this case have been
repeatedly ignored. On the other hand, a lengthy letter, written by an
American professor in support of Dr. Lee Ho Wen and sternly rebuking the
American government for legal rights abuses, was published yesterday in an
English-language newspaper here.
This case, of course, would be a "dream case" for any civil rights lawyer
in America. It is basically "cut and dried." Abuses were committed. Those
abuses are fully documented. Those abuses were flagrant. They were
grievous. They had a punitive pattern. The abuses resulted in the loss of
reputation and employment of the victim. What more could any lawyer hope
for? Most lawyers would take such a case either on a pro bono or
contingency basis, assured of both moral and final pecuniary victory. The
fact that the victim was a foreigner would almost insure civil rights
interest in the case. Apparently, in America, illegal aliens have more
rights than legal aliens here.
Unfortunately, the situation is different here, where teachers (at least
native teachers) are considered above the law (as a Ministry official
quaintly phrased it); and where, apparently, the law itself is considered a
ceiling rather than a sky; where it is painted to look at, but not to reach
beyond.
As for civil rights organizations, I’ve been informed that the Taiwan
Association for Human Rights includes only several members. And I am
unaware of any pro bono civil rights lawyers here; I assume they’re all in
America.
In such a situation, intervention by an international human rights
organization, however low-key, could be productive. Taiwan people are
fundamentally decent. They merely need to be reminded, like many of us, to
do the right thing. And, admittedly, the right thing isn’t always the easy
thing.
They also need to be reminded that democracy is not merely a political
label, but a political tool, including political rights. And these rights
must be enforced, even when the plaintiff is a foreigner. Perhaps
especially when he is a foreigner.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio,
Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan.
Email: vertigo@ms22.hinet.net
No comments:
Post a Comment