Letter to Scholars at Risk

27 September 2000

Dear Dr. Quinn,
Enclosed are additional documents concerning rights abuses at National
Cheng Kung University. Not only do these documents indicate a pattern of
abuses against foreigners here, but the *same* abuses (such as slander or
defamation), usually committed by the *same* people. This is almost
"understandable," since a Ministry official informed us, somewhat
apologetically, that, in China, "teachers are considered above the law."
Thus apart from the serious nature of the abuses themselves and the
pattern of persecution involved, which goes back at least to 1994, what
should be of equal concern is that at least one of the parties involved in
this pattern of abuses against foreigners (the former chairman of the
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature) seems to have been granted
virtual immunity from either prosecution or censure, despite the grievous
nature of the abuses in which he has been involved. This includes:

1. In 1994, this chairman solicited, then disseminated, unofficial,
secret, defamatory, and presumably forged evaluations against a professor.
2. In 1995, this chairman was again the object of an official complaint
submitted to the Faculty Union (attached).
3. In 1996 the then former chairman again resorted to slander, claiming
that an American professor "bribed" his students by giving them high grades
(attachment). Although in this instance the evaluations were presumably
legitimate, the former chairman nonetheless inappropriately used these
evaluations to prevent the professor's promotion.
(Evaluations are not supposed to be used punitively. Apart from other
reasons, some professors, including this particular chairman, only
infrequently file them.)
Although this chairman would most likely have been expelled from most
universities for his forgery of defamatory student evaluations in 1994, in
fact he not only went unpunished for that offense and other offenses related
to the 1994 attempted dismissal, but actually maintained political strength
to the degree that, in 1996, he appeared on all three promotional hearings.
Although the chairman's illegal activities at the promotional hearing
prompted additional hearings, the professor's promotion, until then
automatic for doctorate professors, was ultimately interdicted anyway.
(Apparently, the committees were angry that he appealed his case to the
Ministry of Education, thus embarrassing the university.) In frustration,
the professor transferred to a Kaohsiung university, where he was routinely
promoted to Associate Professor, as he should have been at National Cheng
Kung University. The same thing happened to a Chinese professor persecuted
by the same faction. This professor transferred to another university and
was routinely promoted.
4. In 1999, this former chairman collaborated with colleagues to
dismiss an American professor. Despite a history of abuses related to
student evaluations, he is quoted in one secret and libelous letter in
support of a student's claim that she was punitively failed ten years
before, a claim that even a Ministry official found "incredible," if only
because it was ten years old when it was made.
5. What is demonstrated in these and previous documents is an obvious
pattern of abuses against foreign, specifically American, professors; as
well as the obviously inadequate, if not completely indifferent, response by
supervisory officials, either at the university or Ministry level, assuring
the continued violations of human rights at National Cheng Kung University
and (potentially if not yet actually) at other universities in Taiwan.
Rather ominously, university officials and committees, probably formerly
only ineffectual in implementing democratic process at their hearings, and
trying to effect justice quietly (in traditional terms of relationships,
rather than laws), have now assumed a largely defenisve stance, apparently
"closing ranks" behind their culpable colleagues. Presumably, by closing
ranks and routinely ratifying the latest dismissal action, these committees
hope that the maligned professor will find the situation hopeless,
disappear, and the scandal will in this way be contained. Stability is
apparently more important than democracy at National Cheng Kung University.
Let me sum up the serious nature of the recent dismissal action and
related issues.
There is no question that secret and unproven accusations against a
professor were made. This is fully documented by minutes. (That this is
part of a pattern is apparent by attached documents.)
Moreover, additional secret and unproven accusations were made at appeal
hearings.
Ministry of Education regulations were flagrantly violated (for example,
that "accusations must be proven").
Accusations against the professor were added or dropped depending on
convenience or whim.
Accusations were contradictory (in 1999, an accusation that "the
professor was not teaching his specialty" became, in 2000, an accusation
that "the professor was teaching his specialty but did not get enough
students five years ago").
The professor's university appeal victory, presumably final, was
deviously interpreted to mean that the professor had to be reviewed by his
department again. This means that foreign professors have neither rights
nor dignity here.
Outside the university, Ministry officials seem indifferent to
violations of the law at committee hearings; their apparent concern is that
the three meetings required by law were convened, regardless of procedural
violations. (Whether this is merely a provisional, and not a final or
ultimate judgment, remains to be seen.)
The local District Attorney claims that what happened to the professor
is not really libel, since what happened was "private," not public, although
the unproven accusations resulted in the professor's dismissal from the
university!
The Taiwan Association of Human Rights apologetically tells the
professor that there are only two or three members in their organization and
the recent earthquake (in September 1999) had used up their manpower. He is
told that recruitment of more members has been unsuccessful, since citizens
are not interested in human rights issues.
There seem to be no pro bono or activist lawyers here.
There seems to be no genuine investigative press here. English-language
newspapers have thus far declined to publish signed letters with
references. The press (at least the English-language press) seems to be far
more cautious here. It simply reports a public action, but is not itself
expository or investigative. Compare the media handling of the relatively
more innocent infractions at the University of Hong Kong, which dominated
the media for weeks and continue to do so.
There is thus a genuine feeling of frustration over enforcement of human
rights here.

Sincerely,
Richard de Canio.