Letter to Taipei Economic and Cultural REpresentative Office (TECRO)

Taiwan Representative Office
Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO)
4201 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20016-2137
Tel: 202-895-1800
Fax: 202-363-0999

28 April 2003

Dear Representatives,

I am outraged that Kao Chiang, the president of National Cheng Kung
University, claims the university has followed
laws in my dismissal case.
From the beginning, my dismissal was illegal, based on secret and
unproved allegations (29 March 1999). At a later
meeting, more secret accusations were solicited (9 June 1999). One
letter was secretly circulated at later hearings to insure
my dismissal (14, 25 June 1999).
Why does Kao Chiang argue the university has followed laws? Is it
lawful to slander and libel a professor or solicit
secret letters against him?
On 3 December 1999, the University Appeal Committee canceled my
dismissal, yet the university refused to issue my
contract (27 December 1999). This violated the Teacher’s Law, Article
32 and the right to a final appeal. A final appeal
that subjects an appellant to further review is pointless.
On 8 January 2001, the MOE Appeal Committee canceled my dismissal
and boldfaced rights violations. Again NCKU
refused to issue a contract (27 March 2001).
The MOE sent eight letters, on 11 May, 14 June, 7 August, 27
August, 3 May 2002, 15 October, 2 December, 17
January 2003 ordering the university to issue the contract and
compensation. The university continued to defy the Ministry
of Education. How can a university defy the Ministry of Education and
claim to be following laws?
In brazen contempt of the Ministry ruling, the NCKU Review
Committee repeated its dismissal action (12 September
2001), using accusations the Ministry already rejected. These hearings,
in defiance of the Ministry ruling, were illegal and
doubly improper, since the university had not even issued me a contract.

Yet Kao Chiang claims observance of law. What rule of law allows a
university to use tax-paid money to investigate a
teacher without legal basis?
On 18 January 2002, the university filed a lawsuit at the Tainan
District Court, claiming, still in defiance of the Ministry
ruling, “there is no employment relationship between the NCKU and De
Canio.” With remarkable indifference to logic, the
lawyer contested my right to appeal in the first place, although I had
already won university and Ministry appeals, the
university never previously contested my right to appeal and, indeed,
had subjected me to countless appeal hearings.
It’s evident neither Kao Chiang nor his lawyer has a concept of
law. Indeed, in court, the university lawyer argued that
my university contract was nullified upon my employment at another
college, although my employment there followed the
university’s defiance of the Ministry’s ruling.
On 18 June 2002, the NCKU Appeal Committee canceled my dismissal
and again refused me a contract, undermining
the purpose of appeal. But the Tainan District Court ruled, on 11
October 2002, that, “until a legal dismissal, the
employment relationship between the NCKU and De Canio is valid and
continues.”
On 14 November 2002, the university appealed to the Taiwan Higher
Court. The judge asked NCKU to settle. In
response, on 22 January 2003, university officials tried to extort a
“settlement” from me that violated the legal substance of
the Ministry ruling, offering partial salary if I resigned from the
university. Otherwise, the university warned it would contest
the case for years.
These officials are not only without a sense of law, but without a
sense of shame. They believe committee decisions
validate the law, when it’s the law that validates committee decisions.
Apparently, a committee is not in the wrong even if it
commits a wrong or violates due process of law and legal rights. This is
the form of democracy without its substance. An
individual who subscribes to this policy has no business being an
official of a modern university, much less its president.
University violations against human rights are obvious to anyone
with a fourth-grade education. Yet Kao Chiang claims
to be following laws, suggesting a tactical ploy of naivete. But
ignorance of the law, real or feigned, is no excuse in law,
where transparency, not duplicity, is the rule. Interpretations are
limited by “what the common citizen understands.” A
no-parking sign refers to motor vehicles. Prices refer to local
currency. A note advising a bank teller to “give me all your
money” implies force. (A robber, when caught, cannot claim he was
asking for a handout.) A final appeal ruling that
cancels a dismissal implies, to anyone with a fourth-grade education,
the mandatory issuance of a retroactive contract.
This case is now in its fifth year. It has affected my medical
care, my income, and my academic career. I’ve been
harassed by countless illegal university hearings intended to force my
resignation from the university.
Despite warnings from the Faculty Union, the Ministry of Education,
and the Taiwan courts, university officials, with
tactical naivete, continue to defy the law, at no cost to themselves.
Instead they have cost taxpayers millions of dollars and
recklessly brought National Cheng Kung University, the Ministry of
Education, and the Taiwan government to the brink of
international scandal. Abiding by neither moral principles nor a sense
of shame, Kao Chiang will not acknowledge the
authority of the law until he stands in judgment before it.

Sincerely,

Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626