Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education

cc: Chien-jen (C.J.) Chen,
Dr. Lyushun Shen,
Mr. Michael Ming-Shian Tsai
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
tecroinfodc@tecro-info.org

17 May 2003

Dear Sirs,

As you may know, recently I received retroactive contracts for the years
covering my illegal dismissal, from August, 1999 to July, 2003. This is
a good beginning, finally; but it is far from a perfect ending.
First, absurd as it may sound, the university has argued that it
owes me only half-pay for this period, based on the fact that I was not
actually teaching during the time of my illegal dismissal. Of course
such partial compensation, when the university had no legal basis to
dismiss me in the first place and, indeed, repeatedly defied Ministry of
Education letters to abide by laws, is completely unacceptable.
Therefore I expect full salary compensation.
Second, although the deadline for issuance of next year's two-year
contract has passed (15 May), it was reported, by the university
personnel office, that the department is considering another "review,"
based on the same accusations rejected in the Ministry ruling of 8
January, 2001, with which the university has belatedly complied.
Clearly, another such review would have no basis in law, and would,
in effect, be an attempt to nullify the full benefits of the Ministry
ruling of 8 January, 2001, preventing my return to full-time employment
at the university. This is unacceptable. Not only does it defy the
Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001 but it amounts to an act of
intimidation and harassment, unacceptable in a public institution under
the authority and legal sanctions of the Ministry of Education.
I expect that officials at the Ministry of Education will exercise
their authority within the law to effect full compliance with the
Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001, discipline malfeasant officials, and
protect the rights and human dignity of an American professor at a
Taiwan university. In view of the history of this case, including
well-known dilatory tactics on the part of university officials, which
have delayed a just resolution of this case for over four years, I
cannot tolerate further delay waiting for next year's two-year
contract.
Therefore, I must request that this matter be settled,
including issuance of next year's contract (August 2003-July 2005)
within a few days. But if it is not, I will contact the United States
Department of State one more time about this issue.
If Taiwan wishes to belong to the international community, it must
abide by a transparent system of democratically established laws,
including routine penalties and benefits that follow from those laws.
The argument of the Ministry of Education, that there is a Ministry
appeal, but that the Ministry cannot compel compliance with its ruling,
is devious. That means a Ministry ruling that favors an appellant will
be enforced only if the university agrees. Soon the Taiwan government
will argue that criminals can be incarcerated only if they agree to.
If nothing else, as my Taiwan colleagues have informed me, all the
Ministry of Education has to do is issue a black mark for every day of
noncompliance. After three such marks, an official is automatically
dismissed from public service. In addition, Taiwan's national
universities will have regained their respectability.
In sum, the Taiwan government sanctioned an appeal process and the
Taiwan government must indemnify its appeal decision, and the full
benefits that follow from its ruling. In addition, it must prevent
harassment and intimidation of American professors at its national
universities in Taiwan. The American government, as well as the
American people, treat thousands of Taiwan citizens with dignity and
respect when they reside in America, many of them remaining in America
and finally becoming citizens. The Taiwan government should start
acting responsibly, which means reciprocally, in its treatment of
Americans living in Taiwan.
In any case, I am fully committed to protecting the rights and
dignity of American professors in Taiwan.

Sincerely,


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

SUMMARY

1. In September 1988, I started teaching at the Department of Foreign
Languages and Literature (FLLD) at National
Cheng Kung University (NCKU). During the next ten years, I taught courses
in British and American literature,
composition, ESL, critical theory. I also established, by testimony of my
own students, the first legitimate film studies course
in Taiwan (some claim in all of China). Graduate courses included seminars
in critical theory, feminism, psychoanalysis,
gender roles in film, and film genres. I wrote and printed five books on
film and critical theory and an ESL book now
on-line and used in at least one other university.

2. On 29 March 1999, the Review Committee of FLLD decided not to renew
my automatic contract. LEE
CHANG-CHIANG chaired this committee. The dismissal was prejudicial from the
first. I was not notified of the meeting
and secret accusations were made. Two members of the committee signed a
letter of accusation that was used against me.
The accusations were not investigated and a previous chairman, who
specifically referred to laws, had already rejected one
accusation. Finally, by university law, a review committee is not entitled
to start a complaint, merely review it.

3. On 23 April 1999, I appealed to the NCKU College Appeal Committee,
which convened on May 3. The committee
ruled the evidence provided by the FLLD Review Committee was not concrete
and objective. This should have closed the
case. Instead, the committee asked the FLLD Review Committee to produce
more evidence. Thus a committee,
established for appeal, solicited further incrimination of the appellant.

4. On 9 June 1999 the NCKU College Appeal Committee convened a second
meeting. The FLLD chairman was
invited to the meeting but I was not. The FLLD produced a secret letter that
circulated at subsequent hearings. I saw the
letter only after my dismissal, following a court order. Again, an appeal
committee acted against the interests of an appellant,
undermining the principle of appeal. In addition, the secret letter
violated basic human rights protecting individuals from
slander, libel, and malicious conspiracy.

5. On 14 June 1999 NCKU convened a College meeting. Again I was not
invited, denying my right to defend myself.
The committee did not produce a reason not to renew my contract according to
Clause 14 of the Teacher’s law.

6. On 25 June 1999 NCKU convened a University Review meeting, which
upheld my dismissal. LEE CHEN-ER
chaired the meeting. Three times I appealed to the chairman to produce the
secret letter, which I had heard about, and he
just stared at me. The reasons for the non-renewal of my contract were
still not investigated, in violation of Clause 10 of the
Teacher’s Law, Clause 33 of the NCKU constitution, and Clause 14 of the NCKU
directives on hiring teaching staff. This
denied my basic rights as a teacher of the university and violated basic
principles of law and common sense.

7. On 18 July 1999, I appealed to the University Appeal Committee. On
3 December 1999, the NCKU Appeal
Committee found that the FLLD Review Committee mishandled the procedure of
the meeting in the judgment of my case
and cancelled the dismissal decision of the university. By law, the
university should have issued the contract. Instead, the
university allowed the FLLD Review committee to review me again, giving the
FLLD Review Committee yet another chance
to dismiss me. This is a violation of the principles of administrative
remedy, i.e. the purpose of appeal. An appeal process is
without purpose or even reason if all an appellant can achieve is to appeal
again.

8. On 27 December 1999, the university refused to issue me a contract,
although the “dismissal” was cancelled. This is
in violation of the Teacher’s Law, Article 14. The argument was that that
law does not protect foreigners. The Ministry of
Education later contradicted this. However, even common sense contradicts
the idea that an appeal simply gives an
appellant the right to appeal again.

9. On 10 March 2000, the FLLD Review Committee reviewed my case and,
using the same reasons, voted not to
renew my contract. Again, the reasons were neither proved nor investigated.

10. On 12 April 2000, the College Review committee ratified the
decision.

11. On 24 May 2000, the NCKU Review Committee ratified the decision.

12. On 12 June 2000, I appealed to the University Appeal Committee.
This committee rejected my appeal on 18
August 2000. It argued the university can dismiss a foreign teacher when it
decides there is no need for him; and,
additionally, the Teacher’s Law does not protect foreign teachers. In other
words, an appeal committee, presumably
established to defend the rights of an appellant, further undermined those
rights. Instead of canceling my “dismissal,” based
on unproved accusations, it invented a reason to justify my dismissal.

13. On 5 September 2000, I appealed to the Ministry of Education (MOE)
Appeal Committee. On 8 January 2001, the
MOE Appeal Committee invalidated the university’s dismissal. The reasons
were that the university’s accusations were not
legally investigated or proved, and the Teacher’s Law protects foreign
teachers. The Ministry bold-faced legal rights
violations committed by the university.

14. In compliance with the law, the Ministry decision, and recognized
principles of appeal, NCKU should have
automatically reactivated my contract and awarded back pay. But on 27 March
2001, NCKU refused to do.

15. On 30 March 2001, I requested the MOE to force the university’s
compliance with the MOE Appeal Committee’s
decision. Since then, the MOE has 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 compensate the salary. Until today, the
university has still not complied with the MOE’s ruling. Yet, in other
countries, university officials would have suffered
penalties (including dismissal) for insubordination, contempt, or
obstruction of justice.

The Ministry letters issued to the university confirm that:

1) a teacher’s hiring status is recovered when dismissal decision is
cancelled;
2) before a legal decision of dismissal is reached, a new teaching contract
should be issued;
3) foreign teachers are protected by the Teacher’s Law;
4) both contract and salary should be issued and compensated;
5) the on-going court procedures are not reasons for delaying issuance of
my contract; the university therefore should not
wait for court’s verdict [see explanations below].)

16. On 12 September 2001, in defiance of the Ministry ruling dated 8
January 2001, the NCKU Review Committee
again decided not to renew my contract, using the same reasons rejected in
the Ministry ruling, as if it never occurred.
Is the university a law unto itself? Can it invent new principles of
jurisprudence, claiming a final appeal is not final until the
appellant loses? Can the university establish its own discriminatory policy
against foreigners, in defiance of Ministry and
Taiwan law?
If not, why hasn’t the Ministry punished these officials, most
particularly the university president and the chairman of the
FLLD? The university's so-called investigation of me, following the
Ministry ruling, was unsanctioned. It was improper and,
elsewhere, probably subject to criminal and civil penalties under laws
guarding against abuse of power or misuse of office.

17. On 23 October 2001, under formal protest in view of the Ministry
ruling, I appealed to the University Appeal
Committee.

18. On 18 January 2002, the university filed a lawsuit against me at
the Tainan District Court, claiming, in defiance of the
Ministry ruling, “there is no employment relationship between the NCKU and
De Canio.” The university lawyer claimed I
had no right to appeal in the first place, contesting my right to appeal,
despite the Ministry ruling and in contradiction to his
client’s (NCKU’s) numerous appeal hearings.

19. On 18 June 2002, the NCKU Appeal Committee cancelled the
university’s dismissal. The university still did not
issue me a contract. Moral and legal accountability for failure to enforce
this ruling lies on the president of the university,
KAO CHIANG and the Chairman of the Department of Foreign Languages and
Literature, CHANG CHIH-CHIANG.

20. On 11 October 2002, the Tainan District Court ruled that, “until a
legal dismissal, the employment relationship
between the NCKU and De Canio is valid and continues.”

21. On 14 November 2002, the university appealed to the Taiwan Higher
Court. The judge suggested that NCKU
settle.

22. On 22 January 2003, university officials convened a meeting with me
and attempted to extort a “settlement” that
violated the legal substance of the Ministry ruling, offering me partial
compensation for lost salary on agreement I resign from
the university by August 2003, allowing the university to save face.
University representatives suggested the university could
contest this case in the courts for many years. On principle, I declined
these conditions.

Apparent in this timeline is a pattern of grievous legal rights
violations in defiance of Taiwan law, university regulations, as
well as moral principles.
Yet when a colleague and I spoke with a high university official in
December 2002, he informed us the president would
not overturn a decision by a university review committee, although that
committee is in defiance of a Ministry ruling. The
logic seems to be that a university committee is not in the wrong even if it
commits a wrong; even if it violates countless laws,
due process of law, and internationally recognized human rights. This is
the form of democracy without its substance.

Sincerely,


Professor Richard de Canio
(06) 237 8626