Ministry of Education
Taipei, Taiwan
Minister Wu Ching-ji
cc: The Control Yuan
The Prime Minister
NCKU President Lai Ming-Chiao
NCKU Secretary General
Taiwan Department of Higher Education
Taiwan Foundation for Democracy
Taiwan Association for Human Rights
The Humanistic Education Foundation
Scholars at Risk
California State University
Southern Illinois University
Case Western Reserve University
Purdue University
Taiwan Association of University Professors
The Taipei Times
The China Post
The China Times
The Taiwan News
26 August 2010
Dear Minister Wu,
I am requesting that National Cheng Kung University president, Dr. Michael Ming-Chiao Lai, insure enforcement of human rights principles at National Cheng Kung University, in Tainan, Taiwan.
Taiwan's Chief Executive, President Ma Ying-jeou has repeatedly affirmed support for human rights principles, and Taiwan's Legislative Yuan on March 31, 2009 ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These ratifications seemed to endorse Taiwan's allegiance with the international community on the issue of human rights as well as its reciprocity with academic institutions in advanced democracies.
No academic institution that refuses to enforce human rights can credibly represent or collaborate with the international academic community. Not only is this an issue of human rights but of academic integrity as well, because if a university does not enforce human rights there is no guarantee it can insure academic standards or principles either. On what other basis can there be academic exchanges?
Academic relationships must be principled, not merely monetary, exchanges. No Taiwan university should, with impunity, be allowed to insult an American professor, deprive him of his rights, and then refuse to insure remedy once those rights are violated or, indeed, even acknowledge that his rights were violated.
But the facts are plain and fully documented. National Cheng Kung University grievously violated my human rights in its illegal dismissal in 1999; its circulation of a secret letter against me that same year; its subsequent defiance for nearly two and a half years of a Ministry ruling in my favor in January 2001; and its long-standing policy of refusing to compensate me for losses incurred during my dismissal ordeal and subsequent litigation, apologize for its violations, or even acknowledge that violations were committed in the first place. This is unacceptable, at least by international standards of countries that observe human rights principles and, presumably, by the human rights protections guaranteed in the human rights covenants that Taiwan recently signed.
According to Taiwan's government web site, "Conscious of its responsibilities, the ROC government is dedicated to safeguarding human rights and putting an end to all manner of social injustice and abuse of power. The people and government of the ROC fully share the universal value of upholding human rights and are determined to be a shining example of human rights protection."
In this case, as in others, actions speak louder than words.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(August 1988 - July 2010)
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
TIMELINE OF NCKU DISMISSAL ACTION
TIMELINE OF NCKU DISMISSAL ACTION
1. March 29, 1999 - the FLLD review committee passed the "dismissal" decision (no legal reasons.)
2. April 23, 1999 - Appeal to the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee's Appeals group.
3. May 3, 1999 - the College of Liberal Arts Appeals Group decided the "evidences" listed by the FLLD were not objective and solid. The case was sent back to FLLD for them to solidify evidences.
4. June 9, 1999 - the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee's Appeals Group rejected the appeal. (This was based on my former student, Chen An-Chun's secret letter submitted by FLLD chair, Li Chung-hsiung, claiming harassment.)
5. June 14, 2000 - the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee passed the "dismissal" decision. (No legal reasons.)
6. June 25, 1999 - the University Review Committee passed the "dismissal" decision (no legal reasons.)
7. July 28, 1999 - Appeal to the University Appeals Committee.
8. December 3, 1999 - the University Appeals Committee cancelled the "dismissal" decision. (Chairman was university lawyer, Wang)
9. March 10, 2000 - the FLLD Review Committee passed the "dismissal" decision (no reasons.)
10. March 21, 2000 - Appeal to the College of Liberal Arts Appeals group.
11. March 29, 2000 - the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee's Appeals Group rejected the appeal.
12. April 12, 2000 - the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee passed the "dismissal" decision (no reasons.)
13. April 17, 2000 - Appeal to the University Review Committee's Appeals Group.
14. April 28, 2000 - the University Review Committee's Appeals Group decided that for this case, the FLLD and CLA did not list reasons of dismissal. They should re-review.
15. May 5, 2000 - the FLLD review committee passed the "dismissal" decision (the same illegal reasons as previous year.)
16. May 10, 2000 - the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee passed the "dismissal" decision (the same illegal reasons as previous year.)
17. May 24, 2000 - the university review committee passed the "dismissal" decision (the same illegal reasons as previous year.)
18. June 12, 2000 - Appealed to the University Appeals Committee.
19. August 18, 2000 - the University Appeals Committee rejected the appeal (Chairman was Wang)
20. September 5, 2000 - Appeal to the MOE Central Appeals Committee.
21. January 8, 2001 - the MOE Central Appeals Committee cancelled the "dismissal" decision.
22. May 24, 2001 - the university informed that they have started the investigation of plagiarism, requesting "appellant's" "defense."
23. May 24, 2001 - the FLLD review committee passed the "dismissal" decision.
24. June 19, 2001 - the College of Liberal Arts review committee passed the "dismissal" decision.
25. June 28, 2001 - Appeal to the University Review Committee's Appeals Group.
26. July 5, 2001 - the University Review Committee's Appeals Group rejected the appeal.
27. July 23, 2001 - the University Review Committee suspended the "dismissal" decision, and requested that the FLLD provide more evidence to match the requirements of Employment Law: Article 41.
28. September 12, 2001 - the university review committee passed the "dismissal" decision (the same illegal reasons as previous year.)
29. October 23, 2001 - Appeal to the University Appeals Committee.
30. June 18, 2002 - the University Appeals Committee cancelled the "dismissal" decision. (Chairman was a different person).
From May 11, 2001 to April 21, 2003 the MOE sent 8 letters urging the university reinstate the professor.
31. May 6, 2003 - the university notified of issuing the contract and compensated part of the salary.
32. May 20, 2003 - the University Review Committee passed the "plagiarism is a light case, the punishments are：no promotion, no salary increments, no sabbatical leave within next six years."
33. March 22, 2004 - the MOE Central Appeals Committee cancelled the "compensating part of the salary" decision, ordered the university to make proper decision within 20 days.
34. November 1, 2004 - the MOE Central Appeals Committee cancelled the "punishments" decision, based on the reason the law cannot trace back to these cases occurred before its formal execution.
35. August 19, 2004 - the university compensated the rice money but still refused to compensate the four years (1999-2003) yearly salary increment.
36. October 17, 2006 Wang claimed to the Kaohsiung Administrative court: "Foreigners(teachers)are not protected by Educational workers employment law, foreigners are are governed by Employment law, not Teachers law." 37. March 13, 2007 Wang claimed to the Kaohsiung Administrative court: "Foreign teachers are not protected by the Teachers law. When the contract period is fulfilled the hiring-employment relationship spontaneously terminates.
38. August 28, 2007 - the university compensated the four years (1999-2003) yearly salary increment.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Letter to NCKU colleague who ran for Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and phoned to solicit my vote (!)
-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: | Letter to [Name omitted] |
|---|---|
| Date: | Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:42:44 -0700 |
| From: | Richard |
| To |
Dear [Name omitted],
Attached is a letter you signed claiming you would credit Lily Chen's word over mine. Yet her claim that she unfairly failed eight years before would be ludicrous to most rational people.
Worse,
This is especially so since you're on the Review Committee. Are you using the same standards to judge your colleagues in Review hearings that you used to judge me in this letter? Would you use the same standards as dean?
I'm curious what those standards were, because Lily deposed in court that I destroyed her exam. What "evidence" did you use? I thought people were presumed innocent and had to be proved guilty, rather than the other way around.
For the record, I did not destroy her exam. I wrote Lily a letter, offering to locate her exam in my office.
Lily ignored my letter. Years later, in 1999, she repeated her accusation in a letter secretly circulated at hearings that led to my dismissal!
Who sat on those committees? Not people from Mars or Mainland China, but citizens of Taiwan who expect Americans to die in defense of "Taiwan democracy."
I have no idea why you signed that letter or how (as you claim) you forgot doing so. You also claimed to forget accusing Professor [name omitted] of misusing university funds, though you finally admitted saying something like that.
Forgetting you did such things is worse than doing them. It suggests a reckless disregard for the reputation of colleagues—not a virtue in a dean.
In our phone talk, you disowned unethical practices. But consider the facts:
On 24 May 2001, you sat on a Review Committee meeting chaired by Li Chung-hsiung. Lily's letter was secretly circulated. How can I credit your claim you did not know about Lily Chen's case "until afterwards"?
You wish to be dean. One expects a university official to know, as well as enforce, legal principles.
You also said you defended me against the charge of plagiarism. But a meeting was held by the College of Liberal Arts at noon on 7 May 2003 on that issue.
You were among six members present. Official minutes show nobody protested the accusations.
You said you encouraged my colleagues to accept me, when you should have encouraged them to abide by principles of law instead. We can always live without people; we can't live without principles of law.
I quote from the Analects, chapter 24:
Tsze-kung asked, saying, "What do you say of a man who is loved by all the people of his neighborhood?" The Master replied, "We may not for that approve him." "And what do you say of him who is hated by all the people of his neighborhood?" The Master said, "We may not for that conclude he is bad. It is better than either of these cases that the good in the neighborhood love him, and the bad hate him."
Regarding your legal principles, as you boast, are they that principled? You say you said, "If" I failed Lily unfairly, "that's a serious accusation."
But where's the "if" when a student waits eight years to accuse a teacher and does it in secret? It's better to say, "If Kao Chiang defied a legal Ministry ruling, that's a serious accusation." But there's no "if" in that, since it's a plain fact he did so.
So when facts favor a person, you say "if," but when facts accuse a person, you don't say anything. But a dean must favor facts, and then stand up for them.
You also boast you defended a colleague accused of sexual assault because his accuser plagiarized. Was that a favor or a principled act? I wonder if it occurred to you the student's accusation might be true, regardless if she plagiarized.
That does not excuse lack of due process. But neither does it excuse your failure to defend principles of law rather than an individual.
The documented failure to observe legal principles at our university will undermine the credibility of NCKU as a legitimate academic institution. Committees routinely ignore due process, as you know, since you sat on those committees.
Yet decisions unanimously approved at our university are soundly rejected on Ministry appeal. Our committee members are ignorant of, indifferent to, or even contemptuous of law. This was clear when Kao Chiang defied a legal Ministry ruling for more than two years, then allowed an appellant who won an appeal to be "reviewed" again!
You boast hopefully of Mr. Kao's successor. But though the Ministry of Education has urged him to comply with its ruling, he has continued the stonewalling policies of his predecessor.
Deeply ingrained authoritarian habits prevent a fully rationalized enforcement of legal rights here. One committee member is recorded as having rebuked me for failing to admit accusations, though an appeal hearing is precisely set up to allow defense! (See Minutes, 7 May 2003.) Soon appellants will be given white penitent caps to wear, as during Mao's Cultural Revolution.
Due process is a wonderful thing. We don't know until it's too late.
As for your reputed ignorance, I am weary of colleagues who claim to know nothing of my case when people at other colleges and as far as Taipei know about it! How is that possible?
This case is now in its eighth year and involves blatant human rights abuses and contempt of law. Yet our colleagues seem more interested in holding dinner parties.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse before the law and, assuming a just God, it will be no excuse before God. But as for colleagues indifferent to the serious human rights issues involved in my case, or who boast ignorance about them, their votes may be enough to get you elected.
That's all I'll say on these issues. Despite your fervent denials over the phone, I must allow the evidence to speak for itself.
You may or may not wish to apologize for your actions, or even acknowledge them. I'll let the facts speak instead.
Nonetheless, I wish you well.
Sincerely,
Richard.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
The Lily Chen Case Concerning the Secret Accusation Against a National Cheng Kung University Professor. The secret letter (dated June 1999) was accepted as part of a dismissal action against the professor by then FLLD chairman LI CHUNG-HSIUNG and later secretly circulated at college and university hearings, at least one of them chaired by then Dean, LEE CHIAN-ER. Thrice I asked Mr. Lee to at least reveal the contents of the letter and thrice he refused or responded with silence. Only a woman professor had the courage to reveal, in summary, the contents of the letter (at National Cheng Kung University it takes a woman to do a man's job). I was able to view the actual letter only after I took the student who wrote it, Lily Chen, to court.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
[Fwd: Regarding rights abuses]
-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: | Regarding rights abuses |
|---|---|
| Date: | Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:52:52 +0800 |
| From: | rdca25@gmail.com |
| To: | online@purdueexponent.org |
The Exponent
P.O. Box 2506
West Lafayette, IN, 47906
(765) 743-1111
online@purdueexponent.orgDear Editors,
I have reported to Purdue University officials human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) in Tainan, Taiwan. Though I have sent several emails, with full documentation, thus far I have not received what I would consider an adequate response.
As you know Purdue has long-standing academic exchanges with NCKU. As an American citizen I don't believe an American university should maintain academic exchanges with a university that has, with apparent impunity, a documented history of human rights violations.
I don't think university exchanges should be based solely on economic interests, but on academic and human rights principles. If you as concerned students, citizens, and journalists are interested in this issue, please inform me and I will submit necessary documentation. Not only will you help to expose this case, but also insure American (and other foreign) faculty are treated equitably in the future.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
[Fwd: Regarding human rights abuses at a Taiwan university]
-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: | Regarding human rights abuses at a Taiwan university |
|---|---|
| Date: | Fri, 28 May 2010 00:59:02 +0800 |
| From: | rdca25@gmail.com |
| To: | humlaw@wcl.american.edu |
| CC: | hrbrief@wcl.american.edu |
| References: | <4A5E870C.1080001@gmail.com> <001c01ca05de$34a5f350$6822748c@pjP> |
Human Rights Brief
28 May 2010
Dear Faculty and Students,
I have had long-standing problems regarding human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) in Tainan, Taiwan. In 2001, Taiwan's Ministry of Education canceled my illegal dismissal (1999-2000), highlighting human rights violations. Instead of reinstating me, NCKU argued foreigners had no right to appeal, even though the university held appeal hearings and attended Ministry hearings.
After defying Ministry of Education directives for more than two years, the university finally reinstated me in 2003, but without formal redress. NCKU currently has many academic exchanges with US universities. But I do not believe disregard for human rights is a basis for academic exchanges with universities that observe human rights.
Currently several high-ranking NCKU officials are American citizens or have benefited from American democratic values. They have ignored my petitions to formally resolve this case with apologies, penalties, and compensation according to internationally recognized principles of law.
Our universities should not maintain academic exchanges with a university that flagrantly violates human rights and scorns human rights principles.
If, as was stated on the Purdue University news page, NCKU "is one of the most outstanding universities in Asia, if not the world," one must question if human rights are relevant in this assessment, or if human rights are relevant at all.
The current president, Dr. Michael M. C. Lai, hasn't even responded to several requests to discuss this issue. Apart from not honoring an appeal the university itself participated in, the fact that NCKU would try to enforce discriminatory practices against foreign faculty should concern American faculty in the US. Under the circumstances, I wish you can inform me what my options are, since there is no juridical leverage in Taiwan.
Taiwan's courts seem to take away with one hand the rights they give with the other. It reminds me of a line from a Shakespeare play, "I can call the dead, but will they come?" You can sue officials in Taiwan, but will you win?
For example, the courts imposed no penalties on university officials, though the violations were egregious, willful, defiant and lasted several years. Other court cases were a waste of time and money.
In my suit against a student who wrote a secret libelous letter, the court ruled it was not libel since no one outside the university read it. Yet the student's letter was secretly circulated at appeal and review hearings. According to most law dictionaries, a third party is sufficient to constitute libel.
Similarly, my suit against Review Committee members who made unproved accusations was dismissed on the basis the accusations were not circulated outside the department.
Another court ruled against compensatory damages (travel costs to renew my visas), insisting there was no need for me to have stayed in Taiwan. But when an American left Taiwan during a child custody dispute, the court ruled that by leaving Taiwan the father proved he had no interest in the child and awarded custody to the mother.
In other words, "Heads I win, tails you lose." I won the contract case presumably because the court had to uphold a Ministry ruling. The wonder is it accepted the university's case at all, based on no acceptable legal principle. Still, the court imposed no punitive damages on the university and awarded no compensatory damages to me. Such rulings increase the risk among foreign faculty in Taiwan, who are less likely to fight for their rights knowing even if they win they nonetheless lose in terms of the cost and years to fight the case.
Taiwan English-language newspapers, which espouse democracy, have ignored my letters as have Taiwan human rights groups. Meanwhile, Chinese-American academics seem indifferent to democratic principles once they become local officials.
These issues should be of concern to human rights activists, universities, and faculty abroad. American universities should not maintain academic exchanges with a university that flagrantly violates human rights and scorns human rights principles. Academic exchanges should not be based on economic exchanges but on human rights principles.
I write not only as an American victim of human rights abuses in Taiwan but on behalf of all foreigners who teach here who may have been, or will be, subject to similar abuses without redress.
Under the circumstances, I can only hope for assistance, or at least advice, from your Center. For example, does an American citizen have legal leverage to request that an American university suspend academic exchanges with a foreign university that has been proved to have violated human rights? (Please see attachments.)
I appreciate whatever assistance or advice you give. My main goal is to effect just closure in this case, based on principles of international human rights laws and to obtain for Americans the same protections in Taiwan guaranteed to citizens of Taiwan in America.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Letters from Taiwan's Ministry of Education to National Cheng Kung University's President
Regarding Enforcement of an Appeal Ruling
These are English translations of eight letters from the Ministry of Education to National Cheng Kung University concerning my illegal dismissal and the university's refusal to abide by a legal Ministry ruling, even though the university participated in appeal hearings and only challenged my right to appeal after the ruling favored me. It even filed a lawsuit to challenge the Ministry's ruling, then used the court case to try to further delay issuing the contracts!Regarding Enforcement of an Appeal Ruling
(The translations are by a member of the NCKU Faculty Union. Chinese copies are attached in JPEG and PDF formats. Below are paraphrases. In any version, the unprincipled conduct of National Cheng Kung University is evident.)
1. April 6, 2001: "The university should make lawful remedy within a month."
2. May 11, 2001 "The university should first revive the contract with Mr. De Canio, which is the proper remedy."
3. June 14, 2001 "If there is no practical revival of the contract, the decision of the MOE Appeals Committee is equivalent to vain words. Procedural justice should be upheld first. The university should not use the results of its previous improper procedures as an excuse to delay reinstating the professor."
4. August 7, 2001 "If the university willfully delays so as to damage the teacher’s rights, the university must bear complete responsibility."
5. May 3, 2002 "The university should first revive the contract with Mr. De Canio starting from August 1, 1999, and compensate his salary. There is no need to wait for the court verdict."
6. October 15, 2002 "The university should immediately process the application of contract extension permit."
7. December 2, 2002 "The university’s request to wait for the court verdict is denied. Revive the contract with Mr. De Canio and compensate his salary as soon as possible."
8. January 17, 2003 "Do as described in the letter of December 2, 2002."
Letter to Former Student Who Wrote a Letter to the Court Supporting Lily Chen's Secret Letter Against Me (24 May 2010)
Raymond,
I never accepted an apology from you. I merely accepted the fact that you, like others here, were incapable of making an apology.
This is part of the whole culture of face, where few admit wrongdoing or even know the difference. A true culture of face would prevent one from doing something wrong in the first place.
You have children. If they did what you did, would you make them apologize? I hope so.
Yet all you did was rationalize your action. Your euphemistic "explanation" of the meaning of the letter you signed to the court was risible.
How else can one interpret words such as, "We are . . . fairly well acquainted with former Associate Professor Richard De Canio, and we would certainly trust the word of Lily Chen over that of Prof. De Canio"?
Words like those about one's teacher are an insult. It's even more insulting when you tried, expediently, to make them mean something different. Your refusal to apologize in a straightforward manner added insult to injury.
This is how a normal apology would read:
"Dear Richard, I regret I gave in to political pressure and signed that letter to the court claiming Lily Chen was more trustworthy than you. You certainly didn't deserve to have your character compromised in that way. My only excuse is others put pressure on me and I caved in. It's a mistake I hope I never repeat. I cannot undo it but I can make amends the best way I know how. I will send this letter to the court, and include a retraction of my previous signature. Please accept this as the first step in my sincere apology. Hope we can continue our friendship this way. Sincerely, Raymond."
When people make apologies like that, as in the case of that email I attached to my last letter, then I graciously accept it.
People make mistakes. But they must substantively apologize for those mistakes too. Simply referring to your letter as a "misunderstanding" adds insult to injury.
Character assassination is not a misunderstanding. It's character assassination.
I've always been suspicious of the ease with which postmodern theories have been accepted here. But I think those theories suit traditional values. Now people don't need to worry about facts, since words only indeterminately refer to facts anyway, as in Nietzsche's famous dictum, "There are no facts, only interpretations."
The problem is, it's a fact that Nietzsche wrote that sentence, not an interpretation. It's a fact you signed that letter to the court. It's a fact I won a university, then a Ministry, appeal, not an interpretation.
In our university there are no facts, just interpretations. So it took four years for the university to determine that it was a fact it lost the case.
Your "interpretations" in emails and personal exchanges were similarly laughable. The claim that your letter was not a disparagement of my character would insult the intelligence of anyone who could read. Come to think of it, it would sound worse to someone who couldn't read and heard the words spoken instead.
(Read your letter out loud and hear how it sounds. Better yet, replace your name with mine and hear how it sounds. It'll help you understand the Golden Rule better: "We are also fairly well acquainted with Professor Lai, and we would certainly trust the word of Lily Chen over that of Prof. Lai." I bet you don't like the way it sounds.)
Another equivocation was temporizing about whom to believe. Others whose moral sense was atrophied by departmental politics used the same logic.
It's not an issue of whom to believe. It's an issue of whom not to believe.
It's a principle of law that one doesn't accredit unproved accusations. Or everyone would be victimized that way. There's the Golden Rule in a nutshell.
In your case there were more compelling reasons not to discredit me. I was your teacher. We specifically studied Plato's idea of the Good, as I recall, apparently to no good. You remind me of the old proverb, "You can take the man out of the country but you can't take the country out of the man."
No matter how many years you study Western culture and values you'll probably always fall back on relationships instead of moral principles. Like the biblical prophet Jeremiah said, "A leopard cannot change its spots."
It reminds me of Aesop's fable of the cat that tries to be a gentleman so gets a fine education. But as soon as a mouse scurries past he chases it.
Now Lily spread the rumor that I had failed her unfairly I think as early as 1994, because I wrote her a letter to challenge the claim. As Lily's close friend you almost certainly heard her gossip.
If you believed her, why did you ask me to write a reference letter for you? If you didn't believe her, why did you pretend to believe her in the letter to the court? Let's hope when your head stops spinning it's turned in the right direction.
This is a culture supposed to honor teachers. You not only discredited me, you also discredited your culture.
This is the view of Taiwan I'll take back to the States. And people wonder how stereotypes start.
Don't believe for a moment such misconduct does not rebound on one's life. Unless you have no moral sense at all you must know this. That's why the Bible and Buddhist scriptures have outlasted all the critical theories of the 20th century, at least as practical wisdom.
Your letter was more reprehensible since it was sent to the court with the deliberate purpose of helping Lily Chen defend herself against her own insulting letter, made in secret about a grade eight years late. Why defend an action like that?
I must suppose you thought her action defensible.
What's worse, you never expected I would survive dismissal long enough to view the letter. A case of "out of sight, out of mind." If no one sees you do it, it's okay to do it.
Like the old saying, "He doesn't regret what he did, he regrets getting caught." That doesn't suggest a well developed moral sense.
Frankly, you're not someone I want to call a friend or associate with. If I greet you in the halls that's to be polite. The judge shows the same courtesy to the condemned man.
Many corrupt colleagues involved in this case are gone. The advantage for which they compromised their integrity now seems empty, their actions futile. That's the vanity of human wishes.
Those few who do remain must fight alone. It reminds me of the final lines of a poem by Kipling:
. . . [C]arry my word to the Sons of Men or ever ye come to die:
That the sin they do by two and two they must pay for one by one --
How can you justify signing a letter that says you "would certainly trust the word of Lily Chen over that of Prof. De Canio"? (I love that intensive "certainly." You didn't want to take any chances, did you?)
Lily Chen wrote a secret letter against me contesting a grade eight years late, and without proof. Apart from moral issues, what rational person would accredit such a claim?
[Postscript, 8/17/10: Recently, when the Teachers Union received a summation of the case they sent it back thinking there was a mistake in the date, which should be corrected to read 1999 (the year of dismissal) instead of 1991! That's how ridiculous that secret letter was! No rational person could possibly accredit a letter about a grade eight years before! The fact that there was absolutely no proof, the letter was submitted in secret, and the accused professor was never called to defend himself only makes the offense more ridiculous; "bizarre" is a more suitable word. RDC]
One official in Taipei literally laughed when she heard about it. "How can someone complain about a grade after eight years? That's ridiculous." I replied, "I'm glad you see the humor in it because people in my department don't."
(By the way, did you know my case was used to warn new college administrators of mistakes to avoid? So our officials, thinking to discredit me, discredited their university. What goes around comes around.)
On what basis would you claim that someone who writes an insulting letter against her former teacher is "modest and virtuous"? Where's the modesty in a student thinking she deserves to pass a class? Where's the virtue in writing a secret letter against one's former teacher, accusing him without proof and, in addition, maliciously discrediting him?
Did you see her letter? One Chinese colleague said (using a Chinese expression) it made his hair stand on end! Where's the "good character" in writing a letter like that?
Would it make your hair stand on end? Or would you choose the most expedient reaction? "Gee, this teacher should be fired!"
Did you see my letter to Lily Chen several years before when I offered to locate her exam in my office? She ignored that letter. She preferred secrecy. Why would someone with truth on their side prefer secrecy?
The letter to the court that you co-signed discredits you. One would think in view of such evidence you would have offered a sincerely contrite apology, admit what you did was wrong, and try to make amends, like your colleague did in the letter I attached to this recent email.
Like some of our colleagues you wanted to advance in our university at all costs. Well now you must pay the cost.
Fortunately, other countries, such as America, have standards. This department, and ultimately the university, will be judged accordingly.
The evidence, by rational standards, is indisputable. Whether you accept those rational standards or not, those are the standards that will prevail in the international community.
In a rational society equivocation is not possible in the face of facts. Murderers have their reasons, quite strong ones too, as evidenced in the degree of violence they inflict on their victims. But murderers are still incarcerated.
Our university has sister exchanges with many American universities, not to mention universities in other democracies. These universities are bound by legal statutes and bylaws. Even if some universities resist losing profitable exchanges here, pressure from legal rights activists or state laws might leave them no alternative.
For the record, it's against the law in a democracy to hold secret meetings. Or to make accusations without proof. Or to circulate secret letters.
These are facts, not interpretations, at least under international laws. They are fully documented, including official documents from our department, the university and the Ministry of Education. Many of them have already circulated widely.
What do you think will prevail? These documents or the personal claim of officials they did nothing wrong?
The university lawyer presided over appeal hearings at our university, and attended them in Taipei, then argued in court that foreigners have no right to appeal. There's a basic legal principle called estoppel, which says a person cannot contradict an already established fact. If the university held appeal hearings how can it claim I had no right to appeal?
It's true, the university got away with this in Taiwan. But it will not work in the US.
Not only didn't the university censure abuses when they happened but no one since has thought to close this case with apologies and compensation.
Apologies are basic to a sincere relationship. Our relationship is not sincere but polite, a mere expedience.
I can't respect anyone who would discredit a teacher, much less his former teacher, especially one who wrote him a reference a few years before.
Nor can I respect anyone who would rationalize barbaric behavior such as a student writing a secret malicious letter in order to insure a dismissal as part of a wider conspiracy. Lily's letter was dated just before the secret meeting.
Tolerated, such behavior becomes contagious. Another former student, now on the faculty, Liu Gi-zen, supported Lily's claim as recklessly as Lily made it. As in your case, he benefited from the courtesies and protections of democratic law [in America, where he matriculated] but back in Taiwan he chases after the first advantage.
Did it ever occur to you that soon your children may be registered here, subject to the same calumnies? So the greater task is to advance human rights here.
What I and a few others are doing now for that cause will outlast your academic record. I'm certain of that much.
As Mr. Thoreau said, there are many professors of philosophy but no philosophers. Certainly your letter, referring to "dinners in nice restaurants" and "friendly conversations," hardly suggests a philosophic grasp of the critical issues involved.
We're not talking about "nice restaurants" but about human rights. And understanding a person's "situation and anger" is not going to change it as much as doing something about it.
If you're not responsible as a member of this university, and an official of it, who is? How will democracy ever grow here? Read this item from the Taipei Times.
Finally don't patronize me with instructions to "keep my words." I decide what my words mean, not you.
I never accepted your so-called "apology," as I said above. I merely accepted the fact that you were unwilling or even unable to apologize.
But the real point is the university should keep its word. And people like you and Aaron Chiou and others in our department are as responsible as any to insure our university upholds its integrity.
It can only do this by issuing an apology, by commensurate compensation, etc. In fact an apology should come from Review Committee Members, including the current chair, as well.
This includes yourself. Are you prepared to do that?
Are you and others in our department prepared to go to the president and insist he must follow international procedures in resolving human rights violations, including a formal apology, compensation, and appropriate penalties. Even if this isn't done for the sake of human rights it should be done for the sake of the university.
If not, don't bother writing back because I won't answer. But I assure you this case will be fully resolved according to international principles of law sooner or later.
Sincerely,
Richard.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Monday, August 9, 2010
The Cat's True Nature. (This is an old fable, still true today, for anyone concerned about human rights: Nurture cannot overwrite Nature.)
The Cat and Venus
A CAT fell in love with a handsome young man, and entreated Venus
to change her into the form of a woman. Venus consented to her
request and transformed her into a beautiful damsel, so that the
youth saw her and loved her, and took her home as his bride.
While the two were reclining in their chamber, Venus wishing to
discover if the Cat in her change of shape had also altered her
habits of life, let down a mouse in the middle of the room. The
Cat, quite forgetting her present condition, started up from the
couch and pursued the mouse, wishing to eat it. Venus was much
disappointed and again caused her to return to her former shape.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Letter to THE TAIPEI TIMES by Bruce Jacobs
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2009/09/04/2003452722
Taiwan’s legal system and Chen
By Bruce Jacobs 家博
Friday, Sep 04, 2009, Page 8
‘Why is Chen the only person detained in prison on corruption charges before being convicted?’
Earlier this week I was one of the first foreigners to visit former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) at the Taipei Detention Center in Tucheng (土城). The visit was severely restricted. We saw Chen through two very thick panes of glass separated by insulating air as well as substantial vertical steel bars. No sound could penetrate this barrier and we talked with Chen though phones that were old and had a scratchy sound quality. As we could easily see, guards monitored our conversation.
We could not take anything into the reception room, even a notebook or a pen, so we could not record what Chen said. On the other hand, prison officers were polite and efficient and did not hassle us in any way.
Every Monday to Friday, Chen is allowed one 30-minute visit with a maximum of two visitors. On the first Sunday of each month, he has an additional visit, though this too is limited to two people and 30 minutes and is also conducted by telephone through the thick bars and glass.
I should make clear at the outset that I have frequently and publicly criticized Chen’s presidency. In addition, my knowing Chen for many years is not unique because I have also known former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) for some 15 years and President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) for about eight years.
Many foreign observers, including me, have raised serious questions about the justice system in Taiwan. Traditionally, crimes of embezzlement and corruption in Taiwan have not required detention prior to conviction.
For example, after Ma was indicted on corruption charges on Feb. 13, 2007, he remained free, despite the severity of the charges, until found not guilty on Aug. 14 that year. Similarly, no one else indicted on corruption charges remains in prison prior to conviction, except Chen.
Why is Chen the only person detained in prison on corruption charges before being convicted?
Many observers have noted that when the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came into office in 2000, it retained many KMT office-holders. In contrast, when the KMT returned to power last year, it quickly got rid of DPP office-holders and filled positions from its own ranks.
Many observers believe that the current KMT administration genuinely hates Chen and they expect that the KMT will do its best to keep him in prison as long as possible.
The difficulty in a democracy is that the voters usually throw out the government and put in the opposition. A few years ago, who could have predicted that the high-riding Republicans in the US, who dominated all branches of government, would be so severely defeated last year?
Similarly, the high-riding KMT of last year is already facing many problems, including administrative incompetence, an incompetence highlighted by the devastation of Typhoon Morakot. Will a future DPP government pay back the KMT with pre-conviction detentions and possibly long jail terms?
Another problem facing democratizing Taiwan is that the areas of both justice and the media have been slow to reform. In the media, many newspapers and TV stations had their origins in the authoritarian period and they continue to push similar beliefs in democratic Taiwan.
The former justice system, too, had many inexperienced “baby” judges and prosecutors just out of law school who did well in examinations but who had no life experience. Many were trained to accept KMT guidance with respect to judicial cases. The apparent manipulation of the judges hearing Chen’s case raises many fears that past practices continue.
Fortunately, the story is not all gloomy. After protests from overseas, Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) declared that the use of handcuffs on Chen was inappropriate and he now goes to and from the courtroom without them.
In addition, Chen looks quite fit. He has lost the extra weight he appeared to have in previous photos and he is alert with relatively high morale.
Looking out through the two thick glass panes and the thick steel bars, he said we — the visitors — looked like we were in prison, while he felt free.
In fact, we were locked inside the reception room, but our door was eventually opened and we came out, while Chen went back to his cell.
Bruce Jacobs is professor of Asian Languages and studies and director of the Taiwan Research Unit at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.
Taiwan’s legal system and Chen
By Bruce Jacobs 家博
Friday, Sep 04, 2009, Page 8
‘Why is Chen the only person detained in prison on corruption charges before being convicted?’
Earlier this week I was one of the first foreigners to visit former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) at the Taipei Detention Center in Tucheng (土城). The visit was severely restricted. We saw Chen through two very thick panes of glass separated by insulating air as well as substantial vertical steel bars. No sound could penetrate this barrier and we talked with Chen though phones that were old and had a scratchy sound quality. As we could easily see, guards monitored our conversation.
We could not take anything into the reception room, even a notebook or a pen, so we could not record what Chen said. On the other hand, prison officers were polite and efficient and did not hassle us in any way.
Every Monday to Friday, Chen is allowed one 30-minute visit with a maximum of two visitors. On the first Sunday of each month, he has an additional visit, though this too is limited to two people and 30 minutes and is also conducted by telephone through the thick bars and glass.
I should make clear at the outset that I have frequently and publicly criticized Chen’s presidency. In addition, my knowing Chen for many years is not unique because I have also known former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) for some 15 years and President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) for about eight years.
Many foreign observers, including me, have raised serious questions about the justice system in Taiwan. Traditionally, crimes of embezzlement and corruption in Taiwan have not required detention prior to conviction.
For example, after Ma was indicted on corruption charges on Feb. 13, 2007, he remained free, despite the severity of the charges, until found not guilty on Aug. 14 that year. Similarly, no one else indicted on corruption charges remains in prison prior to conviction, except Chen.
Why is Chen the only person detained in prison on corruption charges before being convicted?
Many observers have noted that when the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came into office in 2000, it retained many KMT office-holders. In contrast, when the KMT returned to power last year, it quickly got rid of DPP office-holders and filled positions from its own ranks.
Many observers believe that the current KMT administration genuinely hates Chen and they expect that the KMT will do its best to keep him in prison as long as possible.
The difficulty in a democracy is that the voters usually throw out the government and put in the opposition. A few years ago, who could have predicted that the high-riding Republicans in the US, who dominated all branches of government, would be so severely defeated last year?
Similarly, the high-riding KMT of last year is already facing many problems, including administrative incompetence, an incompetence highlighted by the devastation of Typhoon Morakot. Will a future DPP government pay back the KMT with pre-conviction detentions and possibly long jail terms?
Another problem facing democratizing Taiwan is that the areas of both justice and the media have been slow to reform. In the media, many newspapers and TV stations had their origins in the authoritarian period and they continue to push similar beliefs in democratic Taiwan.
The former justice system, too, had many inexperienced “baby” judges and prosecutors just out of law school who did well in examinations but who had no life experience. Many were trained to accept KMT guidance with respect to judicial cases. The apparent manipulation of the judges hearing Chen’s case raises many fears that past practices continue.
Fortunately, the story is not all gloomy. After protests from overseas, Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) declared that the use of handcuffs on Chen was inappropriate and he now goes to and from the courtroom without them.
In addition, Chen looks quite fit. He has lost the extra weight he appeared to have in previous photos and he is alert with relatively high morale.
Looking out through the two thick glass panes and the thick steel bars, he said we — the visitors — looked like we were in prison, while he felt free.
In fact, we were locked inside the reception room, but our door was eventually opened and we came out, while Chen went back to his cell.
Bruce Jacobs is professor of Asian Languages and studies and director of the Taiwan Research Unit at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.
To the Board of Trustees, Purdue University
-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: | [Fwd: Regarding human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University] |
|---|---|
| Date: | Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:26:49 +0800 |
| From: | rdca25@gmail.com |
| To: | trustees@purdue.edu |
-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: | Regarding human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University |
|---|---|
| Date: | Fri, 04 Sep 2009 19:55:29 +0800 |
| From: | rdca25@gmail.com |
| To: | president@purdue.edu |
| CC: | kokini@purdue.edu, bralts@purdue.edu, george.p.mccabe.1@purdue.edu, Raydon <raydon@mail.ncku.edu.tw>, purduenews@purdue.edu, andyg@purdue.edu, woodson@purdue.edu, Raydon <raydon@mail.ncku.edu.tw> |
| References: | <4A5E870C.1080001@gmail.com> <001c01ca05de$34a5f350$6822748c@pjP> |
Executive Assistant to the President
Purdue University
cc: Dr. Randy Woodson, Office of the Provost
Dr. Klod Kokini, Purdue University
Dr. Vincent Bralts, Purdue University
Dr. George McCabe, Purdue University
Dr. Andy Gillespie, Purdue University
Purdue News Service
Dr. Dahtong Ray, National Cheng Kung University Faculty Union
4 September 2009
Dear Dr. Wojtalewicz,
As you know, I have previously emailed to Purdue University president, Dr. France A. Cordova. Since your universty has had long-term academic exchanges with National Cheng Kung University (NCKU), in Tainan, Taiwan, presumably based on shared democratic values and principles, I believe it is important you know of documented human rights abuses at our university. These abuses have not only been ignored by our university presidents for more than ten years but, in at least one instance, an NCKU president collaborated in the abuse (see attached).
Both as an academic and as an American citizen, I do not believe disregard for human rights should be a basis for academic exchanges with a university in a democratic country, especially my own. The facts speak for themselves and are fully documented.
In 2001, the MOE canceled my illegal dismissal (1999-2000), boldfacing, for emphasis, human rights violations.
Instead of reinstating me, the university argued foreigners were not protected by the Teacher's Law, even though the university held appeal hearings and attended Ministry hearings! (See attached, 1.) Apart from not honoring an appeal the university itself participated in, the fact that NCKU would try to enforce discriminatory practices against any foreign faculty should be of concern to an American university that maintains academic exchanges here.
The court ruled in my favor, but imposed no punitive damages on the university.
Over more than two years, the Ministry of Education sent eight letters warning the university to issue me back and current contracts.
Meanwhile I contacted the human rights group, Scholars at Risk, who contacted the university president, Kao Chiang. Mr. Kao assured Scholars at Risk the university was following laws, even though it refused to enforce a Ministry appeal ruling (see attached letter from the MOE)! To my knowledge, the university ignored a follow-up letter from Scholars at Risk urging explanation. (See attached, 2-5.)
Even after the university was forced to issue me contracts in 2003, it imposed penalties, as if I had lost the case! (NCKU officials don't like to lose face.) Those penalties were overturned by the MOE.
So far as I know, the Ministry of Education has not punished anyone. It even approved Kao Chiang for another term as president after he defied a legal Ministry ruling for more than two years!
I have not received an official apology or compensation, apart from the retroactive salary. This, it seems to me, is not the way a reputable university conducts itself nor should it be a basis for academic exchanges with an American university.
I received no support from faculty, who sat on case-related hearings years after the MOE canceled the dismissal! Many received degrees from democratic institutions in America and England. They rely on legal rights abroad but ignore the rights of foreigners here. The Faculty Union supported me (see attached, 6-8) but has no legal or exemplary force.
Currently several high-ranking university officials are American citizens or have benefited from American democratic values. They too have ignored my petitions to formally resolve this case with apologies, penalties, and compensation, which are part of internationally recognized principles of law.
The courts have imposed no penalties on officials, though the violations were egregious, willful, and defiant. Related court cases were a waste of time and money.
One court ruled a student who wrote a defamatory letter did not commit libel since no one outside the university read it! Yet the student's letter was secretly circulated at appeal and review hearings.
My suit against Review Committee members who made unproved accusations was dismissed on the basis the accusations were not circulated outside the department.
Another court ruled against compensatory damages (travel costs incurred to renew my visas), insisting there was no need for me to have stayed in Taiwan. Yet when an American left Taiwan during a child custody dispute, the court ruled that by leaving Taiwan the father proved he had no interest in the child and awarded custody to the mother.
Taiwan's courts seem to take away with one hand the rights they give with the other. It reminds me of a line from a Shakespeare play, "I can call the dead too, but will they come?" Yes, you can sue high-ranking officials in Taiwan, but will you win?
I won the contract case presumably because the court had to uphold a Ministry ruling or risk an international scandal. The wonder is the court allowed the university to contest a Ministry ruling in the first place, especially since the university participated at Ministry hearings! Then the court imposed no punitive damages on the university and awarded no compensatory damages to me.
Such rulings increase the risk among foreign faculty in Taiwan, who are less likely to fight for their rights. I believe a US court would have imposed millions of dollars in punitive damages on a university that behaved with such willful defiance and that interrupted a teacher's career for four years.
Taiwan English-language newspapers, which daily espouse principles of democracy, have ignored my letters as have Taiwan human rights groups. Meanwhile, Chinese-American academics seem indifferent to democratic principles once they become local officials.
I'm not sure what can be done abroad. But these issues should concern American human rights activists, universities, and faculty. Our universities should not maintain academic exchanges with a university that flagrantly violates human rights and scorns human rights principles.
Frankly I'm tired of Taiwanese who benefit from democratic principles when they matriculate or teach abroad but ignore them in Taiwan, at least in this case. Such duplicity is unfair. Academic exchanges should entail some degree of reciprocity.
I write not only as a victim of human rights abuses in Taiwan but on behalf of all Americans who teach here who may have been, or may be, subject to similar abuses without redress.
For ten years I have assiduously tried to resolve this case by legal channels within the university and then within Taiwan. It has cost me (and those few helping me) a great deal of effort, time, and stress, to no avail.
If, as was stated on the Purdue University news page, NCKU "is one of the most outstanding universities in Asia, if not the world," then one must question whether human rights have any relevance for an academic institution. Indeed, though my academic career was interrupted for four years, it's assumed by faculty here that I "won" because I got my job back! That's like saying justice was served in a crime because the bank got its money back or parents got their child back. This is an unenlightened way of thinking unworthy of a university that has academic exchanges with an American institution.
The current president, Dr. Michael M. C. Lai, hasn't even responded to several requests to discuss this issue. Under the circumstances, I must hope for assistance from an American university with which NCKU has academic exchanges. Failing this, I must appeal to human rights activists and other advocates in the United States.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Letters from Taiwan's Ministry of Education to National Cheng Kung University's President
Regarding Enforcement of an Appeal Ruling
These are English translations of eight letters from the Ministry of Education to National Cheng Kung University concerning my illegal dismissal and the university's refusal to abide by a legal Ministry ruling, even though the university participated in appeal hearings and only challenged my right to appeal after the ruling favored me. It even filed a lawsuit to challenge the Ministry's ruling, then used the court case to try to further delay issuing the contracts!Regarding Enforcement of an Appeal Ruling
(The translations are by a member of the NCKU Faculty Union. Chinese copies are attached in JPEG and PDF formats. Below are paraphrases. In any version, the unprincipled conduct of National Cheng Kung University is evident.)
1. April 6, 2001: "The university should make lawful remedy within a month."
2. May 11, 2001 "The university should first revive the contract with Mr. De Canio, which is the proper remedy."
3. June 14, 2001 "If there is no practical revival of the contract, the decision of the MOE Appeals Committee is equivalent to vain words. Procedural justice should be upheld first. The university should not use the results of its previous improper procedures as an excuse to delay reinstating the professor."
4. August 7, 2001 "If the university willfully delays so as to damage the teacher’s rights, the university must bear complete responsibility."
5. May 3, 2002 "The university should first revive the contract with Mr. De Canio starting from August 1, 1999, and compensate his salary. There is no need to wait for the court verdict."
6. October 15, 2002 "The university should immediately process the application of contract extension permit."
7. December 2, 2002 "The university’s request to wait for the court verdict is denied. Revive the contract with Mr. De Canio and compensate his salary as soon as possible."
8. January 17, 2003 "Do as described in the letter of December 2, 2002."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)