Subject: ATTN: Case of student involved in
misconductTo: Kao Chiang
CC: Huei-chen Ko
moe
National Cheng Kung University
President's Office
President Kao Chiang
22 July 2003
Dear President Kao,
Yesterday, your Dean of Student Affairs, Professor Ko Huei-Chen wrote
me an email, the substance of which was translated to mean that, in her
opinion, the case of the student involved in misconduct was closed.
I urge you in the strongest possible words to insure that Dean Ko
responds to a routine request from a faculty member to call this student
into her office for a supervised meeting with me. It seems to me this is my
right as a faculty member and Professor Ko's responsibility as Dean of
Student Affairs. Dean Ko should not be allowed arbitarily to close an
issue, based on the three reasons she gives:
The first is that there is no new evidence. But the old evidence would
have been enough for other universities to have acted on this case long
ago. Besides, the question remains why it took Dean Ko's office so long to
come to this decision, because none of the facts have changed since the
court decision she mentions as her second reason.
Referring to the court decision is itself wrong. A court decision is a
judicial, not a moral, decision. It's a decision about legal codes, not
ethical codes; about acts, not behavior. Driving a car drunk is a criminal
act; getting drunk is bad behavior. A court may find a student did not
drive a car when drunk, but that does not prevent a school from disciplining
the student for being drunk.
In addition, the court decision merely ruled on the issue of whether
this student's letter was directly responsible for my dismissal. It did not
rule on the ethics of the student's behavior nor does it prevent the
university from ruling on this issue. In the same way, being acquitted in
court of theft does not prevent the defendant's mother from punishing her
child for stealing.
A court does not judge moral behavior but criminal acts. Breaking a
window may not be a crime in a court's eyes but may be punished as
misconduct by a child's parents.
No responsible parent would use legal definitions as moral guides. In
the same way, no responsible university official should use legal
definitions as moral guides. This student engaged in misconduct by any
reasonable standard and should be punished for doing so.
Finally, Dean Ko's argument that this current student (and part-time
employee) was not a student when she wrote her accusation is wrong, since
the student repeated her claim to the Vice-Dean of Student Affairs,
insisting it was the truth. When she repeated her claim (last year) she was
(and is now) currently a student.
Consult with the Vice-Dean of Student Affairs about this matter. By
repeating her claim she no longer falls under the umbrella of protection
that Dean Ko has kindly opened for her. I would not be so determined to
have this student punished if she had retracted her accusation when given a
chance to do so by the vice-dean recently.
But she repeated her claim that what she said was the truth. Indeed,
this was the very basis the vice-dean used as an excuse not to punish her:
"She insists she was telling the truth," as I recall the vice-dean saying.
This in itself is odd. Since if it was the truth, the student should
want to repeat it as often as possible, especially in the Office of Student
Affairs. Since when does a person who accuses another try everything
possible to avoid accusing him again under more ideal conditions: in public
rather than secret, before a dean rather than a chairman, and have the
accusation formally recorded rather than secretly circulated?
If she repeated her claim that what she said was the truth only
recently, in private interview with the Vice-Dean of Student Affairs, why
would she refuse to repeat her accusation to the Dean of Student Affairs
with the accused professor present? After all, if I failed a student
unfairly, I should be punished for this. But perhaps this student believes
she accused a professor unfairly and might be punished instead. But if this
is the case, then she should be punished.
However Dean Ko seems to want it both ways, or many ways. First I was
told her office could not handle such a complaint. Then I was told the FLLD
department should begin the complaint. Then I was told the student insists
she was telling the truth. Then I was told the court case was pending.
Then I was told the student was not a student. Then I was told the
vice-dean was gathering evidence. (Why would he gather evidence if he
thought the student was not liable in the first place?) Then I was told it
was my word against the student's. (Apparently the evidence convinced your
office that my word, with documentation, was stronger.) Then I was told the
student's mother did not want her to go to a meeting. After that I was told
that God would punish the student. Now I'm told the court decision prevents
further inquiry of the matter.
Now there's a French film with a famous line: "The terrible thing is
that everyone has his reasons."
But we know that reasons are not excuses. There are many good reasons
to steal or murder; in fact, there are hundreds of them. You can find them
out by talking to those confined in the nearest jail or prison. But these
people found out the hard way that reasons were not excuses.
Let's just take two of the "reasons" given above. First I'm told last
year the student could not be disciplined since she insisted her accusation
was "truthful." That means she was a student when she repeated her original
claim. But now I'm told that no action can be taken because she was not a
student at the time she made her secret accusation.
There's a common saying: Two reasons are as good as none. That's
because when telling the truth, one reason is enough. If I'm late for
school because my train was late, that's all I have to say. But if I'm late
for school because I got drunk the night before, I may have to say the train
was late and my child got sick and the train schedule was wrong anyway and I
went to the wrong classroom and I thought the exam was on a different day.
Now the facts are plain. Either the student retracted her accusation
when she spoke to the vice-dean while currently a student or she repeated
it. If she retracted it, perhaps she cannot be punished as a student, since
her original accusation was made when not a student and she retracted it
while now a student. But at the same time, my reputation has been
protected.
On the other hand, she repeated her original claim, while now a
student. In which case my reputation has not been protected, but the
student can be punished.
It's one or the other but cannot be both at the same time.
Apart from the punishment of this student, I would like to call your
attention to other serious issues in your dean's handling of this case.
First, when a professor requests a supervised meeting with a student,
that seems to be a reasonable request to make. In universities all over the
world professors request such meetings and these are usually set up within a
day or two, or a week at most.
But your dean delayed such a meeting for about two years. This kind of
delay should not be acceptable at a university. Administrative complaint
and remedy should be prompt and efficient. After all, it took the
university about three months to complete my illegal dismissal (including
appeals). Why should it take years to punish a student who was at least
partly responsible for my dismissal?
In addition, a question that officials outside the university should
reasonably ask is why officials here are protecting this student and why
would the student avoid coming to a supervised meeting with the professor
she accused? One would think she would pursue such a meeting rather than
the other way around.
The answer is simple: She knows her claim is not merely false, but
unbelievable on the face of it. Moreover, officials who conspired with her
know this to be the case.
Another issue, which undermines the apparent sincerity of the
university administration in handling this case, is why, even assuming the
student did not repeat her claim when a student, the university does not
start other disciplinary action against her as a current part-time employee
of the university. After all, it doesn't matter that a man committed a
murder while a clerk at a department store if he's a president of that
department store when he's belatedly charged with the crime. The status of
the individual does not change the status of the crime. Murder is murder
regardless of the fact that I was a student when I committed the crime but a
professor when charged with the crime. Are prosecutors going to say, "We
can't charge this fellow with murder, since he's no longer a student?"
None of this matters, really. I have long since lost confidence in
administrative remedy at our university. I will continue to pursue this
case within the university as a matter of principle. But my main avenue of
remedy will be far outside the university, to Taiwan lawmakers, the Taiwan
press, and to international human rights organizations, who already know the
details of this case. I assure you, once this case is exposed, all parties
involved in obstructing remedy at our university may wish the case had been
handled differently from the first.
But please be presently advised that unless I receive a response no
later than today that the Dean's Office intends to invite this student in
for a supervised meeting, I will forward this email, along with other
documents, to the Vice-President's Human Rights Office in Taipei and let
them handle this case.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
No comments:
Post a Comment