Response of DeCanio to Chen’s second letter to the court.
Concerning point one:
This civil suit was brought in response to Lily Chen’s 9 June ROC year 88
letter to the NCKU Liberal Arts College Appeal Committee.
Lily Chen made false statements and accusations against DeCanio and attacked his
reputation, which resulted in DeCanio not getting his teaching contract
renewed. If Lily made her accusations ten years ago, one might have been
sympathetic to her. Yet because there is a close relationship between the
time the letter was written and the meeting of the NCKU College Appeal
Committee, it shows that Chen did know that her letter would be sent to the
Appeal Committee and that it would be read by the committee members.
This act is the reason for the decision not to renew DeCanio’s
contract. If Chen therefore knew clearly the purpose and motive for her
letter, how can she say in her second letter to the court that “it does not
really matter if the letter exists or not or if the content of the letter
will move people, since it cannot change the fact that DeCanio would be
fired?”
But Chen has no business to interfere with the NCKU decision to not
renew DeCanio’s contract. Since she has no business there, she should not
have gotten involved. Now since she did write the letter and hoped that
such a letter would give reasons that were lacking, now she claims that the
letter is not consequential, is she not contradicting herself? No person
can believe her statement (including Chairman Chen who brought her letter to
the College Appeal Committee meeting).
Chen also claimed “she did not say that there is a causal relationship
between refusing to eat out with a professor and being flunked.” Yet in
her letter she said that “those who refused to accept the invitation were
flunked and the other two students who accepted got 100s at the finals.”
Her letter also stated that “how could such teachers continue teaching at
NCKU (general meaning or paraphrase from the original letter).”
If the above two statements do not mean that “there is a direct causal
relationship between refusing an invitation and being flunked,” then what
does she really want people to understand? Even if, as Chen claimed, she is
just stating the facts, yet, since the letter contains precise descriptions,
details, and conclusions, is she not trying to get the predetermined effect
of the letter, which is for the readers to accept a causal relationship
between not accepting an invitation and being flunked? Chen’s present
hesitation and evasion are quite different from her earlier stance in which
she boldly claimed that “she would testify if necessary.”
Chen also claimed that “there were also many letters praising DeCanio.”
I ask Chen to present proofs that she did have such letters in the second
appeal committee meeting. Otherwise she lies and perjures herself.
Among Chinese proverbs, there is a saying that “ a tiny drop of
excrement from a rat can spoil a whole pot of soup.” A damaging letter is
more powerful than ten letters of praise. It is wrong to destroy another
person’s good name at will.
(2) Concerning point two:
DeCanio fully supports the idea that students should have proper channels
for complaints. It is a fact that ten years go
DeCanio told Chen on the phone the reason why she failed the examination and
Chen understood the situation. This shows that Chen did get a chance to air
out a complaint, at least unofficially.
Yet Chen did not recognize that phone call as a way to solve a problem
and answer or respond to a student complaint. Chen instead fabricated a
totally different story and accused DeCanio of not acting professionally
(flunking a student who did not accept an invitation) and complained to the
then chairman. Chen then claimed
that Chairman Ren told her that the exam paper was destroyed and thus shift
the blame to DeCanio so that nobody can get to the facts. Since Chen’s
accusation is a serious accusation against DeCanio’s professional and
ethical reputation as a teacher, then she and Ren must provide concrete
proofs. It is not the majority of human words that wins a legal conflict.
(3) Concerning point three:
Chen claimed that her motive for writing a letter is a “consolation to the
teachers and she did not really anticipate that such a letter would be so
consequential.” This is really only an excuse. If she wants to console a
teacher, then she should convey her best wishes to Ren and Cook or to supply
them with concrete proofs of DeCanio’s plagiarism so as to lighten their
burden. Making false accusations and libelous statements against DeCanio
could only compromise these “beloved and respectable” teachers.
She claimed in the letter that “only then did she know that DeCanio was
fired (i.e., after she sent the letter). Yet when Chen wrote the letter,
DeCanio's case was still confidential. DeCanio wants to know which FLLD review committee member leaked the secret to Chen. DeCanio wants the court to ask Chen who told her that DeCanio was at the time being fired so that DeCanio can ask the DA to restart the DeCanio vs. FLLD case.
(4) Concerning point four:
Chen claimed that another reason for writing the letter is to “defend the
basic rights of education.” It is true that a student should have the right
to have a fair and equal opportunity in education, yet she is also expected
to answer exam questions correctly in order to merit high grades. Chen did
not answer the question (exhibit 1. 5 in DeCanio’s first statement to the
court). This is an
unchallengeable fact and Chen was told clearly why she failed. DeCanio
again wrote her a letter on 10 October 1994 mentioning that exam and Chen
did not contend such an explanation. Yet how can it be an issue after 10
years?
As a teacher I want to point out that the passing or failing of a course
by a student is solely dependent on the student’s exam performance. It has
nothing to do with the student’s
grade point average and her plans to study abroad. Furthermore it has
nothing to do with whether she kowtows to a foreigner.
Chen’s emotional response is really pitiful and it saddens the hearts of
all teachers. If a student can use the “rights to be educated”, without any
proofs, and irresponsibly accuse any teacher, then every teacher will have to worry about a grading that took place ten years ago (a grading that even was discussed fully
between the teacher and the student).
If one day such a grading can evolve to become a question of teacher’s
professional and ethical standards, then the law should really use this
opportunity to clarify the legal issue. Otherwise, no proper teacher
student relationship is possible.
(5) Concerning point five:
Storey’s testimony has no bearing in the Chen case. I do not know why he
was asked to be a witness. The nature of his testimony is weird. I do not
want to waste my precious time to argue with him. This time Chen submits
the testimony of Bill Rubens; I want to know what is the connection between
Chen’s grade and the case?
Rubens also signed the original letter of plagiarism (number three
signatory). This is proven by ltem 10 of the exhibits of the first letter to
the court from DeCanio. Since Rubens has a common and mutual interest with
Chen, Rubens cannot be a witness by law.
Finally DeCanio wants to point out that in court people should provide
concrete proofs and not just the words of a few people. One cannot just by
words prove what happened ten years ago.
Moreover, this court must decide if Lily Chen committed libel, not who
DeCanio dined with more than ten years ago.
Finis
No comments:
Post a Comment