Dean of Student Affairs

4/24/2002 12:37 PM


23 April 2002

Dean Ko,
In light of our conversation today, I wish to remind you of basic legal
principles involved in my complaint against my former student Chen An-chuen.

There are official channels to complain available to students within a due
period. Those channels were available to Ms. Chen at the time of the
disputed grade. She did not use those channels, which suggests her
complaint was without merit.
Instead, Ms. Chen waited years before making a secret complaint, even
though I wrote her a letter in 1996 in which I suggested I keep exams in my
office and, if necessary, I could locate her exam. She ignored my letter.
It makes no sense why she would ignore this letter then make a complaint in
secret.
It also makes no sense why she did not mention taking a conversation class
with me; a class in which she received two high passes.
You are quoted as saying Ms. Chen claims I could not fail her in the
Conversation Class because she did well in it. But if I could not fail her
in that class because she did well, then why would I fail her in British
Literature, unless she did not do well? By Ms. Chen’s own logic, her
failure in British Literature was justified, just like her passing the
conversation class was justified.
Besides, this does not explain how she could claim to forget that she took
those conversation classes from me. She at first claimed this in court,
saying she "forgot." Do you think a student could forget taking a class
from a professor, especially while claiming to remember details in my
teaching to discredit me?
But the reason I am sending this fax is not to remind you of facts you are
familiar with. It is to remind you that Ms. Chen’s accusation is past the
point when it should be dignified with consideration, much less
"investigation."
Ms. Chen is entitled merely to defend herself; she is not entitled to
accuse me. There is a big difference; and that difference is, to my mind,
the difference between a just use of office and an abuse of office. Yet the
feeling I got during our conversation this afternoon is that Ms. Chen
continues to defend herself by accusing me and you are supporting her, using
public office, in doing this.
But an investigation of Ms. Chen’s accusations, taken as it were at face
value, is harassment, and dignifies or accredits Ms. Chen accusations as
"facts" that need to be investigated. I remind you, Dean Ko, there are no
facts in Ms. Chen’s accusations; they are her opinions. She is entitled to
them, like I am entitled to my opinions of her. But Ms. Chen is not
entitled to have her opinions dignified with consideration as if they were
facts.
If Ms. Chen had made her accusation a couple of days or even a couple of
weeks after the disputed grade, it would have been very simple to bring in
copies, not only of her exam, but of dozens of exams from other students;
and, in addition, to call in students from that year’s British Literature
and Conversation courses. It would have taken about ten minutes to
discredit the accusation.
Instead, ten years later, you are still considering Ms. Chen’s complaint as
if it was legitimate and acceptable. It is not legitimate; it is not
acceptable. Even if other documentation mentioned repeatedly here and
elsewhere was not available, no professor should be compelled to defend
himself against what is at best hearsay and at worst malicious gossip.
I wish to remind you one more time, I believe it is improper to use your
office in this fashion. An investigation into the legitimacy of Ms. Chen’s
complaint should not simply attempt to "justify" her complaint. This is
improper. Ms. Chen has to defend herself, not I. And she must defend
herself without accusing me.
She must do this simply on facts alone. When was her British exam? When
was her complaint? Why did she not make use of proper channels, as
university policy requires? Why did she conceal her conversation grades?
Why didn’t she take back her exam in response to my letter in 1994? Why did
she make a secret accusation?
This is, as I understand it, both the extent and limit of your
investigation. To go beyond this, to make me the subject of solicited
accusations is, to my mind, morally wrong and unacceptable. In the end, you
will be repeating the offense against me made by a former dean of Liberal
Arts, who accepted this student’s accusation at face value, even though it
was made in secret and was without documented support.
By documented support, I do not mean mutual support. The fact that Jill
agrees with Jane does not make it true.
By documented support I mean if, for example, Ms. Chen had filed a grievance
against me soon after receiving her grade and the grievance committee ruled
in her favor. Later, Ms. Chen submitted that document to the dean’s office
to support an accusation against me.
Do you see the difference, Dean Ko? It seems to me, the difference is
between democracy and only the show of democracy.

Sincerely,

Professor Richard de Canio.
(06) 237 8626