-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: | Letter to my colleagues |
|---|---|
| Date: | Fri, 09 Dec 2005 08:12:05 +0800 |
| From: | richard <invictus2002@yahoo.com> |
| Organization: | NCKU |
| To: | tvjiangrace@yahoo.com.tw, chlai@mail.ncku.edu.tw, hclu@mail.ncku.edu.tw, tsaim@mail.ncku.edu.tw, pjchiang@mail.ncku.edu.tw, z9208044@email.ncku.edu.tw, z6808007@email.ncku.edu.tw, hsm36@mail.ncku.edu.tw, sulinyu@mail.ncku.edu.tw, chyl@mail.ncku.edu.tw, linam@mail.ncku.edu.tw, z8909001@email.ncku.edu.tw, z7209004@email.ncku.edu.tw, z6902002@email.ncku.edu.tw, z8208005@email.ncku.edu.tw |
Dear Colleagues,
I wish to inform you of an outstanding problem involving a former student and current part-time instructor at our university. The name of the student is CHEN AN-CHUEN, also known by her English name, Lily Chen.
On 9 June 1999, Ms. Chen submitted a secret letter for a review meeting held the same day, accusing me of unfairly failing her in a class she took eight years before. Without proof, her letter was accepted and circulated at dismissal hearings held during the years 1999, 2000, 2001 and perhaps thereafter.
No student should be allowed to contest a grade eight years after receiving it, much less use secrecy in doing so. But other factors aggravate Ms. Chen's offense.
In 1994, after hearing gossip about this issue, which I traced to her, I wrote Ms. Chen a letter suggesting that, if necessary, I could locate her exam in my office. Ms. Chen not only ignored this offer, but, through a third party, hinted she would use legal means if I pursued the matter further!
Clearly Ms. Chen knew that her exam, if found, would discredit her claim. So she waited until she was confident I would be unable to contest her secret accusation.
Other facts discredit her claim:
Ms. Chen received three high passes from me the year of her failing grade, including a high pass for the class she failed the first semester. Why would a teacher unfairly fail a student the first semester but give her a high pass the second semester in the same class? Why would a teacher unfairly fail a student one semester and give her three high passes the same year?
Ms. Chen at first even denied taking that other class and she never mentioned her high pass the second semester of the class she failed. She instead claimed not to remember.
How can a student remember a failing grade but forget three passes the same year? Why did she wait eight years before making a complaint, then make it in secret?
A legitimate complaint made within formal channels is a student's right, which I'm sure all of us support. But Ms. Chen's letter was secretly written with an aim far beyond contesting a grade.
For this purpose, her letter was probably solicited after other accusations against me (also secretly made) were challenged. (Her letter is dated the day of the meeting on my case. Since she wasn't a student at the time, how could she even know of the meeting?)
Indeed, a member of the dismissal committee said (using a Chinese idiom) that Ms. Chen's letter made her hair stand on end. No student should be allowed to compromise a teacher like this with impunity, least of all in a culture supposed to honor teachers.
My colleagues should consider the issues involved here.
First, no foreign professor should be jeopardized at a Taiwan university. We guarantee legal rights and human dignity to your
compatriots at our universities when they matriculate or teach there. We should receive the same treatment.
Second, no teacher (foreign or otherwise) should live in fear that a former student, years later, might compromise him or her outside regular channels of legal redress. Students must realize that misconduct, secret or otherwise, with or without the support of faculty, will be exposed sooner or later.
Third, no student should be solicited in a scheme to dismiss a professor. This not only undermines the moral reputation of our university, but also discriminates against students who are denied admission or employment based on merit alone.
For not only hasn't Ms. Chen been punished for her misconduct, but she is now enrolled as a doctoral student at our university and was hired as a part-time instructor around the time of her secret letter.
A committee should compare the date she passed her employment review with the date of her letter. It's of concern if Ms. Chen was favored over candidates with greater merit.
Either Ms. Chen was hired as a reward for writing her letter or despite the fact. Either way it's a matter of concern if our university is to maintain ethical standards.
The defamation of a teacher by a former student should also concern you. Of no less concern should be faculty use of this student for that purpose.
Doubtless Ms. Chen was agreeable to begin with. For what student, however tempted, would jeopardize her former teacher knowing he would have neither employment nor references for future employment?
But it is no defense of Ms. Chen's misconduct to condemn those who exploited her weakness and put her in the position she now faces. Ironically, some of them were on committees "reviewing" moral conduct. Some have children they would not wish to see similarly compromised.
Those faculty share the burden of her guilt. I only hope they do not bear their burden lightly.
It's reasonable to suspect the nature of the relationship Ms. Chen established with some of her colleagues. Otherwise, on what credible basis would they accept her unsupported accusation (ridiculous as it was to begin with) against a colleague?
If there indeed was such a credible basis, now is the time to accept my challenge and publicly announce it. Otherwise, their silence will speak louder than words. In fact, unless they can reasonably defend why they accepted a student's claim, ridiculous on the face of it, against a colleague, those faculty should be held accountable.
Two of them, Chiou Yuan-guey and Rufus Cook, are currently on the review committee, partly established to review moral conduct! One of them was recently the target of accusations of moral turpitude and appealed to principles of due process denied me.
Unless these two can reasonably defend why they accepted an accusation from a former student merely on the basis of her claim, they should at least be removed from the Review Committee, which decides cases based on moral and legal principles.
In a related case, a former student of mine who supported Ms. Chen in court, Liu Gi-Zen, was recently hired by our department as an Assistant Professor (August 2005). In fact, Mr. Liu took the same class that Ms. Chen failed.
It's acceptable, if sometimes morally dubious, to give a character reference, in court or otherwise. But Mr. Liu, in a faxed deposition to court in November, 2000 went beyond simply giving a character reference for Ms. Chen and clearly implicated me in misconduct, based on no other evidence than what Ms. Chen told him. This is morally wrong and I question whether Mr. Liu should have been employed, or his employment be continued, under the circumstances.
As I understand Mr. Liu's testimony, he said it was "unfair" (translation) that two students who went out with me received 100 in their exams, while those who did not failed. He added, "I hope the judge reviews the matter deeply."
But what matter was there for the judge to review? In other words, what was Mr. Liu's reasonable basis for believing that this happened, other than Ms. Chen's saying so?
It is indeed "unfair" to give a student an unearned grade. But it is even more unfair to accuse your own teacher of doing so based simply on your classmate saying so.
Consider the facts:
Ms. Chen deposed that a former chairman said I told him I destroyed the exams. If so, then on what basis would Mr. Liu confidently claim to know the grades of the other students or that Ms. Chen failed unfairly?
In a society that honors teachers, why would a student accredit the integrity of a classmate against that of his own teacher? On what reasonable basis would he risk the reputation, and even livelihood, of his teacher?
Did he compare passing exams with failing exams? How could he, if they didn't exist, according to Ms. Chen's own deposition?
Without studying her exam, on what basis would Mr. Liu depose that Ms. Chen failed unfairly? Since she submitted a deposition claiming I destroyed all my exams, on what basis would Mr. Liu know the other students received 100's, much less that they received them unfairly?
If Mr. Liu cannot answer these questions, I suggest he be dismissed or have the dignity to resign for discrediting a teacher without proof. This is, after all, a culture that highly respects teachers. How can Mr. Liu remain our colleague if he fails that basic test?
Apart from the absurdity of asking a professor to defend himself eight years after a class, from the beginning there was not a single shred of evidence for Ms. Chen's claim other than Ms. Chen's claim itself. This, for a reason I do not understand, was treated as Holy Writ.
Some Christians don't treat the word of God as quoted in the Bible with the same unconditional belief that my colleagues treated the word of Ms. Chen in this case. How can such credulity be defended in an academic environment where lifetime careers are at risk?
Indeed, Ms. Chen was so persuasive she was able to convince members of a review committee of the truth of her claim without evidence and eight years late. Without evidence, she was able to muster an army of character witnesses.
Yet her character "witnesses" simply repeated variants of what she told them. Even this would be acceptable if they had said, "I have no proof of this, but that is what she told me."
But if you check Mr. Liu's testimony, the substance of his claim is merely to repeat Ms. Chen's claim as if it were necessarily true! In law, and on principle, Mr. Liu must have a basis for believing so; believing so in itself is no basis to claim truth.
I can believe I failed an exam because of my ethnic background. I have a right to believe what I wish, however foolishly; but I cannot act on that belief without reasonable proof.
By reasonable proof I mean "reasonable" to people with a sense of reason to begin with. Since our university claims to be run democratically, that proof must pass muster in other democracies, such as, say, Britain or America.
Does Mr. Liu think his claim would pass muster at a British or American university? If so, he should think again. Only if the student promptly contested her grade, handed in her exam or challenged her teacher to do so, and a committee compared her exam with others from the same class could a determination of the student's claim be made.
But Ms. Chen chose not to take that route, protected by law. Instead she chose to accuse me in secret many years later, an act no longer protected by law.
If Mr. Liu does not see the moral principle here, it's no wonder he was willing to depose in court. But, as a teacher, he must be held accountable for doing so.
I remind my colleagues this is a culture that's supposed to honor teachers. Yet here we have a case of two former students of mine recklessly making accusations years later with no proof other than their claim, one of which is based on the other's.
Moreover, based solely on her claim, some of my colleagues supported Ms. Chen. As I said, some are now on the review committee evaluating moral character!
(I should add that these colleagues did not merely support Ms. Chen as individuals, but they typed FLLD letterhead over their support letter submitted in court, suggesting they were writing on behalf of their department. [See Attachment, 1])
We know for certain that Ms. Chen failed my British Literature class, since she accused me of failing her unfairly, a matter of public record. Under the circumstances, it's reasonable to ask if Mr. Liu failed that class too. If he failed, what grade did he receive in the next year's makeup class taught by Professor Griffin?
These are valid questions to ask. Will every teacher who fails a student be accused of unfairly doing so?
Is that the moral principle Mr. Liu chooses to live by? I live by another moral principle: I give grades that students earn, and thus deserve.
Does Mr. Liu believe students have the right to pass or else have the right to claim they failed unfairly? If so, I question his employment at our university. If not, one must ask what proof, other than Ms. Chen's claim, did Mr. Liu have? If none, he should pay the consequences for defaming a teacher.
Since Mr. Liu apparently did not see the five-page letter I sent to Ms. Chen in October, 1994, here's a quote from page 2 of that letter:
". . . I preserve all my exams and, if necessary, will check both exams for the sake of comparison."
Mr. Liu can check my quote against Ms. Chen's copy. The important fact is that Ms. Chen chose to ignore this letter.
In other words, Ms. Chen has no proof she failed her exam unfairly, other than her claim. But I have proof that I sent her a letter several years after her failing grade (when I was not legally bound to do so) and she ignored my invitation to review her exam. Not that there was anything to review! If there were, Ms. Chen would not have chosen to ignore my letter.
Finally, my colleagues should know that the student who supposedly received high passes on their exams because they dined with me were also ranked one and two in their graduation class. Besides, what about the many students who declined? Either they passed anyway or they failed and resolved to do better instead of resolving to defame their teacher.
I remind my colleagues that I failed one-third of the students in that class. Did all of them fail because they refused to go out with me?
The sole basis of Mr. Liu's court testimony was a logical fallacy known, in Latin, as post hoc ergo propter hoc: "After it, therefore because of it."
If a foreign citizen rents the next-door apartment and hours later there's an earthquake, will Mr. Liu believe that the foreign citizen caused the earthquake? That kind of thinking would sound as irrational to a disco dancer as to a seismologist.
But Mr. Liu's claim is equally absurd. If a student wears a short skirt on exam day, will Mr. Liu argue she passed because of her short skirt?
Besides, by this same logic one can argue that Mr. Liu's court deposition against me in 2000 was the reason he was hired here in 2005. I'm curious whether Mr. Liu would accept such logic in his case, since he accepted the post hoc fallacy in Ms. Chen's case.
I hope my colleagues understand what is at stake here. If students can recklessly make such claims, there's no end to possible mischief, impacting on grading and, beyond that, on careers.
Are teachers supposed to protect themselves against later accusations by inflating grades? Should we fearfully calculate the consequences of inviting students to dine, even if we're advisors to them?
Ms. Chen and Mr. Liu didn't even suggest I invited students singly, but in groups. Still they implied an ulterior motive.
Where will it end? If a student presents a Christmas card to a teacher and she passes, will students who failed claim it was because they didn't present the teacher with a card?
Right now in fact I'm planning dinner with my advisees. Many are enrolled in my classes.
Am I compelled to give a high pass to students who don't attend an arranged meal, fearful that, eight years from now, a disgruntled student will claim she failed because she didn't dine with me on that occasion?
My colleagues should be concerned about the misconduct of students and faculty in this case. But of equal concern should be the way the current Dean of Student Affairs, Ko Huei-chen has handled this case. For years she has denied my request to discipline Ms. Chen. (See Attachment, 2)
This is unacceptable. A teacher has a right to request a formal meeting with a student concerning conduct.
The argument that Ms. Chen was not a student when she wrote her letter is quibbling.
First, her letter was submitted to a university and concerned student-teacher issues.
Second, Ms. Chen's letter was circulated at meetings during years she was a student and part-time teacher.
Third, Ms. Chen defended her accusation with then Vice-Dean, James Tsai while a student and part-time teacher.
The irony is that Ms. Chen's improper complaint, without due process, was handled in sixteen days, resulting in my dismissal; yet my legitimate complaint, asking due process, has been denied for years.
In fact, Dean Ko and the current university president, Kao Chiang, have repeatedly defied moral principles and Ministry directives regarding issues related to my illegal dismissal in 1999. President Kao defied a legal Ministry ruling for more than two years and continues to defy Ministry directives to issue me back pay. Moreover, his administration has still not issued me a formal apology for the secret and defamatory accusations that resulted in my 1999 dismissal.
Indeed, no official involved in that dismissal, such as former chairman Li Ching-Hsiung, has been disciplined. Some are retired and drawing double income at other colleges.
If my colleagues want democratic law at our university, then you cannot indifferently allow interference with that law, whether it comes from a university official, a university lawyer, or a university committee. None of these can substitute for rule of law. But without rule of law this university cannot stand.
Yet university officials, with legal counsel, have repeatedly interdicted or otherwise claimed to "interpret" rulings from superior agencies and committees, including a Ministry of Education Appeal ruling in my favor. Shamelessly, they even claimed a foreign professor had no right to appeal after the ruling favored him.
Nonetheless, our university has sister relationships with universities abroad that guarantee legal rights denied their citizens here. Such duplicity will never be accepted by the international community.
I remind you once again that Kao Chiang has repeatedly defied Ministry laws and rulings. I urge you to consider whether this is the quality of leadership you desire.
For those who still allow some sympathy for Ms. Chen, please remember I forgave her the first time. Instead of showing gratitude, she apparently construed my compassion as weakness and became emboldened in her misconduct. I'm not making the same mistake twice.
Nor will I allow our officials or committees to interdict laws or moral principles. I am especially concerned that a "revisionist" version of this case will replace the facts of the case or has already done so:
"If Ms. Chen had done something wrong, she would have been punished. Since she wasn't punished, her accusation must have been based in truth."
I will never allow this to happen. Only a formal resolution, including an apology from Ms. Chen and the administration, will prevent this.
The history of this case shows serious flaws in our university administration, from our department's review committee up to the president. These must be corrected.
But my concern is personal as well as institutional. An individual has the right to redress. I intend to exercise that right. I wish my colleagues reading this will understand that this action I'm taking is entirely commensurate with the injustice I've suffered.
Therefore I ask your assistance. With prompt action on your part, a just resolution can be achieved within the university.
As for Ms. Chen, she is free to mend her ways elsewhere. But once exposed, that option will be more difficult.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
No comments:
Post a Comment