[Fwd: Regarding Committee Agendas]

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Regarding Committee Agendas
Date:	Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:30:49 -0800
From:	Richard <invictus2002@yahoo.com>
To:	ydpc@mail.ncku.edu.tw, kailing <kailing@mail.ncku.edu.tw>, jtchen@mail.ncku.edu.tw, mspf@mail.ncku.edu.tw, skao@mail.ncku.edu.tw, minhuitz@mail.ncku.edu.tw, yang <yang5692@mail.ncku.edu.tw>, Christina Chen <chencf@mail.ncku.edu.tw>, leemay@mail.ncku.edu.tw, luhy@mail.ncku.edu.tw, ªL©ú¿A <linmt@mail.ncku.edu.tw>, hljian@mail.ncku.edu.tw, tvjiangrace@yahoo.com.tw, Lai <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 <sulinyu@mail.ncku.edu.tw>, chyl <chyl@mail.ncku.edu.tw>, linam <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, lydialee@mail.ncku.edu.tw

National Cheng Kung University
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
Tainan, Taiwan

15 December 2006

Dear Colleagues,

This is to remind you that the future of a university is built on human rights principles. Yet, despite all the commotion about "agendas,"  important human rights issues here go unresolved.
    Believe it or not, when I mentioned my case recently, I was actually advised by one of our colleagues to focus on more important issues! I wonder if my colleague would appreciate receiving email about an upcoming feminist conference, knowing that women colleagues had been victims of sexual harassment here and nothing had been done about it.
    Let me, therefore, remind my colleagues, with due respect: academia must serve human rights, not the other way around. A university that ignores human rights will not stand, no matter how many papers are published or how many conferences convene. I remind you that Mainland China's academics publish and present at conferences too.
    On this understanding, I remind you there are outstanding issues related to an illegal dismissal in 1999. A student, now part-time teacher, CHEN AN-CHUEN, submitted a secret letter in time for a dismissal hearing, claiming I failed her unjustly eight years before, while making other unsupported accusations, having nothing to do with a disputed grade. One committee member said the letter made one's hair stand on end, suggesting the letter was intended to discredit a teacher, not to contest a grade.
    I will not allow a student to enage in this kind of behavior without penalty. I will continue to appeal to legal rights channels here and in the US until this case is resolved. The quicker it's resolved within the university, the better for all concerned. And I remind you, this is Ms. Chen's second time around. I have no intention to allow for a third time.
    Absurd as it may seem, Ms. Chen's letter was secretly circulated at subsequent dismissal "hearings." At one hearing, three times I vainly requested Lee Chen-er, who chaired the meeting, to disclose the contents of the letter. Fortunately a woman professor had the moral sense and courage to paraphrase the contents of the letter. But it was only by court order that I finally got to see the actual letter.
    Circulating a secret letter like that is a permanent discredit to our university; and I have no intention of letting this case disappear without a trace. Until it's formally resolved within our university, I will seek formal resolution elsewhere, as I continue to do.
    Two current members of the Review Committee, Rufus Cook and Chiou Yuan-guey supported Chen An-chuen in a letter to the court. They were not supporting Ms. Chen over a non-academic issue, which would be their right, like it or not. They were supporting Ms. Chen over an academic issue (accusing a colleague) and academic principles (contesting a grade eight years late and without proof).  (I remind these colleagues that Ms. Chen deposed in court that I destroyed her exam; so I think our department has a right to know on what reasonable basis they would support her claim, especially coming eight years late.)
    I believe these two Review committee members owe it to the department to explain on what academic or moral principles they supported Ms. Chen. Because one must assume the principles they used then will be the principles they use in deciding issues brought before our department's Review Committee or other committees on which they sit.
    The same goes for Mr. Liu Ge-zen, my former student, who implicitly supported Ms. Chen's accusation in a letter to the court. I remind Mr. Liu that Taiwan is a Confucian culture, supposed to honor teachers.
    Besides this, Mr. Liu benefitted from laws and moral principles while matriculated at an American university. He didn't have to worry that a classmate would secretly inform his adviser that Mr. Liu unfairly cheated on his exams or unfairly wrote his dissertation. Because, as he well knows, the adviser would not act without proof, as well as Mr. Liu's defense, including the right to learn the accusations against him and the right to face and rebut his accuser.
    Since Mr. Liu benefitted from American laws and legal principles, it's fair he show gratitude to his former American hosts and to the American system of justice on which he relied and say on what basis he believed Ms. Chen's accusation that she failed unfairly. I remind you that Ms. Chen deposed in court that I told her I destroyed her exam. So Mr. Liu cannot say he saw the exam.
    Or did Mr. Liu succumb to pressure? Others did too, but they had the moral sense to write an apology:

    But let me give Mr. Liu the benefit of the doubt denied me. So I'm asking Mr. Liu: on what basis did you discredit your former teacher? And if you accepted Ms. Chen's secret and unsupported accusation against me, with no other evidence, are you going to accept secret and unsupported accusations against a colleague when you're on an important committee and when careers are at stake? Are you going to fail a student because a classmate secretly tells you the student cheated on an exam when your back was turned?
    Since you didn't need proof in my case, why should we assume you need proof in another, similar, accusation? Indeed, based on the logical principle of a fortiori, if you were willing to judge your own teacher without proof, how much more likely would you be expected to judge a "mere" student or colleague without proof.
    These questions must be addressed. They will be addressed. Either within or outside the university; either now or later.

    Sincerely,

    Richard de Canio.
    Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
    National Cheng Kung University

    PS: To the colleagues mentioned in this letter, please do me the courtesy to omit my username when you circulate your next letters about academic agendas. At this point, there's only one agenda worth considering; that's the human rights agenda outlined in this email.