[Fwd: Regarding matters to put on next meeting's agenda]

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

Subject:	Regarding matters to put on next meeting's agenda
Date:	Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:48:16 -0700
From:	Richard <invictus2002@yahoo.com>
To:	undisclosed-recipients:;

27 October 2006

Colleagues,

    As you know, there are remaining problems in our department that must be formally resolved.
    First, a student, Chen An-chuen, wrote a letter accusing me of unfairly failing her eight years before. Her letter was secret, it was by reasonable standards inflammatory (one colleague used the expression, "it made my hair stand on end"), the complaint was eight years late, and there was no basis for her accusation except her saying so. The letter would have been treated as a joke in any other university in the world, then subject to formal censure.
    Instead former FLLD chairman Lee Chung-hsiung accepted and (by reasonable assumption) solicited, the letter (it was dated just before a dismissal hearing), and it was secretly circulated thereafter at so-called "review" and "appeal" hearings chaired by officials such as Tu Yung-ching and Lee Chen-er.
    The way this case was formally handled would disgrace any university in the world. If redemption is possible here, it can only be earned by your willingness to face up to the abuses committed, to resolve outstanding problems related to this case, to offer sincere apologies, and to conscientiously commit yourselves to due process of law and observance of human rights in the future.
    But actions speak louder than words. Ms. Chen An-chuen must be punished. There will be no compromise about this. I will pursue this matter no matter how long it takes. No student will jeopardize, with impunity, the dignity and career of her former teacher, especially in Taiwan with its supposed Confucian respect for teachers.
    Moreover, as I have stressed before, Ms. Chen repeated her offense, though forgiven the first time. Overlooking an offense the first time can be perceived as an act of charity and compassion; overlooking it a second time may be perceived as an act of timidity and weakness.
    Another former student, Mr. Liu Gi-zen deposed in court in favor of Ms. Chen. Mr. Liu did not simply write a character reference for Ms. Chen; he subtly suggested I was guilty of wrongdoing.
    On what basis? Did Mr. Liu have evidence? Did Mr. Liu advise Ms. Chen properly to file a formal complaint? Did he speak to me, his former teacher, about the issue? Did he appeal to due process of law? Did he apply a moral imperative and ask himself would he wish others to believe unsupported accusations against him or his loved ones? If his classmate had accused him to me, would he wish me to take the word of the student? Or would he appeal to due process of law based on reasonable principles of evidence and contradiction?
    These issues are serious, for we have no reason to believe that Mr. Liu has changed his thinking. Will Mr. Liu fail a student, "Ms. Wang," because a classmate like Ms. Chen says Wang cheated on her exam when Mr. Liu was writing on the blackboard? Will Professor Liu rub his brow in moral agony and fail that student without knowing the facts or allowing Wang to face her accuser? When Mr. Liu sits on committees, will he apply the same standards he used to support Ms. Chen? As they say in law, if he did it once, he can do it again.
    Whether as teachers or committee members, neither of these two deserve to be associated with our university, especially in a culture supposed to honor teachers.
    If a compromise is possible, here's a solution I propose. Both Ms. Chen and Mr. Liu will be given letters of recommendation to another college of their choice. Such a transfer should be no problem, since several former NCKU faculty members involved in legal rights abuses in this case have already transferred to other colleges. They could insure the employment, as well as fraternization, of these two at one of those colleges.
    The matter involving Chiou Yuan-guey and Rufus Cook should also be formally resolved. The fact is, these current members of important university committees deposed in a court letter in favor of Ms. Chen. This matter was not unrelated to academic issues, such as a motor vehicle accident, where the two supported Ms. Chen's version of events.
    Rather Mr. Chiou and Mr. Cook supported Ms. Chen on an academic issue, though they must have known that Ms. Chen complained about her grade eight years late, had no proof, and that the entire case circumvented due process of law.
    Knowing that Ms. Chen wrote a secret letter; that she had no proof; that her claim was eight years late; and, in any case, that the law insures a presumption of innocence rather than guilt, these two nonetheless chose to accredit her moral character over mine. As I said previously, unless these two can show on what reasonable basis they would claim this, they should be removed from all university committees and subject to formal penalties.
    There are other matters that should concern you, such as a university president who defies Ministry of Education rulings, a Dean of Student affairs who will not call a student in for disciplinary action when requested to do so, and a university lawyer who uses taxpayers' money to contest legal Ministry rulings on no legal principle. But those issues concern other departments as well.
    Regarding FLLD concerns, I continue to hope we can resolve these matters within the department. Otherwise, I will continue to fight to effect justice in this case, appealing to human rights and academic officials in Taiwan as well as in the US, until a proper formal resolution is achieved. I will not allow an American citizen to be denied human rights (among them, the right to formal redress) at this university.

    Sincerely,

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