Subject: Important: Legal rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University in
Tainan, Taiwan (ROC); in response to the president of NCKU claiming that
laws were observed in a dimissal action against an American
professor
To: tecroinfodc@tecro-info.org
CC: rquinn@uchicago.edu, Ray Dah-tong
Chien-jen (C.J.) Chen,
Dr. Lyushun Shen,
Mr. Michael Ming-Shian Tsai
Taiwan Representative Office
Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO)
4201 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20016-2137
Tel: 202-895-1800
Fax: 202-363-0999
tecroinfodc@tecro-info.org
cc: Scholars at Risk
NCKU Faculty Union
27 April 2003
Dear Sirs,
I am outraged that Kao Chiang, the president of National Cheng Kung
University, claims the university has followed laws in my dismissal case
(Letter #0920002126, 23 April 2003).
From the beginning, my dismissal was illegal, based on secret and
unproved allegations (29 March 1999). To insure my dismissal, more
secret accusations were solicited (9 June 1999) and secretly circulated
(14, 25 June 1999).
These illegal actions are fully documented. Why does Kao Chiang
claim the university has followed laws? Is it lawful to libel a
professor or solicit secret letters against him?
On 3 December 1999, the University Appeal Committee canceled my
dismissal, yet the university refused to issue my contract (27 December
1999). Instead, it returned my case for further “review,” claiming the
Teacher’s Law does not protect foreign teachers. This decision not only
defied the Teacher’s Law, Article 32, but also commonsense: A final
appeal that subjects an appellant to further review is pointless.
But this decision was a tactical maneuver that allowed the
committee to ignore countless legal violations and cancel my dismissal
on a single technicality, assuming another cycle of review hearings
would discourage me. These hearings lasted from the Department of
Foreign Languages Review meeting on 10 March 2000 to the University
Appeal decision on 18 August 2000, which concluded that the Teacher’s
Law does not protect foreign teachers.
On 8 January 2001, the MOE Appeal Committee canceled my dismissal
and boldfaced rights violations. In defiance of that ruling, NCKU
refused to issue a contract (27 March 2001).
The MOE sent eight letters, on 11 May, 14 June, 7 August, 27
August, 3 May 2002, 15 October, 2 December, 17 January 2003 ordering the
university to issue the contract. The university defied these letters.
How can a university defy the Ministry of Education and claim to be
following laws?
In contempt of the Ministry ruling, the NCKU Review Committee
repeated its dismissal action (12 September 2001), using accusations the
Ministry already rejected. These hearings, in defiance of the Ministry
ruling, were illegal and doubly improper, since the university had not
even issued me a contract.
Kao Chiang claims observance of law. What law allows a university
to use tax-paid money to investigate a teacher without legal basis?
On 18 June 2002, the NCKU Appeal Committee canceled my dismissal
and again refused me a contract. Instead, the university filed a
lawsuit at the Tainan District Court, claiming, in denial of the
Ministry ruling, “there is no employment relationship between the NCKU
and De Canio.” Indifferent to legal principles, the lawyer now
contested my right to appeal at all, although I had already won several
appeals and been subjected to countless appeal hearings.
On 11 October 2002, the Tainan District Court ruled that, “until a
legal dismissal, the employment relationship between the NCKU and De
Canio is valid and continues.”
On 14 November 2002, the university appealed to the Taiwan Higher
Court. The judge asked NCKU to settle. In response, on 22 January
2003, university officials tried to extort a “settlement” that violated
the legal substance of the Ministry ruling, offering partial salary if I
resigned from the university. Otherwise, the university threatened to
contest the case for years.
These officials are not only without a sense of law, but without a
sense of shame. Hiding behind committees, they forget that committees
are not above the law, but answerable to the law.
The university’s contempt for human rights is obvious to anyone
with a fourth-grade education. Kao Chiang’s claims to be following laws
suggest a tactical ploy of naivete. But ignorance of the law, real or
feigned, is no excuse in law, where transparency, not duplicity, is the
rule.
The law is “what the common citizen understands it to be.” A legal
ruling is not a word puzzle, except to those puzzled by recognized
standards of good faith and fair play, such as keeping one’s word,
respecting final rulings, and, where wrongs are committed, admitting
them. Officials, who, by law, represent these values, must first uphold
them. They should be more concerned about the loss of those values than
their loss of face.
The goal of appeal is to insure that justice prevails. But in a
university where rule by committees has replaced rule by law, illegal
hearings are used punitively, to harass and intimidate and force an
appellant’s resignation.
This case is now in its fifth year. It has affected my reputation,
medical care, income, and academic career. It has seriously undermined
confidence in administrative remedy at National Cheng Kung University.
Despite warnings from the Faculty Union, the Ministry of Education,
and the Taiwan courts, university officials, using tactical delays, have
cost taxpayers millions of dollars and recklessly discredited their
university. Abiding by neither moral principles nor a sense of shame,
they will not acknowledge the authority of the law until they stand in
judgment before it.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
No comments:
Post a Comment