Letter to the Chinese Association for Human Rights

10/1/2001 2:22 AM
Subject: Rights issue at National Cheng Kung
University
To: cahr@ms2.seeder.net


To: The Chinese Association for Human Rights

29 September 2001

Dear Association Chairperson,
I am taking the liberty of writing because of the exceptional
circumstances of my situation. I wish to bring to your attention rights
violations at National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan.
National Cheng Kung University is currently involved in a dispute
with the Ministry of Education concerning the issuance of a teaching
contract to me, following an appeal decision in my favor. The Ministry
of Education has admonished the university to issue the contract, based
on principles of law, but to no avail.
In addition, university committees, in defiance of the Ministry
decision, continue to convene to "investigate" me. In light of the
Ministry decision, these committees must be considered "legal fictions,"
intended to harass and humiliate me and finally induce my resignation
from the university.
The president of the university, Kao Chiang, claims no control over
these actions or the university's failure to issue the contract in
compliance with the Ministry ruling. This challenges belief in law at
National Cheng Kung University; for I know of no university in the
world, much less in a democracy, that can defy a legal judgment in this
way. Thus the university’s defiance of the Ministry ruling not only
scorns the law but the very principles of democracy on which Taiwan law
rests.
The university claims my appeal victory merely authorizes the
university to further investigate me. But if an appeal were not final,
it would be an exercise in futility. Why appeal if the best one could
hope for was to be allowed to appeal again?
The university used its full authority and resources to make a case
against me and failed. To claim it can try again until it succeeds
shows contempt for law as well as human rights. A true democracy
protects individuals from such abuses of power.
Taiwan professors are protected by laws when they teach in
democracies abroad; they are therefore obligated by the principle of
reciprocity, apart from the principle of law, to insure that foreign
professors in Taiwan are also protected.
Unfortunately, based on the evidence of this case, violations of
rights and democratic process at National Cheng Kung University are
routine:
In March of 1999, the Chair of the Department of Foreign Languages
and Literature dismissed me based on accusations that were not
investigated and of which I was not informed.
Similarly, the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts accepted secret
accusations against me. These were neither proved nor investigated nor
was I informed of them. But they were secretly circulated to several
committees to insure my dismissal.
In late 1999, I "won" a university appeal. But this was a tactical
action and the university "interpreted" it to mean that, as a foreigner,
I should be reviewed again. This enabled the university to delay
resolution of the case, with the possibility I would not be able to
survive in Taiwan to continue to fight it.
In addition, you can see where the university has a pattern of
violating principles of appeal. When I win an appeal, the university
"interprets" it to mean that I should be reviewed again! This is, of
course, worse than not having an appeal process at all, since the
appellant wastes both time and money to no end.
After two years contesting my dismissal, I won on appeal to the
Ministry of Education Appeal Committee, which issued a strongly worded
statement listing rights violations committed by university officials.
But the university continues to defy this decision, as well as laws
protecting rights of teachers regardless of nationality. At stake is not
only law, but honesty; for the university participated in the appeal
process but will not honor the appeal decision.
Instead, committee members at National Cheng Kung University continue
to investigate me, indifferent to the legal authority of the MOE ruling
or to my rights as a professor and dignity as an individual. These
committee members would not like it if their child, after winning an
appeal, was subject to further investigations for the same accusations.
Or, if having passed an exam, the child was told she must pass again.
The failure of moral and legal principles at National Cheng Kung
University is evident. Presumably university officials believe that if
they unite in defiance of the law, their defiant union can become a law
in itself. This is neither an enlightened nor a just nor a prudent
position to take. And it is certainly not a model for students to
follow. A majority can have laws passed but it cannot, with impunity,
undo the legal force of existing laws or legal judgments.
One would think university officials would know this. Yet what is
especially disturbing at National Cheng Kung University is that
impaneled faculty sitting on my case have almost unanimously scorned the
MOE decision. What does this say for the future of democracy in Taiwan
if even university officials, many of them educated in advanced
democracies abroad, scorn the law in this fashion?
That this scorn for legal rights and protections especially
profiles foreign teachers should arouse indignation in the larger
academic community. The alleged racial profiling of a Chinese-American
physicist in America aroused national concern there; yet I have received
no public advocacy here, despite a judicial ruling in my favor.
During the more than two years that I have appealed this case, I
have suspended my academic career; I have spent hundreds of thousands of
dollars in living expenses, while my bank account has dwindled; my
medical insurance has been suspended, compromising my health care; my
teaching pension from ten years of teaching at National Cheng Kung
University is threatened; and I have had to renew my visa countless
times, taking numerous trips outside of Taiwan, adding additional
expenses during a period when I have had no income.
In addition, sympathetic colleagues have dedicated countless hours to
effect a justice that university officials appear to be ignorant of, or
indifferent to, despite their tax-paid positions. We have persevered in
the face of anonymous letters to visa offices to deny me a visa and to
the university personnel office to have me expelled from university
housing, presumably to abort a just resolution of this case.
Yet, after two and a half years appealing to the law, the university
refuses to honor the law. Indeed, university officials have repeatedly
informed me either they do not know the laws or do not care about them.
This is evident by their actions.
A democracy is not only a government of laws, but of law, which is to
say the routine and impartial execution of laws on the books.
University officials cannot fail to realize that the Taiwan government
will indemnify and insure my teaching contract and all related
compensation, as a democratic government is bound to do by law. Thus
the obstinacy of these officials, including the university president,
will not only discredit themselves, but the university whose reputation
they are obligated to protect.
Still, they appear to be indifferent to these concerns. Perhaps they
feel that, as university officials, they are above the law; perhaps they
doubt the reality of Taiwan law. .
I, however, do not doubt Taiwan democracy. I trust that Taiwan’s
government will insure and indemnify the rights of American citizens no
less than the rights of Taiwan citizens are guaranteed under American
law. Still, I hope that both government and humanitarian officials
recognize that, especially as a foreigner, I cannot be expected to
effect a just resolution to this case myself; I depend, like Taiwan
citizens living abroad, on both government officials and public
advocates.

Sincerely,

Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University.
(06) 237 8626