-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: | Letter to [Name omitted] |
|---|---|
| Date: | Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:42:44 -0700 |
| From: | Richard |
| To |
Dear [Name omitted],
Attached is a letter you signed claiming you would credit Lily Chen's word over mine. Yet her claim that she unfairly failed eight years before would be ludicrous to most rational people.
Worse,
This is especially so since you're on the Review Committee. Are you using the same standards to judge your colleagues in Review hearings that you used to judge me in this letter? Would you use the same standards as dean?
I'm curious what those standards were, because Lily deposed in court that I destroyed her exam. What "evidence" did you use? I thought people were presumed innocent and had to be proved guilty, rather than the other way around.
For the record, I did not destroy her exam. I wrote Lily a letter, offering to locate her exam in my office.
Lily ignored my letter. Years later, in 1999, she repeated her accusation in a letter secretly circulated at hearings that led to my dismissal!
Who sat on those committees? Not people from Mars or Mainland China, but citizens of Taiwan who expect Americans to die in defense of "Taiwan democracy."
I have no idea why you signed that letter or how (as you claim) you forgot doing so. You also claimed to forget accusing Professor [name omitted] of misusing university funds, though you finally admitted saying something like that.
Forgetting you did such things is worse than doing them. It suggests a reckless disregard for the reputation of colleagues—not a virtue in a dean.
In our phone talk, you disowned unethical practices. But consider the facts:
On 24 May 2001, you sat on a Review Committee meeting chaired by Li Chung-hsiung. Lily's letter was secretly circulated. How can I credit your claim you did not know about Lily Chen's case "until afterwards"?
You wish to be dean. One expects a university official to know, as well as enforce, legal principles.
You also said you defended me against the charge of plagiarism. But a meeting was held by the College of Liberal Arts at noon on 7 May 2003 on that issue.
You were among six members present. Official minutes show nobody protested the accusations.
You said you encouraged my colleagues to accept me, when you should have encouraged them to abide by principles of law instead. We can always live without people; we can't live without principles of law.
I quote from the Analects, chapter 24:
Tsze-kung asked, saying, "What do you say of a man who is loved by all the people of his neighborhood?" The Master replied, "We may not for that approve him." "And what do you say of him who is hated by all the people of his neighborhood?" The Master said, "We may not for that conclude he is bad. It is better than either of these cases that the good in the neighborhood love him, and the bad hate him."
Regarding your legal principles, as you boast, are they that principled? You say you said, "If" I failed Lily unfairly, "that's a serious accusation."
But where's the "if" when a student waits eight years to accuse a teacher and does it in secret? It's better to say, "If Kao Chiang defied a legal Ministry ruling, that's a serious accusation." But there's no "if" in that, since it's a plain fact he did so.
So when facts favor a person, you say "if," but when facts accuse a person, you don't say anything. But a dean must favor facts, and then stand up for them.
You also boast you defended a colleague accused of sexual assault because his accuser plagiarized. Was that a favor or a principled act? I wonder if it occurred to you the student's accusation might be true, regardless if she plagiarized.
That does not excuse lack of due process. But neither does it excuse your failure to defend principles of law rather than an individual.
The documented failure to observe legal principles at our university will undermine the credibility of NCKU as a legitimate academic institution. Committees routinely ignore due process, as you know, since you sat on those committees.
Yet decisions unanimously approved at our university are soundly rejected on Ministry appeal. Our committee members are ignorant of, indifferent to, or even contemptuous of law. This was clear when Kao Chiang defied a legal Ministry ruling for more than two years, then allowed an appellant who won an appeal to be "reviewed" again!
You boast hopefully of Mr. Kao's successor. But though the Ministry of Education has urged him to comply with its ruling, he has continued the stonewalling policies of his predecessor.
Deeply ingrained authoritarian habits prevent a fully rationalized enforcement of legal rights here. One committee member is recorded as having rebuked me for failing to admit accusations, though an appeal hearing is precisely set up to allow defense! (See Minutes, 7 May 2003.) Soon appellants will be given white penitent caps to wear, as during Mao's Cultural Revolution.
Due process is a wonderful thing. We don't know until it's too late.
As for your reputed ignorance, I am weary of colleagues who claim to know nothing of my case when people at other colleges and as far as Taipei know about it! How is that possible?
This case is now in its eighth year and involves blatant human rights abuses and contempt of law. Yet our colleagues seem more interested in holding dinner parties.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse before the law and, assuming a just God, it will be no excuse before God. But as for colleagues indifferent to the serious human rights issues involved in my case, or who boast ignorance about them, their votes may be enough to get you elected.
That's all I'll say on these issues. Despite your fervent denials over the phone, I must allow the evidence to speak for itself.
You may or may not wish to apologize for your actions, or even acknowledge them. I'll let the facts speak instead.
Nonetheless, I wish you well.
Sincerely,
Richard.
No comments:
Post a Comment