Kao Chiang
President
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
cc: Prime Minister, YU Shyi-kun
Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education
24 July 2003
Dear President Kao
Unfortunately, there seems to be a major communication problem
between us. It's the kind of
communication problem
between faculty and officials that is partly responsible for the
failure of educational reform in
Taiwan that is now being
discussed here in Taiwan.
Try to understand, your failure to respond to a serious issue of
human rights violations at our
university is also a sign of an
underlying problem of either negligent or incompetent officials
who, by their negligence or
incompetence, are impeding
advances in education.
Now the university made accusations against me in its first
dismissal, in 1999. Due to countless
human rights violations
committed by officials at our university, as well as
insubstantial proof, the Ministry rejected those
accusations in its ruling on
8 Janaury 2001.
It seems to me a final Ministry ruling should be respected as
final, not merely advisory. By defying
this ruling for more
than two years, you have shown disrespect for Ministry of
Education regulation and laws, for
Taiwan laws, for due process
of law, for human rights, for moral principles, and for
taxpayers' money. In addition, you have
shown scorn towards foreign
academics, towards your own colleagues from the Faculty Union who
repeatedly advised you to
follow laws, and to an
international human rights group that inquired into the case.
At the same time, your actions suggest indifference to the
general progress of education in
Taiwan, a progress that cannot
be separated from strict observance of administrative duties
under the law. Finally, by failing to
vigorously uphold laws in
defense of my rights and reputation, you have undermined my
reputation at this university.
Under no circumstances will I allow a university committee to
undermine the full legal benefits of a
superior ruling by the
Ministry of Education. I am entitled to the full benefits of that
ruling, including the conclusion of all
accusations rejected in
that ruling. If a university committee can disregard a Ministry
ruling, on whatever claim, then the
Ministry of Education
appeal is without value and, ultimately, the value of the
Ministry of Education as a regulatory
institution is undermined, as well
as all academic standards and accreditation imposed by that
Ministry.
National Cheng Kung University has been abusing committee
hearings for so long it's a travesty
of what due process is
supposed to be. A committee hearing was intended to be a sincere
review, based on impartial
accusations, vigorous
investigation and objective evidence, while observing due process
of law and the right of the
accused to a complete
defense. Instead, our university convened closed meetings, nade
reckless, unproved accusations
of which I was not even
informed beforehand; and then, when those accusations were
questioned, another secret letter
was circulated to insure my
dismissal. The secret letter claimed I failed a student eight
years before and the accusation was
accepted on no other basis
than the student's claim it was true.
Despite these egregious rights violations that would discredit a
bushiban, much less the so-called
"fourth-ranked
university in Taiwan," university officials show no contrition
following the Ministry Appeal
cancellation of my dismissal and no
gesture of apology, which is what any reputable administration
would have made promptly,
welcoming my return as a faculty
member.
Instead, the university tried to contest the appeal ruling as not
applying to foreign faculty. Yet I'm
from a country that has
guaranteed the survival of Taiwan and where the children of my
compatriots, possibly of my own
family, might end up dying
in defense of your country.
After defying the Ministry ruling for more than four years,
rather than issue an immediate formal
apology, university
officials promptly held a meeting to repeat the same accusations
rejected on Ministry appeal, as if
to show the Ministry of
Education and colleagues at our university that there is no law
in Taiwan; or, rather, university
officials are the law and
they can do whatever they want.
I suppose the message is: "All faculty had better be careful. We
can accuse you of anything we
want. Moreover, the
laws and Ministry of Education will not protect you. Or, if they
do, finally, it will not be worth the
wait; since so many years
will have passed before you win that you will have sacrificed
your career anyway."
It is this kind of docile, fearful, timid bunker mentality that
is retarding the progress of education in
Taiwan. All the laws,
all the well-intentioned proposals for education reform will not
mean anything so long as this
bunker mentality, where all
officials protect one another out of fear, survives at our
universities. The best laws, as well as the
best intentions, can be
corrupted by officials who, whether from fear or incompetence or
arrogant pride, fail to
implement them. These are, as an
editorial in The China Post said yesterday, committees that meet
without decisions or make
decisions without
implementation.
Let me remind you yet again, I was not reviewed once by your
committees, but countless times,
even after the Ministry
ruling, which would be called "abuse of power" or "abuse of
office" in my country and subject to
criminal prosecution. You
repeated accusations rejected on Ministry appeal immediately
after the ruling. When those
accusations were rejected, you
repeated them again immediately following your belated (and
partial) compliance with the
Ministry ruling in May. This is, in
the Chinese proverb, "death by a thousand cuts."
What university in a lawful society would defy the Ministry of
Education for more than two years?
In what lawful society
would the president of a university that did so remain in office?
In what lawful university would
committee hearings be
abused as they are at ours, as a tool of humiliation, constantly
subjecting a faculty member to
repeated unproved
accusations, even after a Ministry appeal ruling in his favor?
In your public speech the other day, you talked about not having
sufficient funds at our university.
Yet our university has
wasted countless millions of dollars on my illegal dismissal,
while defying a Ministry ruling. And
this despite eight warning
letters, advisory letters from an international human rights
group based in America, personal pleas
by members of the Faculty
Union, official letters from the Faculty Union, advice from the
Taiwan court, and repeated letters
from me.
Under the circumstances, do you think you should remain as
president of our university? Do you
think officials involved
in this misconduct, whether from negligence or incompetence or
malicious collaboration should go
unpunished? Do you
think taxpayers should pay several more millions of dollars
before this case is finally resolved,
with countless more meetings
at our university and in Taipei?
Your claim that you depend on committee decisions is
unacceptable. First, committee decisions
must abide by laws.
Since when is a committee allowed to assume judicial or
legislative functions, "interpreting" laws
and Ministry rulings? They
"interpret" laws in totalitarian countries, not in democratic
countries. In democratic and other
lawful countries they obey
laws.
First, a Ministry ruling is not subject to "review,"
"interpretation," or "approval" by a university
committee. If so, the
committe is law, not the ruling. And that's evidently the intent
of the May, 2003 meeting that
repeated accusations rejected
in the Ministry ruling and, only after that meeting, issued my
current contract. The intent was
evidently to tell the world that
the university is the final law in Taiwan and, "faculty beware."
Is this the way to insure a robust
and fearless faculty in order
to advance education reforms in Taiwan?
I will conclude by repeating what I have said in previous emails:
I expect this case to be resolved
within a reasonable
deadline of no more than days or at most weeks, including full
compensation; full retroactive
salary; a formal apology and
retraction of accusations; discipline of the student who wrote a
malicious and secret letter, a
formal nullification of the May
2003 university hearing; and formal consideration of the abuse I
suffered when I apply for
promotion this year. So long as
this case remains unresolved, I will use all legal channels
available to me to resolve it in the
shortest time possible.
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