Letter to NCKU president, Kao Chiang

Subject:
ATTN: President Kao Chiang, regarding legal rights abuses at
National Cheng Kung University
Date:
Mon, 09 Jun 2003 23:23:17 -0700
To:
Kao Chiang , moe
,

[Enclosed email, 9 June 2003]

President Kao Chiang,
National Cheng Kung University

Cc: Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education

9 June 2003

Dear President Kao

I am writing this email to protest the May 2003 University hearing
related to my dismissal case in 1999. According to official minutes,
committee members concluded I committed plagiarism.
First, all issues related to my July 1999 dismissal were formally
resolved in a Final Ministry Appeal ruling issued on 8 January 2001. I
urge you to respect that final ruling in accordance with law.
Necessarily, all accusations formally rejected on final appeal are also
final or the appeal itself would not be final.
The university's presumption to "review" me again not only defies
the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001. It ignores the history of legal
rights abuses committed by university officials since the first
dismissal action at the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
"review" meeting in March 1999, chaired by Lee Ching-Hsiung.
I find it ironic that officials who committed these violations have
not even been subjected to formal university review; while I, who won a
Ministry appeal ruling after formal university review, have been
subjected to repeated review. I remind you of the facts, beginning with
the first department "review":
I was never informed of the meeting. I was not invited to it. I
was not informed of accusations. I was not allowed to defend myself
against them. The accusations were never investigated or proved.
Nonetheless my dismissal passed. Instead of canceling my
dismissal, Dean Tu Yung-Ching, who chaired the college committees,
accepted a secret (and presumably solicited) letter, which subsequently
circulated at higher committees to insure my dismissal.
Professor Lee Chen-er chaired the final university committee and
thrice ignored me when I mentioned the secret letter. Despite this
secret letter, the university appeal committee upheld my dismissal,
until the Ministry of Education rejected it and bold-faced legal rights
violations.
It would be questionable to contest a Final Ministry ruling if
university officials observed laws in the first place. But to contest a
Final Ministry ruling in view of countless legal rights violations is
indefensible.
I remind you that the university's defiance of the Ministry ruling
for more than two years not only denied me my rights. From my
understanding of law, no official has a right to impede, obstruct, or
otherwise delay the course of justice, including the prompt execution of
government rulings. Indeed, in America, a lawyer who advised a client
to do so would be disbarred.
Let me also remind you that delay in compliance with the Ministry
ruling undermined the reputation of the university, compromised the
Ministry of Education, and cost taxpayers money. As president of a
public university, you should accept responsibility for this.
An official of a university is responsible to the law. The case at

Hoping Hospital tragically illustrates this. Committee rulings are no
defense. Democracy is rule by law, not committee. If laws are ignored,

there is no point to committee hearings, except harassment of an
appellant and his humiliation.
The plagiarism accusation shows this. The university refused to
investigate, although I offered to submit evidence to Dean Tu at the
College hearing. After I won the Ministry ruling, and in defiance of
that ruling, the university solicited three outside readers, two of whom

were discredited. Then the university presumably solicited three more
readers and used this as a basis of yet another committee ruling four
years after the first case. True to form, the university neglected to
invite my defense at this meeting in May!
Not that it would have changed things: Administrative remedy is not

a party game of hit and miss and try again. An appellant has limited
resources. The law recognizes this and limits the exercise of unequal
power. Beyond this is abuse of power.
Will university violations bear scrutiny in the Legislative Yuan?
I doubt it.
Now whether I like it or not, as an American professor at National
Cheng Kung University, the burden of protecting the rights of American
professors has fallen on me. I am committed to defending those rights
at our university. In view of this commitment, I advise the following:

First, the university ruling that I committed plagiarism be
formally and promptly nullified.
Second, the case of the student who submitted a secret and false
accusation against me be formally resolved, with an apology from this
student, an admission of complicity, and official penalty.
Third, compensation related to this case, including travel costs,
court costs, and full salary be made. The argument that a professor who

is illegally dismissed is owed half salary on reinstatement is absurd.
In view of countless legal rights violations committed by university
officials at our university, I doubt if this policy can be defended at a

legislative hearing in Taipei.
Fourth, a formal apology and acknowledgment of wrongdoing by the
university is necessary.
Fifth, special consideration of the four-year interruption to my
academic career should be given when I apply for promotion to full
professorship next year.
As you know, I have a full teaching schedule at our university next

academic year. I also have commitments this summer. Therefore, please
contact a member of the Faculty Union to effect negotiations promptly.
The travesty of law at National Cheng Kung University has gone on long
enough. I expect these matters to be resolved by the end of June.
Beyond then, I will use legal channels outside the university.

Sincerely,

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