Letter to NCKU president, Kao Chiang

Subject:
ATTN: Legal Rights Abuses at National Cheng Kung University
Date:
Sun, 15 Jun 2003 15:18:15 -0700

To:
Kao Chiang
CC:
moe

President Kao Chiang
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

cc: Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education

15 June 2003

Dear President Kao,

In your last email (12 June 2003) you advise that the "right
procedure" is to discuss the disputed university hearing with
Dean of Academic Affairs, Su Yan-Kuin, who chaired the committee.
I am puzzled why you refer to a "right procedure" when wrong
procedures are routine at our university, beginning with
my illegal dismissal in 1999. Are you claiming that secret letters and
unproved accusations are "right procedure"? It seems
the only time a "right procedure" is mentioned is when a petitioner
tries to right wrongs committed against him.
For example, without investigation, in 1999 a college dean accepted
a secret student letter complaining about a grade she
received eight years before. Yet when the professor tries
administrative remedy against the student, officials use terms such
as "rights," "proof," "investigation," "facts," and other claims of
"right procedure."
Why weren't these terms used to protect the teacher in the first
place, instead of using them only to protect the student
who wronged him? Instead, I'm assured that "God will punish the
student." I am certain the official who said that would not
rely on God's justice if his relative suffered similar abuse in America.

Indeed, an official who appeals to God's justice when his duties
require routine justice should be dismissed. But then,
based on a documented history of abuses at our university, many
officials should be dismissed. The fact that this, indeed,
has not yet happened is not praiseworthy. It shows serious shortcomings
in administrative remedy at our university and has
already discredited our university. It reflects poorly when a foreign
professor is presumed guilty, while officials who brazenly
violate Ministry and Taiwan laws are presumed innocent.
As Confucius argued, before there can be justice, one must "rectify
the names." As I understand it, this means to use
words correctly, not deviously; as if to speak of "square vases"; or
final appeals that are not final; or "interpretations" of the
law that are audaciously scornful of common sense.
Once we "rectify the names," the only "right procedure" is justice
based on laws as they are commonly understood.
Prices in a menu indicate local currency, whether currency symbols are
printed or not. No Taiwan citizen would gobble
down a lobster dinner then argue that he "interprets" the price in
weaker currency, or even play money.
Yet why not? According to our officials, my appeal was merely
"play." And, like children, they seem to enjoy the game
so much they want to continue playing it. Unfortunately, not until
these officials or their relatives are treated the same way in
other countries will they realize that rights upheld for others today
protects them tomorrow.
I will not rehearse the history of abuses in this case again. That
will be done through other channels of legal remedy.
I conclude by reminding you that the only "right procedure" is to
uphold laws at our university, not to protect officials who
violate laws or to pass the responsibility to others.

Sincerely,

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