7/31/2002 6:53 AM
Subject: Rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University, in
TainanTo: mail@mail.moe.gov.tw
CC: rquinn@midway.uchicago.edu
Dr. J.-T. Huang
Minister of Education
Ministry of Education
Taipei, Taiwan
Cc: Dr. Robert Quinn, Scholars at Risk
Professor Ray Dah-tong, National Cheng Kung University
Professor Paul Chow, National Chi-Nan University
30 July 2002
Dear Minister Huang,
As you know, in January, 2001, I was awarded a Ministry decision,
canceling my dismissal from National Cheng Kung University. I have yet
to receive the benefits of that ruling, despite several subsequent
letters from the Ministry of Education advising the university to issue
me a retroactive teaching contract.
I do not see how this delay can be tolerated in a lawful society.
Either the university is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of
Education or it isn’t. It is no good having laws on the book if those
laws are not executed.
In addition, a lawful Ministry appeal ruling should be fully
indemnified; which is to say, its benefits guaranteed by the government
agency that sanctioned the appeal process in which both university
officials and I participated. Yet a ruling indefinitely deferred is no
ruling at all.
Please understand that not only is the reputation of a foreign
professor at stake, but the reputation of Taiwan universities as well.
For if National Cheng Kung University can be allowed to defy a Ministry
ruling in this way, there is no reason to suppose that any regulation or
law, either of the Ministry or a branch university, has any legal
binding effect. If a university is under no binding legal obligations
to
a superior educational agency, then it is no better than a
“fly-by-night” mail order business that markets degrees.
The process of academic exchanges should also be of concern. For
if university laws and Ministry sanctions seem unable to protect the
reputation of a foreign professor in Taiwan, not only does this violate
the principle of reciprocity, but it also jeopardizes future foreign
exchanges, since no foreign professor will risk his academic career by
teaching even one year in Taiwan.
As it is, few professors will have confidence in a judicial process
that, after more than three years, is still pending. How many foreign
professors will be willing to defend their careers by contesting a
discriminatory dismissal for this number of years? Just staying in the
country long enough would discourage most scholars. And make no
mistake, the university unethically prolongs these cases knowing this.
Money and health problems complicate matters. Finally,
bureaucratic paperwork inflicts further hardship. I have had to pick up
countless registered deliveries from different post offices. Sometimes
just locating a new post office and finding my way there takes up much
of a morning or afternoon.
Even after the Ministry ruling in my favor, which should have ended
the case, I’ve had to pick up numerous registered documents, sent with
bureaucratic tenacity, stating that my case has been returned to the
department or an investigation has been suspended pending court action
or yet another appeal meeting is scheduled, only to learn that the
appeal committee has returned the case back to the department. This is
not justice. This is not law. This is a mockery of both.
The fact is, without the support of only a very few individuals of
exceptional moral character, and dedicated to moral principles over
political pressures (“relationships”), I would have had no chance. The
question is, will foreign faculty be willing to take a chance on their
own?
You know as well as I that the principle of reciprocity is a
fundamental pride of Chinese culture. And, indeed, this principle was
invoked fairly recently when the Mexican government marked Taiwan
citizens as immigration risks. The Taiwan government retaliated almost
immediately, suspending previous privileges to Mexican businessmen.
Admirable as observance of this principle is, why is it observed only on
behalf of Taiwan citizens and not observed as a general moral principle
governing foreigners too?
Because even a bare outline of violations committed in the
university’s case against me should arouse moral indignation in anyone
concerned about legal rights. These violations go back to the beginning
of my case, in March 1999. Recently, the Vice-Dean of Student Affairs,
admitted several times to me that the accusatory student letter that
secretly circulated at several committee hearings in 1999 was actually
solicited, by testimony of this student.
In other words, at a College hearing supposedly convened for the
purpose of ruling on the legality of the department's dismissal action,
a secret and malicious letter was solicited for the express purpose of
assuring that dismissal. This admission, in itself, apart from all
other legal violations in my case, is a serious offense, subject,
elsewhere, to criminal and civil prosecution.
Please understand the reputation, career, and livelihood of a
foreign professor is at stake. University officials are not supposed to
solicit malicious letters about a colleague. This is not only an abuse
of power; but, since the letter was secretly circulated at several
appeal hearings, it indicates a larger conspiracy, involving the moral
integrity of our faculty and thus the moral credibility of our
university.
Obviously the letter was intended to “save” a case that officials
knew had no substance. After all, the department’s accusations were
never investigated; nor was I informed of them or allowed a defense.
Not being able to win their case according to law, officials used
tactics they seem to value above due process of law.
But besides improper (I would say “criminal”) solicitation, the
letter was itself improper and patently malicious. One committee member
claimed that no rational person would accredit such a letter, but that
less rational persons might. Indeed, a Ministry official informed me,
twice, that she thought it “incredible” the university would accredit
such a complaint.
Apart from legal issues, the letter has been strongly discredited,
based on my own documentation and the student’s testimony, including her
recent admission the letter was solicited. But in enjoining remedial
action against this student (currently a doctoral candidate at our
university), I am challenged by countless legal technicalities,
including legal action against her (the university claims an internal
investigation must be suspended during legal action) and (most recently)
the fact that, although a current student, she was not a student when
she submitted her letter!
I of course applaud observance of laws in any situation. However,
I find it disconcerting, if not insulting, that laws are indifferently
ignored to wrong me but conscientiously and studiously observed when I
try to right those wrongs.
Thus, however reprehensible the behavior of this student, greater
moral culpability (not to mention legal liability) lies with the
university. For university officials accredited such a letter in the
first place; they kept it secret; they circulated it; finally, they
repeatedly colluded to effect, and then defend, a dismissal that would
be universally recognized as an outrageous violation of human rights.
Furthermore, this is consistent with the university’s
discriminatory policies against foreign faculty, including the claim
that foreign faculty aren’t protected by the Teacher’s Law (a claim
rejected by the Ministry of Education).
The discriminatory policies at National Cheng Kung University are
documented by administrative actions related to my illegal dismissal:
In 1999, all foreign faculty were reviewed, regardless of tenure or
professorship, and these “evaluations” (including derogatory remarks)
were circulated in all mailboxes, discrediting us among our Chinese
colleagues. (There is no evidence Chinese faculty were similarly
treated.)
The appeal process is currently used deviously, suspending
decisions favoring a foreign appellant indefinitely. But an appeal
without terminal resolution is a mockery of democratic process.
Officials abused their power, using public money to repeatedly
“review” me, even after its own Ministry rejected these accusations.
Officials claimed in court, despite countless appeal hearings
intended to harass and humiliate me, and despite its own participation
in the Ministry appeal, that foreign teachers have no right to appeal.
Officials have repeatedly defied Ministry letters enjoining the
issuance of a teaching contract in compliance with law (not to mention
universal principles of appeal, by which material benefits follow a
favorable ruling).
Incredibly, regular faculty allow this hijacking of university
policy by a few individuals, including a president and his counsel, who
persist in noncompliance with a Ministry ruling and in defiance of
universal legal and moral principles (“executing the law,” “honoring
one’s word,” “respecting human rights,” etc.). Committee members,
without protest, continue to sit in review of a colleague despite a
Ministry ruling in his favor. Although sitting on committees, some
officials have told me they do not know the law or care about it. And,
having sat, they are not certain of the decision until it is written up
by the committee chair!
Under the circumstances, it’s ridiculous to claim democratic
process at National Cheng Kung University. What good is sitting on
committees if the committees are in defiance of a Ministry ruling? What
good is sitting on committees if members don’t know a decision until the
chair writes it? And what good is being a committee member or chair or
president if there is no regard for the law? It’s no good espousing
democratic principles at international conferences if faculty don’t
espouse them at home; and it’s no good requesting international support
of democracy in Taiwan if faculty don’t support it themselves.
Most recently a university committee canceled my dismissal and yet
again returned the case to my department. How can a committee cancel a
dismissal that was canceled by the Ministry of Education in a legal
appeal ruling? How can a committee cancel a dismissal and then return
it back to the department, actually suspending a final appeal decision
indefinitely? Moreover, the Personnel Office argues it cannot issue a
contract unless the department issues it; meanwhile, the department
chair claims it is the responsibility of the Personnel Office.
Meanwhile, the president of the university, who claims he is unable to
understand the Ministry ruling, has just returned from abroad, doubtless
encouraging foreign exchanges.
I remind you that a university not governed by moral principles has
no foundation on which to establish an academic reputation. Besides the
principle of reciprocity fundamental to academic exchanges, a university
that scorns moral standards undermines confidence in the equity of its
research standards, monetary allocations, grading, and promotions.
Meanwhile its faculty, permitting this, behave more like confederates
protecting their own narrow interests than colleagues advancing the
public interest.
Respectfully,
Professor Richard de Canio
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626.
No comments:
Post a Comment