Subject: Regarding the case of the student involved in misconduct at
National Cheng Kung UniversityTo: moe
CC: Huei-chen Ko
Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education
13 October 2003
Dear Ministry of Education Officials,
I have just received an email from the Office of Student Affairs,
setting a date for an appointment for the student involved in serious
misconduct at our (National Cheng Kung) university in Tainan.
Based on that email, I strongly urge officials at the Ministry of
Education to remind Dean Ko Huei-chen of her duties as Dean of Student
Affairs at our university.
First, as I have repeatedly said, Dean Ko took far too much time
setting up this meeting. In fact she took more than two years. It should
not take more than two years for a dean to call a student to her office upon
request from a faculty member. When a faculty member wishes a supervised
meeting with a student that request should be honored within days if not the
same day of the request.
Second, from my understanding of Dean Ko's email, she claims this case
has been closed by the university. She appealed to a lawyer's
"interpretation." Please inform Dean Ko that our university is governed by
laws, not lawyers. Democracy is a government of laws, not lawyers.
Now there is no law so far as I know that could possibly prevent this
student from being censured for misconduct at our university. No court or
law prevents a parent, guardian, or administrator from setting ethical
standards of conduct, including incentives and penalties. Indeed, courts
and laws encourage parental and parietal guidance, instead of judicial
complaints, easing the burden on judicial resources. By not ruling on these
matters, courts are not saying they are of no social concern, but, rather,
that they are of such compelling concern that courts will not presume to
remove final jurisdiction from the disciplinary parties involved, whether
parents or school administrators.
The argument that this student would improve her behavior if she were
not censured is so unacceptable that I am certain there is no moral
philosopher or philosophy to cite in defense of it. Clearly a student
involved in misconduct of the magnitude that this student was involved in,
including a malicious letter that was circulated at hearings that resulted
in the dismissal of a professor, must be disciplined.
For those whose sympathies are easily aroused, I would like to remind
you that this was not the first offense of this nature committed by this
student. Although she refused to take back her exam at the time (1988 (?),
gossip was later reported to me that I failed this student unfairly. When I
phoned her about this gossip, in 1994 (?) she denied she was the source.
But a day later when I wrote her a letter asking her to sign to this effect,
she threatened to consult a lawyer. Although I should have pursued
punishment against her at that time, I compassionately decided not to. I
thought I had adequately disproved her claim and the case was finished. But
as soon as she thought I could not defend myself, she repeated her claim
(1999) all over again, in secret, confident she would never be exposed. The
idea that a student should be given countless chances like this is absurd.
She must be formally punished. She must admit she lied. She must
apologize. The irony is that if this case is exposed outside the university
the consequences may be more serious, both for the student and the
university.
In any case, the idea, sugested in Dean Ko's email, that I'm going to
resolve this case by socializing (having lunch) with a student who cost me
and colleagues four years of hard work to undo the damage that she was at
least partly responsible for is so absurd as to be beyond the rhetoric of
response.
Such a lunch of course is not out of the question, since I have always
prided myself on being both rational and compassionate. But compassion can
only occur within principles of justice. This is the very meaning of the
word "reciprocity," familiar in Chinese philosophy: one person produces an
apology and the other person receives it. Justice in this case requries a
straightforward apology and admission of wrongdoing. Dean Ko must accept
this principle before November 5, 2003.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
2757575-52235
(06) 237 8626
No comments:
Post a Comment