Purdue University: Regarding human rights abuses (Sept 2 2009)

Cliff Wojtalewicz

Executive Assistant to the President

Purdue University

2 September 2009

Dear Dr. Wojtalewicz,

I was disappointed by your apparent lack of concern over human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University, with which Purdue University has had long-term academic exchanges. Perhaps this more detailed exposition of legal rights issues involved may help.
    In 2001, the MOE canceled my illegal dismissal (1999-2000), boldfacing, for emphasis, human rights violations.
    Instead of reinstating me, the university argued foreigners were not protected by the Teacher's Law, even though the university held appeal hearings and attended Ministry hearings! (See attached, 2.)
    The court ruled in my favor, but imposed no punitive damages on the university.
    Over more than two years, the Ministry of Education sent eight letters warning the university to issue me back and current contracts.
    Meanwhile I contacted the human rights group, Scholars at Risk, who contacted the university president, Kao Chiang. Mr. Kao "assured" Scholars at Risk the university was following laws, even though it refused to enforce a Ministry appeal ruling! To my knowledge, the university ignored a follow-up letter from Scholars at Risk urging explanation. (See attached, 2-5.)
    Even after the university was forced to issue me contracts in 2003, it imposed penalties, as if I had lost the case! (NCKU officials don't like to lose face.) Those penalties were overturned by the MOE.
    So far as I know, the Ministry of Education has not punished anyone. It even approved Kao Chiang for another term as president after he defied a legal Ministry ruling for more than two years!
    I have not received an official apology or compensation. This, it seems to me, is not the way a reputable university conducts itself nor should it be a basis for academic exchanges with an American university.
    I received no support from faculty, who sat on case-related hearings years after the MOE canceled the dismissal! Many received degrees from democratic institutions in America and England. They rely on legal rights abroad but ignore the rights of foreigners here. The Faculty Union supported me (see attached, 6-8) but has no legal or exemplary force.
    Currently several high university officials are American citizens or have benefited from American democratic values. They too have ignored my petitions to formally resolve this case with apologies, penalties, and compensation.
    The courts have imposed no penalties on officials, though the violations were egregious, willful, and defiant. Other court cases were a waste of time and money.
    In my suit against a student who wrote a secret accusatory letter, the court ruled it was not libel since no one outside the university read it! Yet the student's letter was secretly circulated at appeal and review hearings!
    My suit against Review Committee members who made unproved accusations was also dismissed on the basis that the accusations were not circulated outside the department!
    Another court ruled against compensatory damages (travel costs incurred to renew my visas), insisting there was no need for me to have stayed in Taiwan! Yet when an American left Taiwan during a child custody dispute, the court ruled that by leaving Taiwan the father proved he had no interest in the child and awarded custody to the mother!
    Taiwan's courts seem to take away with one hand the rights they give with the other. It reminds me of a line from a Shakespeare play, "I can call the dead too, but will they come?" Yes, you can sue powerful officials in Taiwan, but will you win?
    I won the contract case presumably because the court had to uphold a Ministry ruling or risk an international scandal. The wonder is it accepted the university's case at all, based on no acceptable legal principle! Still, the court imposed no punitive damages on the university and awarded no compensatory damages to me.
    Such rulings increase the risk among foreign faculty in Taiwan, who are less likely to fight for their rights. I believe a US court would have imposed millions of dollars in punitive damages on a university that behaved with such willful defiance as this university has.
    There are other issues of discrimination: Foreign faculty do not receive the same retirement benefits as Taiwanese. Taiwanese professors receive upwards from around NT$50,000 monthly on retirement while foreigners receive a lump sum far below what Taiwanese receive during normal life spans.
    Taiwan English-language newspapers, which preach independence "in the name of democracy" have ignored my letters as have Taiwan human rights groups. Meanwhile, Chinese-American academics seem indifferent to democratic principles once they become local officials.
    I'm not sure what can be done abroad. But these issues should not disappear without a trace. They should concern human rights activists, universities, and faculty abroad. American universities should not maintain academic exchanges with a university that flagrantly violates human rights and scorns human rights principles.
    Frankly I'm tired of Taiwanese who rely on human rights protections when they matriculate or teach abroad but ignore them when they return to Taiwan. Such duplicity is unfair. Academic exchanges should involve some degree of reciprocity.
    I write not only as a victim of human rights abuses in Taiwan but on behalf of all Americans who teach here who may have been, or will be, subject to similar abuses without redress.
    Under the circumstances, I can only hope for assistance from an American university with which NCKU has academic exchanges. Failing this, I must appeal to human rights activists in the United States.

    Sincerely,

    Richard de Canio
    Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
    National Cheng Kung University