To Dean of Student Affairs

5/5/2002 12:16 AM
Subject: FAX

4 May 2002

Dean Ko,
This is to inform you that the court has re-opened its inquiry into my
complaint against a current student at our university.
I am sending this fax to advise you against using this court inquiry to
suspend the university’s handling of my complaint. Unless there is a
specific university regulation concerning this matter, and this university
regulation does not conflict with Ministry of Education rulings, Taiwan
laws, or common sense, I would advise you against suspending your handling
of my complaint against this student.
I say "handling" of my complaint, rather than "investigation" with
deliberate intent. For there is nothing in the matter of my complaint that
needs to be investigated. Rather, the matter should be handled in a
strictly "pro forma," or routine manner. Therefore, even if there is a
ruling against parallel investigations, this matter does not fall under the
category of an investigation..
As I said, the facts speak for themselves. A student submitted a
letter to the university outside of regular channels. The letter contained
malicious accusations against a professor. There was no documentation for
these accusations. The letter was submitted in secret. It was submitted
many years after this student last took a course from the professor. It
concealed important (material) facts that contradict the student’s claims.
(She received three high passes from the accused professor and was invited,
even encouraged, to take back her exam on several occasions.) The dating of
the letter suggests it was solicited by university officials to insure the
professor’s dismissal following an improper dismissal action against him.
Finally, the letter was circulated at committee hearings that resulted in
the professor’s dismissal, a dismissal that, due to grievous legal
violations, was formally overturned by the Ministry of Education Appeals
Committee.
As a "pro forma" or routine matter, this student should be allowed
whatever defense she can make for her action, which may mitigate or
extenuate it, but is unlikely to justify it. Any other handling of my
complaint, in the manner of an "investigation" into the truth of this
student’s gossip, is morally wrong and legally improper.
I remind you, Dean Ko, you are Dean of Students. You are not Dean of
Student Gossip. Your office does not authorize you to investigate, much
less justify, malicious gossip against teachers or students.
If a student, for example, accuses another student of prostitution, you
are not thereby authorized to investigate the accused student’s background
to "prove" whether she is a prostitute or not. Indeed, as I suggested in
previous faxes, the act of investigating whether the student is a prostitute
brands her as one, whether she is or not. In the proper, which means legal,
exercise of your office, the limit and extent of your authority is to ask
the accusing student to submit legal documentation (police or court
records). Beyond this you are not authorized to go, whether by law or
common decency.
There is, however, one matter in this student’s letter that warrants an
investigation within the university’s legal jurisdiction and moral
responsibility. This student claimed she informed the chairman of the
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature of her complaint at the time
of her claim. If true, there should be an official record of her
complaint. If, however, there is no record, the former chairman should be
investigated. Unless he can justify his noncompliance with university
regulations, he should be sanctioned for it. For if this student’s
complaint had been properly handled, it could have been easily discredited
at the time. Thus the negligence of the former chairman (and current dean)
in handling this student’s complaint, not only presumably violated
university regulations, but inflicted grievous injury on a maligned
professor and continues to compromise the moral reputation of our
university.

Sincerely,

Professor Richard de Canio.