Michael Ming-Chiao Lai
President
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
November 28, 2010
Dear President Lai,
The recent ping pong edits on Wikipedia on the National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) page concerning my entry on Human Rights violations at National Cheng Kung University is, apart from other recognized reasons, a case in point of the necessity for NCKU to formally apologize for human rights violations the university committed at this university at least beginning in 1999 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cheng_Kung_University). Remarkably, despite sourcing of Taiwan court and Ministry of Education formal decisions, linked to my Wikipedia entry on the NCKU page, as recently as today my sources were challenged and the human rights violations committed by NCKU officials were called "allegations" instead of facts.
An allegation is, by definition, an accusation that has not yet been verified either empirically or juridically as a fact. Few things on our planet can be empirically verified as "facts," and some still question evolution or the authorship of Shakespeare's plays. But in a democracy we do agree on one thing: namely juridical decisions, at least pending appeal, in cases where appeal is still possible.
Now my illegal dismissal was declared illegal by both Taiwan's Ministry of Education as well as by Taiwan's courts. This, in a democracy, is as much juridical closure as it's possible to get. To challenge even judicial decisions, especially in the case of my dismissal where illegal procedures were fairly blatant and self-evident, is obstinacy.
I find it disheartening that Taiwan citizens would start an immediate protest over the apparent injustice suffered by a Taiwan citizen, Ms. Yang Shu-chun, even advocating a boycott of South Korean goods, and going so far as to throw eggs at a South Korean school in Taipei and yet greet my case, proved beyond a reasonable doubt, with indifference. Of course, I am entirely sympathetic with Ms. Yang, and, beyond her, to the dignity of Taiwan, if indeed Ms. Yang was treated unjustly or even negligently. But bear in mind, technically (that is, juridically) accusations of injustice against Ms. Yang are still allegations, until a final and formal ruling is made; and even that ruling may be challenged. The point is that merely on the appearance of injustice against a Taiwan citizen, Ms. Yang's fellow citizens took to the streets and insured their vocal protest would be heard.
But there's no mere appearance of injustice against me; it's a fact by reasonable juridical standards (i.e official rulings by Taiwan's court and Ministry of Education). Yet NCKU officials continue to refuse to issue a formal apology or compensation or even admit wrongdoing. Apparently, in a revisionist purge of my case, no injustice ever happened.
Now so long as NCKU continues its policy of refusing to admit human rights violations, apologize for them, and compensate for them, edits such as happened today on Wikipedia when my human rights entry on the National Cheng Kung University page was removed (though I have since reverted it) will continue to occur. Perhaps Americans should respond to my illegal dismissal the way that Taiwanese responded to the apparent injustice suffered by Ms. Yang at the Taekwondo Olympics in South Korea: make vocal protests against Taiwan, advocate a boycott of Taiwan goods, and insure termination of American academic exchanges with all Taiwan universities.
Apart from the human rights issues involved, I cannot accept the disrespect I have been shown as an American professor by official indifference over the human rights that were violated in my case. Apparently you have the time for photo shoots with students to advertise NCKU as an academic institution but don't have the time to respond to a serious issue of human rights violations that, if one includes the need for a formal apology and compensation as guaranteed by international human rights charters, has lasted for eleven years!
Once again I urge American universities that maintain academic exchanges with National Cheng Kung University in Tainan to review their bylaws and other relevant laws that might interdict such exchanges based on proved human rights violations. I have already sent necessary documentation, in both Chinese and English, including official Taiwan court and Ministry rulings and these are also available on my human rights blog (http://rdca45.blogspot.com/) and linked on the Wikipedia page for National Cheng Kung University, since I "reverted" the deleted entry as of today.
I encourage you once again to take human rights principles seriously at National Cheng Kung University; to abide by international human rights charters that your president recently formally endorsed; to abide by principles of reciprocity that insures fair and equal treatment of Taiwan students and faculty in the US; and to govern the university by reasonable standards of law and human rights.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
formerly Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Wikipedia Edit, 28 November 2010
Dear Jac,
Will you please explain why my Human Rights entry on the National Cheng Kung University page was removed for being "poorly sourced"? I don't understand. It's been on for weeks now. It's completely sourced, in both Chinese and English, with official court and Ministry of Education documents. Your removal came on the same day when an editor pushed my human rights entry further down the page with this comment:
(cur | prev) 00:37, 28 November 2010 128.232.134.168 (talk) (8,868 bytes) (Moved "Human rights record" section further down the page becuase it seems less important than much of the other content, and of less interest to the general reader.) (undo)
I commented on his Talk Page:
User talk:128.232.134.168
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Re: your comment: (Moved "Human rights record" section further down the page becuase it seems less important than much of the other content, and of less interest to the general reader.)
I don't understand your point of view: what is more important than human rights, especially for a university, which can only stand on moral integrity and human rights. Without human rights on what basis can a university stand: Without the insurance of human rights, how can a university insure the integrity of grading, of the curriculum, of academic promotion? That's why tenure was established at many universities in the first place. Do you really think human rights is of lesser importance than how many colleges there are at a university? Human rights may not be of primary importance in Mainland China, but it should certainly be of primary importance at a university in Taiwan, which calls itself a democracy and which has only recently formally endorsed international human rights charters. --Cincinattus (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Your comment was:
(cur | prev) 00:58, 28 November 2010 Jac16888 (talk | contribs) (7,237 bytes) (→Human Rights Record: rm poorly sourced allegations) (undo)
But how can these be "poorly sourced allegations"? They're not even "allegations" in the stric legal sense of that word. A person "allegedly" committed a crime until he's convicted; then it's legally justified to say that person committed that crime. An allegation is an accusation that has not been verified. But both court and Ministry of Education documents have fully verified my statement, which therefore cannot be called mere "allegations."
If these were indeed "allegations" they would have been removed immediately as soon as I posted them, but they were not, once I "sourced" the claims with legal documents (and if court and Ministry of Education rulings and letters are not "legal" then I don't understand what currency the word "legal" has on Wikipedia. Why was my entry left on for seeks after I "sourced" it then removed on the same day that user 128.232.134.168 thought legal rights "less important" and of "less interest"? First, human rights are of primary importance to a university, or at least should be. If 128.232.134.168 thinks otherwise, he or she has a right to that opinion; but I doubt it would be shared by most academics. And I'm not sure if a university should establish itself on what's interesting or uninteresting. I think a university should establish itself on what's just or unjust. The recent incident regarding Ms. Yang Shun-chun shows how sensitive the issue of injustice can be in Taiwan, or does the issue of justice just pertain to Taiwanese and not to foreigners?
But evidently the agenda of 128.232.134.168 is different from mine, so I'll address the main issue here to you. Please Jac, explain to me what you mean by "unsourced" and why this claim was made only now and not before when the sourcing has not changed since it was first entered no later than November 7, 2010. Thanks for your consideration, Jac.
--~~~~
Will you please explain why my Human Rights entry on the National Cheng Kung University page was removed for being "poorly sourced"? I don't understand. It's been on for weeks now. It's completely sourced, in both Chinese and English, with official court and Ministry of Education documents. Your removal came on the same day when an editor pushed my human rights entry further down the page with this comment:
(cur | prev) 00:37, 28 November 2010 128.232.134.168 (talk) (8,868 bytes) (Moved "Human rights record" section further down the page becuase it seems less important than much of the other content, and of less interest to the general reader.) (undo)
I commented on his Talk Page:
User talk:128.232.134.168
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Re: your comment: (Moved "Human rights record" section further down the page becuase it seems less important than much of the other content, and of less interest to the general reader.)
I don't understand your point of view: what is more important than human rights, especially for a university, which can only stand on moral integrity and human rights. Without human rights on what basis can a university stand: Without the insurance of human rights, how can a university insure the integrity of grading, of the curriculum, of academic promotion? That's why tenure was established at many universities in the first place. Do you really think human rights is of lesser importance than how many colleges there are at a university? Human rights may not be of primary importance in Mainland China, but it should certainly be of primary importance at a university in Taiwan, which calls itself a democracy and which has only recently formally endorsed international human rights charters. --Cincinattus (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Your comment was:
(cur | prev) 00:58, 28 November 2010 Jac16888 (talk | contribs) (7,237 bytes) (→Human Rights Record: rm poorly sourced allegations) (undo)
But how can these be "poorly sourced allegations"? They're not even "allegations" in the stric legal sense of that word. A person "allegedly" committed a crime until he's convicted; then it's legally justified to say that person committed that crime. An allegation is an accusation that has not been verified. But both court and Ministry of Education documents have fully verified my statement, which therefore cannot be called mere "allegations."
If these were indeed "allegations" they would have been removed immediately as soon as I posted them, but they were not, once I "sourced" the claims with legal documents (and if court and Ministry of Education rulings and letters are not "legal" then I don't understand what currency the word "legal" has on Wikipedia. Why was my entry left on for seeks after I "sourced" it then removed on the same day that user 128.232.134.168 thought legal rights "less important" and of "less interest"? First, human rights are of primary importance to a university, or at least should be. If 128.232.134.168 thinks otherwise, he or she has a right to that opinion; but I doubt it would be shared by most academics. And I'm not sure if a university should establish itself on what's interesting or uninteresting. I think a university should establish itself on what's just or unjust. The recent incident regarding Ms. Yang Shun-chun shows how sensitive the issue of injustice can be in Taiwan, or does the issue of justice just pertain to Taiwanese and not to foreigners?
But evidently the agenda of 128.232.134.168 is different from mine, so I'll address the main issue here to you. Please Jac, explain to me what you mean by "unsourced" and why this claim was made only now and not before when the sourcing has not changed since it was first entered no later than November 7, 2010. Thanks for your consideration, Jac.
--~~~~
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Advisory on Academic Exchanges with National Cheng Kung University
Dear University Administration,
I assume you currently maintain academic exchanges with National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan. In view of documented human rights abuses over more than ten years at that university (see the Wikipedia English-language entry for National Cheng Kung University at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cheng_Kung_University), unresolved to the present day, your university may wish to reconsider academic exchanges with this university, or even if continued exchanges with this university might violate ethical principles or laws, statutes, or bylaws of your university administration or the regional accreditation institute.
Certainly continued exchanges with a university that defies basic principles of human rights is not in the best interests of a university. Additionally if human rights violations are tolerated here then on what consistent basis can a university terminate exchanges with another university that also violates human rights?
In 1999, a defamatory letter was secretly circulated at several "oversight" committees to insure an illegal dismissal started in the Department of Foreign Languages. Presumably NCKU "oversight" committees were determined to exculpate their colleagues rather than protect the rights of the appellant.
After that dismissal was canceled in December 1999, the university claimed foreign teachers were not protected by the Teachers Law (patently false, as Wikipedia links show), so the case was now punitively treated as a pending hiring action instead of a canceled dismissal action, jeopardizing the teacher's employment on a new basis. This violates the principle of appeal, namely that one benefits from a favorable ruling, or why appeal?
The university subsequently held "appeal" and "review" hearings at which the secret letter was circulated, and attended hearings at the Ministry of Education. When it lost the case, it then claimed foreigners had no right to appeal!
At least in US law the legal principle of estoppel prevents such duplicity, where a legal claim contradicts a previously established legal agreement (namely, my right to appeal, or why would the university hold appeal hearings and attend them in Taipei?).
Whether estoppel is observed under Taiwan law is beside the point. The university's action violated the basic principles of honesty and good faith. Grade school kids ("sore losers") are expected to act like this, but not university officials! If the university violates these basic principles of fair play how can it expect its students to abide by them? Or how, on that basis, can it expect to maintain academic exchanges with universities in democracies abroad?
When the university could not win at the Ministry level it then filed a lawsuit! When it lost the lawsuit it then appealed and delayed enforcing the Ministry ruling in the meantime, using the pending court appeal as a new tactic to deny retroactive contracts and reinstatement.
In fact two NCKU officials tried to intimidate me saying the university would delay the case indefinitely in the courts unless I resigned! This is AFTER I won a legal Ministry ruling based on hearings university officials attended and never contested! Apart from obvious ethical principles, this violates another legal principle of US law, that a party cannot make a claim it failed to make at the appropriate time.
After eight warning letters from the Ministry of Education (see my Human Rights blog at http://rdca45.blogspot.com/), the university finally complied with the Ministry ruling dated 8 January 2001 in May 2003, nearly two and a half years later! Scholars at Risk, an international human rights group now based in New York, also sent two letters.
Presumably the university thinks it's a law unto itself. This is okay if you follow higher laws (Jesus, Buddah, Confucius, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr.) but not if you ignore them. And I see no rational excuse for ignoring the constitutional laws of one's own country, assuming they don't violate higher principles (equality under the law, basic freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, etc.). Moreover, these are laws university officials never contested until they lost the case.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Formerly Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
I assume you currently maintain academic exchanges with National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan. In view of documented human rights abuses over more than ten years at that university (see the Wikipedia English-language entry for National Cheng Kung University at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cheng_Kung_University), unresolved to the present day, your university may wish to reconsider academic exchanges with this university, or even if continued exchanges with this university might violate ethical principles or laws, statutes, or bylaws of your university administration or the regional accreditation institute.
Certainly continued exchanges with a university that defies basic principles of human rights is not in the best interests of a university. Additionally if human rights violations are tolerated here then on what consistent basis can a university terminate exchanges with another university that also violates human rights?
In 1999, a defamatory letter was secretly circulated at several "oversight" committees to insure an illegal dismissal started in the Department of Foreign Languages. Presumably NCKU "oversight" committees were determined to exculpate their colleagues rather than protect the rights of the appellant.
After that dismissal was canceled in December 1999, the university claimed foreign teachers were not protected by the Teachers Law (patently false, as Wikipedia links show), so the case was now punitively treated as a pending hiring action instead of a canceled dismissal action, jeopardizing the teacher's employment on a new basis. This violates the principle of appeal, namely that one benefits from a favorable ruling, or why appeal?
The university subsequently held "appeal" and "review" hearings at which the secret letter was circulated, and attended hearings at the Ministry of Education. When it lost the case, it then claimed foreigners had no right to appeal!
At least in US law the legal principle of estoppel prevents such duplicity, where a legal claim contradicts a previously established legal agreement (namely, my right to appeal, or why would the university hold appeal hearings and attend them in Taipei?).
Whether estoppel is observed under Taiwan law is beside the point. The university's action violated the basic principles of honesty and good faith. Grade school kids ("sore losers") are expected to act like this, but not university officials! If the university violates these basic principles of fair play how can it expect its students to abide by them? Or how, on that basis, can it expect to maintain academic exchanges with universities in democracies abroad?
When the university could not win at the Ministry level it then filed a lawsuit! When it lost the lawsuit it then appealed and delayed enforcing the Ministry ruling in the meantime, using the pending court appeal as a new tactic to deny retroactive contracts and reinstatement.
In fact two NCKU officials tried to intimidate me saying the university would delay the case indefinitely in the courts unless I resigned! This is AFTER I won a legal Ministry ruling based on hearings university officials attended and never contested! Apart from obvious ethical principles, this violates another legal principle of US law, that a party cannot make a claim it failed to make at the appropriate time.
After eight warning letters from the Ministry of Education (see my Human Rights blog at http://rdca45.blogspot.com/), the university finally complied with the Ministry ruling dated 8 January 2001 in May 2003, nearly two and a half years later! Scholars at Risk, an international human rights group now based in New York, also sent two letters.
Presumably the university thinks it's a law unto itself. This is okay if you follow higher laws (Jesus, Buddah, Confucius, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr.) but not if you ignore them. And I see no rational excuse for ignoring the constitutional laws of one's own country, assuming they don't violate higher principles (equality under the law, basic freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, etc.). Moreover, these are laws university officials never contested until they lost the case.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Formerly Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
A Public Letter Exposing Official Dereliction at National Cheng Kung Univeristy, under the administration of Michael Ming-Chiao Lai
November 11, 2010
The goal of this public letter about an illegal dismissal at National Cheng Kung University is to remind officials there that they are civil servants and, as such, are bound by law to carry out their duties, whether they find it expedient to obey the law or not. That's what "executive" means, "to execute" the laws, including those of the university and of the nation.
There's no dispute the law is on my side. The court ruling said so. The Ministry of Education ruling said so.
No matter that former university president, Kao Chiang, defied that ruling for nearly two and a half years. No matter that recently someone tried to revert the Wikipedia entry on this human rights scandal with the words, "If true, a travesty, but no evidence or specifics provided. Also, sadly, it is a fact that at the time the alleged incident occured, foreign faculty were not protected by the Teachers Law of the ROC."
Both of these claims are false, as Wikipedia sources now prove. This is no "alleged incident," it's a "fact." And what the writer claims, in his revisionist apologetics, was not a fact (that "foreign faculty were not protected by the Teachers Law of the ROC") was indisputably a fact: teachers were protected by the "Teachers Law of the ROC," as both Ministry and court rulings, both linked to the Wikepedia entry, prove.
Therefore, by this writer's own words, the human rights violations over the last ten years were indeed a "travesty" of justice and they will tarnish the reputation of National Cheng Kung University for years to come. Moreover, this is due to the lack of oversight at our university.
If our university committees had stopped this dismissal from the beginning, in the first College review, this scandal could have been aborted. But none of these officials lived up to their responsibility as custodians of the university's moral (and ultimately academic) reputation. Indeed, they sacrificed that reputation for their own selfish interests, indolent ignorance, or timid conformity.
In sum, the university effected an illegal dismissal in 1999. The salient facts are included on the National Cheng Kung University page of the English Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cheng_Kung_University). For more than ten years university officials have refused to enforce remedy of those violations at this university. The current president, Michael Ming-Chiao Lai, has not even deigned to see me once, though he's been president nearly four years.
Only this week President Lai assigned a vice-president (and president-elect) to talk to a member of the Teacher's Union about the case. In other words, after ten years, Dr. Lai still doesn't think this issue is important enough to talk to the plaintiff personally! Not that talk, at this late stage, would make a difference, but at least it would show minimal courtesy.
The president of the United States, with the whole world on his shoulders, will talk to the common people in a local dispute that happened thousands of miles from the White House; but the president of this university does not have the time to talk to his own colleague, indeed his senior colleague, about grievous human rights issues for which university officials are fully responsible.
Even as recently as today I was informed by Dr. Lai's office that he was busy with the university's anniversary, with no invitation to a meeting next week (unless the anniversary lasts the entire academic year)! This is typical of the dilatory tactics and disrespect NCKU officials have shown.
I have seen photos on the official NCKU web page of Dr. Lai with foreign students who elect to study at NCKU. He can find the time for these students, presumably to inflate the reputation of the university, but then he ignores human rights issues that he is bound, both by law and now by international law (President Ma recently signed international human rights charters) to enforce; and which, in the long term, will inflate or deflate the university's reputation far more decisively than a mere student testimonial that he chose to study at NCKU!
Even when subordinate officials deign to see me or a colleague about the issue, they use the usual "gathering the facts" tactic, a gambit that has been overplayed for ten years. If these officials don't know the facts of a serious human rights issue then they should be dismissed from office.
Don't officials at NCKU do their homework? As a student I would never visit a professor unless I had fully mastered the material and needed only to gloss a word, phrase, or sentence properly so we could engage in intelligent dialogue based on a shared knowledge.
Yet these officials invariably start every meeting with yet another review of the facts. Some studiously scribble on a pad to look responsive. But if they were responsive there wouldn't have to be a meeting at all; they would have acted on the facts they should have known.
Presumably these officials believe, though they are paid by taxpayers, they are accountable only to their colleagues. After all, they don't bump shoulders with the taxpayer daily, but with their colleagues, whom they have to please, not the taxpayers, which means, in the long run, not the law.
Thus a culture of arrogance has developed at National Cheng Kung University that the public should be aware of and that should not be tolerated if the public takes pride in its young, and still formative, democracy. If even high-ranked academic institutions in Taiwan lack moral probity or integrity, then there's less hope for democracy in Taiwan.
Public officials here must be given the message loud and clear: they are public servants, not public masters. Hence the phrase "civil servants," not "civil masters." They are servants because, presumably, they serve the people and the law that ideally protects the people. If Dr. Lai does not understand this he should be summarily removed from office. If he is not removed from office, or does not have the decency to resign, I shall continue to expose this case internationally anyway, which will further compromise the reputation of National Cheng Kung University. Yet my goal is not to compromise the reputation of the university; my goal is to protect my reputation and the reputation of American professors who come after me. I will not compromise that goal.
One thing I insure all parties involved: This case will be resolved according to the principles of law and of international law. The sooner this goal is achieved the better it will be for all parties involved.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Formerly, Dept. of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
The goal of this public letter about an illegal dismissal at National Cheng Kung University is to remind officials there that they are civil servants and, as such, are bound by law to carry out their duties, whether they find it expedient to obey the law or not. That's what "executive" means, "to execute" the laws, including those of the university and of the nation.
There's no dispute the law is on my side. The court ruling said so. The Ministry of Education ruling said so.
No matter that former university president, Kao Chiang, defied that ruling for nearly two and a half years. No matter that recently someone tried to revert the Wikipedia entry on this human rights scandal with the words, "If true, a travesty, but no evidence or specifics provided. Also, sadly, it is a fact that at the time the alleged incident occured, foreign faculty were not protected by the Teachers Law of the ROC."
Both of these claims are false, as Wikipedia sources now prove. This is no "alleged incident," it's a "fact." And what the writer claims, in his revisionist apologetics, was not a fact (that "foreign faculty were not protected by the Teachers Law of the ROC") was indisputably a fact: teachers were protected by the "Teachers Law of the ROC," as both Ministry and court rulings, both linked to the Wikepedia entry, prove.
Therefore, by this writer's own words, the human rights violations over the last ten years were indeed a "travesty" of justice and they will tarnish the reputation of National Cheng Kung University for years to come. Moreover, this is due to the lack of oversight at our university.
If our university committees had stopped this dismissal from the beginning, in the first College review, this scandal could have been aborted. But none of these officials lived up to their responsibility as custodians of the university's moral (and ultimately academic) reputation. Indeed, they sacrificed that reputation for their own selfish interests, indolent ignorance, or timid conformity.
In sum, the university effected an illegal dismissal in 1999. The salient facts are included on the National Cheng Kung University page of the English Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cheng_Kung_University). For more than ten years university officials have refused to enforce remedy of those violations at this university. The current president, Michael Ming-Chiao Lai, has not even deigned to see me once, though he's been president nearly four years.
Only this week President Lai assigned a vice-president (and president-elect) to talk to a member of the Teacher's Union about the case. In other words, after ten years, Dr. Lai still doesn't think this issue is important enough to talk to the plaintiff personally! Not that talk, at this late stage, would make a difference, but at least it would show minimal courtesy.
The president of the United States, with the whole world on his shoulders, will talk to the common people in a local dispute that happened thousands of miles from the White House; but the president of this university does not have the time to talk to his own colleague, indeed his senior colleague, about grievous human rights issues for which university officials are fully responsible.
Even as recently as today I was informed by Dr. Lai's office that he was busy with the university's anniversary, with no invitation to a meeting next week (unless the anniversary lasts the entire academic year)! This is typical of the dilatory tactics and disrespect NCKU officials have shown.
I have seen photos on the official NCKU web page of Dr. Lai with foreign students who elect to study at NCKU. He can find the time for these students, presumably to inflate the reputation of the university, but then he ignores human rights issues that he is bound, both by law and now by international law (President Ma recently signed international human rights charters) to enforce; and which, in the long term, will inflate or deflate the university's reputation far more decisively than a mere student testimonial that he chose to study at NCKU!
Even when subordinate officials deign to see me or a colleague about the issue, they use the usual "gathering the facts" tactic, a gambit that has been overplayed for ten years. If these officials don't know the facts of a serious human rights issue then they should be dismissed from office.
Don't officials at NCKU do their homework? As a student I would never visit a professor unless I had fully mastered the material and needed only to gloss a word, phrase, or sentence properly so we could engage in intelligent dialogue based on a shared knowledge.
Yet these officials invariably start every meeting with yet another review of the facts. Some studiously scribble on a pad to look responsive. But if they were responsive there wouldn't have to be a meeting at all; they would have acted on the facts they should have known.
Presumably these officials believe, though they are paid by taxpayers, they are accountable only to their colleagues. After all, they don't bump shoulders with the taxpayer daily, but with their colleagues, whom they have to please, not the taxpayers, which means, in the long run, not the law.
Thus a culture of arrogance has developed at National Cheng Kung University that the public should be aware of and that should not be tolerated if the public takes pride in its young, and still formative, democracy. If even high-ranked academic institutions in Taiwan lack moral probity or integrity, then there's less hope for democracy in Taiwan.
Public officials here must be given the message loud and clear: they are public servants, not public masters. Hence the phrase "civil servants," not "civil masters." They are servants because, presumably, they serve the people and the law that ideally protects the people. If Dr. Lai does not understand this he should be summarily removed from office. If he is not removed from office, or does not have the decency to resign, I shall continue to expose this case internationally anyway, which will further compromise the reputation of National Cheng Kung University. Yet my goal is not to compromise the reputation of the university; my goal is to protect my reputation and the reputation of American professors who come after me. I will not compromise that goal.
One thing I insure all parties involved: This case will be resolved according to the principles of law and of international law. The sooner this goal is achieved the better it will be for all parties involved.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Formerly, Dept. of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION
11 November 2010
Dear Times Higher Education Staff,
In view of the high ranking that National Cheng Kung Univeristy, in
Tainan, Taiwan, has received in your journal, I think it useful to
inform you of long-standing human rights violations at that
university.
The issues, dating back to 1999, were recently uploaded to the
Wikipedia entry on National Cheng Kung University
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cheng_Kung_University). Besides
an overview in English there are historical and legal documents,
mainly in Chinese, related to the case as linked files on the
Wikipedia page.
It seems to me the university's intransigence in formally resolving
these issues, or even admitting human rights were committed though
legal documents prove otherwise, undermines its credibility as a
reputable academic institution. An academic institution stands or
falls on human rights enforcement; otherwise, its integrity in other
areas, such as research, curriculum, and grading, is compromised.
Faculty cannot perform with integrity in a climate of fear.
I believe only international exposure will put pressure on the
university to enforce human rights here and protect foreign faculty,
even local faculty, in the future.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
formerly, Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung Univeristy
Tainan, Taiwan
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Fwd: Regarding false student accusations made against me in the 1999 dismissal.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard John <rdca25@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 8:54 PM
Subject: Regarding false student accusations made against me in the 1999 dismissal.
To: em50000@email.ncku.edu.tw
Cc: hhhwung@mail.ncku.edu.tw, mail@ms.cy.gov.tw, tahr@seed.net.tw, tfd@taiwandemocracy.org.tw, hefpp@hef.org.tw, scholarsatrisk@nyu.edu, higher@mail.moe.gov.tw, lchsiao@taiwandemocracy.org.tw, em50030@email.ncku.edu.tw
Michael Ming-Chiao Lai
President
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
November 7, 2010
Dear President Lai and Colleagues,
As you know, there is an outstanding case of a false student accusation made by Chen An-chun in a secret meeting in March 1999, as part of a dismissal action against me. That letter was later secretly circulated at "oversight" committees that upheld my dismissal. I was not even able to view the letter until I took the student to court.
The letter was clearly not a legitimate student complaint since it was made eight years after the disputed grade, in secret, and with obvious malicious intent to discredit a teacher. If the letter was a legitimate complaint it would have been submitted as a formal complaint through proper channels soon after the student received her grade so that the teacher could defend himself against the accusation. That was not done. Therefore the university violated the rights of an American professor and must be held accountable for the injury done to the professor under the circumstances, including discrediting his name and reputation and jeopardizing his employment as Associate Professor.
I remind you that the student submitted not a single piece of documentation to prove her accusations,and that accusations that could be verified were false. Moreover the letter went beyond a mere complaint about a grade in an attempt to discredit the teacher's character. This did not discourage university officials from secretly and shamefully circulating the letter as part of a so-called dismissal action.
No student has the right to submit a secret letter against a teacher. No student has the right to contest a grade eight years after the class. No student has the right to discredit a teacher without even a single document to support her accusations. No university has the right to circulate that letter. No university has the right to ignore such malicious misconduct on the part of a student, especially after disreputable officials at our university acted promptly in response to the student's secret and improper complaint.
No university has the right to ignore this case without proper administrative remedy, including punitive action against this student. The issue is complicated by the fact that this student is, according to the official National Cheng Kung University web page, currently employed as an Adjunct Assistant Professor at our university. I find it curious that in 22 years teaching at National Cheng Kung University the only student of mine who complained of a grade received employment status.
I strongly urge the president of this university as well as the faculty to take this issue seriously and to effect prompt remedy. It's a disgrace on the part of this university that a secret letter by a student is promptly circulated at official "oversight" hearings while a formal complaint against the student has been ignored. This is unacceptable.
The university must uphold human rights here and resolve this case at the formal level. The case started at the formal level when the letter was secretly circulated at several "oversight" committees and it must be resolved at the formal level, through the same committee process. The difference is this time the complaint will be a formal and legitimate complaint made through legal channels of remedy.
In any case, I have other legal options available to me if the university does not resolve this case at the formal level, including, through petitions of American human rights groups and advocates, effecting a termination of academic exchanges between National Cheng Kung University and American universities on the basis of human rights violations here.
It has fallen on my shoulders to protect the reputation of American professors in Taiwan and I intend to acquit myself of that responsibility with honor. No American professor will be discredited at a Taiwan university with impunity. We in the United States of America do not allow, much less encourage, this kind of treatment against Taiwan professors and professors at National Cheng Kung University should commit themselves to reciprocal protections and respect in the case of American professors.
Attached is a comprehensive summary of the student's actions. If I do not receive a sincere reply by Wednesday, 10 November, I will use other legal channels of remedy as insured by international human rights charters, American laws, and US university bylaws, charters, and statutes.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Formerly Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
From: Richard John <rdca25@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 8:54 PM
Subject: Regarding false student accusations made against me in the 1999 dismissal.
To: em50000@email.ncku.edu.tw
Cc: hhhwung@mail.ncku.edu.tw, mail@ms.cy.gov.tw, tahr@seed.net.tw, tfd@taiwandemocracy.org.tw, hefpp@hef.org.tw, scholarsatrisk@nyu.edu, higher@mail.moe.gov.tw, lchsiao@taiwandemocracy.org.tw, em50030@email.ncku.edu.tw
Michael Ming-Chiao Lai
President
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
November 7, 2010
Dear President Lai and Colleagues,
As you know, there is an outstanding case of a false student accusation made by Chen An-chun in a secret meeting in March 1999, as part of a dismissal action against me. That letter was later secretly circulated at "oversight" committees that upheld my dismissal. I was not even able to view the letter until I took the student to court.
The letter was clearly not a legitimate student complaint since it was made eight years after the disputed grade, in secret, and with obvious malicious intent to discredit a teacher. If the letter was a legitimate complaint it would have been submitted as a formal complaint through proper channels soon after the student received her grade so that the teacher could defend himself against the accusation. That was not done. Therefore the university violated the rights of an American professor and must be held accountable for the injury done to the professor under the circumstances, including discrediting his name and reputation and jeopardizing his employment as Associate Professor.
I remind you that the student submitted not a single piece of documentation to prove her accusations,and that accusations that could be verified were false. Moreover the letter went beyond a mere complaint about a grade in an attempt to discredit the teacher's character. This did not discourage university officials from secretly and shamefully circulating the letter as part of a so-called dismissal action.
No student has the right to submit a secret letter against a teacher. No student has the right to contest a grade eight years after the class. No student has the right to discredit a teacher without even a single document to support her accusations. No university has the right to circulate that letter. No university has the right to ignore such malicious misconduct on the part of a student, especially after disreputable officials at our university acted promptly in response to the student's secret and improper complaint.
No university has the right to ignore this case without proper administrative remedy, including punitive action against this student. The issue is complicated by the fact that this student is, according to the official National Cheng Kung University web page, currently employed as an Adjunct Assistant Professor at our university. I find it curious that in 22 years teaching at National Cheng Kung University the only student of mine who complained of a grade received employment status.
I strongly urge the president of this university as well as the faculty to take this issue seriously and to effect prompt remedy. It's a disgrace on the part of this university that a secret letter by a student is promptly circulated at official "oversight" hearings while a formal complaint against the student has been ignored. This is unacceptable.
The university must uphold human rights here and resolve this case at the formal level. The case started at the formal level when the letter was secretly circulated at several "oversight" committees and it must be resolved at the formal level, through the same committee process. The difference is this time the complaint will be a formal and legitimate complaint made through legal channels of remedy.
In any case, I have other legal options available to me if the university does not resolve this case at the formal level, including, through petitions of American human rights groups and advocates, effecting a termination of academic exchanges between National Cheng Kung University and American universities on the basis of human rights violations here.
It has fallen on my shoulders to protect the reputation of American professors in Taiwan and I intend to acquit myself of that responsibility with honor. No American professor will be discredited at a Taiwan university with impunity. We in the United States of America do not allow, much less encourage, this kind of treatment against Taiwan professors and professors at National Cheng Kung University should commit themselves to reciprocal protections and respect in the case of American professors.
Attached is a comprehensive summary of the student's actions. If I do not receive a sincere reply by Wednesday, 10 November, I will use other legal channels of remedy as insured by international human rights charters, American laws, and US university bylaws, charters, and statutes.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Formerly Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Tainan Court Verdict and Proof of Determined Verdict (2002-2003) Regarding Illegal Dismissal and Human Rights Violations at National Cheng Kung University
President
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
November 6, 2010
Dear President Lai and Colleagues,
To insure there's no historical revision of the issues surrounding my illegal dismissal in 1999 and the university's morally dubious role in that dismissal, I am attaching the official court verdict (2002) and subsequent rejection of the university's appeal (2003). The very fact the university litigated a legal Ministry ruling, based on hearings at which university officials participated, shows duplicity and bad faith. Why attend hearings of an appeal committee if you don't plan to honor a ruling that favors the appellant?
Why the university would appeal an illegal dismissal that should not have happened in the first place is curious, especially since National Cheng Kung University boasts of its high rank among Taiwan universities. I would rather boast of upholding human rights than of an academic rank that apparently ignores human rights!
Despite all this patent documentation, impossible to misinterpret, some parties continue in their denial that human rights were violated or at least refuse to acknowledge they were. Therefore either these attached (and other) documents (see the blog at http://rdca45.blogspot.com/) are forged or those who claim there were no human rights violated are grievously misinformed or deliberately misrepresenting the facts.
I have a reputation to uphold and I have the reputation of my compatriots to uphold as well. No one ten years from now is going to argue an American professor was dismissed for ethical or professional reasons, thus compromising all American professors.
Therefore I am determined to resolve this case with a formal acknowledgment from the university of human rights violations. Anything short of that will allow a revisionist history of these events to replace the facts now or in the future. I cannot allow that.
I would encourage those of my former colleagues at our university with human rights sympathies to assist me in this endeavor and reciprocate the rights and hospitality you or your children received when matriculated in democracies abroad. All it takes is a small number of you to insure human rights at our university. This will not only protect foreign faculty but also the reputation of National Cheng Kung University. Because I assure you, I will pursue this case through all legal channels until it is formally resolved according to international human rights principles.
The facts are plain and fully documented. In 1999, a defamatory letter was secretly circulated at several "oversight" committees to insure an illegal dismissal started in the Department of Foreign Languages. Presumably NCKU "oversight" committees were determined to exculpate their colleagues rather than protect the rights of the appellant.
After that dismissal was canceled in December 1999, the university claimed foreign teachers were not protected by the Teachers Law (patently false, as attached documents show), so the case was now punitively treated as a pending hiring action instead of a canceled dismissal action, jeopardizing the teacher's employment on a new basis. This violates the principle of appeal, namely that one benefits from a favorable ruling, or why appeal?
The university subsequently held "appeal" and "review" hearings at which the secret letter was circulated, and attended hearings at the Ministry of Education. When it lost the case, it then claimed foreigners had no right to appeal!
At least in US law the legal principle of estoppel prevents such duplicity, where a legal claim contradicts a previously established legal agreement (namely, my right to appeal, or why would the university hold appeal hearings and attend them in Taipei?).
Whether estoppel is observed under Taiwan law is beside the point. The university's action violated the basic principles of honesty and good faith. Grade school kids ("sore losers") are expected to act like this, but not university officials! If the university violates these basic principles of fair play how can it expect its students to abide by them? Or how, on that basis, can it expect to maintain academic exchanges with universities in democracies abroad?
When the university could not win at the Ministry level it then filed a lawsuit! When it lost the lawsuit it then appealed and delayed enforcing the Ministry ruling in the meantime, using the pending court appeal as a new tactic to deny retroactive contracts and reinstatement.
In fact two NCKU officials tried to intimidate me saying the university would delay the case indefinitely in the courts unless I resigned! This is AFTER I won a legal Ministry ruling based on hearings university officials attended and never contested! Apart from obvious ethical principles, this violates another legal principle of US law, that a party cannot make a claim it failed to make at the appropriate time.
After eight warning letters from the Ministry of Education (see my Human Rights blog at http://rdca45.blogspot.com/), the university finally complied with the Ministry ruling dated 8 January 2001 in May 2003, nearly two and a half years later! Scholars at Risk, an international human rights group now based in New York, also sent two letters.
Presumably the university thinks it's a law unto itself. This is okay if you follow higher laws (Jesus, Buddah, Confucius, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr.) but not if you ignore them. And I see no rational excuse for ignoring the constitutional laws of one's own country, assuming they don't violate higher principles (equality under the law, basic freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, etc.). Moreover, these are laws university officials never contested until they lost the case.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Formerly Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Friday, November 5, 2010
Fwd: Regarding Edit Reverts on the Wikipedia page of National Cheng Kung University
To the President of National Cheng Kung University and Faculty Colleagues
VERIFICATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES AT NATIONAL CHENG KUNG UNIVERSITY
in View of Edit Reverts on the Wikipedia page of National Cheng Kung University
VERIFICATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES AT NATIONAL CHENG KUNG UNIVERSITY
in View of Edit Reverts on the Wikipedia page of National Cheng Kung University
Since my Wikipedia Edit of the National Cheng Kung University page was deleted or reverted several times on the basis of being unsourced, I've added the following source documents from the Ministry of Education.
As these attached documents show, the claim made by Apache776 in the Revision History, dated 17:26, 20 October 2010, regarding my edit of human rights violations at National Cheng Kung University, is patently false:
"If true, a travesty, but no evidence or specifics provided. Also, sadly, it is a fact that at the time the alleged incident occured [sic], foreign faculty were not protected by the Teachers Law of the ROC."
Well, the "evidence" or "specifics" are now "provided." Unless these documents are contested, the dismissal action was indeed a "travesty," to use the words of Apache776.
As for the comment made by Apache776 that "it is a fact that at the time the alleged incident occurred, foreign faculty were not protected by the Teachers Law of the ROC" is disproved by these documents of the ROC. The incident was not "alleged" but actual, assuming legal rulings mean anything. In fact, presumably the only place where foreign teachers were not protected by the Teachers Law was at National Cheng Kung University. Therefore it's a "fact" that human rights were violated there.
Arguments against this fact cannot be sustained, unless the writer's use of the word "fact" is different from common or legal usage.
This is similar to the university's attempt to create a revisionist history of this dismissal case. But this revisionist history will not prevail, regardless whether it's exposed today or ten years from today. It has fallen on me to protect the reputation of American teachers in Taiwan and I intend to acquit myself of that responsibility, whatever it takes.
In a democratic society, institutional might does not create truth; principles of law create truth. Taiwanese should be especially sensitive to revisions of the truth, having suffered from historical revisionism themselves, regarding atrocities during World War II. In scope, of course, that was a far greater tragedy; but in principle it's no different. And before one can define the scope of an injustice one must first define the principles of justice. To create a double standard of justice, one for the victor (or the stronger party) and one for the victim (or the weaker party), is wrong in my case as it is in the other case. The same goes for Mainland China's recent antisecession law, which Mainland China considers a legal action, the way that National Cheng Kung University considers my 1999 dismissal a legal action.
The attached documents are legal rulings. To contest them is to say there are no shared principles of law and right in Taiwan, especially tendentious made by a high-ranked university in Taiwan.
The facts are plain and fully documented. In 1999, a letter was secretly circulated at several oversight committees to effect an illegal dismissal of a foreign teacher. After that dismissal was canceled in December, 1999, the university claimed foreign teachers were not protected by the Teachers Law (disputed in the attached documents), so the case was punitively treated as a hiring action, not a dismissal action, jeopardizing the teacher's employment on a new basis. This violates the basic principle of the right to appeal, namely that one will benefit from a favorable ruling, or why appeal?
The university subsequently held repeated appeal and review hearings and attended hearings at the Ministry of Education. When it lost the case, it then claimed foreigners had no right to appeal!
Whether Taiwan law observes the legal principle of estoppel (a previous legal claim or assumption cannot be subsequently contradicted or denied) is beside the point. This violates even the most basic principles of honesty and good faith. If the university violates these principles how can it expect its students to abide by them. Or how, on that basis, can it expect to maintain academic exchanges with universities in democracies abroad?
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
formerly Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
As these attached documents show, the claim made by Apache776 in the Revision History, dated 17:26, 20 October 2010, regarding my edit of human rights violations at National Cheng Kung University, is patently false:
"If true, a travesty, but no evidence or specifics provided. Also, sadly, it is a fact that at the time the alleged incident occured [sic], foreign faculty were not protected by the Teachers Law of the ROC."
Well, the "evidence" or "specifics" are now "provided." Unless these documents are contested, the dismissal action was indeed a "travesty," to use the words of Apache776.
As for the comment made by Apache776 that "it is a fact that at the time the alleged incident occurred, foreign faculty were not protected by the Teachers Law of the ROC" is disproved by these documents of the ROC. The incident was not "alleged" but actual, assuming legal rulings mean anything. In fact, presumably the only place where foreign teachers were not protected by the Teachers Law was at National Cheng Kung University. Therefore it's a "fact" that human rights were violated there.
Arguments against this fact cannot be sustained, unless the writer's use of the word "fact" is different from common or legal usage.
This is similar to the university's attempt to create a revisionist history of this dismissal case. But this revisionist history will not prevail, regardless whether it's exposed today or ten years from today. It has fallen on me to protect the reputation of American teachers in Taiwan and I intend to acquit myself of that responsibility, whatever it takes.
In a democratic society, institutional might does not create truth; principles of law create truth. Taiwanese should be especially sensitive to revisions of the truth, having suffered from historical revisionism themselves, regarding atrocities during World War II. In scope, of course, that was a far greater tragedy; but in principle it's no different. And before one can define the scope of an injustice one must first define the principles of justice. To create a double standard of justice, one for the victor (or the stronger party) and one for the victim (or the weaker party), is wrong in my case as it is in the other case. The same goes for Mainland China's recent antisecession law, which Mainland China considers a legal action, the way that National Cheng Kung University considers my 1999 dismissal a legal action.
The attached documents are legal rulings. To contest them is to say there are no shared principles of law and right in Taiwan, especially tendentious made by a high-ranked university in Taiwan.
The facts are plain and fully documented. In 1999, a letter was secretly circulated at several oversight committees to effect an illegal dismissal of a foreign teacher. After that dismissal was canceled in December, 1999, the university claimed foreign teachers were not protected by the Teachers Law (disputed in the attached documents), so the case was punitively treated as a hiring action, not a dismissal action, jeopardizing the teacher's employment on a new basis. This violates the basic principle of the right to appeal, namely that one will benefit from a favorable ruling, or why appeal?
The university subsequently held repeated appeal and review hearings and attended hearings at the Ministry of Education. When it lost the case, it then claimed foreigners had no right to appeal!
Whether Taiwan law observes the legal principle of estoppel (a previous legal claim or assumption cannot be subsequently contradicted or denied) is beside the point. This violates even the most basic principles of honesty and good faith. If the university violates these principles how can it expect its students to abide by them. Or how, on that basis, can it expect to maintain academic exchanges with universities in democracies abroad?
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
formerly Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Regarding human rights violations at National Cheng Kung University
Dr. Michael Ming-Chiao Lai
President
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
November 4, 2010
Dear President Lai and Colleagues,
A Wikipedia user named Apache776 deleted one of my edits concerning human rights violations at National Cheng Kung University on the National Cheng Kung University page in Wikipedia. The summary claim was that, "If true, a travesty, but no evidence or specifics provided. Also, sadly, it is a fact that at the time the alleged incident occured, foreign faculty were not protected by the Teachers Law of the ROC."
I am not certain who made this edit or what that person's affiliation with National Cheng Kung University is, if any. Nonetheless I feel compelled to formally address the issue.
As you must know, my edit in the Wikipedia page is true by any reasonable standards of truth, so there's no conditional "if" about my claim that human rights violations were committed at National Cheng Kung University, with neither compensation, apology, nor even acknowledgment on the part of the university that human rights were violated.
In view of a Ministry of Education ruling dated 8 January 2001, eight Ministry letters warning the university to enforce that ruling (finally enforced in May, 2003), and both judicial and Ministry rulings that foreigners were, at the time of the illegal dismissal (1999), protected by the Teachers Law, how is it possible that the statement by Apache776 can be true or in good faith?
Since it is in fact true, then, by this user's own words, my dismissal was indeed a "travesty. As for "evidence or specifics," as much evidence or specifics as are required will be uploaded to the Wikipedia page, including the dates of the Ministry and court rulings.
The claim that, "sadly, it is a fact that at the time the alleged incident occurred, foreign faculty were not protected by the Teachers Law of the ROC" will be discredited in those documents.
Besides, even if what Apache776 wrote in his summary edit were true, that very statement would prove precisely the opposite of his apparent claim, that there were no human rights violations at National Cheng Kung University—unless discriminatory employment policies against foreigners are not considered human rights violations!
Whether Apache776 is related to National Cheng Kung University in any way remains to be seen. What is evident, however, is that Apache776 is merely continuing a policy of revisionist history that is typical of National Cheng Kung University, as is evident in its refusal to issue a formal apology or even acknowledge that human rights were committed at all in my case, despite the documents I mentioned above, including judicial and Ministry rulings. If, in the face of these documents the university's stubborn refusal to acknowledge human rights violations is not a patent example of "revisionism," then I don't know what is.
Indeed, that's all the more reason to pursue this case until it is formally resolved. I, as both a professor and an American citizen, cannot, and will not, allow a revisionist version of events ten or twenty years from now to replace the facts, especially if I, or those informed about the case, can no longer contest them. This will compromise not only my reputation but the reputation of American professors in general, when the revised version of what happened in the years 1999-2003 will imply that an American professor failed ethical or professional standards while teaching at the university, thus, by stereotyping, impugning all American professors. Would you like a Taiwanese professor to be falsely accused at an American university, compromising Taiwanese professors for years thereafter?
In view of the revisionist tactics of the NCKU administration I wish to make clear that, however long it takes, I will pursue a formal resolution of this case and use all channels within the law to do so.
I remind you that Taiwan has subscribed to international human rights charters. Those charters were created precisely to override arbitrary or capricious rulings by rogue agencies with the institutional means to do so, whether money, payroll lawyers, or other resources individuals cannot compete against. Otherwise there would be no need for human rights charters; laws would adequately insure remedy.
But we know this is not necessarily the case. Taiwanese should know this because, after all, Mainland China passed an antisecession law that it calls legal but which, based on international human rights charters, Taiwanese and other peoples who subscribe to democratic principles consider to be rogue legislation (i.e. outside international standards of human rights).
I urge you to recognize once again that the refusal of National Cheng Kung University to acknowledge human rights violations in my illegal dismissal, to apologize for them, and to compensate them falls outside the norms of international standards of human rights, and that it is especially regrettable for a university that enjoys academic exchanges with countries that honor those rights.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Formerly, Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
ROC
President
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
November 4, 2010
Dear President Lai and Colleagues,
A Wikipedia user named Apache776 deleted one of my edits concerning human rights violations at National Cheng Kung University on the National Cheng Kung University page in Wikipedia. The summary claim was that, "If true, a travesty, but no evidence or specifics provided. Also, sadly, it is a fact that at the time the alleged incident occured, foreign faculty were not protected by the Teachers Law of the ROC."
I am not certain who made this edit or what that person's affiliation with National Cheng Kung University is, if any. Nonetheless I feel compelled to formally address the issue.
As you must know, my edit in the Wikipedia page is true by any reasonable standards of truth, so there's no conditional "if" about my claim that human rights violations were committed at National Cheng Kung University, with neither compensation, apology, nor even acknowledgment on the part of the university that human rights were violated.
In view of a Ministry of Education ruling dated 8 January 2001, eight Ministry letters warning the university to enforce that ruling (finally enforced in May, 2003), and both judicial and Ministry rulings that foreigners were, at the time of the illegal dismissal (1999), protected by the Teachers Law, how is it possible that the statement by Apache776 can be true or in good faith?
Since it is in fact true, then, by this user's own words, my dismissal was indeed a "travesty. As for "evidence or specifics," as much evidence or specifics as are required will be uploaded to the Wikipedia page, including the dates of the Ministry and court rulings.
The claim that, "sadly, it is a fact that at the time the alleged incident occurred, foreign faculty were not protected by the Teachers Law of the ROC" will be discredited in those documents.
Besides, even if what Apache776 wrote in his summary edit were true, that very statement would prove precisely the opposite of his apparent claim, that there were no human rights violations at National Cheng Kung University—unless discriminatory employment policies against foreigners are not considered human rights violations!
Whether Apache776 is related to National Cheng Kung University in any way remains to be seen. What is evident, however, is that Apache776 is merely continuing a policy of revisionist history that is typical of National Cheng Kung University, as is evident in its refusal to issue a formal apology or even acknowledge that human rights were committed at all in my case, despite the documents I mentioned above, including judicial and Ministry rulings. If, in the face of these documents the university's stubborn refusal to acknowledge human rights violations is not a patent example of "revisionism," then I don't know what is.
Indeed, that's all the more reason to pursue this case until it is formally resolved. I, as both a professor and an American citizen, cannot, and will not, allow a revisionist version of events ten or twenty years from now to replace the facts, especially if I, or those informed about the case, can no longer contest them. This will compromise not only my reputation but the reputation of American professors in general, when the revised version of what happened in the years 1999-2003 will imply that an American professor failed ethical or professional standards while teaching at the university, thus, by stereotyping, impugning all American professors. Would you like a Taiwanese professor to be falsely accused at an American university, compromising Taiwanese professors for years thereafter?
In view of the revisionist tactics of the NCKU administration I wish to make clear that, however long it takes, I will pursue a formal resolution of this case and use all channels within the law to do so.
I remind you that Taiwan has subscribed to international human rights charters. Those charters were created precisely to override arbitrary or capricious rulings by rogue agencies with the institutional means to do so, whether money, payroll lawyers, or other resources individuals cannot compete against. Otherwise there would be no need for human rights charters; laws would adequately insure remedy.
But we know this is not necessarily the case. Taiwanese should know this because, after all, Mainland China passed an antisecession law that it calls legal but which, based on international human rights charters, Taiwanese and other peoples who subscribe to democratic principles consider to be rogue legislation (i.e. outside international standards of human rights).
I urge you to recognize once again that the refusal of National Cheng Kung University to acknowledge human rights violations in my illegal dismissal, to apologize for them, and to compensate them falls outside the norms of international standards of human rights, and that it is especially regrettable for a university that enjoys academic exchanges with countries that honor those rights.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Formerly, Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
ROC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)