Dear Dr. [De Canio]
I received your previous mail, and the one before, and the even earlier one before that. I have been in this university for [omitted] years, and
I also had received some other mails during the past few years. So although I wouldn't say I've fully understood the very details,
I am kind of familiar with your case. I also have seen the news on the Liberty News before, but I was surprised to know as you indicated in your 2/27 mail that "In nearly twelve years that I've periodically emailed such letters, not a single faculty member has responded."
I feel bad about it, so I responed to you this time.
I had not respond to your mail until today, so I have no right to blame anyone. People may have different kind of reasons or concerns, and some of these I think I can understand because it may apply to my case, including (1) busy (no kidding, very busy) with teaching and research and the pressure behind; (2) not knowing the details well enough so often hesitate to jump in; but (3) unfortunately also not having enough time to get to know the details; (4) not knowing how to help; and finally but perhaps often unconciously (4) many Taiwanese intellectualities, such as university faculties, have been trained or intimidated or habitualized not to against the organizational machine.
Today is the 228 Memorial Day, and I assume you have known the history of Taiwan. The White Terror is not really over, it has become an invisible ghost rooted in countless Taiwanese for generations. Similar things happen everywhere and happen in the past, like Germany before and during the World War II and the MacCarthyism in the US in the late 1940s to 1950s. It is sad when people behave this way, but often it is hard for everyone to be brave and to act righteously. I disagree with this behavior and I don't like this behavior, and I think
Today is the 228 Memorial Day, and I assume you have known the history of Taiwan. The White Terror is not really over, it has become an invisible ghost rooted in countless Taiwanese for generations. Similar things happen everywhere and happen in the past, like Germany before and during the World War II and the MacCarthyism in the US in the late 1940s to 1950s. It is sad when people behave this way, but often it is hard for everyone to be brave and to act righteously. I disagree with this behavior and I don't like this behavior, and I think
there must be other faculties who are like me. YOU ARE SYMPATHIZED AND SUPPORTED.
Twelve years are a long time already, but you already made this far. Wish you the strength and the persistence. You will get the justice.
Best regards
Sincerely yours
[name omitted]
Dear Professor [courtesy omission],
Needless to say I appreciate your well thought out email. I admit it's disappointing, but not unexpected, that so few faculty members are concerned about issues related to my case. Because these are issues, not just a case. A student shouldn't be allowed to discredit a teacher with impunity, especially in a culture that supposedly honors teachers. This impacts on all of us, assuming we have any self-respect. Are professors supposed to live in fear of such students in the future or of a similar collusion?
Bear in mind this student was allowed to teach here part-time even after this case! (Her name is still on the official NCKU faculty list.) How is such a thing possible in a lawful society? She should have been punished, instead she's teaching and is presumably a role model for students, and implicitly, by her very presence at the university, is impugning me, as if to say she did nothing wrong or she would not be teaching here. But if she did nothing wrong, that means she did something right, namely accuse me of failing her unfairly. And what does that say to other students who may be tempted to gain advantage the same way? Or what does that say to students who declined to accuse me when asked (Lily's letter was solicited)? "Gee. I was a fool. I should have cooperated. I would have had a teaching job here." So you see, punitive actions not only punish wrongdoers but encourage people to continue doing right. If we saw that bank robbers got away with robbing banks many others would start robbing banks too and stake their claim in a profitable crime. That's why we have deterrent prison sentences. Where's the deterrent rulings to discourage similar actions at NCKU in the future?
I should add that the teachers who defended Lily's accusation were on her graduate committees (M.A. and Ph.D), which also undermines the appearance of integrity in grading and accreditation. Of course if the student had proof I failed her unfairly or made her accusation legitimately, as was her right, at the time of the grade,and through proper channels, that would be a non issue. But in view of the circumstances under which she made her accusation, eight years late, in secret, with no proof, and presumably solicited to do so as a means to insure my dismissal, the presence of several of the signatories of that letter (attached) on her graduate committees should certainly be an issue.
But there are endemic problems with our committees anyway, which repeatedly passed my dismissal even after the Ministry ruling warned them they were violating laws or legal rights.
Committee members shouldn't follow a university lawyer or president or chair like they were sheep. Not a single committee member stood up and asked, "Wait, how can we review this professor again if he won the appeal?" Not a single one to my knowledge protested. Instead their attitude seemed to be if "Daddy" (=chair, president, lawyer) tells us so it must be so. I've always been fond of a quote attributed to Will Rogers or Mark Twain, among others: "It ain't the things you don't know that causes all the trouble. It's the things you do know but that ain't so."
Was there one committee member who protested when the university lawyer canceled my dismissal in December 1999 but then returned the case to the department? When an NCKU law professor learned my dismissal had been canceled he insisted I go to the personnel office to pick up my contract. He pointed to text in a law book to argue that since my dismissal was canceled I should pick up my contract. I told him of the duplicity of the university's action, which insisted on further review—this time to decide whether I would be rehired, not whether I would be fired. This was on the basis that foreigners were not protected by the Teachers Law. Then why go through an appeal at all? The appeal was obviously a charade. Where were the Taiwanese who benefit from laws in my country to stand up for me in their country, thus, apart from law, enforcing the principle of reciprocity that they were raised on? Why do those committee members demand equal rights for their children when they matriculate abroad? But when a Taiwanese is insulted that way there's a veritable feeding frenzy on the Internet and in the Taiwan press, which has pretty much ignored my case (not a single English-language newspaper has, to my knowledge, published anything about this case though they publish attacks on human rights violations in Mainland China almost daily). In view of the feeding frenzy during the taekwondo incident, you can imagine that Taiwanese would be hurling stones at the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) if one of their children were treated with the disrespect I was.
Not a single committee member protested at an appeal decision that undermined the very purpose of an appeal, namely to win, instead of starting a byzantine process of numerous hearings, reviews, appeals. I can't count the meetings convened n my case; but there was quite a number, paid for by taxpayers when the money should have been put to better use. Do taxpayers pay a university lawyer to preside over an appeal hearing only later to say the appellant had no right to appeal? Does the Taipei Bar Association allow this? Are committee members informed of laws, rights, regulations and the history of a case before they sit on a committee? Or do they simply allow a lawyer or chair to tell them what to do?
Frankly I would like to see everyone involved in misconduct in this case dismissed from the university. That includes all committee members—at least in one committee where the vote was unanimously against me. In the other committees where there was at least one vote for me I suppose each member would now claim he or she was the one who voted for me. Therefore I believe in the future all committee members should write a brief report on what basis a decision was made. That would be confidential unless the judgment was appealed on reasonable grounds, in which case the vote would be revealed, at least to an empowered committee. A vote that was made on an illegitimate or uninformed basis would make the committee member liable under the law and to the civil courts. That means the voter could be dismissed and liable to monetary damages to the appellant. I promise you, dismissals such as happened to me would be a thing of the past.
As it is, committee members are protected by anonymity except in the case of a unanimous vote. But that shouldn't protect the chairs of those committees who, in a democracy, are bound by law to uphold the law. Those chairs should be dismissed unless they can argue on what reasonable basis they chaired a committee in the face of illegal accusations or a legal Ministry ruling, or illegal actions on their own part. For example, Lee Chian-er circulated a secret letter against me. Is that legal in Taiwan society? Doesn't a person have the right to face his accuser? Isn't that built into democratic law? Lee Chung-hsiung similarly chaired a departmental "review" to dismiss me. Review? I was not informed of the meeting. I was not informed of accusations against me. The accusations were not properly investigated according to law. Then when those accusations failed Lily's secret letter was solicited, presumably as real proof! A student says she failed 8 years ago and that's real proof? What is this, the Dark Ages or the White Terror? There's only one problem: I'm not easily terrorized. "If God is for us, who can be against us?" (ROMANS 8:31). One either takes it or takes it on. Ive decided to take it on.
I'm attaching a letter signed by 7 faculty members, most of them in positions of distinction. One is now dean, another chair, two others former chairs.
The letter is deeply insulting, impugning my integrity by accrediting the word of a student who had absolutely no proof for her claim, made it in secret, and eight years after the disputed grade. The letter was intended to discredit me but I would think any reasonable person would instead discredit the signatories (those who signed the letter).
Three of them were Americans; one of them, Rufus Cook, is still around to assume responsibility for signing it. I would like to ask him if he thinks any professor at an American college would accredit Lily 's claim and, if not, why would he do so in Taiwan?
Indeed, why would seven "reasonable" faculty members believe a student if she had no proof to her claim, made it in secret, and eight years after the class? Why would they believe one grade was unfair when I failed about one third of the students in the class and, moreover, gave this student three other reasonably high passes in two classes that same academic year? In addition, like I said in my last email, I wrote this student a letter (still in my possession) after hearing gossip about my grade and invited her to pick up her exam. She ignored the letter, claiming someone advised her to. Now why would a student who believed she failed unfairly refuse an invitation to pick up her exam, or delegate someone to do so? But better, why would I risk such an invitation unless (1) I had the exam and it justified my grade (disputing her claim I destroyed it or that she was unfairly graded), or (2) I did not have her exam, but knew for certain that Lily would not ask to pick it up for obvious reasons.
These are fundamental issues that cannot be ignored. The signatories of that letter must be called to a committee hearing to be asked one basic question, namely on what "reasonable" basis would faculty members favor an unproved accusation against their own colleague? Now the principle of Anglo-American law is "what would a reasonable person do"? Would I believe a student who said she unfairly failed your class eight years before, especially if she had no exam to prove it? Of course not. Nor would any reasonable person, and juries are composed of reasonable people, at least while they sit under oath.
(Attached are two letters, one from a normal student who failed but admitted it was her own problem; another from a grad student, who like other students and faculty at NCKU were pressured or solicited to accuse me but had the decency to apologize without equivocation, so I forgave him.)
I add parenthetically that even if, for the sake of argument, the student produced the exam eight years later, what would that prove without comparing that exam to at least several others with high or low grades? That's why we have statutes of limitations even for the worst crimes, usually, I think, of 3 years (except murder which has none). Because the principle of law allows adequate defense, and how can a person defend himself after 3 years, much less 8? Memories fail, documents are lost, witnesses forget, die, or move away, etc. I would be suspicious of a student who complained of a grade 2 or 3 weeks later! "Why did you wait 3 weeks before contesting a grade? The teacher has other things on his mind now, your former classmates may be difficult to reach, they may have destroyed their exam sheets," etc. My classmates and I used to wait outside a professor's door to contest a grade the next morning! I'm not making this up. We used to have chats outside the office door waiting our turn and ask each other why we were disputing our grades. We never thought the teacher purposely graded low; we just thought we deserved better than we got and we contested the grade immediately.
This student complained eight years later, in secret, and writes a malicious letter that one Chinese teacher said "made my hair stand on end" (I'm not making this up). Obviously she was not contesting a grade but trying to discredit me. Since the letter was solicited and dated right before my dismissal hearing, and since 7 colleagues supported her without a shred of proof, this would suggest collusion as a reasonable assumption (and remember, Anglo-American law is based on what the average reasonable person would think or do).
Now not a single one of those signatories has been punished yet. Not one. In fact some were recently promoted to prestigious positions in the university. Raymond Lai is now Dean. Aaron Chiou is now Chair. A teacher named Liu Ge-Zen, who faxed a letter to the court to support Lily's claim though he could not possibly have seen her exam since Lily said I destroyed it, is now head of a language program, I believe.
In other words, the Liberal Arts department is now represented by people who who discredited a colleague on no reasonable basis. One of them was my former student for whom I wrote a reference letter. Now you know why Shakespeare wrote King Lear: "How sharper than serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child."
The worst of it is I assume many of those involved in these letters thought I would never find out, since I would not stay in Taiwan long enough. So when I got my job back some of them came up with excuses. "I don't remember signing the letter," one said, asking me to vote for him! Another said, "All I meant was I knew Lily longer than I knew you." As if that's a reasonable basis to make judicial judgments anyway. What rational person would make a judicial judgment on how long they knew a person, especially when the other person was their own teacher?
But this kind of byzantine discourse is typical here. It reminds me of talking to one official over the Lily matter. He kept whining, "Oh, I wish I knew who to believe!" What kind of whining lament is that? You give the presumption of truth (i.e. innocence) to the accused, not the accuser. Otherwise if A accused B of stealing money I would respond, "I wish I knew whom to believe!" But I wouldn't respond like that; I would respond, "If you have proof go to the police right now." If he said the theft happened 8 year ago I would respond, "You have a problem, then. You can't expect the police to believe you without proof." Anyway, who would believe an accusation of a failed grade 8 years later?
Many of these people were accredited in advanced democracies abroad but they seem to forget everything they learned, including the hospitality and respect they received, when they return home. It reminds me of Aesop's fable of the cat who trains to be a gentleman but as soon as he sees a mouse he reverts back to his predatory instincts. As the saying goes, "You can take the man out of the country but you can't take the country out of the man."
The consequences of their actions continue to this day. As I showed in a previous email, Lily's accusations are having an impact right to the present time.
First, though I might consider teaching part-time, because of my dubious relationship with this university I cannot rely on a quality reference letter from people in my department, certainly not without compromising myself and my case. Indeed, since I had many students in my Film class, I might be teaching part-time at NCKU.
Second, several students recently told me all their classmates heard of Lily's accusation and, as you saw in one attachment (attached), they favored Lily's side rather than mine.
Third, while I cannot teach part-time at my university, the student who discredited me, instead of being dismissed for doing so, is now teaching part-time, according to the official NCKU web page, implicitly endorsing her secret letter against me, which implies her letter was justified. Can you see the problem here? Can you see why I must and will pursue this case until it's formally resolved according to principles of law?
I should add that no one involved in this case has been punished. Lee Chian-er, who circulated a secret letter at an important committee, was never punished to my knowledge. Li Chung-hsiung, who chaired a department dismissal hearing without even notifying me or trying to prove so-called accusations against me was never punished. Ren Shyg-jong, who illegally dismissed me before the 1999 dismissal (it was overturned because Ren used spurious student evaluations) was never punished for that. One dean, I was told, forged official minutes to make it look like I was advised to be a better teacher at the hearing, presumably to help Ren save face when the dismissal was reversed. He was never punished. As for Kao Chiang, not only wasn't he punished for defying the Ministry of Education for nearly two and a half years but he was actually endorsed for a second term as university president afterwards. This is not tragedy any longer, it's farce.
But it's ironic farce, because the longer this case goes unresolved the more it is exposed, such as one student's comments I recently attached. She made it clear next time those rumors occur she would send students to my blog, where of course they will read the facts, not the gossip. Had those involved in misconduct been punished immediately few would have heard of it or even cared. So the Wheel of Karma works in ironic ways and, to quote Shakespeare, "the whirligig of time exacts its revenges."
Regarding your four points, (1) of course we're all busy at something. If nobody did anything on that basis nothing would ever get done. And I think Taiwanese owe it to other countries to "do democracy" the way other countries do, insuring a hospitable environment when you go to England or Australia or the US, etc. If only based on the principle of reciprocity, important in Chinese tradition, don't you think faculty here should insure our legal rights the way we do theirs?
As for (2) and (3), what "details" are there? This case is transparent, unless one wishes to complicate matters, the way they used to complicate issues when a woman was raped, for example ("Did she wear lipstick? Was her skirt short? Did she wiggle when she walked?"). The rational answer is WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? Either she was raped or she was not. My kind sir, all it takes is a minute or so to read a single MOE letter warning Kao Chiang to issue contracts to realize that the MOE was defied. All it takes is a few minutes to see the MOE ruling that my dismissal was canceled, or a few minutes to see that a student was allowed to submit a secret letter without proof eight years after a grade or that Lee Chain-er circulated that letter.
Remember in law the phrase is "reasonable doubt" not any kind of doubt. And that doubt must be based on principles of law. I cannot reasonably doubt that a paraplegic killed someone just because ten senators claim so if one physician proves it's impossible for the person to walk up the stairs to kill someone. But the university played a game of numbers, thinking that if seven faculty members signed a letter against me that would be seven against one (actually eight if you include Lily). But the law is not a children's game of numbers but of principles. If seven people have no basis to make a claim then seven is as good as none under the law, even if those seven included Pope Benedict and the Dali Lama. That's what "due process" means. One official here once told me, in a matter not related to this case, "I wouldn't lie." I told him I didn't care if he would lie or not, all I cared about was getting a document before I took action. See the difference between rational behavior and irrational behavior?
As for your final point, I refer you to this link to an article called "Silence of the Lambs," which covers the main issue you brought up: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2009/06/13/2003446067
One of my favorite sayings is "Democracy is not something you have, it's something you do." With all due respect, my colleagues have got to start committing themselves to democracy at this university or you will be the laughing stock of the world. I was actually told by a teacher in another college that my case was taught to freshmen officials in order to teach them what not to do in a dismissal action. Yet NCKU is presumably the second-ranked university in Taiwan.
Moreover the greater the delay in resolving this case, the greater exposure it will have, and it will impact NCKU's reputation for years to come. As it is I have no doubt that this case will never disappear; that twenty years from now graduate students writing their theses or dissertations in law or political science will refer to this case. Several human rights groups here and in the US already have all the documents, including most of my letters. Many of those documents are circulating around the globe by now. And keep in mind, the heroes of today (those who colluded in my dismissal) will be the villains of tomorrow, just like in the 2-28 incident you referred to.. That's always the case in histories of human rights.The university's attempt at revisionism, apparent in their failure to apologize or admit wrongdoing and in the still current gossip about me, will never succeed, I guarantee that.
Thanks again for your email. I'll conclude with another relevant quote, from Edmund Burke: "All it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men [and women] to do nothing."
In conclusion, even if NCKU faculty here don't care about "foreigners," they should at least care about the reputation of their university. Because I will continue to expose this case, and use channels of American law if available, until this case is completely resolved according to principles guaranteed under international human rights charters endorsed by Taiwan's own president. I am committed to to upholding my reputation and the reputation of American professors in Taiwan.We treat professors from Taiwan with dignity in America and I expect the same treatment for us in Taiwan.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio.
[name omitted]
Dear Professor [courtesy omission],
Needless to say I appreciate your well thought out email. I admit it's disappointing, but not unexpected, that so few faculty members are concerned about issues related to my case. Because these are issues, not just a case. A student shouldn't be allowed to discredit a teacher with impunity, especially in a culture that supposedly honors teachers. This impacts on all of us, assuming we have any self-respect. Are professors supposed to live in fear of such students in the future or of a similar collusion?
Bear in mind this student was allowed to teach here part-time even after this case! (Her name is still on the official NCKU faculty list.) How is such a thing possible in a lawful society? She should have been punished, instead she's teaching and is presumably a role model for students, and implicitly, by her very presence at the university, is impugning me, as if to say she did nothing wrong or she would not be teaching here. But if she did nothing wrong, that means she did something right, namely accuse me of failing her unfairly. And what does that say to other students who may be tempted to gain advantage the same way? Or what does that say to students who declined to accuse me when asked (Lily's letter was solicited)? "Gee. I was a fool. I should have cooperated. I would have had a teaching job here." So you see, punitive actions not only punish wrongdoers but encourage people to continue doing right. If we saw that bank robbers got away with robbing banks many others would start robbing banks too and stake their claim in a profitable crime. That's why we have deterrent prison sentences. Where's the deterrent rulings to discourage similar actions at NCKU in the future?
I should add that the teachers who defended Lily's accusation were on her graduate committees (M.A. and Ph.D), which also undermines the appearance of integrity in grading and accreditation. Of course if the student had proof I failed her unfairly or made her accusation legitimately, as was her right, at the time of the grade,and through proper channels, that would be a non issue. But in view of the circumstances under which she made her accusation, eight years late, in secret, with no proof, and presumably solicited to do so as a means to insure my dismissal, the presence of several of the signatories of that letter (attached) on her graduate committees should certainly be an issue.
But there are endemic problems with our committees anyway, which repeatedly passed my dismissal even after the Ministry ruling warned them they were violating laws or legal rights.
Committee members shouldn't follow a university lawyer or president or chair like they were sheep. Not a single committee member stood up and asked, "Wait, how can we review this professor again if he won the appeal?" Not a single one to my knowledge protested. Instead their attitude seemed to be if "Daddy" (=chair, president, lawyer) tells us so it must be so. I've always been fond of a quote attributed to Will Rogers or Mark Twain, among others: "It ain't the things you don't know that causes all the trouble. It's the things you do know but that ain't so."
Was there one committee member who protested when the university lawyer canceled my dismissal in December 1999 but then returned the case to the department? When an NCKU law professor learned my dismissal had been canceled he insisted I go to the personnel office to pick up my contract. He pointed to text in a law book to argue that since my dismissal was canceled I should pick up my contract. I told him of the duplicity of the university's action, which insisted on further review—this time to decide whether I would be rehired, not whether I would be fired. This was on the basis that foreigners were not protected by the Teachers Law. Then why go through an appeal at all? The appeal was obviously a charade. Where were the Taiwanese who benefit from laws in my country to stand up for me in their country, thus, apart from law, enforcing the principle of reciprocity that they were raised on? Why do those committee members demand equal rights for their children when they matriculate abroad? But when a Taiwanese is insulted that way there's a veritable feeding frenzy on the Internet and in the Taiwan press, which has pretty much ignored my case (not a single English-language newspaper has, to my knowledge, published anything about this case though they publish attacks on human rights violations in Mainland China almost daily). In view of the feeding frenzy during the taekwondo incident, you can imagine that Taiwanese would be hurling stones at the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) if one of their children were treated with the disrespect I was.
Not a single committee member protested at an appeal decision that undermined the very purpose of an appeal, namely to win, instead of starting a byzantine process of numerous hearings, reviews, appeals. I can't count the meetings convened n my case; but there was quite a number, paid for by taxpayers when the money should have been put to better use. Do taxpayers pay a university lawyer to preside over an appeal hearing only later to say the appellant had no right to appeal? Does the Taipei Bar Association allow this? Are committee members informed of laws, rights, regulations and the history of a case before they sit on a committee? Or do they simply allow a lawyer or chair to tell them what to do?
Frankly I would like to see everyone involved in misconduct in this case dismissed from the university. That includes all committee members—at least in one committee where the vote was unanimously against me. In the other committees where there was at least one vote for me I suppose each member would now claim he or she was the one who voted for me. Therefore I believe in the future all committee members should write a brief report on what basis a decision was made. That would be confidential unless the judgment was appealed on reasonable grounds, in which case the vote would be revealed, at least to an empowered committee. A vote that was made on an illegitimate or uninformed basis would make the committee member liable under the law and to the civil courts. That means the voter could be dismissed and liable to monetary damages to the appellant. I promise you, dismissals such as happened to me would be a thing of the past.
As it is, committee members are protected by anonymity except in the case of a unanimous vote. But that shouldn't protect the chairs of those committees who, in a democracy, are bound by law to uphold the law. Those chairs should be dismissed unless they can argue on what reasonable basis they chaired a committee in the face of illegal accusations or a legal Ministry ruling, or illegal actions on their own part. For example, Lee Chian-er circulated a secret letter against me. Is that legal in Taiwan society? Doesn't a person have the right to face his accuser? Isn't that built into democratic law? Lee Chung-hsiung similarly chaired a departmental "review" to dismiss me. Review? I was not informed of the meeting. I was not informed of accusations against me. The accusations were not properly investigated according to law. Then when those accusations failed Lily's secret letter was solicited, presumably as real proof! A student says she failed 8 years ago and that's real proof? What is this, the Dark Ages or the White Terror? There's only one problem: I'm not easily terrorized. "If God is for us, who can be against us?" (ROMANS 8:31). One either takes it or takes it on. Ive decided to take it on.
I'm attaching a letter signed by 7 faculty members, most of them in positions of distinction. One is now dean, another chair, two others former chairs.
The letter is deeply insulting, impugning my integrity by accrediting the word of a student who had absolutely no proof for her claim, made it in secret, and eight years after the disputed grade. The letter was intended to discredit me but I would think any reasonable person would instead discredit the signatories (those who signed the letter).
Three of them were Americans; one of them, Rufus Cook, is still around to assume responsibility for signing it. I would like to ask him if he thinks any professor at an American college would accredit Lily 's claim and, if not, why would he do so in Taiwan?
Indeed, why would seven "reasonable" faculty members believe a student if she had no proof to her claim, made it in secret, and eight years after the class? Why would they believe one grade was unfair when I failed about one third of the students in the class and, moreover, gave this student three other reasonably high passes in two classes that same academic year? In addition, like I said in my last email, I wrote this student a letter (still in my possession) after hearing gossip about my grade and invited her to pick up her exam. She ignored the letter, claiming someone advised her to. Now why would a student who believed she failed unfairly refuse an invitation to pick up her exam, or delegate someone to do so? But better, why would I risk such an invitation unless (1) I had the exam and it justified my grade (disputing her claim I destroyed it or that she was unfairly graded), or (2) I did not have her exam, but knew for certain that Lily would not ask to pick it up for obvious reasons.
These are fundamental issues that cannot be ignored. The signatories of that letter must be called to a committee hearing to be asked one basic question, namely on what "reasonable" basis would faculty members favor an unproved accusation against their own colleague? Now the principle of Anglo-American law is "what would a reasonable person do"? Would I believe a student who said she unfairly failed your class eight years before, especially if she had no exam to prove it? Of course not. Nor would any reasonable person, and juries are composed of reasonable people, at least while they sit under oath.
(Attached are two letters, one from a normal student who failed but admitted it was her own problem; another from a grad student, who like other students and faculty at NCKU were pressured or solicited to accuse me but had the decency to apologize without equivocation, so I forgave him.)
I add parenthetically that even if, for the sake of argument, the student produced the exam eight years later, what would that prove without comparing that exam to at least several others with high or low grades? That's why we have statutes of limitations even for the worst crimes, usually, I think, of 3 years (except murder which has none). Because the principle of law allows adequate defense, and how can a person defend himself after 3 years, much less 8? Memories fail, documents are lost, witnesses forget, die, or move away, etc. I would be suspicious of a student who complained of a grade 2 or 3 weeks later! "Why did you wait 3 weeks before contesting a grade? The teacher has other things on his mind now, your former classmates may be difficult to reach, they may have destroyed their exam sheets," etc. My classmates and I used to wait outside a professor's door to contest a grade the next morning! I'm not making this up. We used to have chats outside the office door waiting our turn and ask each other why we were disputing our grades. We never thought the teacher purposely graded low; we just thought we deserved better than we got and we contested the grade immediately.
This student complained eight years later, in secret, and writes a malicious letter that one Chinese teacher said "made my hair stand on end" (I'm not making this up). Obviously she was not contesting a grade but trying to discredit me. Since the letter was solicited and dated right before my dismissal hearing, and since 7 colleagues supported her without a shred of proof, this would suggest collusion as a reasonable assumption (and remember, Anglo-American law is based on what the average reasonable person would think or do).
Now not a single one of those signatories has been punished yet. Not one. In fact some were recently promoted to prestigious positions in the university. Raymond Lai is now Dean. Aaron Chiou is now Chair. A teacher named Liu Ge-Zen, who faxed a letter to the court to support Lily's claim though he could not possibly have seen her exam since Lily said I destroyed it, is now head of a language program, I believe.
In other words, the Liberal Arts department is now represented by people who who discredited a colleague on no reasonable basis. One of them was my former student for whom I wrote a reference letter. Now you know why Shakespeare wrote King Lear: "How sharper than serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child."
The worst of it is I assume many of those involved in these letters thought I would never find out, since I would not stay in Taiwan long enough. So when I got my job back some of them came up with excuses. "I don't remember signing the letter," one said, asking me to vote for him! Another said, "All I meant was I knew Lily longer than I knew you." As if that's a reasonable basis to make judicial judgments anyway. What rational person would make a judicial judgment on how long they knew a person, especially when the other person was their own teacher?
But this kind of byzantine discourse is typical here. It reminds me of talking to one official over the Lily matter. He kept whining, "Oh, I wish I knew who to believe!" What kind of whining lament is that? You give the presumption of truth (i.e. innocence) to the accused, not the accuser. Otherwise if A accused B of stealing money I would respond, "I wish I knew whom to believe!" But I wouldn't respond like that; I would respond, "If you have proof go to the police right now." If he said the theft happened 8 year ago I would respond, "You have a problem, then. You can't expect the police to believe you without proof." Anyway, who would believe an accusation of a failed grade 8 years later?
Many of these people were accredited in advanced democracies abroad but they seem to forget everything they learned, including the hospitality and respect they received, when they return home. It reminds me of Aesop's fable of the cat who trains to be a gentleman but as soon as he sees a mouse he reverts back to his predatory instincts. As the saying goes, "You can take the man out of the country but you can't take the country out of the man."
The consequences of their actions continue to this day. As I showed in a previous email, Lily's accusations are having an impact right to the present time.
First, though I might consider teaching part-time, because of my dubious relationship with this university I cannot rely on a quality reference letter from people in my department, certainly not without compromising myself and my case. Indeed, since I had many students in my Film class, I might be teaching part-time at NCKU.
Second, several students recently told me all their classmates heard of Lily's accusation and, as you saw in one attachment (attached), they favored Lily's side rather than mine.
Third, while I cannot teach part-time at my university, the student who discredited me, instead of being dismissed for doing so, is now teaching part-time, according to the official NCKU web page, implicitly endorsing her secret letter against me, which implies her letter was justified. Can you see the problem here? Can you see why I must and will pursue this case until it's formally resolved according to principles of law?
I should add that no one involved in this case has been punished. Lee Chian-er, who circulated a secret letter at an important committee, was never punished to my knowledge. Li Chung-hsiung, who chaired a department dismissal hearing without even notifying me or trying to prove so-called accusations against me was never punished. Ren Shyg-jong, who illegally dismissed me before the 1999 dismissal (it was overturned because Ren used spurious student evaluations) was never punished for that. One dean, I was told, forged official minutes to make it look like I was advised to be a better teacher at the hearing, presumably to help Ren save face when the dismissal was reversed. He was never punished. As for Kao Chiang, not only wasn't he punished for defying the Ministry of Education for nearly two and a half years but he was actually endorsed for a second term as university president afterwards. This is not tragedy any longer, it's farce.
But it's ironic farce, because the longer this case goes unresolved the more it is exposed, such as one student's comments I recently attached. She made it clear next time those rumors occur she would send students to my blog, where of course they will read the facts, not the gossip. Had those involved in misconduct been punished immediately few would have heard of it or even cared. So the Wheel of Karma works in ironic ways and, to quote Shakespeare, "the whirligig of time exacts its revenges."
Regarding your four points, (1) of course we're all busy at something. If nobody did anything on that basis nothing would ever get done. And I think Taiwanese owe it to other countries to "do democracy" the way other countries do, insuring a hospitable environment when you go to England or Australia or the US, etc. If only based on the principle of reciprocity, important in Chinese tradition, don't you think faculty here should insure our legal rights the way we do theirs?
As for (2) and (3), what "details" are there? This case is transparent, unless one wishes to complicate matters, the way they used to complicate issues when a woman was raped, for example ("Did she wear lipstick? Was her skirt short? Did she wiggle when she walked?"). The rational answer is WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? Either she was raped or she was not. My kind sir, all it takes is a minute or so to read a single MOE letter warning Kao Chiang to issue contracts to realize that the MOE was defied. All it takes is a few minutes to see the MOE ruling that my dismissal was canceled, or a few minutes to see that a student was allowed to submit a secret letter without proof eight years after a grade or that Lee Chain-er circulated that letter.
Remember in law the phrase is "reasonable doubt" not any kind of doubt. And that doubt must be based on principles of law. I cannot reasonably doubt that a paraplegic killed someone just because ten senators claim so if one physician proves it's impossible for the person to walk up the stairs to kill someone. But the university played a game of numbers, thinking that if seven faculty members signed a letter against me that would be seven against one (actually eight if you include Lily). But the law is not a children's game of numbers but of principles. If seven people have no basis to make a claim then seven is as good as none under the law, even if those seven included Pope Benedict and the Dali Lama. That's what "due process" means. One official here once told me, in a matter not related to this case, "I wouldn't lie." I told him I didn't care if he would lie or not, all I cared about was getting a document before I took action. See the difference between rational behavior and irrational behavior?
As for your final point, I refer you to this link to an article called "Silence of the Lambs," which covers the main issue you brought up: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2009/06/13/2003446067
One of my favorite sayings is "Democracy is not something you have, it's something you do." With all due respect, my colleagues have got to start committing themselves to democracy at this university or you will be the laughing stock of the world. I was actually told by a teacher in another college that my case was taught to freshmen officials in order to teach them what not to do in a dismissal action. Yet NCKU is presumably the second-ranked university in Taiwan.
Moreover the greater the delay in resolving this case, the greater exposure it will have, and it will impact NCKU's reputation for years to come. As it is I have no doubt that this case will never disappear; that twenty years from now graduate students writing their theses or dissertations in law or political science will refer to this case. Several human rights groups here and in the US already have all the documents, including most of my letters. Many of those documents are circulating around the globe by now. And keep in mind, the heroes of today (those who colluded in my dismissal) will be the villains of tomorrow, just like in the 2-28 incident you referred to.. That's always the case in histories of human rights.The university's attempt at revisionism, apparent in their failure to apologize or admit wrongdoing and in the still current gossip about me, will never succeed, I guarantee that.
Thanks again for your email. I'll conclude with another relevant quote, from Edmund Burke: "All it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men [and women] to do nothing."
In conclusion, even if NCKU faculty here don't care about "foreigners," they should at least care about the reputation of their university. Because I will continue to expose this case, and use channels of American law if available, until this case is completely resolved according to principles guaranteed under international human rights charters endorsed by Taiwan's own president. I am committed to to upholding my reputation and the reputation of American professors in Taiwan.We treat professors from Taiwan with dignity in America and I expect the same treatment for us in Taiwan.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio.
No comments:
Post a Comment