4/24/2002 12:37 PM
23 April 2002
Dean Ko,
In light of our conversation today, I wish to remind you of basic legal
principles involved in my complaint against my former student Chen An-chuen.
There are official channels to complain available to students within a due
period. Those channels were available to Ms. Chen at the time of the
disputed grade. She did not use those channels, which suggests her
complaint was without merit.
Instead, Ms. Chen waited years before making a secret complaint, even
though I wrote her a letter in 1996 in which I suggested I keep exams in my
office and, if necessary, I could locate her exam. She ignored my letter.
It makes no sense why she would ignore this letter then make a complaint in
secret.
It also makes no sense why she did not mention taking a conversation class
with me; a class in which she received two high passes.
You are quoted as saying Ms. Chen claims I could not fail her in the
Conversation Class because she did well in it. But if I could not fail her
in that class because she did well, then why would I fail her in British
Literature, unless she did not do well? By Ms. Chen’s own logic, her
failure in British Literature was justified, just like her passing the
conversation class was justified.
Besides, this does not explain how she could claim to forget that she took
those conversation classes from me. She at first claimed this in court,
saying she "forgot." Do you think a student could forget taking a class
from a professor, especially while claiming to remember details in my
teaching to discredit me?
But the reason I am sending this fax is not to remind you of facts you are
familiar with. It is to remind you that Ms. Chen’s accusation is past the
point when it should be dignified with consideration, much less
"investigation."
Ms. Chen is entitled merely to defend herself; she is not entitled to
accuse me. There is a big difference; and that difference is, to my mind,
the difference between a just use of office and an abuse of office. Yet the
feeling I got during our conversation this afternoon is that Ms. Chen
continues to defend herself by accusing me and you are supporting her, using
public office, in doing this.
But an investigation of Ms. Chen’s accusations, taken as it were at face
value, is harassment, and dignifies or accredits Ms. Chen accusations as
"facts" that need to be investigated. I remind you, Dean Ko, there are no
facts in Ms. Chen’s accusations; they are her opinions. She is entitled to
them, like I am entitled to my opinions of her. But Ms. Chen is not
entitled to have her opinions dignified with consideration as if they were
facts.
If Ms. Chen had made her accusation a couple of days or even a couple of
weeks after the disputed grade, it would have been very simple to bring in
copies, not only of her exam, but of dozens of exams from other students;
and, in addition, to call in students from that year’s British Literature
and Conversation courses. It would have taken about ten minutes to
discredit the accusation.
Instead, ten years later, you are still considering Ms. Chen’s complaint as
if it was legitimate and acceptable. It is not legitimate; it is not
acceptable. Even if other documentation mentioned repeatedly here and
elsewhere was not available, no professor should be compelled to defend
himself against what is at best hearsay and at worst malicious gossip.
I wish to remind you one more time, I believe it is improper to use your
office in this fashion. An investigation into the legitimacy of Ms. Chen’s
complaint should not simply attempt to "justify" her complaint. This is
improper. Ms. Chen has to defend herself, not I. And she must defend
herself without accusing me.
She must do this simply on facts alone. When was her British exam? When
was her complaint? Why did she not make use of proper channels, as
university policy requires? Why did she conceal her conversation grades?
Why didn’t she take back her exam in response to my letter in 1994? Why did
she make a secret accusation?
This is, as I understand it, both the extent and limit of your
investigation. To go beyond this, to make me the subject of solicited
accusations is, to my mind, morally wrong and unacceptable. In the end, you
will be repeating the offense against me made by a former dean of Liberal
Arts, who accepted this student’s accusation at face value, even though it
was made in secret and was without documented support.
By documented support, I do not mean mutual support. The fact that Jill
agrees with Jane does not make it true.
By documented support I mean if, for example, Ms. Chen had filed a grievance
against me soon after receiving her grade and the grievance committee ruled
in her favor. Later, Ms. Chen submitted that document to the dean’s office
to support an accusation against me.
Do you see the difference, Dean Ko? It seems to me, the difference is
between democracy and only the show of democracy.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio.
(06) 237 8626
Showing posts with label April 24 2002. Show all posts
Showing posts with label April 24 2002. Show all posts
Monday, August 2, 2010
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
4/24/2002 10:19 PM
Subject: 3d fax
24 April 2002
Dean Ko,
Because of a documented history of legal violations at National Cheng Kung
University, I feel it necessary to sum up the legal issues that should
govern your investigation into my grievance against Ms. Lily Chen.
My grievance is NOT against Ms. Lily Chen. Ms. Lily Chen's person is none
of my business. And any opinion I may have, favorable or not, of Ms. Chen
would fall under the category of gossip or hearsay.
My grievance is asking you to investigate Ms. Chen's letter. This is
different. This is a fact.
Did Ms. Chen submit this letter?
Did it contain a documented fact?
Was its substance malicious?
Did it conceal material facts (like taking other courses from me and
receiving high passes)?
Was its dating suspicious, dated just after departmental dismissal action
against me?
Did it use proper channels at the proper time?
Was the letter secret?
Since the letter is the substance of my grievance against Ms. Chen, that is
the extent of your investigation into the matter. Any other investigation
is unwarranted, and, indeed, unsanctioned by lawful inquiry.
No professor anywhere in the world should be required to defend himself
against vague accusations and opinions, much less those that go back more
than ten years.
First, every single teacher who has ever lived has students who admire them
and those who do not think so highly. You would be shocked to hear what my
colleagues think about some of your colleagues, some of whom you admire.
But that's only our opinions. We don't pretend our opinions should be
"investigated."
When I ask for an investigation, I ask for an investigation into documented
facts. Ms. Chen's letter is a documented fact. That's the extent and limit
of your investigation. My personal opinion (and that of my colleagues) is
not a documented fact; it's only an opinion, even if it's a shared opinion.
A shared opinion does not add up to a fact, just to many opinions.
Try to focus on your legal duties in this investigation. And let's all of
us try to improve democratic process at our university.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
(06) 237 8626
Subject: 3d fax
24 April 2002
Dean Ko,
Because of a documented history of legal violations at National Cheng Kung
University, I feel it necessary to sum up the legal issues that should
govern your investigation into my grievance against Ms. Lily Chen.
My grievance is NOT against Ms. Lily Chen. Ms. Lily Chen's person is none
of my business. And any opinion I may have, favorable or not, of Ms. Chen
would fall under the category of gossip or hearsay.
My grievance is asking you to investigate Ms. Chen's letter. This is
different. This is a fact.
Did Ms. Chen submit this letter?
Did it contain a documented fact?
Was its substance malicious?
Did it conceal material facts (like taking other courses from me and
receiving high passes)?
Was its dating suspicious, dated just after departmental dismissal action
against me?
Did it use proper channels at the proper time?
Was the letter secret?
Since the letter is the substance of my grievance against Ms. Chen, that is
the extent of your investigation into the matter. Any other investigation
is unwarranted, and, indeed, unsanctioned by lawful inquiry.
No professor anywhere in the world should be required to defend himself
against vague accusations and opinions, much less those that go back more
than ten years.
First, every single teacher who has ever lived has students who admire them
and those who do not think so highly. You would be shocked to hear what my
colleagues think about some of your colleagues, some of whom you admire.
But that's only our opinions. We don't pretend our opinions should be
"investigated."
When I ask for an investigation, I ask for an investigation into documented
facts. Ms. Chen's letter is a documented fact. That's the extent and limit
of your investigation. My personal opinion (and that of my colleagues) is
not a documented fact; it's only an opinion, even if it's a shared opinion.
A shared opinion does not add up to a fact, just to many opinions.
Try to focus on your legal duties in this investigation. And let's all of
us try to improve democratic process at our university.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
(06) 237 8626
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
24 April 2002
Dean Ko,
Regarding the three faxes I sent to you yesterday and today, I am
requesting an agreement
from you regarding your responsibility as Dean of Students in my grievance
against my
former student, Chen An-chuen.
Please reply as soon as possible whether you agree with my belief
concerning the extent
and limits of your investigation into my grievance; that it is not to exceed
the fact of Ms.
Chen's letter, the substance of that letter, and the aggravated
circumstances of the letter and
its submission to university officials years after its disputed claims and
at the time of
dismissal action against me.
Needless to say, Ms. Chen is entitled to defend herself, which is a
better chance than I
had. But Ms. Chen's defense must be limited to addressing facts of my
grievance: the fact of
the letter, the fact of its
submission, the fact of secrecy, the fact of withholding material
information, etc.
As part of her defense, Ms. Chen can deny sending the letter. She can
claim the right to
submit the letter. She can protest that she was solicited to submit the
letter and to write the
substance of the letter; or even that she was compelled to do so. She can
argue she made a
mistake but that it was an innocent and pardonable offense. Or she can
admit her mistake and
request leniency.
This kind of defense is proper, if not adequate. The truth of her
claims, or the mitigation
of her offense if she was subject to official coercion or confused moral
values, or if she
submits an apology, is then up to your office to decide.
But Ms. Chen cannot, as part of her defense, simply repeat accusations
and gossip made in
her letter and expect you therefore to treat them as facts that merit
investigation. For to
investigate gossip is to legitimate gossip.
I will not permit this defamation of my character under the guise of
"official
investigation." If I go to you and complain that a student committed an
offense, you are not
therefore authorized to investigate this student's background, contact her
classmates, etc. The
extent and limit of your investigation is, first, to ask me for proof of her
offense (for example,
a court judgment, or reliable witnesses); and then to advise the student of
the proof and
enable her defense.
In Law, if the facts speak for themselves, there is no need to
investigate. If the facts do not
speak for themselves, there is no reason to investigate. Thus, without
reason to investigate,
there is neither legal nor moral justification to do so; an investigation
falls outside the
protection of lawful or authorized action on the part of a university
official.
As Dean of Students, your legal authority is limited to an investigation
of complaints
against students.. You are not otherwise authorized to investigate the
background of a
colleagues, or even of students, for that matter.
Please understand, I have nothing to hide or to be ashamed of. I appeal
to legal and moral
principles, as well as professional respect, by which we all benefit. If we
investigated every
accusation or rumor about a colleague or neighbor, there would be no end to
the mischief
done. The law recognizes this potential for mischief and therefore limits
the inquiry into our
private or professional lives.
Ms. Chen made certain outrageous claims about me in her letter. None
are based on fact,
only on opinions or hearsay, sometimes twice or many times removed from
fact. Therefore,
apart from it being legally and morally wrong to investigate opinions and
hearsay, it would
be impossible to effect a just investigation of gossip within the limits
established by law,
recognized by reason, and respected by custom.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
(06) 237 8626
Dean Ko,
Regarding the three faxes I sent to you yesterday and today, I am
requesting an agreement
from you regarding your responsibility as Dean of Students in my grievance
against my
former student, Chen An-chuen.
Please reply as soon as possible whether you agree with my belief
concerning the extent
and limits of your investigation into my grievance; that it is not to exceed
the fact of Ms.
Chen's letter, the substance of that letter, and the aggravated
circumstances of the letter and
its submission to university officials years after its disputed claims and
at the time of
dismissal action against me.
Needless to say, Ms. Chen is entitled to defend herself, which is a
better chance than I
had. But Ms. Chen's defense must be limited to addressing facts of my
grievance: the fact of
the letter, the fact of its
submission, the fact of secrecy, the fact of withholding material
information, etc.
As part of her defense, Ms. Chen can deny sending the letter. She can
claim the right to
submit the letter. She can protest that she was solicited to submit the
letter and to write the
substance of the letter; or even that she was compelled to do so. She can
argue she made a
mistake but that it was an innocent and pardonable offense. Or she can
admit her mistake and
request leniency.
This kind of defense is proper, if not adequate. The truth of her
claims, or the mitigation
of her offense if she was subject to official coercion or confused moral
values, or if she
submits an apology, is then up to your office to decide.
But Ms. Chen cannot, as part of her defense, simply repeat accusations
and gossip made in
her letter and expect you therefore to treat them as facts that merit
investigation. For to
investigate gossip is to legitimate gossip.
I will not permit this defamation of my character under the guise of
"official
investigation." If I go to you and complain that a student committed an
offense, you are not
therefore authorized to investigate this student's background, contact her
classmates, etc. The
extent and limit of your investigation is, first, to ask me for proof of her
offense (for example,
a court judgment, or reliable witnesses); and then to advise the student of
the proof and
enable her defense.
In Law, if the facts speak for themselves, there is no need to
investigate. If the facts do not
speak for themselves, there is no reason to investigate. Thus, without
reason to investigate,
there is neither legal nor moral justification to do so; an investigation
falls outside the
protection of lawful or authorized action on the part of a university
official.
As Dean of Students, your legal authority is limited to an investigation
of complaints
against students.. You are not otherwise authorized to investigate the
background of a
colleagues, or even of students, for that matter.
Please understand, I have nothing to hide or to be ashamed of. I appeal
to legal and moral
principles, as well as professional respect, by which we all benefit. If we
investigated every
accusation or rumor about a colleague or neighbor, there would be no end to
the mischief
done. The law recognizes this potential for mischief and therefore limits
the inquiry into our
private or professional lives.
Ms. Chen made certain outrageous claims about me in her letter. None
are based on fact,
only on opinions or hearsay, sometimes twice or many times removed from
fact. Therefore,
apart from it being legally and morally wrong to investigate opinions and
hearsay, it would
be impossible to effect a just investigation of gossip within the limits
established by law,
recognized by reason, and respected by custom.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
(06) 237 8626
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
24 April 2002
Dean Ko,
Because of a documented history of legal violations at National Cheng Kung
University, I
feel it necessary to sum up the legal issues that should govern your
investigation into my
grievance against Ms. Lily Chen.
My grievance is NOT against Ms. Lily Chen. Ms. Lily Chen's person is none
of my
business. And any opinion I may have, favorable or not, of Ms. Chen would
fall under the
category of gossip or hearsay.
My grievance is asking you to investigate Ms. Chen's letter. This is
different. This is a fact.
Did Ms. Chen submit this letter?
Did it contain a documented fact?
Was its substance malicious?
Did it conceal material facts (like taking other courses from me and
receving high passes)?
Was its dating suspicious, dated just after departmental dismissal action
against me?
Did it use proper channels at the proper time?
Was the letter secret?
Since the letter is the substance of my grievance against Ms. Chen, that is
the extent of your
investigation into the matter. Any other investigation is unwarranted, and,
indeed,
unsanctioned by lawful inquiry.
No professor anywhere in the world should be required to defend himself
against vague
accusations and opinions, much less those that go back more than ten years.
First, every single teacher who has ever lived has students who admire them
and those who
do not think so highly. You would be shocked to hear what my colleagues
think about some of
your colleagues, some of whom you admire.
But that's only our opinions. We don't pretend our opinions should be
"investigated."
When I ask for an investigation, I ask for an investigation into documented
facts. Ms. Chen's
letter is a documented fact. That's the extent and limit of your
investigation. My personal
opinion (and that of my colleagues) is not a documented fact; it's only an
opinion, even if it's
a shared opinion. A shared opinion does not add up to a fact,, just to many
opinions.
Try to focus on your legal duties in this investigation. And let's all of
us try to improve
democratic process at our university.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
(06) 237 8626
Dean Ko,
Because of a documented history of legal violations at National Cheng Kung
University, I
feel it necessary to sum up the legal issues that should govern your
investigation into my
grievance against Ms. Lily Chen.
My grievance is NOT against Ms. Lily Chen. Ms. Lily Chen's person is none
of my
business. And any opinion I may have, favorable or not, of Ms. Chen would
fall under the
category of gossip or hearsay.
My grievance is asking you to investigate Ms. Chen's letter. This is
different. This is a fact.
Did Ms. Chen submit this letter?
Did it contain a documented fact?
Was its substance malicious?
Did it conceal material facts (like taking other courses from me and
receving high passes)?
Was its dating suspicious, dated just after departmental dismissal action
against me?
Did it use proper channels at the proper time?
Was the letter secret?
Since the letter is the substance of my grievance against Ms. Chen, that is
the extent of your
investigation into the matter. Any other investigation is unwarranted, and,
indeed,
unsanctioned by lawful inquiry.
No professor anywhere in the world should be required to defend himself
against vague
accusations and opinions, much less those that go back more than ten years.
First, every single teacher who has ever lived has students who admire them
and those who
do not think so highly. You would be shocked to hear what my colleagues
think about some of
your colleagues, some of whom you admire.
But that's only our opinions. We don't pretend our opinions should be
"investigated."
When I ask for an investigation, I ask for an investigation into documented
facts. Ms. Chen's
letter is a documented fact. That's the extent and limit of your
investigation. My personal
opinion (and that of my colleagues) is not a documented fact; it's only an
opinion, even if it's
a shared opinion. A shared opinion does not add up to a fact,, just to many
opinions.
Try to focus on your legal duties in this investigation. And let's all of
us try to improve
democratic process at our university.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
(06) 237 8626
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)