Legal Rights Abuses at National Cheng Kung University

4/28/2003 6:25 AM
Subject: Important: Legal rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University in
Tainan, Taiwan (ROC); in response to the president of NCKU claiming that
laws were observed in a dimissal action against an American
professor
To: tecroinfodc@tecro-info.org
CC: rquinn@uchicago.edu, Ray Dah-tong

Chien-jen (C.J.) Chen,
Dr. Lyushun Shen,
Mr. Michael Ming-Shian Tsai
Taiwan Representative Office
Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO)
4201 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20016-2137
Tel: 202-895-1800
Fax: 202-363-0999
tecroinfodc@tecro-info.org

cc: Scholars at Risk
NCKU Faculty Union

27 April 2003

Dear Sirs,

I am outraged that Kao Chiang, the president of National Cheng Kung
University, claims the university has followed laws in my dismissal case
(Letter #0920002126, 23 April 2003).
From the beginning, my dismissal was illegal, based on secret and
unproved allegations (29 March 1999). To insure my dismissal, more
secret accusations were solicited (9 June 1999) and secretly circulated
(14, 25 June 1999).
These illegal actions are fully documented. Why does Kao Chiang
claim the university has followed laws? Is it lawful to libel a
professor or solicit secret letters against him?
On 3 December 1999, the University Appeal Committee canceled my
dismissal, yet the university refused to issue my contract (27 December
1999). Instead, it returned my case for further “review,” claiming the
Teacher’s Law does not protect foreign teachers. This decision not only
defied the Teacher’s Law, Article 32, but also commonsense: A final
appeal that subjects an appellant to further review is pointless.
But this decision was a tactical maneuver that allowed the
committee to ignore countless legal violations and cancel my dismissal
on a single technicality, assuming another cycle of review hearings
would discourage me. These hearings lasted from the Department of
Foreign Languages Review meeting on 10 March 2000 to the University
Appeal decision on 18 August 2000, which concluded that the Teacher’s
Law does not protect foreign teachers.
On 8 January 2001, the MOE Appeal Committee canceled my dismissal
and boldfaced rights violations. In defiance of that ruling, NCKU
refused to issue a contract (27 March 2001).
The MOE sent eight letters, on 11 May, 14 June, 7 August, 27
August, 3 May 2002, 15 October, 2 December, 17 January 2003 ordering the
university to issue the contract. The university defied these letters.
How can a university defy the Ministry of Education and claim to be
following laws?
In contempt of the Ministry ruling, the NCKU Review Committee
repeated its dismissal action (12 September 2001), using accusations the
Ministry already rejected. These hearings, in defiance of the Ministry
ruling, were illegal and doubly improper, since the university had not
even issued me a contract.
Kao Chiang claims observance of law. What law allows a university
to use tax-paid money to investigate a teacher without legal basis?
On 18 June 2002, the NCKU Appeal Committee canceled my dismissal
and again refused me a contract. Instead, the university filed a
lawsuit at the Tainan District Court, claiming, in denial of the
Ministry ruling, “there is no employment relationship between the NCKU
and De Canio.” Indifferent to legal principles, the lawyer now
contested my right to appeal at all, although I had already won several
appeals and been subjected to countless appeal hearings.
On 11 October 2002, the Tainan District Court ruled that, “until a
legal dismissal, the employment relationship between the NCKU and De
Canio is valid and continues.”
On 14 November 2002, the university appealed to the Taiwan Higher
Court. The judge asked NCKU to settle. In response, on 22 January
2003, university officials tried to extort a “settlement” that violated
the legal substance of the Ministry ruling, offering partial salary if I
resigned from the university. Otherwise, the university threatened to
contest the case for years.
These officials are not only without a sense of law, but without a
sense of shame. Hiding behind committees, they forget that committees
are not above the law, but answerable to the law.
The university’s contempt for human rights is obvious to anyone
with a fourth-grade education. Kao Chiang’s claims to be following laws
suggest a tactical ploy of naivete. But ignorance of the law, real or
feigned, is no excuse in law, where transparency, not duplicity, is the
rule.
The law is “what the common citizen understands it to be.” A legal
ruling is not a word puzzle, except to those puzzled by recognized
standards of good faith and fair play, such as keeping one’s word,
respecting final rulings, and, where wrongs are committed, admitting
them. Officials, who, by law, represent these values, must first uphold
them. They should be more concerned about the loss of those values than
their loss of face.
The goal of appeal is to insure that justice prevails. But in a
university where rule by committees has replaced rule by law, illegal
hearings are used punitively, to harass and intimidate and force an
appellant’s resignation.
This case is now in its fifth year. It has affected my reputation,
medical care, income, and academic career. It has seriously undermined
confidence in administrative remedy at National Cheng Kung University.
Despite warnings from the Faculty Union, the Ministry of Education,
and the Taiwan courts, university officials, using tactical delays, have
cost taxpayers millions of dollars and recklessly discredited their
university. Abiding by neither moral principles nor a sense of shame,
they will not acknowledge the authority of the law until they stand in
judgment before it.

Sincerely,

Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626

Letter to Taipei Economic and Cultural REpresentative Office (TECRO)

Taiwan Representative Office
Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO)
4201 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20016-2137
Tel: 202-895-1800
Fax: 202-363-0999

28 April 2003

Dear Representatives,

I am outraged that Kao Chiang, the president of National Cheng Kung
University, claims the university has followed
laws in my dismissal case.
From the beginning, my dismissal was illegal, based on secret and
unproved allegations (29 March 1999). At a later
meeting, more secret accusations were solicited (9 June 1999). One
letter was secretly circulated at later hearings to insure
my dismissal (14, 25 June 1999).
Why does Kao Chiang argue the university has followed laws? Is it
lawful to slander and libel a professor or solicit
secret letters against him?
On 3 December 1999, the University Appeal Committee canceled my
dismissal, yet the university refused to issue my
contract (27 December 1999). This violated the Teacher’s Law, Article
32 and the right to a final appeal. A final appeal
that subjects an appellant to further review is pointless.
On 8 January 2001, the MOE Appeal Committee canceled my dismissal
and boldfaced rights violations. Again NCKU
refused to issue a contract (27 March 2001).
The MOE sent eight letters, on 11 May, 14 June, 7 August, 27
August, 3 May 2002, 15 October, 2 December, 17
January 2003 ordering the university to issue the contract and
compensation. The university continued to defy the Ministry
of Education. How can a university defy the Ministry of Education and
claim to be following laws?
In brazen contempt of the Ministry ruling, the NCKU Review
Committee repeated its dismissal action (12 September
2001), using accusations the Ministry already rejected. These hearings,
in defiance of the Ministry ruling, were illegal and
doubly improper, since the university had not even issued me a contract.

Yet Kao Chiang claims observance of law. What rule of law allows a
university to use tax-paid money to investigate a
teacher without legal basis?
On 18 January 2002, the university filed a lawsuit at the Tainan
District Court, claiming, still in defiance of the Ministry
ruling, “there is no employment relationship between the NCKU and De
Canio.” With remarkable indifference to logic, the
lawyer contested my right to appeal in the first place, although I had
already won university and Ministry appeals, the
university never previously contested my right to appeal and, indeed,
had subjected me to countless appeal hearings.
It’s evident neither Kao Chiang nor his lawyer has a concept of
law. Indeed, in court, the university lawyer argued that
my university contract was nullified upon my employment at another
college, although my employment there followed the
university’s defiance of the Ministry’s ruling.
On 18 June 2002, the NCKU Appeal Committee canceled my dismissal
and again refused me a contract, undermining
the purpose of appeal. But the Tainan District Court ruled, on 11
October 2002, that, “until a legal dismissal, the
employment relationship between the NCKU and De Canio is valid and
continues.”
On 14 November 2002, the university appealed to the Taiwan Higher
Court. The judge asked NCKU to settle. In
response, on 22 January 2003, university officials tried to extort a
“settlement” from me that violated the legal substance of
the Ministry ruling, offering partial salary if I resigned from the
university. Otherwise, the university warned it would contest
the case for years.
These officials are not only without a sense of law, but without a
sense of shame. They believe committee decisions
validate the law, when it’s the law that validates committee decisions.
Apparently, a committee is not in the wrong even if it
commits a wrong or violates due process of law and legal rights. This is
the form of democracy without its substance. An
individual who subscribes to this policy has no business being an
official of a modern university, much less its president.
University violations against human rights are obvious to anyone
with a fourth-grade education. Yet Kao Chiang claims
to be following laws, suggesting a tactical ploy of naivete. But
ignorance of the law, real or feigned, is no excuse in law,
where transparency, not duplicity, is the rule. Interpretations are
limited by “what the common citizen understands.” A
no-parking sign refers to motor vehicles. Prices refer to local
currency. A note advising a bank teller to “give me all your
money” implies force. (A robber, when caught, cannot claim he was
asking for a handout.) A final appeal ruling that
cancels a dismissal implies, to anyone with a fourth-grade education,
the mandatory issuance of a retroactive contract.
This case is now in its fifth year. It has affected my medical
care, my income, and my academic career. I’ve been
harassed by countless illegal university hearings intended to force my
resignation from the university.
Despite warnings from the Faculty Union, the Ministry of Education,
and the Taiwan courts, university officials, with
tactical naivete, continue to defy the law, at no cost to themselves.
Instead they have cost taxpayers millions of dollars and
recklessly brought National Cheng Kung University, the Ministry of
Education, and the Taiwan government to the brink of
international scandal. Abiding by neither moral principles nor a sense
of shame, Kao Chiang will not acknowledge the
authority of the law until he stands in judgment before it.

Sincerely,

Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626