Letter to Scholars at Risk

16 July 2002

Dear Mr. Quinn,

I am writing this letter in view of two letters you wrote to the
university on behalf of Professor Richard de Canio, which were forwarded to
me yesterday, as soon as Professor de Canio received them. In my capacity
as a member of the National Cheng Kung University Faculty Union, I feel it
is incumbent upon me to clarify issues of the case involving Professor de
Canio.
As you may know, in March of 1999, a departmental dismissal action was
started against Professor De Canio. From the beginning, this dismissal
action involved rather serious violations of laws, regulations, and due
process of law. For example, Professor De Canio was not even informed of
accusations against him before the dismissal action. In addition, a secret
letter was circulated at the committee hearings the passed his dismissal.
I will not repeat all the details of this case. Suffice it to say,
that, due to obvious legal violations, the university was compelled to
"cancel" Professor De Canio's dismissal. However, although the university
should have then revived Professor De Canio's contract, instead the case was
returned to the department for further "review." Part of the reasoning was
that, in view of the fact that Professor De Canio is a foreigner, and
despite the cancellation of his dimissal , a further review was necessary.
This was an improper ruling for several reasons. First, it violated
university regulations, as they have been commonly understood at our
university. Then it violated the normal principle in law that a favorable
ruling in an appeal must produce legal benefits or the ruling is without
substance. Finally, of course, it violated the principle of equal treatment
for all faculty, regardless of nationality.
Equally of concern to us is the fact that this equivocal appeal ruling,
denying Professor De Canio any tangible benefits while enjoining further
investigation and the burden of his continued defense, amounts to open-ended
persecution of the appellant. This, indeed, is a tactic that has been
repeated numerous times since that first appeal ruling. Indeed, Professor
De Canio has defended himself at countless hearings at the department,
college, university, and even Ministry levels, with no legal benefits except
(according to the university) the right to appeal again. This is clearly an
abuse of Professor De Canio's rights, his human dignity, and the spirit of
the democratic laws as written and commonly accepted in Taiwan, even if not
enforced.
Most recently, in June, 2002, Professor De Canio was reviewed yet again
by the department, college, and university, despite a Ministry appeal
decision in his favor in February, 2001. I have just received the
university's official ruling. It states that his dismissal has been
canceled, but his case should be returned to the department for further
review.
It is apparent that the university, knowing it can not legally dismiss
Professor De Canio, is hoping to delay issuance of his contract for as long
as is necessary until Professor De Canio forfeits the legal benefits that
are rightfully (and lawfully) his. As it is, Professor De Canio, pending
the final disposition of this case, has suffered great hardship simply
staying in Taiwan for more than three years, with countless visa problems,
lack of medical insurance, and financial worries.
Thanks, however, to the support of several colleagues, who are
determined to obtain justice for him, Professor De Canio has been able to
continue to pursue his rights. But he has paid a heavy price for a justice
that should be his routinely under democratic laws.
Thus the claim by President Kao Chiang that laws are being followed at
National Cheng Kung University is clearly false. Just the fact that the
university is not accepting the Ministry ruling belies President Kao's
claim. In addition, the university has filed a lawsuit against Professor De
Canio, attempting to nullify the Ministry's ruling. In fact, the university
lawyer has argued in court that Professor De Canio, as a foreigner, really
has no right to appeal. Not only is this a falsehood, belied by the
university's own appeal hearings in his case, but it contradicts the
university's participation in the Ministry hearing, even sending university
representatives to Taipei to argue its case. Only after losing their case
did they decide Professor De Canio had no right to appeal in the first
place.
I hope this letter has clarified key issues in this case. And I hope,
as both an academic and a citizen of Taiwan, that, in protecting the rights
of Professor De Canio, Scholars at Risk will, in addition, have helped us to
advance democratic principles at our universities, not only for the benefit
of foreign academics, but for that of our own compatriots as well.

Sincerely,

Professor Ray Dah-tong,
Associate Professor
Department of Mineral and Chemical Engineering
National Cheng Kung University
1 Ta-hseuh Road,
Tainan, Taiwan
(2757575) 62831
Email: raydon@mail.ncku.edu.tw

[Fwd: Regarding human rights abuses at a Taiwan university]

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Regarding human rights abuses at a Taiwan university
Date:	Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:58:16 +0800
From:	rdca25@gmail.com
To:	crnelson@illinois.edu
References:	<4A5E870C.1080001@gmail.com> <001c01ca05de$34a5f350$6822748c@pjP>

Dr. Cary Nelson
President,
American Association of University Professors

2 October 2009

Dear President Nelson,

.
    I have had long-standing problems regarding human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) in Tainan, Taiwan. In 2001, Taiwan's Ministry of Education canceled my illegal dismissal (1999-2000), boldfacing human rights violations. Instead of reinstating me, NCKU argued foreigners had no right to appeal, even though the university held appeal hearings and attended Ministry hearings!
    After defying Ministry of Eduction directives for more than two years, the university finally reinstated me in 2003, but without formal redress. NCKU currently has many academic exchanges with US universities. But as a professor and American citizen, I do not believe disregard for human rights should be a basis for academic exchanges with a university in a democratic country, especially my own.
    Currently several high-ranking NCKU officials are American citizens or have benefited from American democratic values. They have ignored my petitions to formally resolve this case with apologies, penalties, and compensation according to internationally recognized principles of law.
    Our universities should not maintain academic exchanges with a university that flagrantly violates human rights and scorns human rights principles. Academic exchanges should entail some degree of reciprocity.
    If, as was stated on the Purdue University news page, NCKU "is one of the most outstanding universities in Asia, if not the world," one must question if human rights are relevant in this assessment, or if human rights are relevant at all.
    The current president, Dr. Michael M. C. Lai, hasn't even responded to several requests to discuss this issue. Apart from not honoring an appeal the university itself participated in, the fact that NCKU would try to enforce discriminatory practices against foreign faculty should concern American faculty in the US. Under the circumstances, I wish you can inform me what my options are, since there is no juridical leverage in Taiwan.
    Taiwan's courts seem to take away with one hand the rights they give with the other. It reminds me of a line from a Shakespeare play, "I can call the dead too, but will they come?" Yes, you can sue officials in Taiwan, but will you win?
   For example, the courts imposed no penalties on university officials, though the violations were egregious, willful, and defiant. Other court cases were a waste of time and money.
    In my suit against a student who wrote a secret accusatory letter, the court ruled it was not libel since no one outside the university read it! Yet the student's letter was secretly circulated at appeal and review hearings! According to most libel laws, a third party is sufficient to constitute libel!
    Similarly, my suit against Review Committee members who made unproved accusations was dismissed on the basis the accusations were not circulated outside the department!
    Another court ruled against compensatory damages (travel costs incurred to renew my visas), insisting there was no need for me to have stayed in Taiwan! But when an American left Taiwan during a child custody dispute, the court ruled that by leaving Taiwan the father proved he had no interest in the child and awarded custody to the mother!
    In other words, "Heads I win, tails you lose." I won the contract case presumably because the court had to uphold a Ministry ruling or risk an international scandal. But the wonder is it accepted the university's case at all, based on no acceptable legal principle. Still, the court imposed no punitive damages on the university and awarded no compensatory damages to me.
    Such rulings increase the risk among foreign faculty in Taiwan, who are less likely to fight for their rights. I believe a US court would have imposed millions of dollars in punitive damages on a university that behaved with such willful defiance as this university has (see attachments).
    Taiwan English-language newspapers, which preach independence "in the name of democracy" have ignored my letters as have Taiwan human rights groups. Meanwhile, Chinese-American academics seem indifferent to democratic principles once they become local officials.
    I'm not sure what can be done abroad. But these issues should concern human rights activists, universities, and faculty abroad. American universities should not maintain academic exchanges with a university that flagrantly violates human rights and scorns human rights principles. Academic exchanges should not be construed merely as economic exchanges but should be based on human rights principles, not to mention principles of reciprocity.
    I write not only as a victim of human rights abuses in Taiwan but on behalf of all Americans who teach here who may have been, or will be, subject to similar abuses without redress.
    Under the circumstances, I can only hope for assistance, or at least advice, from American professors abroad. For example, does an American citizen have legal leverage to request that an American university suspend academic exchanges with a foreign univesity that has been proved to have violated human rights? (Please see attachments.)
    I appreciate whatever assistance or advice you give. My main goal is to effect just closure in this case, based on principles of international human rights laws.

    Sincerely,

    Richard de Canio
    Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
    National Cheng Kung University

Letters from Taiwan's Ministry of Education to National Cheng Kung University's President
Regarding Enforcement of an Appeal Ruling

These are English translations of eight letters from the Ministry of Education to National Cheng Kung University concerning my illegal dismissal and the university's refusal to abide by a legal Ministry ruling, even though the university participated in appeal hearings and only challenged my right to appeal after the ruling favored me. It even filed a lawsuit to challenge the Ministry's ruling, then used the court case to try to further delay issuing the contracts!
(The translations are by a member of the NCKU Faculty Union. Chinese copies are attached in JPEG and PDF formats. Below are paraphrases. In any version, the unprincipled conduct of National Cheng Kung University is evident.)

    1. April 6, 2001: "The university should make lawful remedy within a month."
    2. May 11, 2001 "The university should first revive the contract with Mr. De Canio, which is the proper remedy."
    3. June 14, 2001 "If there is no practical revival of the contract, the decision of the MOE Appeals Committee is equivalent to vain words. Procedural justice should be upheld first. The university should not use the results of its previous improper procedures as an excuse to delay reinstating the professor."
    4. August 7, 2001 "If the university willfully delays so as to damage the teacher’s rights, the university must bear complete responsibility."
    5. May 3, 2002 "The university should first revive the contract with Mr. De Canio starting from August 1, 1999, and compensate his salary. There is no need to wait for the court verdict."
    6. October 15, 2002 "The university should immediately process the application of contract extension permit."
    7. December 2, 2002 "The university’s request to wait for the court verdict is denied. Revive the contract with Mr. De Canio and compensate his salary as soon as possible."
    8. January 17, 2003 "Do as described in the letter of December 2, 2002."

[Fwd: Regarding human rights abuses at a Taiwan university]

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Regarding human rights abuses at a Taiwan university
Date:	Fri, 28 May 2010 00:59:02 +0800
From:	rdca25@gmail.com
To:	humlaw@wcl.american.edu
CC:	hrbrief@wcl.american.edu
References:	<4A5E870C.1080001@gmail.com> <001c01ca05de$34a5f350$6822748c@pjP>

Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law
Human Rights Brief

28 May 2010

Dear Faculty and Students,

I have had long-standing problems regarding human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) in Tainan, Taiwan. In 2001, Taiwan's Ministry of Education canceled my illegal dismissal (1999-2000), highlighting human rights violations. Instead of reinstating me, NCKU argued foreigners had no right to appeal, even though the university held appeal hearings and attended Ministry hearings.
    After defying Ministry of Education directives for more than two years, the university finally reinstated me in 2003, but without formal redress. NCKU currently has many academic exchanges with US universities. But I do not believe disregard for human rights is a basis for academic exchanges with universities that observe human rights.
    Currently several high-ranking NCKU officials are American citizens or have benefited from American democratic values. They have ignored my petitions to formally resolve this case with apologies, penalties, and compensation according to internationally recognized principles of law.
    Our universities should not maintain academic exchanges with a university that flagrantly violates human rights and scorns human rights principles.
    If, as was stated on the Purdue University news page, NCKU "is one of the most outstanding universities in Asia, if not the world," one must question if human rights are relevant in this assessment, or if human rights are relevant at all.
    The current president, Dr. Michael M. C. Lai, hasn't even responded to several requests to discuss this issue. Apart from not honoring an appeal the university itself participated in, the fact that NCKU would try to enforce discriminatory practices against foreign faculty should concern American faculty in the US. Under the circumstances, I wish you can inform me what my options are, since there is no juridical leverage in Taiwan.
    Taiwan's courts seem to take away with one hand the rights they give with the other. It reminds me of a line from a Shakespeare play, "I can call the dead, but will they come?" You can sue officials in Taiwan, but will you win?
   For example, the courts imposed no penalties on university officials, though the violations were egregious, willful, defiant and lasted several years. Other court cases were a waste of time and money.
    In my suit against a student who wrote a secret libelous letter, the court ruled it was not libel since no one outside the university read it. Yet the student's letter was secretly circulated at appeal and review hearings. According to most law dictionaries, a third party is sufficient to constitute libel.
    Similarly, my suit against Review Committee members who made unproved accusations was dismissed on the basis the accusations were not circulated outside the department.
    Another court ruled against compensatory damages (travel costs to renew my visas), insisting there was no need for me to have stayed in Taiwan. But when an American left Taiwan during a child custody dispute, the court ruled that by leaving Taiwan the father proved he had no interest in the child and awarded custody to the mother.
    In other words, "Heads I win, tails you lose." I won the contract case presumably because the court had to uphold a Ministry ruling. The wonder is it accepted the university's case at all, based on no acceptable legal principle. Still, the court imposed no punitive damages on the university and awarded no compensatory damages to me. Such rulings increase the risk among foreign faculty in Taiwan, who are less likely to fight for their rights knowing even if they win they nonetheless lose in terms of the cost and years to fight the case.
    Taiwan English-language newspapers, which espouse democracy, have ignored my letters as have Taiwan human rights groups. Meanwhile, Chinese-American academics seem indifferent to democratic principles once they become local officials.
    These issues should be of concern to human rights activists, universities, and faculty abroad. American universities should not maintain academic exchanges with a university that flagrantly violates human rights and scorns human rights principles. Academic exchanges should not be based on economic exchanges but on human rights principles.
    I write not only as an American victim of human rights abuses in Taiwan but on behalf of all foreigners who teach here who may have been, or will be, subject to similar abuses without redress.
    Under the circumstances, I can only hope for assistance, or at least advice, from your Center. For example, does an American citizen have legal leverage to request that an American university suspend academic exchanges with a foreign university that has been proved to have violated human rights? (Please see attachments.)
    I appreciate whatever assistance or advice you give. My main goal is to effect just closure in this case, based on principles of international human rights laws and to obtain for Americans the same protections in Taiwan guaranteed to citizens of Taiwan in America.

    Sincerely,

    Richard de Canio
    Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
    National Cheng Kung University

Letters from Taiwan's Ministry of Education to National Cheng Kung University's President
Regarding Enforcement of an Appeal Ruling

These are English translations of eight letters from the Ministry of Education to National Cheng Kung University concerning my illegal dismissal and the university's refusal to abide by a legal Ministry ruling, even though the university participated in appeal hearings and only challenged my right to appeal after the ruling favored me. It even filed a lawsuit to challenge the Ministry's ruling, then used the court case to try to further delay issuing the contracts!
(The translations are by a member of the NCKU Faculty Union. Chinese copies are attached in JPEG and PDF formats. Below are paraphrases. In any version, the unprincipled conduct of National Cheng Kung University is evident.)

    1. April 6, 2001: "The university should make lawful remedy within a month."
    2. May 11, 2001 "The university should first revive the contract with Mr. De Canio, which is the proper remedy."
    3. June 14, 2001 "If there is no practical revival of the contract, the decision of the MOE Appeals Committee is equivalent to vain words. Procedural justice should be upheld first. The university should not use the results of its previous improper procedures as an excuse to delay reinstating the professor."
    4. August 7, 2001 "If the university willfully delays so as to damage the teacher’s rights, the university must bear complete responsibility."
    5. May 3, 2002 "The university should first revive the contract with Mr. De Canio starting from August 1, 1999, and compensate his salary. There is no need to wait for the court verdict."
    6. October 15, 2002 "The university should immediately process the application of contract extension permit."
    7. December 2, 2002 "The university’s request to wait for the court verdict is denied. Revive the contract with Mr. De Canio and compensate his salary as soon as possible."
    8. January 17, 2003 "Do as described in the letter of December 2, 2002."