Dear Professor Ker,
Let us try to conclude the matter of my complaint against our current
student, Ms. CHEN AN-CHUEN. If the university administration had spent as
much care and concern for justice in defense of MY rights as it is now
spending in defense of Ms. CHEN's rights, this issue would have been
resolved YEARS ago.
As it is, since I have already spent several years pursuing justice in these
matters, you cannot reasonably expect me to wait much longer.
The issues, as far as I'm concerned, are plain. A student made secret,
unproved accusations defaming a professor. I hope justice can be obtained
very soon within the university. If not, there are other legal channels
open.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
(06) 237 8626
Showing posts with label Dean Ko Huei-chen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dean Ko Huei-chen. Show all posts
Monday, August 2, 2010
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
3/11/2002 10:36 AM
11 March 2002
Professor Ker,
There are a number of issues we discussed over the telephone, which,
since you claim to want to do the right thing, I would like to explore into
a little more detail here.
You claim, for example, that the student's case is confusing and it is
difficult to decide the truth of the matter. I would be the first to agree
with this. However, this admirable standard of testing hearsay by legal
(not to mention moral) standards should have been applied BEFORE the
student's accusation was
accepted, not AFTER it was accepted to discredit a professor.
But this devious double standard is common at our university, where an
appeal to law is made only to conceal abuses of the law and not to prevent
or correct them. If a student secretly and maliciously discredits a
professor, standards of law and decency are ignored. But when the injured
teacher tries to effect justice for abuses of the law, the university
appeals to the law!
I would like to remind you that, not only laws, but moral standards,
were violated when this student's secret accusation was accepted by a
previous dean. What reasonable official would accept a secret accusation,
much less one that was clearly written with a malicious intent and referred
to unsupported accusations of many
years before? At my Alma Mater, for example, graduate students had a public
book where they could evaluate their professors. But the scrapbook also
contained a warning that malicious comments about a professor would be
ripped out of the book.
Professor Ker, students have rights, but also responsibilities, usually
regulated by legal channels of complaint. This student elected not to
pursue her complaint through regular legal channels and within a restricted
period of time when the testimony of other students and comparison with
other students' exams could easily have discredited her complaint. Even
several years later, when most reasonable people would agree that I had no
obligation to respond to her complaint, I did so, suggesting I could go to
my office and locate her exam. She ignored my letter and, as I was
informed, advised my colleague that she would contact a lawyer if I pursued
the matter further. Then, five years later, she files a SECRET complaint,
which was so obviously malicious that it should have discredited itself.
Indeed, no reputable chairman or dean would have accepted it, much less
credited it. On the contrary, a reputable dean or chair at a reputable
university would have cautioned the student to submit only legitimate
complaints in the future.
Professor Ker, did it ever occur to you the kind of letter I could
write, if I so chose, against this student? Believe me, it would make her
own letter appear mild in comparison. But, being an honorable person, I am
aware that my opinions of this student are personal and should have no
special relevance to that student's academic standing or professional
employment. If you notice, my current complaints against this student are
based on documented facts; on her own letter of complaint, which most
reasonable persons would find hostile; and on specific issues that concern
legal rights at our university. I am not interested in a general character
assassination of this student, especially since the facts speak for
themselves.
But did the facts speak for themselves in the student's letter?
Professor Ker, there were no facts! Even without the documentation I have
referred to in
previous faxes, no worthy official should have allowed that secret
accusation.
I ignore other, more routine, legal rights issues, such as that, as an
appellant, new
accusations should not have been accepted against me. The whole point of an
appeal is to defend against old accusations, not be subject to new ones.
The fact that these new accusations were apparently intended to "save" the
department's weak case against me only adds to the injury. A dean of an
appeal committee is supposed to protect an appellant's rights, not
compromise them.
(Only a naive person would imagine that this student's letter was NOT
solicited at that special time in order to effect my dismissal, however
illegally. The fact that the letter was even accepted, although dated
months after the department's initial accusations, only adds to the witches'
brew of legal rights violations at our university.)
The facts are plain. The former dean who handled this case should have
reversed it as soon as he realized the department's accusations against me
were not proved. But he chose a social conformity over a conformity to the
law. Perhaps this dean observed his conscience. But observing one's
conscience is not sufficient if one's conscience does not recognize the law.
I have been informed that the dean accepted this secret accusation
because the student affirmed she was willing to go to court and repeat her
claim. According to this official, her claim was therefore acceptable as
true.
Professor Ker, if I tell you that I am willing to go to court to swear
that I am Santa Claus, does that prove to your intellectual satisfaction
that I am Santa Claus?
(For the record, in court, this student chastised me for taking this
case to court! She also claimed not to have remembered taking other courses
from me, in which she received high passes, the same year she claims she
failed unfairly. Courtroom testimony also suggested that at least one
university official, a current dean at our
university, committed perjury to discredit me.)
Professor Ker, you appeal to the law to explain why an investigation
into this student's accusation is being delayed. But are you aware how many
violations of
law, whether moral or legal, were necessary in order to effect my dismissal
from the university? I'll list some of them.
1. The former chair of my department accepted secret accusations
against me at a review meeting. These accusations became the basis for my
dismissal at the departmental review meeting. I was never informed of these
accusations, although the chairman had one year to do so.
(This same chairman had the wisdom to inform me early in the first
semester that he needed a teacher for a night class. I informed him that,
in sympathy with his new chairmanship, I would accept an additional night
course. Yet this same chairman did not see fit to inform me of accusations
used in the department dismissal motion against me many months later, in
March.
Professor Ker, apart from legal rights violations, does the chairman's
behavior represent the best in principles of Chinese reciprocity to your
mind?)
2. These secret accusations were never properly investigated, according
to
Ministry regulations.
3. They were never proved, according to Ministry standards of proof.
4. Accusers included members of the review committee!
5. A review committee isn't even supposed to make accusations against a
professor, but merely "review" accusations against him.
Professor Ker, since you recognize the law, where is the observance of
law in these instances?
To be frank, I think very few people at our university have the
slightest knowledge of democratic process or even interest in it. Those few
who do don't care enough to challenge the rest who don't. Perhaps you're
one of them, since you told me it's all very confusing. I don't think so.
I think violations here were flagrant, if not outrageous. In any case, an
official at a university does not have the same right to be confused about
observance of the law.
To take the student complaint, all that is necessary for you to know is
that a student was allowed to accuse me and I was not allowed to defend
myself against her complaint, or even informed of it. If that does not
outrage your sense of moral conscience, then, frankly, your moral sense is
different from mine. But I'll say one thing for certain. If your child was
expelled from an American university based on another student's secret
complaint, you would no longer be confused about either the moral or legal
issues involved.
Professor Ker, we cannot square our conscience with acts such as I've
detailed here, anymore than we can square a circle. The law is a public
thing, not a private opinion. You cannot square the circle of justice by
saying you will obserrve one law, ignore that law, select this law, and
interpret another law. Democracy is a govenrment of laws; but it is also a
government of Law, which means an impartial and routine execution of laws.
For example, do you seriously believe that if this student had written the
same complaint against Kao Chiang or Lee Chen-er that it would have been
accepted? I think you would agree that the student's complaint would have
gone straight to the trash can; or worse: straight to the accused party so
he could chastise the student himself.
Professor Ker, you appeal with confidence to university laws. Do you
think that our committees have the same confidence in these laws?
Previously, a chairman in 1994 tried to effect my dismissal. He used
several "student evaluations" against me. In the same manner related above,
I was never informed of these evaluations, nor was I allowed a chance to
defend myself against them, nor were they even official
evaluations. Rather, they were solicited by the chairman in order to
discredit me and then effect my dismissal. This chairman was never punished
for this offense. On the contrary, according to the routine indifference to
law at our university, this individual (who also perjured himself in court
on behalf of the student who accused me) was elected dean of a college last
academic year.
As for my teaching contract, you know I won a Ministry of Education
award, canceling my dismissal. Presumably, this means my dismissal is not
in effect. Yet the university administration has interdicted the
enforcement of this ruling.
Professor Ker, you mention observance of law. Do you think the
Ministry of Education represents law in Taiwan? If not, what does it
represent? Or, put differently, who represents the law? Kao Chiang or the
university lawyers? Believe me, Professor Ker, if the Taiwan constitution
wanted university lawyers to represent the law of the land, it would say
so. If the Taiwan constitution wanted individual lawyers to interpret the
law of the land, it would say so. But, so far as I know, only the judiciary
in any democracy, including Taiwan, is authorized to interpret the law; all
other officials are obligated to enforce it.
Do you think an appeal decision in an appellant's favor can be
interpreted to mean that appellant merely has the right to appeal again?
Does this sound like a
rational point of view? Does it sound like a moral point of view?
If all a person could win by appealing was the right to appeal again, do
you think anyone would waste time to appeal? What would be the point? Even
if the university believed this, they would have had to make this clear from
the very beginning.
In law, many things are assumed. When you point to a picture of a
car and pay NT500,000, it is assumed, in law, you are buying the car, not
the picture of the car. But what if a devious lawyer claimed you had merely
bought the picture of a car? Would you still be "confused" over right and
wrong?
What if you owned a restaurant and a customer had an expensive meal
and then said he would pay you when he had the money. What if
he brought along a devious lawyer who claimed the menu did not say
payment had to be immediately after consumption of the meal and he
"interpreted" the menu to mean the customer could pay anytime before his
death?
Or perhaps this devious lawyer advises payment in weaker currency,
amounting to one-third the value in the exchange rate. The devious lawyer
claims the menu did not specify which currency should be paid and therefore
"interprets" it to mean any currency rather than local currency. Would you
still claim to be "confused" as to
the right and wrong of the situation, Professor Ker?
Or what if your student copied answers off his hand during an
examination. He claims that he is not cheating, since he is merely copying
answers he already knows. Would you still claim to be confused over the
right and wrong of the situation?
Finally, what if your child takes money from your purse but denies he is
stealing, since, as your son, what belongs to you belongs to him too. At
least, if he had the acquaintance of a devious lawyer, that's what he would
think of saying.
Professor Ker, the university had an appeal process, in which both of
us participated. Participation in a legal process implies, in law, consent
to the routine obligations that process entails, based upon commonsense
understandings. If you eat a meal in a restaurant, this implies consent to
certain obligations (for example, you will pay in local currency, and
immediately after consuming it). You cannot,
after consuming the meal, claim the meal was "inedible" and therefore you
are not obligated to pay. If you thought the food was not good enough to be
eaten, you were obligated to express that thought at the beginning not the
end.
The university's participation in the appeal process implies consent to
duties and obligations of the appeal process. But, in December, 1999, after
I won a university appeal, the university claimed that, as a foreigner, I
should be reviewed again!
Professor Ker, would you like your child to pass qualifying exams at a
foreign university only to be told, after he passed, that, as a foreigner
from Taiwan, he had to pass them again? Would you be "morally confused"
about the issue? I think not.
Lacking further confidence in observance of law, or even moral
standards, at our university, I appealed to the Ministry of Education. The
Ministry of Education wrote a strongly-worded appeal decision in my favor,
pointing out countless
irregularities in the university dismissal, a dismissal, I remind you, that
was UNANIMOUSLY passed by the university committee of eighteen members!
Professor Ker, since you frequently appeal to the law, what do you think
this suggests about the knowledge of law at our university, if all eighteen
members of a university committee, presumably the most legally observant
committee at the
university, cannot see legal violations that are obvious to an appeal
committee outside the university? As a professor, indeed, an official, at
our university, do you feel any sense of shame in this?
Professor Ker, I point out merely the egregious violations committed in
the university's vendetta against me. There were countless others, such as
returning a case back to a lower committee, when the case should have been
terminated by the superior committee; or missing deadlines to file a case
against me but filing the case anyway (if I missed a deadline to appeal, do
you think the university would allow
this?).
The violations are obvious. But apart from legal violations, there is
the abiding issue of moral standards. University officials who observe a
lesser moral standard than is required of our students should be dismissed
from the university. For without moral credibility, a university has no
academic credibility.
Thus I would like to conclude by appealing to your moral sense,
including moral principles such as good faith, treating others as you wish
to be treated, honesty, keeping one's word, and so forth. So I ask you and
your morally awakened colleagues to do the right thing.
The right thing is for you and your colleagues to compel the university
to honor the law, to observe moral and legal standards at our university, to
punish reprobate students who maliciously accused a teacher, and to put this
scandal behind us so that we can uphold the reputation of our university and
protect the inheritance of our students.
Sincerely,
11 March 2002
Professor Ker,
There are a number of issues we discussed over the telephone, which,
since you claim to want to do the right thing, I would like to explore into
a little more detail here.
You claim, for example, that the student's case is confusing and it is
difficult to decide the truth of the matter. I would be the first to agree
with this. However, this admirable standard of testing hearsay by legal
(not to mention moral) standards should have been applied BEFORE the
student's accusation was
accepted, not AFTER it was accepted to discredit a professor.
But this devious double standard is common at our university, where an
appeal to law is made only to conceal abuses of the law and not to prevent
or correct them. If a student secretly and maliciously discredits a
professor, standards of law and decency are ignored. But when the injured
teacher tries to effect justice for abuses of the law, the university
appeals to the law!
I would like to remind you that, not only laws, but moral standards,
were violated when this student's secret accusation was accepted by a
previous dean. What reasonable official would accept a secret accusation,
much less one that was clearly written with a malicious intent and referred
to unsupported accusations of many
years before? At my Alma Mater, for example, graduate students had a public
book where they could evaluate their professors. But the scrapbook also
contained a warning that malicious comments about a professor would be
ripped out of the book.
Professor Ker, students have rights, but also responsibilities, usually
regulated by legal channels of complaint. This student elected not to
pursue her complaint through regular legal channels and within a restricted
period of time when the testimony of other students and comparison with
other students' exams could easily have discredited her complaint. Even
several years later, when most reasonable people would agree that I had no
obligation to respond to her complaint, I did so, suggesting I could go to
my office and locate her exam. She ignored my letter and, as I was
informed, advised my colleague that she would contact a lawyer if I pursued
the matter further. Then, five years later, she files a SECRET complaint,
which was so obviously malicious that it should have discredited itself.
Indeed, no reputable chairman or dean would have accepted it, much less
credited it. On the contrary, a reputable dean or chair at a reputable
university would have cautioned the student to submit only legitimate
complaints in the future.
Professor Ker, did it ever occur to you the kind of letter I could
write, if I so chose, against this student? Believe me, it would make her
own letter appear mild in comparison. But, being an honorable person, I am
aware that my opinions of this student are personal and should have no
special relevance to that student's academic standing or professional
employment. If you notice, my current complaints against this student are
based on documented facts; on her own letter of complaint, which most
reasonable persons would find hostile; and on specific issues that concern
legal rights at our university. I am not interested in a general character
assassination of this student, especially since the facts speak for
themselves.
But did the facts speak for themselves in the student's letter?
Professor Ker, there were no facts! Even without the documentation I have
referred to in
previous faxes, no worthy official should have allowed that secret
accusation.
I ignore other, more routine, legal rights issues, such as that, as an
appellant, new
accusations should not have been accepted against me. The whole point of an
appeal is to defend against old accusations, not be subject to new ones.
The fact that these new accusations were apparently intended to "save" the
department's weak case against me only adds to the injury. A dean of an
appeal committee is supposed to protect an appellant's rights, not
compromise them.
(Only a naive person would imagine that this student's letter was NOT
solicited at that special time in order to effect my dismissal, however
illegally. The fact that the letter was even accepted, although dated
months after the department's initial accusations, only adds to the witches'
brew of legal rights violations at our university.)
The facts are plain. The former dean who handled this case should have
reversed it as soon as he realized the department's accusations against me
were not proved. But he chose a social conformity over a conformity to the
law. Perhaps this dean observed his conscience. But observing one's
conscience is not sufficient if one's conscience does not recognize the law.
I have been informed that the dean accepted this secret accusation
because the student affirmed she was willing to go to court and repeat her
claim. According to this official, her claim was therefore acceptable as
true.
Professor Ker, if I tell you that I am willing to go to court to swear
that I am Santa Claus, does that prove to your intellectual satisfaction
that I am Santa Claus?
(For the record, in court, this student chastised me for taking this
case to court! She also claimed not to have remembered taking other courses
from me, in which she received high passes, the same year she claims she
failed unfairly. Courtroom testimony also suggested that at least one
university official, a current dean at our
university, committed perjury to discredit me.)
Professor Ker, you appeal to the law to explain why an investigation
into this student's accusation is being delayed. But are you aware how many
violations of
law, whether moral or legal, were necessary in order to effect my dismissal
from the university? I'll list some of them.
1. The former chair of my department accepted secret accusations
against me at a review meeting. These accusations became the basis for my
dismissal at the departmental review meeting. I was never informed of these
accusations, although the chairman had one year to do so.
(This same chairman had the wisdom to inform me early in the first
semester that he needed a teacher for a night class. I informed him that,
in sympathy with his new chairmanship, I would accept an additional night
course. Yet this same chairman did not see fit to inform me of accusations
used in the department dismissal motion against me many months later, in
March.
Professor Ker, apart from legal rights violations, does the chairman's
behavior represent the best in principles of Chinese reciprocity to your
mind?)
2. These secret accusations were never properly investigated, according
to
Ministry regulations.
3. They were never proved, according to Ministry standards of proof.
4. Accusers included members of the review committee!
5. A review committee isn't even supposed to make accusations against a
professor, but merely "review" accusations against him.
Professor Ker, since you recognize the law, where is the observance of
law in these instances?
To be frank, I think very few people at our university have the
slightest knowledge of democratic process or even interest in it. Those few
who do don't care enough to challenge the rest who don't. Perhaps you're
one of them, since you told me it's all very confusing. I don't think so.
I think violations here were flagrant, if not outrageous. In any case, an
official at a university does not have the same right to be confused about
observance of the law.
To take the student complaint, all that is necessary for you to know is
that a student was allowed to accuse me and I was not allowed to defend
myself against her complaint, or even informed of it. If that does not
outrage your sense of moral conscience, then, frankly, your moral sense is
different from mine. But I'll say one thing for certain. If your child was
expelled from an American university based on another student's secret
complaint, you would no longer be confused about either the moral or legal
issues involved.
Professor Ker, we cannot square our conscience with acts such as I've
detailed here, anymore than we can square a circle. The law is a public
thing, not a private opinion. You cannot square the circle of justice by
saying you will obserrve one law, ignore that law, select this law, and
interpret another law. Democracy is a govenrment of laws; but it is also a
government of Law, which means an impartial and routine execution of laws.
For example, do you seriously believe that if this student had written the
same complaint against Kao Chiang or Lee Chen-er that it would have been
accepted? I think you would agree that the student's complaint would have
gone straight to the trash can; or worse: straight to the accused party so
he could chastise the student himself.
Professor Ker, you appeal with confidence to university laws. Do you
think that our committees have the same confidence in these laws?
Previously, a chairman in 1994 tried to effect my dismissal. He used
several "student evaluations" against me. In the same manner related above,
I was never informed of these evaluations, nor was I allowed a chance to
defend myself against them, nor were they even official
evaluations. Rather, they were solicited by the chairman in order to
discredit me and then effect my dismissal. This chairman was never punished
for this offense. On the contrary, according to the routine indifference to
law at our university, this individual (who also perjured himself in court
on behalf of the student who accused me) was elected dean of a college last
academic year.
As for my teaching contract, you know I won a Ministry of Education
award, canceling my dismissal. Presumably, this means my dismissal is not
in effect. Yet the university administration has interdicted the
enforcement of this ruling.
Professor Ker, you mention observance of law. Do you think the
Ministry of Education represents law in Taiwan? If not, what does it
represent? Or, put differently, who represents the law? Kao Chiang or the
university lawyers? Believe me, Professor Ker, if the Taiwan constitution
wanted university lawyers to represent the law of the land, it would say
so. If the Taiwan constitution wanted individual lawyers to interpret the
law of the land, it would say so. But, so far as I know, only the judiciary
in any democracy, including Taiwan, is authorized to interpret the law; all
other officials are obligated to enforce it.
Do you think an appeal decision in an appellant's favor can be
interpreted to mean that appellant merely has the right to appeal again?
Does this sound like a
rational point of view? Does it sound like a moral point of view?
If all a person could win by appealing was the right to appeal again, do
you think anyone would waste time to appeal? What would be the point? Even
if the university believed this, they would have had to make this clear from
the very beginning.
In law, many things are assumed. When you point to a picture of a
car and pay NT500,000, it is assumed, in law, you are buying the car, not
the picture of the car. But what if a devious lawyer claimed you had merely
bought the picture of a car? Would you still be "confused" over right and
wrong?
What if you owned a restaurant and a customer had an expensive meal
and then said he would pay you when he had the money. What if
he brought along a devious lawyer who claimed the menu did not say
payment had to be immediately after consumption of the meal and he
"interpreted" the menu to mean the customer could pay anytime before his
death?
Or perhaps this devious lawyer advises payment in weaker currency,
amounting to one-third the value in the exchange rate. The devious lawyer
claims the menu did not specify which currency should be paid and therefore
"interprets" it to mean any currency rather than local currency. Would you
still claim to be "confused" as to
the right and wrong of the situation, Professor Ker?
Or what if your student copied answers off his hand during an
examination. He claims that he is not cheating, since he is merely copying
answers he already knows. Would you still claim to be confused over the
right and wrong of the situation?
Finally, what if your child takes money from your purse but denies he is
stealing, since, as your son, what belongs to you belongs to him too. At
least, if he had the acquaintance of a devious lawyer, that's what he would
think of saying.
Professor Ker, the university had an appeal process, in which both of
us participated. Participation in a legal process implies, in law, consent
to the routine obligations that process entails, based upon commonsense
understandings. If you eat a meal in a restaurant, this implies consent to
certain obligations (for example, you will pay in local currency, and
immediately after consuming it). You cannot,
after consuming the meal, claim the meal was "inedible" and therefore you
are not obligated to pay. If you thought the food was not good enough to be
eaten, you were obligated to express that thought at the beginning not the
end.
The university's participation in the appeal process implies consent to
duties and obligations of the appeal process. But, in December, 1999, after
I won a university appeal, the university claimed that, as a foreigner, I
should be reviewed again!
Professor Ker, would you like your child to pass qualifying exams at a
foreign university only to be told, after he passed, that, as a foreigner
from Taiwan, he had to pass them again? Would you be "morally confused"
about the issue? I think not.
Lacking further confidence in observance of law, or even moral
standards, at our university, I appealed to the Ministry of Education. The
Ministry of Education wrote a strongly-worded appeal decision in my favor,
pointing out countless
irregularities in the university dismissal, a dismissal, I remind you, that
was UNANIMOUSLY passed by the university committee of eighteen members!
Professor Ker, since you frequently appeal to the law, what do you think
this suggests about the knowledge of law at our university, if all eighteen
members of a university committee, presumably the most legally observant
committee at the
university, cannot see legal violations that are obvious to an appeal
committee outside the university? As a professor, indeed, an official, at
our university, do you feel any sense of shame in this?
Professor Ker, I point out merely the egregious violations committed in
the university's vendetta against me. There were countless others, such as
returning a case back to a lower committee, when the case should have been
terminated by the superior committee; or missing deadlines to file a case
against me but filing the case anyway (if I missed a deadline to appeal, do
you think the university would allow
this?).
The violations are obvious. But apart from legal violations, there is
the abiding issue of moral standards. University officials who observe a
lesser moral standard than is required of our students should be dismissed
from the university. For without moral credibility, a university has no
academic credibility.
Thus I would like to conclude by appealing to your moral sense,
including moral principles such as good faith, treating others as you wish
to be treated, honesty, keeping one's word, and so forth. So I ask you and
your morally awakened colleagues to do the right thing.
The right thing is for you and your colleagues to compel the university
to honor the law, to observe moral and legal standards at our university, to
punish reprobate students who maliciously accused a teacher, and to put this
scandal behind us so that we can uphold the reputation of our university and
protect the inheritance of our students.
Sincerely,
Letter from Dean of Student Affairs regarding a Formal Complaint against Ms. A. C. Chen
February 28, 2002
Dear Dr. de Canio:
Your letter and facsimile message on November 21, 2000 and January 2, 2002,
respectively, proposing investigating the case regarding Ms. A. C. Chen,
doctorate student of Foreign Languages & Literature Department, had been
thoroughly discussed in the office. In responding to your request, I
appointed the Deputy Dean of Students as the chairman of the investigating
committee. This committee, consisting of university staff members related
to student affairs and law specialists, had called the official meetings
many times in the past three months to discuss the details of this case.
The following conclusion was made by the committee according to the
university administrative laws:
The university understands that you have initiated a lawsuit against Ms. A.
C. Chen and the case is being proceeded in the court at the moment.
According to the laws, no administrative decisions should be made upon any
students or staff members of this university while they are being involved
in any legal procedures until the lawsuit is closed in the court. Thus, the
Office of Student Affairs will make further judgement upon Ms. Chen
according to the university laws of awarding and punishing students after
the lawsuit is closed in the court.
Furthermore, the university is an educational institution, which also
assumes the responsibility of protecting the rights of its students**** and
staff members. Thus, proceeding this case regarding a student according to
the university laws is necessary.
Yours sincerely,
Huei-Chen Ko, Ph.D.
Dean of Office of Student Affairs
****MY FOOTNOTE: Apparently at National Cheng Kung University the student has "rights" when a teacher files a formal complaint against her but the teacher has no rights when the student writes a secret letter against him!
Dear Dr. de Canio:
Your letter and facsimile message on November 21, 2000 and January 2, 2002,
respectively, proposing investigating the case regarding Ms. A. C. Chen,
doctorate student of Foreign Languages & Literature Department, had been
thoroughly discussed in the office. In responding to your request, I
appointed the Deputy Dean of Students as the chairman of the investigating
committee. This committee, consisting of university staff members related
to student affairs and law specialists, had called the official meetings
many times in the past three months to discuss the details of this case.
The following conclusion was made by the committee according to the
university administrative laws:
The university understands that you have initiated a lawsuit against Ms. A.
C. Chen and the case is being proceeded in the court at the moment.
According to the laws, no administrative decisions should be made upon any
students or staff members of this university while they are being involved
in any legal procedures until the lawsuit is closed in the court. Thus, the
Office of Student Affairs will make further judgement upon Ms. Chen
according to the university laws of awarding and punishing students after
the lawsuit is closed in the court.
Furthermore, the university is an educational institution, which also
assumes the responsibility of protecting the rights of its students**** and
staff members. Thus, proceeding this case regarding a student according to
the university laws is necessary.
Yours sincerely,
Huei-Chen Ko, Ph.D.
Dean of Office of Student Affairs
****MY FOOTNOTE: Apparently at National Cheng Kung University the student has "rights" when a teacher files a formal complaint against her but the teacher has no rights when the student writes a secret letter against him!
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
3/18/2002 11:10 PM
18 March 2002
Professor Huei-Chen Ko,
Dean of Student Affairs
Dear Dean Ko,
I received your letter dated February 28, 2002. Regretfully, you use action
phrases such as "thoroughly discussed," "responding to your request," and a
reference to meeting "many times in the past three months," only to
conclude, in an evasive manner common at our university, that administrative
action should be suspended.
You refer repeatedly to "law specialists," "the laws," "university
laws," and "protecting the rights" of "students and staff members."
However, this respect for laws and rights should be consistently observed at
National Cheng Kung University, not only when convenient.
An appeal to law should not be made to conceal abuses of the law.
Apparently at NCKU, if a student secretly and maliciously discredits a
professor, standards of law and morality are ignored. But when the injured
(foreign) teacher seeks redress, the university appeals to the law and to
"law specialists."
I remind you that, not only laws, but moral standards, were violated
when this student’s secret letter was accepted, although it was clearly
written with a malicious intent and made unsupported accusations of many
years before. Even without the documentation I mentioned in previous faxes,
it seems to me that no responsible official should have allowed that secret
accusation, much less accepted it in a dismissal case.
I ignore routine issues, such as that, in an appeal, new accusations
cannot be accepted. The purpose of an appeal is to contest old accusations,
not allow new ones. And these new accusations were not merely allowed, but
apparently solicited.
You write of "university laws." But where were university laws when
this student’s secret, and obviously malicious, letter was accepted? Why do
"law specialists" affirm a student’s rights but not the teacher she
discredited?
I was informed that the previous dean accepted this secret accusation
merely on the basis that the student affirmed she was willing to repeat her
claim in court. Her claim was therefore acceptable as true. If I tell you
that I am willing to go to court to swear that I am Santa Claus, does that
prove to your intellectual satisfaction that I am Santa Claus?
(For the record, in court, this student reprimanded me for taking the
case to court! She also claimed not to remember taking other courses from
me, in which she received high passes, the same year she claims she failed
unfairly. Courtroom testimony also suggested that at least one university
official, a current dean at our university, committed perjury to discredit
me.)
You refer confidently to law. Are you aware how many violations of
law, whether moral or legal, were made to effect my dismissal from the
university?
(1) I was never informed of accusations at a departmental review
meeting. (2) These accusations were not investigated according to Ministry
regulations. (3) They were not proved, by reasonable standards of proof.
(4) Accusers included members of the review committee. (5) A review
committee isn’t supposed to make accusations against a professor, but merely
"review" outside accusations.
University officials are obligated, according to principles of due
process, to defend a colleague’s reputation, not compromise it. To the best
of my knowledge, the reputations of Taiwan professors are not similarly
compromised at American universities, or subject to reckless libel, slander,
or unproved and secret accusations.
I am not certain if your "law specialists" would claim that
"university laws" were followed when a chairman in 1994 tried to effect my
dismissal, using unofficial "student evaluations" against me; or when a
former dean issued false minutes that libeled me. Since you speak of the
legal "rights" of "staff," I wonder what, if any, legal protections you
refer to; unless you refer only to native staff and students, not to foreign
colleagues.
Concerning my teaching contract, you know I won a Ministry of Education
award, canceling my dismissal. Yet the university administration,
presumably counseled by "law specialists," has ignored enforcement of this
ruling. Regarding observance of law, does the Ministry of Education
represent law in Taiwan? If not, what does it represent?
Dean Ko, you refer confidently to "law specialists." But what do you
think it suggests about the knowledge of law at our university, if all
eighteen members of a university committee, presumably the most legally
observant committee at the university, cannot see legal violations that are
obvious to an appeal committee outside the university (these violations were
bold-faced in the Ministry decision)?
These are general issues of concern. Supervisory committees should
deliberate lower committee decisions, not routinely ratify them. Higher
committees should protect higher principles of law and ethics, even if this
compromises the reputations of colleagues on lower committees. It seems to
me that the reputation of a university is worth more than the reputation a
few disreputable officials of that university.
Respect for individual rights also requires that protections against
"double jeopardy" be observed. The law usually protects the weak individual
from abuses of power on the part of more powerful adversaries. Is it fair
to call it an abuse of power when, despite a Ministry of Education ruling, a
university "investigates" those same accusations, using all its tax-funded
staff and resources to harass a colleague?
I conclude by appealing, not to "law specialists," but to the Law, as
well as to moral principles. The right thing is to observe, not merely
laws, but Law. This means the routine observance of Law, not merely the
selective use of some laws in some cases. Indeed, the worst offense against
moral principles is when there is a use of laws to justify an abuse of Law.
The offense is compounded when the victim is a foreign professor whose
native country uses all the resources of laws and due process of law to
protect the reputations of your compatriots.
Apart from law, let National Cheng Kung University officials observe
the Confucian principle of reciprocity. Let them apply the same legal
protections to foreign colleagues that are observed on behalf of native
colleagues, and that are applied in my country on behalf of your
compatriots. Let them punish reprobate students who maliciously accuse
teachers. And, finally, let them protect both the moral as well as the
academic reputation of our university and so preserve a heritage for the
generation that succeeds us.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Depart of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(06) 237 8626
18 March 2002
Professor Huei-Chen Ko,
Dean of Student Affairs
Dear Dean Ko,
I received your letter dated February 28, 2002. Regretfully, you use action
phrases such as "thoroughly discussed," "responding to your request," and a
reference to meeting "many times in the past three months," only to
conclude, in an evasive manner common at our university, that administrative
action should be suspended.
You refer repeatedly to "law specialists," "the laws," "university
laws," and "protecting the rights" of "students and staff members."
However, this respect for laws and rights should be consistently observed at
National Cheng Kung University, not only when convenient.
An appeal to law should not be made to conceal abuses of the law.
Apparently at NCKU, if a student secretly and maliciously discredits a
professor, standards of law and morality are ignored. But when the injured
(foreign) teacher seeks redress, the university appeals to the law and to
"law specialists."
I remind you that, not only laws, but moral standards, were violated
when this student’s secret letter was accepted, although it was clearly
written with a malicious intent and made unsupported accusations of many
years before. Even without the documentation I mentioned in previous faxes,
it seems to me that no responsible official should have allowed that secret
accusation, much less accepted it in a dismissal case.
I ignore routine issues, such as that, in an appeal, new accusations
cannot be accepted. The purpose of an appeal is to contest old accusations,
not allow new ones. And these new accusations were not merely allowed, but
apparently solicited.
You write of "university laws." But where were university laws when
this student’s secret, and obviously malicious, letter was accepted? Why do
"law specialists" affirm a student’s rights but not the teacher she
discredited?
I was informed that the previous dean accepted this secret accusation
merely on the basis that the student affirmed she was willing to repeat her
claim in court. Her claim was therefore acceptable as true. If I tell you
that I am willing to go to court to swear that I am Santa Claus, does that
prove to your intellectual satisfaction that I am Santa Claus?
(For the record, in court, this student reprimanded me for taking the
case to court! She also claimed not to remember taking other courses from
me, in which she received high passes, the same year she claims she failed
unfairly. Courtroom testimony also suggested that at least one university
official, a current dean at our university, committed perjury to discredit
me.)
You refer confidently to law. Are you aware how many violations of
law, whether moral or legal, were made to effect my dismissal from the
university?
(1) I was never informed of accusations at a departmental review
meeting. (2) These accusations were not investigated according to Ministry
regulations. (3) They were not proved, by reasonable standards of proof.
(4) Accusers included members of the review committee. (5) A review
committee isn’t supposed to make accusations against a professor, but merely
"review" outside accusations.
University officials are obligated, according to principles of due
process, to defend a colleague’s reputation, not compromise it. To the best
of my knowledge, the reputations of Taiwan professors are not similarly
compromised at American universities, or subject to reckless libel, slander,
or unproved and secret accusations.
I am not certain if your "law specialists" would claim that
"university laws" were followed when a chairman in 1994 tried to effect my
dismissal, using unofficial "student evaluations" against me; or when a
former dean issued false minutes that libeled me. Since you speak of the
legal "rights" of "staff," I wonder what, if any, legal protections you
refer to; unless you refer only to native staff and students, not to foreign
colleagues.
Concerning my teaching contract, you know I won a Ministry of Education
award, canceling my dismissal. Yet the university administration,
presumably counseled by "law specialists," has ignored enforcement of this
ruling. Regarding observance of law, does the Ministry of Education
represent law in Taiwan? If not, what does it represent?
Dean Ko, you refer confidently to "law specialists." But what do you
think it suggests about the knowledge of law at our university, if all
eighteen members of a university committee, presumably the most legally
observant committee at the university, cannot see legal violations that are
obvious to an appeal committee outside the university (these violations were
bold-faced in the Ministry decision)?
These are general issues of concern. Supervisory committees should
deliberate lower committee decisions, not routinely ratify them. Higher
committees should protect higher principles of law and ethics, even if this
compromises the reputations of colleagues on lower committees. It seems to
me that the reputation of a university is worth more than the reputation a
few disreputable officials of that university.
Respect for individual rights also requires that protections against
"double jeopardy" be observed. The law usually protects the weak individual
from abuses of power on the part of more powerful adversaries. Is it fair
to call it an abuse of power when, despite a Ministry of Education ruling, a
university "investigates" those same accusations, using all its tax-funded
staff and resources to harass a colleague?
I conclude by appealing, not to "law specialists," but to the Law, as
well as to moral principles. The right thing is to observe, not merely
laws, but Law. This means the routine observance of Law, not merely the
selective use of some laws in some cases. Indeed, the worst offense against
moral principles is when there is a use of laws to justify an abuse of Law.
The offense is compounded when the victim is a foreign professor whose
native country uses all the resources of laws and due process of law to
protect the reputations of your compatriots.
Apart from law, let National Cheng Kung University officials observe
the Confucian principle of reciprocity. Let them apply the same legal
protections to foreign colleagues that are observed on behalf of native
colleagues, and that are applied in my country on behalf of your
compatriots. Let them punish reprobate students who maliciously accuse
teachers. And, finally, let them protect both the moral as well as the
academic reputation of our university and so preserve a heritage for the
generation that succeeds us.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Depart of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(06) 237 8626
Dean of Student Affairs
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
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
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
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
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 could locate her exam. She ignored my
letter.
It makes no sense to 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
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 could locate her exam. She ignored my
letter.
It makes no sense to 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
To Dean of Student Affairs
5/5/2002 12:16 AM
Subject: FAX
4 May 2002
Dean Ko,
This is to inform you that the court has re-opened its inquiry into my
complaint against a current student at our university.
I am sending this fax to advise you against using this court inquiry to
suspend the university’s handling of my complaint. Unless there is a
specific university regulation concerning this matter, and this university
regulation does not conflict with Ministry of Education rulings, Taiwan
laws, or common sense, I would advise you against suspending your handling
of my complaint against this student.
I say "handling" of my complaint, rather than "investigation" with
deliberate intent. For there is nothing in the matter of my complaint that
needs to be investigated. Rather, the matter should be handled in a
strictly "pro forma," or routine manner. Therefore, even if there is a
ruling against parallel investigations, this matter does not fall under the
category of an investigation..
As I said, the facts speak for themselves. A student submitted a
letter to the university outside of regular channels. The letter contained
malicious accusations against a professor. There was no documentation for
these accusations. The letter was submitted in secret. It was submitted
many years after this student last took a course from the professor. It
concealed important (material) facts that contradict the student’s claims.
(She received three high passes from the accused professor and was invited,
even encouraged, to take back her exam on several occasions.) The dating of
the letter suggests it was solicited by university officials to insure the
professor’s dismissal following an improper dismissal action against him.
Finally, the letter was circulated at committee hearings that resulted in
the professor’s dismissal, a dismissal that, due to grievous legal
violations, was formally overturned by the Ministry of Education Appeals
Committee.
As a "pro forma" or routine matter, this student should be allowed
whatever defense she can make for her action, which may mitigate or
extenuate it, but is unlikely to justify it. Any other handling of my
complaint, in the manner of an "investigation" into the truth of this
student’s gossip, is morally wrong and legally improper.
I remind you, Dean Ko, you are Dean of Students. You are not Dean of
Student Gossip. Your office does not authorize you to investigate, much
less justify, malicious gossip against teachers or students.
If a student, for example, accuses another student of prostitution, you
are not thereby authorized to investigate the accused student’s background
to "prove" whether she is a prostitute or not. Indeed, as I suggested in
previous faxes, the act of investigating whether the student is a prostitute
brands her as one, whether she is or not. In the proper, which means legal,
exercise of your office, the limit and extent of your authority is to ask
the accusing student to submit legal documentation (police or court
records). Beyond this you are not authorized to go, whether by law or
common decency.
There is, however, one matter in this student’s letter that warrants an
investigation within the university’s legal jurisdiction and moral
responsibility. This student claimed she informed the chairman of the
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature of her complaint at the time
of her claim. If true, there should be an official record of her
complaint. If, however, there is no record, the former chairman should be
investigated. Unless he can justify his noncompliance with university
regulations, he should be sanctioned for it. For if this student’s
complaint had been properly handled, it could have been easily discredited
at the time. Thus the negligence of the former chairman (and current dean)
in handling this student’s complaint, not only presumably violated
university regulations, but inflicted grievous injury on a maligned
professor and continues to compromise the moral reputation of our
university.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio.
Subject: FAX
4 May 2002
Dean Ko,
This is to inform you that the court has re-opened its inquiry into my
complaint against a current student at our university.
I am sending this fax to advise you against using this court inquiry to
suspend the university’s handling of my complaint. Unless there is a
specific university regulation concerning this matter, and this university
regulation does not conflict with Ministry of Education rulings, Taiwan
laws, or common sense, I would advise you against suspending your handling
of my complaint against this student.
I say "handling" of my complaint, rather than "investigation" with
deliberate intent. For there is nothing in the matter of my complaint that
needs to be investigated. Rather, the matter should be handled in a
strictly "pro forma," or routine manner. Therefore, even if there is a
ruling against parallel investigations, this matter does not fall under the
category of an investigation..
As I said, the facts speak for themselves. A student submitted a
letter to the university outside of regular channels. The letter contained
malicious accusations against a professor. There was no documentation for
these accusations. The letter was submitted in secret. It was submitted
many years after this student last took a course from the professor. It
concealed important (material) facts that contradict the student’s claims.
(She received three high passes from the accused professor and was invited,
even encouraged, to take back her exam on several occasions.) The dating of
the letter suggests it was solicited by university officials to insure the
professor’s dismissal following an improper dismissal action against him.
Finally, the letter was circulated at committee hearings that resulted in
the professor’s dismissal, a dismissal that, due to grievous legal
violations, was formally overturned by the Ministry of Education Appeals
Committee.
As a "pro forma" or routine matter, this student should be allowed
whatever defense she can make for her action, which may mitigate or
extenuate it, but is unlikely to justify it. Any other handling of my
complaint, in the manner of an "investigation" into the truth of this
student’s gossip, is morally wrong and legally improper.
I remind you, Dean Ko, you are Dean of Students. You are not Dean of
Student Gossip. Your office does not authorize you to investigate, much
less justify, malicious gossip against teachers or students.
If a student, for example, accuses another student of prostitution, you
are not thereby authorized to investigate the accused student’s background
to "prove" whether she is a prostitute or not. Indeed, as I suggested in
previous faxes, the act of investigating whether the student is a prostitute
brands her as one, whether she is or not. In the proper, which means legal,
exercise of your office, the limit and extent of your authority is to ask
the accusing student to submit legal documentation (police or court
records). Beyond this you are not authorized to go, whether by law or
common decency.
There is, however, one matter in this student’s letter that warrants an
investigation within the university’s legal jurisdiction and moral
responsibility. This student claimed she informed the chairman of the
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature of her complaint at the time
of her claim. If true, there should be an official record of her
complaint. If, however, there is no record, the former chairman should be
investigated. Unless he can justify his noncompliance with university
regulations, he should be sanctioned for it. For if this student’s
complaint had been properly handled, it could have been easily discredited
at the time. Thus the negligence of the former chairman (and current dean)
in handling this student’s complaint, not only presumably violated
university regulations, but inflicted grievous injury on a maligned
professor and continues to compromise the moral reputation of our
university.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio.
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
15 Jul 2003 14:14:10 -0700
To:
Huei-chen Ko
CC:
Kao Chiang, moe
Ko Heui-chen
Dean of Student Affairs
cc: President's Office, Ministry of Education, Department of Higher
Education
15 July 2003
Dear Dean Ko
I am not satisfied with the constant delays in your handling of the
case of the student, Chen An-chuen, who wrote a secret
malicious letter accusing a professor.
I have reminded you repeatedly that this is a simple case. Nowhere
in any country in the world that I'm familiar with is
there a law preventing a dean from calling a student into her office for
any reason whatsoever, whether it's to confirm a
phone number or in response to a complaint from faculty or students.
Furthermore, I remind you, as I've reminded another official at our
university, the responsibility of an elected or
appointed official can be delegated but not transferred. As far as I'm
concerned, the responsibility for handling this Lily
Chen case rests with you and accountability for not handling this case
rests with you too. Your vice-dean may be
accountable to you, but you are accountable to faculty at our university
and, ultimately, to the Department of Higher
Education and the Ministry of Education.
As a professor of this university I have the right to ask the Dean
of Students to call a student into her office. Moreover,
the student is required to appear. The student has no right to ask for
what reason. The student will find out the reason soon
enough in the proper way.
No deep study of documents is necessary for doing this. All you
need to do this is an air-conditioned room with a door.
And, if necessary, we could do without the air conditioner.
As for whether this student was a student when she wrote her
letter, that would be of no concern anyway. But for the
record, Ms. Chen told your vice-dean, Professor Tsai, at a meeting
several months ago, that everything in her letter was
"true." So the issue of when Ms. Chen wrote her original complaint is
without relevance anyway.
Finally, as for "studying" the court documents, that has no
relevance to this case either.
First, a professor has a right to ask the Dean of Students to
arrange a meeting with a student, for whatever reason.
Second, the Dean of Students has the responsibility to arrange such
a meeting.
Third, all current students are required to respond to such a
request when made.
Fourth, a university meeting has no judicial status. If it did, a
judge would have to preside at it. But we don't have judges
who preside at such meetings, we have deans or chairpeople.
Please arrange a meeting with this student, you, me, and other
persons you think necessary within days.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
To:
Huei-chen Ko
CC:
Kao Chiang
Ko Heui-chen
Dean of Student Affairs
cc: President's Office, Ministry of Education, Department of Higher
Education
15 July 2003
Dear Dean Ko
I am not satisfied with the constant delays in your handling of the
case of the student, Chen An-chuen, who wrote a secret
malicious letter accusing a professor.
I have reminded you repeatedly that this is a simple case. Nowhere
in any country in the world that I'm familiar with is
there a law preventing a dean from calling a student into her office for
any reason whatsoever, whether it's to confirm a
phone number or in response to a complaint from faculty or students.
Furthermore, I remind you, as I've reminded another official at our
university, the responsibility of an elected or
appointed official can be delegated but not transferred. As far as I'm
concerned, the responsibility for handling this Lily
Chen case rests with you and accountability for not handling this case
rests with you too. Your vice-dean may be
accountable to you, but you are accountable to faculty at our university
and, ultimately, to the Department of Higher
Education and the Ministry of Education.
As a professor of this university I have the right to ask the Dean
of Students to call a student into her office. Moreover,
the student is required to appear. The student has no right to ask for
what reason. The student will find out the reason soon
enough in the proper way.
No deep study of documents is necessary for doing this. All you
need to do this is an air-conditioned room with a door.
And, if necessary, we could do without the air conditioner.
As for whether this student was a student when she wrote her
letter, that would be of no concern anyway. But for the
record, Ms. Chen told your vice-dean, Professor Tsai, at a meeting
several months ago, that everything in her letter was
"true." So the issue of when Ms. Chen wrote her original complaint is
without relevance anyway.
Finally, as for "studying" the court documents, that has no
relevance to this case either.
First, a professor has a right to ask the Dean of Students to
arrange a meeting with a student, for whatever reason.
Second, the Dean of Students has the responsibility to arrange such
a meeting.
Third, all current students are required to respond to such a
request when made.
Fourth, a university meeting has no judicial status. If it did, a
judge would have to preside at it. But we don't have judges
who preside at such meetings, we have deans or chairpeople.
Please arrange a meeting with this student, you, me, and other
persons you think necessary within days.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
Date:
Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:17:49 -0700
From:
vertigo@ms22.hinet.net
To:
Huei-chen Ko
CC:
Student Affairs
Professor Ko Huei-Chen
Dean of Student Affairs
Office of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Dear Dean Ko,
I am writing this in response to a request from your office to
write a followup email concerning the issue of a student,
Chen An-Chuen (Lily Chen) who wrote a secret letter challenging a grade
eight years after she received it.
Let me sum up the issues yet again, so we can close this case.
A student has no right to write a secret accusatory letter. The
fact that the letter was secret shows she knew she had no
right to write it. The fact that she had countless chances in the past
to file a formal complaint but refused shows she knew
the only kind of complaint that would succeed was a secret complaint,
where her word was final. The fact that officials at
our university would accredit such a complaint discredits our university
as well as the officials involved.
The rights of a student do not include the right to injure a
professor's reputation. This should be very plain, except
probably to Ms. Chen and those who accredited, accepted, and even
solicited Ms. Chen's complaint in the first place. But
all of them would almost certainly be discredited once this case is
exposed to public discussion.
I will repeat what I have been saying for months now. I do not
wish to discredit the people involved in this case more
than they have already discredited themselves. But at the same time, I
must do whatever I can to restore my reputation as a
professor at this university and in my department.
Unfortunately, this cannot be done until Ms. Chen plainly
apologizes, admits her letter was wrong, had no basis in truth,
and, indeed, was solicited, as (from what I understand) she admitted to
Vice-Dean Tsai.
This is the only compromise that I am willing to make. Ms. Chen
must be made to understand that she will either
apologize in private or risk a public judgment for her actions.
Merely the fact that Ms. Chen feels she has a choice in whether to
appear at a meeting requested by the Office of
Student Affairs shows serious problems in administrative remedy, and
even authority, at our university. Who is in control at
our university, a student or an official? When did Ms. Chen become
above administrative remedy rather than part of it?
If there is so little adminstrative authority at our university
that a student needs to be "persuaded" to appear at a meeting,
then somebody in a sympathetic voice should persuade her that it is best
for her if this matter is resolved privately rather than
publicly. I repeat, it is unlikely that anyone outside our university
will accredit, defend, or justify Ms. Chen's actions in
writing her secret letter. Most people would see her action for what it
was: an attempt to maliciously discredit a professor
by secret defamation.
However, if Ms. Chen cannot be made to understand that her action
was wrong and would be perceived to be so by
most people outside our university, and that, therefore, her best choice
is to privately apologize, then I shall have no choice
but to seek public redress. But I wish to go on record that I gave Ms.
Chen, and officials at our university, the chance to
resolve this case with as much sympathy for all parties involved while
restoring my reputation and dignity as a professor at
our university.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(06) 237 8626
Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:17:49 -0700
From:
vertigo@ms22.hinet.net
To:
Huei-chen Ko
CC:
Student Affairs
Professor Ko Huei-Chen
Dean of Student Affairs
Office of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Dear Dean Ko,
I am writing this in response to a request from your office to
write a followup email concerning the issue of a student,
Chen An-Chuen (Lily Chen) who wrote a secret letter challenging a grade
eight years after she received it.
Let me sum up the issues yet again, so we can close this case.
A student has no right to write a secret accusatory letter. The
fact that the letter was secret shows she knew she had no
right to write it. The fact that she had countless chances in the past
to file a formal complaint but refused shows she knew
the only kind of complaint that would succeed was a secret complaint,
where her word was final. The fact that officials at
our university would accredit such a complaint discredits our university
as well as the officials involved.
The rights of a student do not include the right to injure a
professor's reputation. This should be very plain, except
probably to Ms. Chen and those who accredited, accepted, and even
solicited Ms. Chen's complaint in the first place. But
all of them would almost certainly be discredited once this case is
exposed to public discussion.
I will repeat what I have been saying for months now. I do not
wish to discredit the people involved in this case more
than they have already discredited themselves. But at the same time, I
must do whatever I can to restore my reputation as a
professor at this university and in my department.
Unfortunately, this cannot be done until Ms. Chen plainly
apologizes, admits her letter was wrong, had no basis in truth,
and, indeed, was solicited, as (from what I understand) she admitted to
Vice-Dean Tsai.
This is the only compromise that I am willing to make. Ms. Chen
must be made to understand that she will either
apologize in private or risk a public judgment for her actions.
Merely the fact that Ms. Chen feels she has a choice in whether to
appear at a meeting requested by the Office of
Student Affairs shows serious problems in administrative remedy, and
even authority, at our university. Who is in control at
our university, a student or an official? When did Ms. Chen become
above administrative remedy rather than part of it?
If there is so little adminstrative authority at our university
that a student needs to be "persuaded" to appear at a meeting,
then somebody in a sympathetic voice should persuade her that it is best
for her if this matter is resolved privately rather than
publicly. I repeat, it is unlikely that anyone outside our university
will accredit, defend, or justify Ms. Chen's actions in
writing her secret letter. Most people would see her action for what it
was: an attempt to maliciously discredit a professor
by secret defamation.
However, if Ms. Chen cannot be made to understand that her action
was wrong and would be perceived to be so by
most people outside our university, and that, therefore, her best choice
is to privately apologize, then I shall have no choice
but to seek public redress. But I wish to go on record that I gave Ms.
Chen, and officials at our university, the chance to
resolve this case with as much sympathy for all parties involved while
restoring my reputation and dignity as a professor at
our university.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(06) 237 8626
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
Date:
Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:17:49 -0700
To:
Huei-chen Ko
CC:
Student Affairs
Professor Ko Huei-Chen
Dean of Student Affairs
Office of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Dear Dean Ko,
I am writing this in response to a request from your office to
write a followup email concerning the issue of a student,
Chen An-Chuen (Lily Chen) who wrote a secret letter challenging a grade
eight years after she received it.
Let me sum up the issues yet again, so we can close this case.
A student has no right to write a secret accusatory letter. The
fact that the letter was secret shows she knew she had no
right to write it. The fact that she had countless chances in the past
to file a formal complaint but refused shows she knew
the only kind of complaint that would succeed was a secret complaint,
where her word was final. The fact that officials at
our university would accredit such a complaint discredits our university
as well as the officials involved.
The rights of a student do not include the right to injure a
professor's reputation. This should be very plain, except
probably to Ms. Chen and those who accredited, accepted, and even
solicited Ms. Chen's complaint in the first place. But
all of them would almost certainly be discredited once this case is
exposed to public discussion.
I will repeat what I have been saying for months now. I do not
wish to discredit the people involved in this case more
than they have already discredited themselves. But at the same time, I
must do whatever I can to restore my reputation as a
professor at this university and in my department.
Unfortunately, this cannot be done until Ms. Chen plainly
apologizes, admits her letter was wrong, had no basis in truth,
and, indeed, was solicited, as (from what I understand) she admitted to
Vice-Dean Tsai.
This is the only compromise that I am willing to make. Ms. Chen
must be made to understand that she will either
apologize in private or risk a public judgment for her actions.
Merely the fact that Ms. Chen feels she has a choice in whether to
appear at a meeting requested by the Office of
Student Affairs shows serious problems in administrative remedy, and
even authority, at our university. Who is in control at
our university, a student or an official? When did Ms. Chen become
above administrative remedy rather than part of it?
If there is so little adminstrative authority at our university
that a student needs to be "persuaded" to appear at a meeting,
then somebody in a sympathetic voice should persuade her that it is best
for her if this matter is resolved privately rather than
publicly. I repeat, it is unlikely that anyone outside our university
will accredit, defend, or justify Ms. Chen's actions in
writing her secret letter. Most people would see her action for what it
was: an attempt to maliciously discredit a professor
by secret defamation.
However, if Ms. Chen cannot be made to understand that her action
was wrong and would be perceived to be so by
most people outside our university, and that, therefore, her best choice
is to privately apologize, then I shall have no choice
but to seek public redress. But I wish to go on record that I gave Ms.
Chen, and officials at our university, the chance to
resolve this case with as much sympathy for all parties involved while
restoring my reputation and dignity as a professor at
our university.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(06) 237 8626
Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:17:49 -0700
To:
Huei-chen Ko
CC:
Student Affairs
Professor Ko Huei-Chen
Dean of Student Affairs
Office of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Dear Dean Ko,
I am writing this in response to a request from your office to
write a followup email concerning the issue of a student,
Chen An-Chuen (Lily Chen) who wrote a secret letter challenging a grade
eight years after she received it.
Let me sum up the issues yet again, so we can close this case.
A student has no right to write a secret accusatory letter. The
fact that the letter was secret shows she knew she had no
right to write it. The fact that she had countless chances in the past
to file a formal complaint but refused shows she knew
the only kind of complaint that would succeed was a secret complaint,
where her word was final. The fact that officials at
our university would accredit such a complaint discredits our university
as well as the officials involved.
The rights of a student do not include the right to injure a
professor's reputation. This should be very plain, except
probably to Ms. Chen and those who accredited, accepted, and even
solicited Ms. Chen's complaint in the first place. But
all of them would almost certainly be discredited once this case is
exposed to public discussion.
I will repeat what I have been saying for months now. I do not
wish to discredit the people involved in this case more
than they have already discredited themselves. But at the same time, I
must do whatever I can to restore my reputation as a
professor at this university and in my department.
Unfortunately, this cannot be done until Ms. Chen plainly
apologizes, admits her letter was wrong, had no basis in truth,
and, indeed, was solicited, as (from what I understand) she admitted to
Vice-Dean Tsai.
This is the only compromise that I am willing to make. Ms. Chen
must be made to understand that she will either
apologize in private or risk a public judgment for her actions.
Merely the fact that Ms. Chen feels she has a choice in whether to
appear at a meeting requested by the Office of
Student Affairs shows serious problems in administrative remedy, and
even authority, at our university. Who is in control at
our university, a student or an official? When did Ms. Chen become
above administrative remedy rather than part of it?
If there is so little adminstrative authority at our university
that a student needs to be "persuaded" to appear at a meeting,
then somebody in a sympathetic voice should persuade her that it is best
for her if this matter is resolved privately rather than
publicly. I repeat, it is unlikely that anyone outside our university
will accredit, defend, or justify Ms. Chen's actions in
writing her secret letter. Most people would see her action for what it
was: an attempt to maliciously discredit a professor
by secret defamation.
However, if Ms. Chen cannot be made to understand that her action
was wrong and would be perceived to be so by
most people outside our university, and that, therefore, her best choice
is to privately apologize, then I shall have no choice
but to seek public redress. But I wish to go on record that I gave Ms.
Chen, and officials at our university, the chance to
resolve this case with as much sympathy for all parties involved while
restoring my reputation and dignity as a professor at
our university.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(06) 237 8626
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
Date:
Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:22:37 -0700
To:
Huei-chen Ko
CC:
moe, Kao Chiang
Professor Ko Heui-chen
Office of the Dean of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
cc: Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education
Professor Kao Chiang, President, NCKU
10 July 2003
Dear Dean Ko,
I am puzzled why it's taking your office so long to resolve the case
of the student, Chen An-chuen, who submitted a
secret letter of accusation contesting a grade she received eight years
earlier. The case has already gone on for years now.
If the Office of Student Affairs is unable to request the attendance of
a student at an office meeting with the person she
accused, then there are serious questions to be raised about that
administration.
I am enclosing the email I sent yesterday. Your response to that
email was not satisfactory. In fact, you elected not to
respond. Instead, your vice-dean sent me a message, which hinted of
more delays.
I am not interested in more delays. I am interested in resolving
this case now so we can all get on with our lives.
I repeat: There are no complex legal issues involved here. A
professor has the right to face a student accuser. This is
known as due process. The Office of Student Affairs has the right to
call in any student any time to resolve problems at the
university. If you don't have that right, or are reluctant to exercise
that right, then it seems to me there is no purpose to an
Office of Student Affairs at our university.
Regarding this student, don't you think it odd that she eagerly
responded to a request to write a secret letter, and did so
within 24 hours. Yet now that she must discuss this issue publicly,
before the Dean and the professor she accused and who
can contest her accusation, she is trying everything possible to avoid
doing so?
Enclosed is the letter I sent yesterday. Please understand, I
expect you to set up a meeting, in your office, between me
and this student, including as many other people as you think necessary
to be present. This is your right as Dean. It is also
your responsibility as Dean.
I expect to hear from your office very soon regarding the
appointment date and time. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
(06) 237 8626
Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:22:37 -0700
To:
Huei-chen Ko
CC:
moe
Professor Ko Heui-chen
Office of the Dean of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
cc: Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education
Professor Kao Chiang, President, NCKU
10 July 2003
Dear Dean Ko,
I am puzzled why it's taking your office so long to resolve the case
of the student, Chen An-chuen, who submitted a
secret letter of accusation contesting a grade she received eight years
earlier. The case has already gone on for years now.
If the Office of Student Affairs is unable to request the attendance of
a student at an office meeting with the person she
accused, then there are serious questions to be raised about that
administration.
I am enclosing the email I sent yesterday. Your response to that
email was not satisfactory. In fact, you elected not to
respond. Instead, your vice-dean sent me a message, which hinted of
more delays.
I am not interested in more delays. I am interested in resolving
this case now so we can all get on with our lives.
I repeat: There are no complex legal issues involved here. A
professor has the right to face a student accuser. This is
known as due process. The Office of Student Affairs has the right to
call in any student any time to resolve problems at the
university. If you don't have that right, or are reluctant to exercise
that right, then it seems to me there is no purpose to an
Office of Student Affairs at our university.
Regarding this student, don't you think it odd that she eagerly
responded to a request to write a secret letter, and did so
within 24 hours. Yet now that she must discuss this issue publicly,
before the Dean and the professor she accused and who
can contest her accusation, she is trying everything possible to avoid
doing so?
Enclosed is the letter I sent yesterday. Please understand, I
expect you to set up a meeting, in your office, between me
and this student, including as many other people as you think necessary
to be present. This is your right as Dean. It is also
your responsibility as Dean.
I expect to hear from your office very soon regarding the
appointment date and time. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
(06) 237 8626
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
Date:
Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:17:49 -0700
To:
Huei-chen Ko
CC:
Student Affairs
Professor Ko Huei-Chen
Dean of Student Affairs
Office of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Dear Dean Ko,
I am writing this in response to a request from your office to
write a followup email concerning the issue of a student,
Chen An-Chuen (Lily Chen) who wrote a secret letter challenging a grade
eight years after she received it.
Let me sum up the issues yet again, so we can close this case.
A student has no right to write a secret accusatory letter. The
fact that the letter was secret shows she knew she had no
right to write it. The fact that she had countless chances in the past
to file a formal complaint but refused shows she knew
the only kind of complaint that would succeed was a secret complaint,
where her word was final. The fact that officials at
our university would accredit such a complaint discredits our university
as well as the officials involved.
The rights of a student do not include the right to injure a
professor's reputation. This should be very plain, except
probably to Ms. Chen and those who accredited, accepted, and even
solicited Ms. Chen's complaint in the first place. But
all of them would almost certainly be discredited once this case is
exposed to public discussion.
I will repeat what I have been saying for months now. I do not
wish to discredit the people involved in this case more
than they have already discredited themselves. But at the same time, I
must do whatever I can to restore my reputation as a
professor at this university and in my department.
Unfortunately, this cannot be done until Ms. Chen plainly
apologizes, admits her letter was wrong, had no basis in truth,
and, indeed, was solicited, as (from what I understand) she admitted to
Vice-Dean Tsai.
This is the only compromise that I am willing to make. Ms. Chen
must be made to understand that she will either
apologize in private or risk a public judgment for her actions.
Merely the fact that Ms. Chen feels she has a choice in whether to
appear at a meeting requested by the Office of
Student Affairs shows serious problems in administrative remedy, and
even authority, at our university. Who is in control at
our university, a student or an official? When did Ms. Chen become
above administrative remedy rather than part of it?
If there is so little administrative authority at our university
that a student needs to be "persuaded" to appear at a meeting,
then somebody in a sympathetic voice should persuade her that it is best
for her if this matter is resolved privately rather than
publicly. I repeat, it is unlikely that anyone outside our university
will accredit, defend, or justify Ms. Chen's actions in
writing her secret letter. Most people would see her action for what it
was: an attempt to maliciously discredit a professor
by secret defamation.
However, if Ms. Chen cannot be made to understand that her action
was wrong and would be perceived to be so by
most people outside our university, and that, therefore, her best choice
is to privately apologize, then I shall have no choice
but to seek public redress. But I wish to go on record that I gave Ms.
Chen, and officials at our university, the chance to
resolve this case with as much sympathy for all parties involved while
restoring my reputation and dignity as a professor at
our university.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(06) 237 8626
Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:17:49 -0700
To:
Huei-chen Ko
CC:
Student Affairs
Professor Ko Huei-Chen
Dean of Student Affairs
Office of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Dear Dean Ko,
I am writing this in response to a request from your office to
write a followup email concerning the issue of a student,
Chen An-Chuen (Lily Chen) who wrote a secret letter challenging a grade
eight years after she received it.
Let me sum up the issues yet again, so we can close this case.
A student has no right to write a secret accusatory letter. The
fact that the letter was secret shows she knew she had no
right to write it. The fact that she had countless chances in the past
to file a formal complaint but refused shows she knew
the only kind of complaint that would succeed was a secret complaint,
where her word was final. The fact that officials at
our university would accredit such a complaint discredits our university
as well as the officials involved.
The rights of a student do not include the right to injure a
professor's reputation. This should be very plain, except
probably to Ms. Chen and those who accredited, accepted, and even
solicited Ms. Chen's complaint in the first place. But
all of them would almost certainly be discredited once this case is
exposed to public discussion.
I will repeat what I have been saying for months now. I do not
wish to discredit the people involved in this case more
than they have already discredited themselves. But at the same time, I
must do whatever I can to restore my reputation as a
professor at this university and in my department.
Unfortunately, this cannot be done until Ms. Chen plainly
apologizes, admits her letter was wrong, had no basis in truth,
and, indeed, was solicited, as (from what I understand) she admitted to
Vice-Dean Tsai.
This is the only compromise that I am willing to make. Ms. Chen
must be made to understand that she will either
apologize in private or risk a public judgment for her actions.
Merely the fact that Ms. Chen feels she has a choice in whether to
appear at a meeting requested by the Office of
Student Affairs shows serious problems in administrative remedy, and
even authority, at our university. Who is in control at
our university, a student or an official? When did Ms. Chen become
above administrative remedy rather than part of it?
If there is so little administrative authority at our university
that a student needs to be "persuaded" to appear at a meeting,
then somebody in a sympathetic voice should persuade her that it is best
for her if this matter is resolved privately rather than
publicly. I repeat, it is unlikely that anyone outside our university
will accredit, defend, or justify Ms. Chen's actions in
writing her secret letter. Most people would see her action for what it
was: an attempt to maliciously discredit a professor
by secret defamation.
However, if Ms. Chen cannot be made to understand that her action
was wrong and would be perceived to be so by
most people outside our university, and that, therefore, her best choice
is to privately apologize, then I shall have no choice
but to seek public redress. But I wish to go on record that I gave Ms.
Chen, and officials at our university, the chance to
resolve this case with as much sympathy for all parties involved while
restoring my reputation and dignity as a professor at
our university.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(06) 237 8626
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
Dean Ko,
Dean of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
26 June 2003
Dear Dean Ko,
I hope you understand why I have lost patience with your
department's handling of my complaint against a student named
Lily Chen (Chen An-chuan). I have sent countless emails and faxes to
your office and received only vague responses about
"trying to do something," "gathering facts," etc.
The case is simple and should be simply handled: A student wrote a
secret and spiteful letter accusing a professor and
should be punished, whether a student then or now.
A student with an honest complaint will do so in proper, not
spiteful, language.
Second, there are acceptable means of complaint, subject to formal
controls and time limits.
But this student claimed in secret and without evidence that she
unfairly failed a course eight years before.
Third, soon after her exam, I pleaded with her over the telephone
to take back her exam and she refused, saying: "I see
no point. It's history. I don't want to talk about it."
In 1994, hearing gossip I unjustly failed her, I phoned her. She
denied she was behind the rumor, saying, "Why would I
say something silly like that?"
To be sure, I sent her a five-page letter and suggested I look for
her exam in my office.
Next day, a friendly colleague, acting as a go-between, told me
that this student said if I followed the matter further she
would contact a lawyer!
This student claimed in court she failed unjustly and that I told
the chairman I destroyed the exam. My letter of 1994
disproves both claims.
Why, if I had destroyed her exam and told the chairman so, would I
say, in writing, that I had the exam? (No professor
is required, or expected, to keep exams indefinitely.) Why would a
student who claimed she failed unjustly refuse a chance
to prove her claim?
The answer is clear to any reasonable person. This student ignored
my letter because,
1. She believed I had her exam (disproving her claims); and
2. She believed the exam would show she failed with reason.
With many chances to complain, this student on purpose and
therefore with malice made a secret complaint, so I couldn't
defend myself and her word would be final.
There is more evidence of this student's habit of speaking falsely.
First, she hid important facts, such as receiving three high passes
from me the year of her failing grade.
She denied taking these classes. After I showed grade records, she
claimed she forgot. Can a student forget passing
one class but remember failing another the same year?
In court she claimed she avoided me by sitting in the back of the
class. But she asked at the time if she could call me by
my first name! She received high passes in my conversation class that
same year. But students were separated in small
groups (about four) and there was no "back of the class"! Why sit in
the back of one class but not in the back of another
with the same teacher?
In court, she said she was a superior student. Her grade
transcripts don't show this:
She received several just-passing grades of low 60s and many grades
in the 70s. As a graduate student, she received a
minimal passing grade of 70 in at least one class.
Indeed, I gave this student among her highest grades as an
undergraduate, including a 90+. But she accused me because
of one failing grade, as if students never failed before. (I failed
one-third of her classmates that year, and my colleague failed
another third in the make-up class the following year.)
This student claimed in court, under oath, that nobody asked her to
write her letter. But talking to Vice-Dean Tsai, she
admitted a university official asked for her letter. Either she lied in
court or she lied to Professor Tsai.
Now usually the person telling the truth seeks a formal hearing.
In this case, Ms. Chen has tried to avoid one, even
saying so to the Vice-Dean!
Worse, the dean's office has allowed this student to dictate policy
of student discipline? That's the dean's job, according
to laws and common sense. Ms. Chen's letter was formally accepted and
it must be formally rejected.
University officials accepted her letter; they kept it secret and
circulated it; and they used it at my dismissal hearings. The
fact that my dismissal was reversed is no credit to Ms. Chen, who
recently repeated her accusation. Moreover, gossip
continues that I unfairly failed a student.
Therefore, this matter must be resolved at a formal meeting. I am
requesting this meeting for next Monday, 30 June. The
meeting should include me, Ms. Chen, one dean, and at least one member
of the Faculty Union.
At this meeting, unless Ms. Chen can prove her accusation and
explain why she wrote a secret and spiteful letter eight
years later, I will ask that she be formally censured and write a letter
of admission and apology. Only then will I consider
this case closed.
Please respond as soon as possible. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(06) 237 8626
Dean of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
26 June 2003
Dear Dean Ko,
I hope you understand why I have lost patience with your
department's handling of my complaint against a student named
Lily Chen (Chen An-chuan). I have sent countless emails and faxes to
your office and received only vague responses about
"trying to do something," "gathering facts," etc.
The case is simple and should be simply handled: A student wrote a
secret and spiteful letter accusing a professor and
should be punished, whether a student then or now.
A student with an honest complaint will do so in proper, not
spiteful, language.
Second, there are acceptable means of complaint, subject to formal
controls and time limits.
But this student claimed in secret and without evidence that she
unfairly failed a course eight years before.
Third, soon after her exam, I pleaded with her over the telephone
to take back her exam and she refused, saying: "I see
no point. It's history. I don't want to talk about it."
In 1994, hearing gossip I unjustly failed her, I phoned her. She
denied she was behind the rumor, saying, "Why would I
say something silly like that?"
To be sure, I sent her a five-page letter and suggested I look for
her exam in my office.
Next day, a friendly colleague, acting as a go-between, told me
that this student said if I followed the matter further she
would contact a lawyer!
This student claimed in court she failed unjustly and that I told
the chairman I destroyed the exam. My letter of 1994
disproves both claims.
Why, if I had destroyed her exam and told the chairman so, would I
say, in writing, that I had the exam? (No professor
is required, or expected, to keep exams indefinitely.) Why would a
student who claimed she failed unjustly refuse a chance
to prove her claim?
The answer is clear to any reasonable person. This student ignored
my letter because,
1. She believed I had her exam (disproving her claims); and
2. She believed the exam would show she failed with reason.
With many chances to complain, this student on purpose and
therefore with malice made a secret complaint, so I couldn't
defend myself and her word would be final.
There is more evidence of this student's habit of speaking falsely.
First, she hid important facts, such as receiving three high passes
from me the year of her failing grade.
She denied taking these classes. After I showed grade records, she
claimed she forgot. Can a student forget passing
one class but remember failing another the same year?
In court she claimed she avoided me by sitting in the back of the
class. But she asked at the time if she could call me by
my first name! She received high passes in my conversation class that
same year. But students were separated in small
groups (about four) and there was no "back of the class"! Why sit in
the back of one class but not in the back of another
with the same teacher?
In court, she said she was a superior student. Her grade
transcripts don't show this:
She received several just-passing grades of low 60s and many grades
in the 70s. As a graduate student, she received a
minimal passing grade of 70 in at least one class.
Indeed, I gave this student among her highest grades as an
undergraduate, including a 90+. But she accused me because
of one failing grade, as if students never failed before. (I failed
one-third of her classmates that year, and my colleague failed
another third in the make-up class the following year.)
This student claimed in court, under oath, that nobody asked her to
write her letter. But talking to Vice-Dean Tsai, she
admitted a university official asked for her letter. Either she lied in
court or she lied to Professor Tsai.
Now usually the person telling the truth seeks a formal hearing.
In this case, Ms. Chen has tried to avoid one, even
saying so to the Vice-Dean!
Worse, the dean's office has allowed this student to dictate policy
of student discipline? That's the dean's job, according
to laws and common sense. Ms. Chen's letter was formally accepted and
it must be formally rejected.
University officials accepted her letter; they kept it secret and
circulated it; and they used it at my dismissal hearings. The
fact that my dismissal was reversed is no credit to Ms. Chen, who
recently repeated her accusation. Moreover, gossip
continues that I unfairly failed a student.
Therefore, this matter must be resolved at a formal meeting. I am
requesting this meeting for next Monday, 30 June. The
meeting should include me, Ms. Chen, one dean, and at least one member
of the Faculty Union.
At this meeting, unless Ms. Chen can prove her accusation and
explain why she wrote a secret and spiteful letter eight
years later, I will ask that she be formally censured and write a letter
of admission and apology. Only then will I consider
this case closed.
Please respond as soon as possible. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(06) 237 8626
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
7/22/2003 1:44 AM
Subject: Regarding your failure to supervise a meeting between me and a
studentTo: Huei-chen Ko
CC: Control Yuan, moe ,
Kao Chiang
BCC: Ray Dah-tong,
Paul
Professor Ko Heui-Chen,
Dean of Student Affairs
Office of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
cc: Control Yuan, Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education,
Office of the President, NCKU
21 July 2003
Dear Dean Ko,
As you know, I have repeatedly requested that you set up a supervised
meeting between me and a student who wrote a spiteful letter.
Although I have been requesting either such a meeting or disciplinary
action against this student for what may be nearly two years now, I have
been denied this simple request.
It seems to me that every professor is entitled to request a supervised
meeting with a student, or there is no point to an Office of Student
Affairs.
As you know, in 1999 this student wrote a secret and spiteful letter,
accusing me of unfairly failing her eight years before she wrote her
letter. The letter was apparently solicited by officials who wished to
insure my dismissal and then secretly circulated at university hearings
upholding my dismissal.
The fact that this letter was even accepted, without questioin, by an
official at a university is, in itself, an outrage against legal, moral, and
academic standards. Apart from the violation of human rights, it places the
reputations of all professors who fail students in jeopardy, however many
years pass between the recording of a grade and a student's challenge of the
grade. It also undermines confidence in the sincerity of honest student
complaints, leading to a climate of mistrust and fear among both students
and faculty.
Finally, a teacher has a right to protect his reputation and a
university is bound, by law, to cooperate with him in doing this.
Apart from disciplinary issues, every teacher should have the right to
request a supervised meeting with a student, for whatever reason. It is not
your job to preempt the mediation process but to facilitate it.
I request yet again, that you set up a supervised meeting between me
and this student within days.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
National Cheng Kung University
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
Subject: Regarding your failure to supervise a meeting between me and a
studentTo: Huei-chen Ko
CC: Control Yuan
Kao Chiang
BCC: Ray Dah-tong
Paul
Professor Ko Heui-Chen,
Dean of Student Affairs
Office of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
cc: Control Yuan, Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education,
Office of the President, NCKU
21 July 2003
Dear Dean Ko,
As you know, I have repeatedly requested that you set up a supervised
meeting between me and a student who wrote a spiteful letter.
Although I have been requesting either such a meeting or disciplinary
action against this student for what may be nearly two years now, I have
been denied this simple request.
It seems to me that every professor is entitled to request a supervised
meeting with a student, or there is no point to an Office of Student
Affairs.
As you know, in 1999 this student wrote a secret and spiteful letter,
accusing me of unfairly failing her eight years before she wrote her
letter. The letter was apparently solicited by officials who wished to
insure my dismissal and then secretly circulated at university hearings
upholding my dismissal.
The fact that this letter was even accepted, without questioin, by an
official at a university is, in itself, an outrage against legal, moral, and
academic standards. Apart from the violation of human rights, it places the
reputations of all professors who fail students in jeopardy, however many
years pass between the recording of a grade and a student's challenge of the
grade. It also undermines confidence in the sincerity of honest student
complaints, leading to a climate of mistrust and fear among both students
and faculty.
Finally, a teacher has a right to protect his reputation and a
university is bound, by law, to cooperate with him in doing this.
Apart from disciplinary issues, every teacher should have the right to
request a supervised meeting with a student, for whatever reason. It is not
your job to preempt the mediation process but to facilitate it.
I request yet again, that you set up a supervised meeting between me
and this student within days.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
National Cheng Kung University
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
7/22/2003 12:17 PM
Subject: Misconduct of an NCKU student, in
TainanTo: moe
From:
"mengli_2" |
To:
"¨f¥Ì·ç"
CC:
"¹p¤j¦P",
higher@mail.moe.gov.tw, em50000@email.ncku.edu.tw, "¾Ç°È³B³B¥»³¡"
Subject:
¾Ç°È³B¦^ÂШf¥Ì·ç±Ð±Â«H¨ç_92.7.21
Date:
Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:03:50 +0800
Office of the Dean of Student Affairs
Dean of Students
Ko Huei-chen
21 July 2003
Dear Dean Ko,
The substance of your email has been translated for me. But your
arguments are still invalid and unacceptable.
A student wrote a secret, malicious letter, accusing a teacher of
failing her eight years before. There was no basis for her accusation
but her own claim that it was true.
Incredibly, officials at our university then accepted and
circulated this letter to insure my dismissal in 1999. That dismissal,
as you know, was canceled. But the rumors that I failed a student
unfairly continue. Just recently a woman on the street asked if it was
true I failed a student unfairly. For this reason, this case must be
resolved with a formal apology and retraction. This case will never be
closed until this formal apology and retraction is made.
You give three reasons for why you think this case is closed.
The first is that there is no new evidence. But the old evidence
would have been enough for other universities to have acted on this case
long ago.
Second, you refer to a court decision. A court decision is a
judicial, not a moral, decision. It's a decision about legal codes, not
ethical codes; about acts, not behavior. Driving a car drunk is a
criminal act; getting drunk is bad behavior. A court may find a student
did not drive a car when drunk, but that does not prevent a school from
disciplining the student for being drunk.
In addition, the court decision merely ruled on the issue of
whether this student's letter was directly responsible for my
dismissal. It did not rule on the ethics of the student's behavior nor
does it prevent the university from ruling on this issue; no more than
being acquitted in court of theft prevent the defendant's mother from
punishing her child for stealing.
A court does not judge moral behavior but criminal acts. Breaking
a window may not be a crime in a court's eyes but may be punished as
misconduct by a child's parents.
No responsible parent would use legal definitions as moral guides.
In the same way, no responsible university official should use legal
definitions as moral guides. This student engaged in misconduct by any
reasonable standard and should be punished for doing so.
Finally, your argument that she was not a student at the time is
wrong, since she repeated her claim to your vice-dean, insisting that
what she said was the truth. When she repeated her claim (last year)
she was (and is now) currently a student.
Consult with your vice-dean about this matter. By repeating her
claim she no longer falls under the umbrella of protection that you have
opened for her. I would not be so determined to have this student
punished if she had disowned her letter when spoken to by your vice-dean
recently.
If she had simply said, "I never wrote that letter and disclaim it"
or "I wrote the letter then, but I wasn't a student and I do not now
repeat my claims," that would be a different matter.
But she did not do so. Indeed, she insisted that what she said was
the "truth"; and, indeed, this was the very basis that your vice-dean
used as an excuse not to punish her: "She insists she was telling the
truth," as I recall your vice-dean saying.
You seem to want it both ways, or many ways. First I was told your
office could not handle such a complaint. Then I was told the FLLD
department must begin the complaint. Then I was told the student
insists she was telling the truth. Then I was told the court case was
pending. Then I was told the student was not a student. Then I was
told the vice-dean was gathering evidence. (Why would he gather
evidence if he thought the student was not liable in the first place?)
Then I was told it was my word against hers. (Apparently the
evidence convinced your office that it was not only my word but strong
documentation). Then I was told the student's mother did not want her
to go to a meeting. Finally I was told that God would punish the
student.
Now there's a famous French film with a very famous line:
"The terrible thing is that everyone has his reasons."
But we know that reasons are not excuses. There are many good
reasons to steal or murder; in fact, there are hundreds of them. You
can find them out by talking to those confined in the nearest jail or
prison. But these people found out the hard way that reasons were not
excuses.
But now there are other issues I wish to address in this email.
First, when a professor requests a supervised meeting with a
student, that seems to be a reasonable request to make. In universities
all over the world professors request such meetings and these are
usually set up within a day or two, or a week at most.
But you have delayed this case now for about two years. This kind
of delay should not be acceptable at a university.
In addition, a question that officials outside the university
should reasonably ask is why officials are protecting this student and
why would the student avoid coming to a supervised meeting with the
professor she accused? One would think she would pursue such a meeting
rather than the other way around.
The answer is simple: She knows her claim is unbelievable on the
face of it. Moreover, officials who conspired with her know this to be
the case.
None of this matters, really. I have long since lost confidence in
administrative remedy at our university. I will continue to pursue this
case within the university as a matter of principle. But my main avenue
of remedy will be far outside the university, to Taiwan lawmakers, the
Taiwan press, and to international human rights organizations, who
already know the details of this case. I assure you, once this case is
exposed, all parties involved in obstructing remedy at our university
may wish the case had been handled differently from the first.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Subject: Misconduct of an NCKU student, in
TainanTo: moe
From:
"mengli_2"
To:
"¨f¥Ì·ç"
CC:
"¹p¤j¦P"
higher@mail.moe.gov.tw, em50000@email.ncku.edu.tw, "¾Ç°È³B³B¥»³¡"
Subject:
¾Ç°È³B¦^ÂШf¥Ì·ç±Ð±Â«H¨ç_92.7.21
Date:
Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:03:50 +0800
Office of the Dean of Student Affairs
Dean of Students
Ko Huei-chen
21 July 2003
Dear Dean Ko,
The substance of your email has been translated for me. But your
arguments are still invalid and unacceptable.
A student wrote a secret, malicious letter, accusing a teacher of
failing her eight years before. There was no basis for her accusation
but her own claim that it was true.
Incredibly, officials at our university then accepted and
circulated this letter to insure my dismissal in 1999. That dismissal,
as you know, was canceled. But the rumors that I failed a student
unfairly continue. Just recently a woman on the street asked if it was
true I failed a student unfairly. For this reason, this case must be
resolved with a formal apology and retraction. This case will never be
closed until this formal apology and retraction is made.
You give three reasons for why you think this case is closed.
The first is that there is no new evidence. But the old evidence
would have been enough for other universities to have acted on this case
long ago.
Second, you refer to a court decision. A court decision is a
judicial, not a moral, decision. It's a decision about legal codes, not
ethical codes; about acts, not behavior. Driving a car drunk is a
criminal act; getting drunk is bad behavior. A court may find a student
did not drive a car when drunk, but that does not prevent a school from
disciplining the student for being drunk.
In addition, the court decision merely ruled on the issue of
whether this student's letter was directly responsible for my
dismissal. It did not rule on the ethics of the student's behavior nor
does it prevent the university from ruling on this issue; no more than
being acquitted in court of theft prevent the defendant's mother from
punishing her child for stealing.
A court does not judge moral behavior but criminal acts. Breaking
a window may not be a crime in a court's eyes but may be punished as
misconduct by a child's parents.
No responsible parent would use legal definitions as moral guides.
In the same way, no responsible university official should use legal
definitions as moral guides. This student engaged in misconduct by any
reasonable standard and should be punished for doing so.
Finally, your argument that she was not a student at the time is
wrong, since she repeated her claim to your vice-dean, insisting that
what she said was the truth. When she repeated her claim (last year)
she was (and is now) currently a student.
Consult with your vice-dean about this matter. By repeating her
claim she no longer falls under the umbrella of protection that you have
opened for her. I would not be so determined to have this student
punished if she had disowned her letter when spoken to by your vice-dean
recently.
If she had simply said, "I never wrote that letter and disclaim it"
or "I wrote the letter then, but I wasn't a student and I do not now
repeat my claims," that would be a different matter.
But she did not do so. Indeed, she insisted that what she said was
the "truth"; and, indeed, this was the very basis that your vice-dean
used as an excuse not to punish her: "She insists she was telling the
truth," as I recall your vice-dean saying.
You seem to want it both ways, or many ways. First I was told your
office could not handle such a complaint. Then I was told the FLLD
department must begin the complaint. Then I was told the student
insists she was telling the truth. Then I was told the court case was
pending. Then I was told the student was not a student. Then I was
told the vice-dean was gathering evidence. (Why would he gather
evidence if he thought the student was not liable in the first place?)
Then I was told it was my word against hers. (Apparently the
evidence convinced your office that it was not only my word but strong
documentation). Then I was told the student's mother did not want her
to go to a meeting. Finally I was told that God would punish the
student.
Now there's a famous French film with a very famous line:
"The terrible thing is that everyone has his reasons."
But we know that reasons are not excuses. There are many good
reasons to steal or murder; in fact, there are hundreds of them. You
can find them out by talking to those confined in the nearest jail or
prison. But these people found out the hard way that reasons were not
excuses.
But now there are other issues I wish to address in this email.
First, when a professor requests a supervised meeting with a
student, that seems to be a reasonable request to make. In universities
all over the world professors request such meetings and these are
usually set up within a day or two, or a week at most.
But you have delayed this case now for about two years. This kind
of delay should not be acceptable at a university.
In addition, a question that officials outside the university
should reasonably ask is why officials are protecting this student and
why would the student avoid coming to a supervised meeting with the
professor she accused? One would think she would pursue such a meeting
rather than the other way around.
The answer is simple: She knows her claim is unbelievable on the
face of it. Moreover, officials who conspired with her know this to be
the case.
None of this matters, really. I have long since lost confidence in
administrative remedy at our university. I will continue to pursue this
case within the university as a matter of principle. But my main avenue
of remedy will be far outside the university, to Taiwan lawmakers, the
Taiwan press, and to international human rights organizations, who
already know the details of this case. I assure you, once this case is
exposed, all parties involved in obstructing remedy at our university
may wish the case had been handled differently from the first.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
9/16/2003 11:07 AM
Subject: Concerning the Lily Chen
matterTo: Huei-chen Ko
CC: moe,
Kao Chiang
BCC: Ray Dah-tong,
Paul
Dean Ko Huei-chen
Dean of Student Affairs
Office of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
cc: Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education, Professor Kao
Chiang, President National Cheng Kung University
Dear Dean Ko,
Let me remind you again that the matter of the student who wrote a
secret letter complaining of a grade eight years after she received it has
not been properly or formally resolved.
I have waited two years for your office to handle this case. I have
been given every excuse why this student has not been called in, such as a
court case is pending or the student was not a student when she wrote her
letter or your office is "collecting evidence" (evidence for a murder trial
is "collected" in quicker time) or (absurd as it sounds) the student
doesn't want to come or the student's mother doesn't want her to come or the
student claims she's a "good girl" or "God will punish her" or most recently
the court decision has closed the case.
As the saying goes, two reasons are as bad as none, since if one of
them is sincere one would be enough.
Regarding the most recent reason, that the court closed the case, this
cannot be so. My case was a legal case, not a ethics case. The court never
resolved on this issue since it was not a matter addressed to the court nor
is it a matter for a court. I did not ask the court do decide whether
Lily's letter was proper for a student to write, but whether her letter
caused my dismissal. I sued her for libel, not for student misconduct.
In any case, as I've repeatedly said, courts rule on legal, not
ethical, issues. It rules on acts, not conduct. It makes legal decisions,
not moral judgments. A person not guilty of a crime may still be guilty of
misconduct. A student acquitted of drunk driving may still be accountable
(to parents or teachers or church leaders) for being drunk.
Such actions concern ethical codes of families, businesses, churches,
or schools. Is there an ethical code at National Cheng Kung University? Do
we expect students to live up to ethical standards at our university?
Apart from ethical codes, is there a formal code on how to make a
complaint against a student or teacher? Is there a code that allows a
student to complain of a grade received eight years before? If so, please
cite it. If not, why was this student's complaint accepted?
These questions must be answered. But I'm not going to waste more time
on this matter. Especially since it seems to be your responsibility to
resolve this matter, not mine.
The facts are plain: A student wrote a secret letter complaining of a
grade she received eight years before. The letter seems to have been
solicited by department officials to insure my dismissal from the
university. The complaint was formally accepted by the Dean of the College
of Liberal Arts.
Let me repeat one more time: Because the letter was formally accepted,
it must be formally rejected. How this is done is not my concern. It can
be done by having a dean write a formal letter saying that the complaint was
false and should not have been accepted. Or it can be done by having the
student admit she lied.
But the complaint must be formally rejected in substance not merely in
form. Let me advise you that there is no compromise possible on this issue.
In addition, as I have repeatedly said, it seems to me to be your duty
as Dean of Student Affairs to call a student into your office, upon request,
for a supervised meeting with a student concerning issues of
student-teacher affairs. A student has that right and so does a teacher.
Otherwise there is no point in having an Office of Student Affairs.
Please schedule a supervised meeting between me and this student as
soon as possible this semester.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(06) 237 8626
Subject: Concerning the Lily Chen
matterTo: Huei-chen Ko
CC: moe
Kao Chiang
BCC: Ray Dah-tong
Paul
Dean Ko Huei-chen
Dean of Student Affairs
Office of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
cc: Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education, Professor Kao
Chiang, President National Cheng Kung University
Dear Dean Ko,
Let me remind you again that the matter of the student who wrote a
secret letter complaining of a grade eight years after she received it has
not been properly or formally resolved.
I have waited two years for your office to handle this case. I have
been given every excuse why this student has not been called in, such as a
court case is pending or the student was not a student when she wrote her
letter or your office is "collecting evidence" (evidence for a murder trial
is "collected" in quicker time) or (absurd as it sounds) the student
doesn't want to come or the student's mother doesn't want her to come or the
student claims she's a "good girl" or "God will punish her" or most recently
the court decision has closed the case.
As the saying goes, two reasons are as bad as none, since if one of
them is sincere one would be enough.
Regarding the most recent reason, that the court closed the case, this
cannot be so. My case was a legal case, not a ethics case. The court never
resolved on this issue since it was not a matter addressed to the court nor
is it a matter for a court. I did not ask the court do decide whether
Lily's letter was proper for a student to write, but whether her letter
caused my dismissal. I sued her for libel, not for student misconduct.
In any case, as I've repeatedly said, courts rule on legal, not
ethical, issues. It rules on acts, not conduct. It makes legal decisions,
not moral judgments. A person not guilty of a crime may still be guilty of
misconduct. A student acquitted of drunk driving may still be accountable
(to parents or teachers or church leaders) for being drunk.
Such actions concern ethical codes of families, businesses, churches,
or schools. Is there an ethical code at National Cheng Kung University? Do
we expect students to live up to ethical standards at our university?
Apart from ethical codes, is there a formal code on how to make a
complaint against a student or teacher? Is there a code that allows a
student to complain of a grade received eight years before? If so, please
cite it. If not, why was this student's complaint accepted?
These questions must be answered. But I'm not going to waste more time
on this matter. Especially since it seems to be your responsibility to
resolve this matter, not mine.
The facts are plain: A student wrote a secret letter complaining of a
grade she received eight years before. The letter seems to have been
solicited by department officials to insure my dismissal from the
university. The complaint was formally accepted by the Dean of the College
of Liberal Arts.
Let me repeat one more time: Because the letter was formally accepted,
it must be formally rejected. How this is done is not my concern. It can
be done by having a dean write a formal letter saying that the complaint was
false and should not have been accepted. Or it can be done by having the
student admit she lied.
But the complaint must be formally rejected in substance not merely in
form. Let me advise you that there is no compromise possible on this issue.
In addition, as I have repeatedly said, it seems to me to be your duty
as Dean of Student Affairs to call a student into your office, upon request,
for a supervised meeting with a student concerning issues of
student-teacher affairs. A student has that right and so does a teacher.
Otherwise there is no point in having an Office of Student Affairs.
Please schedule a supervised meeting between me and this student as
soon as possible this semester.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(06) 237 8626
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
Original Message -----
> From:vertigo@ms22.hinet.net
> To:Huei-chen Ko
> Cc:Kao Chiang ; moe
> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 10:29 AM
> Subject: Please arrange a meeting between me and the student
> involved in misconduct by the end of next week
> Professor Ko Huei-chen
> Dean of Student Affairs
> National Cheng Kung University
>
> Dear Dean Ko,
>
> Please arrange a meeting between me and the student
> involved in misconduct by the end of next week. It is my right
> to request, and it is your responsibility to set up, such a
> meeting.
> Please cooperate in the enforcement of standards at our
> university.
> Thank you.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Professor Richard de Canio
> Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
> National Cheng Kung University
> (06) 237 8626
> From:vertigo@ms22.hinet.net
> To:Huei-chen Ko
> Cc:Kao Chiang ; moe
> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 10:29 AM
> Subject: Please arrange a meeting between me and the student
> involved in misconduct by the end of next week
> Professor Ko Huei-chen
> Dean of Student Affairs
> National Cheng Kung University
>
> Dear Dean Ko,
>
> Please arrange a meeting between me and the student
> involved in misconduct by the end of next week. It is my right
> to request, and it is your responsibility to set up, such a
> meeting.
> Please cooperate in the enforcement of standards at our
> university.
> Thank you.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Professor Richard de Canio
> Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
> National Cheng Kung University
> (06) 237 8626
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)