Subject: Regarding continued misconduct at National Cheng Kung University in
Tainan, TaiwanTo: moe
CC: Control Yuan
Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education
cc: Control Yuan
20 July 2003
To Officials of the Ministry of Education and
The Department of Higher Education:
I wish to protest continued official misconduct at National Cheng Kung
University under the administration of its current president, Kao
Chiang. Instead of upholding laws and human rights, officials have used
improper procedures to injure my reputation and delay administrative
remedy.
On 8 January 2001, the Ministry of Education Appeal Committee
canceled my dismissal from the university in 1999, boldfacing legal
rights violations. The university defied the ruling for more than two
years, holding further hearings and dismissing me again, despite the
appeal ruling.
When a Taiwan court advised the university to settle, university
officials threatened to contest the case for years unless I resigned.
Under increased Ministry pressure, including eight warning letters, the
university finally issued retroactive contracts, while delaying revival
of a current contract. Forced to comply with the Ministry ruling, the
university then claimed I was not entitled to full retroactive pay,
since I did not teach during my illegal dismissal.
Finally, the university convened a meeting in May 2003 repeating
accusations rejected in the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001. This not
only undermines the principle of final appeal but also places the
university above the law.
Meanwhile, university officials have shown a pattern of misconduct
while, under color of law and "proper procedures," delaying remedy.
Officials scorned a Ministry ruling for more than two years, then
promptly convened a meeting to repeat accusations rejected in that
ruling. Yet they now appeal to "proper procedures" to delay
compensation. They conveniently ignored my rights but then appeal to
"proper procedures" to protect the student whose spiteful letter was
improperly accepted in the first place.
For the last two years I have requested a meeting between this
student and myself in the Office of Student Affairs, to no avail. Yet a
student who maliciously accuses a professor of unfair grading not only
undermines confidence in all teachers but also in honest student
grievances.
Apart from the issue of student misconduct, a professor has a right
to request a supervised meeting with a student without delay. This is
part of "proper procedures" in reputable universities elsewhere.
But at our university, "proper procedures" are ignored to persecute
a foreign professor but invoked to protect a spiteful student.
Officials allow reckless violations, defend and spitefully repeat them,
and only reluctantly comply with laws, while, under color of "proper
procedures," delaying remedy indefinitely.
University compliance with the law should be transparent, as well
as sincere and contrite, instead of stubbornly devious or defiant. A
university is not a shady business, but a social institution, upholding
ideal values.
Yet our university has not only undermined confidence in
administrative remedy but also in the law. Unable to defy the Ministry
ruling, the university weakened the effects of that ruling. It promptly
convened a meeting to repeat accusations rejected in that ruling. Then
it offered only partial retroactive pay. Ignoring documented
misconduct, the university continues to protect the student who falsely
accused me.
This suggests that despite the university's partial compliance with
the law, I was properly dismissed. There is only need to restore my
employment but not my reputation.
Thus the university becomes the law in Taiwan. An appeal outside
the university is possible, but of no exculpatory value.
This is unacceptable. I am entitled to the full benefits of a
final appeal ruling, including protection from repeated accusations
rejected in that ruling, a formal apology, and full compensation.
Please consider that in addition to flagrant human rights abuses
committed by university officials, delay in administrative remedy has
undermined confidence in law at our university. Hereafter, academics
(especially foreign academics) may ignore academic standards for fear of
retribution and futile remedy.
This will compromise education in Taiwan. Therefore I advise
stricter regulation of universities, including automatic penalties for
official misconduct.
For now, because of the history of human rights abuses at National
Cheng Kung University, I appeal outside the university for remedy:
First, and without delay, the university hearing, at which I was
not even present and based on accusations already rejected on Ministry
appeal should be formally nullified, according to rights of final
appeal.
Second, the case of the student who submitted a secret and false
accusation against me should be formally resolved, with an apology from
this student and penalty.
Third, compensation related to my dismissal, including travel
costs, court costs, and full salary should be made.
Fourth, a formal apology and acknowledgment of misconduct by the
university administration should be issued.
Fifth, special consideration of the four-year interruption to my
academic career should be shown when I apply for promotion to full
professorship next year.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(06) 237 8626
