Showing posts with label July 21 2003. Show all posts
Showing posts with label July 21 2003. Show all posts

Monday, August 2, 2010

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

Saturday, July 31, 2010

Letter to NCKU president, Kao Chiang

National Cheng Kung University
Office of the President,
President Kao Chiang

cc: Control Yuan, Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education

21 July 2003

Dear President Kao,

I have written you repeatedly regarding issues related to my illegal
dismissal in 1999 and the Ministry ruling canceling that
dismissal on 8 January 2001, which the university, during your
administration, defied for more than two years.
In addition, after defying the Ministry ruling for more than two
years, apparently to show scorn for that ruling, a
committee hearing, in May 2003, quickly passed accusations rejected in
that ruling.
But when I request administrative remedy, I am told to follow
"proper procedures."
Based on the evidence of this case, when has the university
followed "proper procedures"?
There is a pattern of human rights abuses and then obstruction of
remedy of those abuses that is well-known to people
familiar with my dismissal case.
Consider the facts, which by now are well known:
Professor LEE CHUNG-HSIUNG held a closed meeting, using unproved
accusations to effect my dismissal.
Professor TU YUNG-CHING accepted a secret letter from a student on
no other basis than the student's claim she
was telling the truth.
Professor LEE CHIAN-ER allowed that letter to circulate at
university hearings that passed my dismissal.
Professor KO HUEI-CHEN, current Dean of Student Affairs, has
repeatedly prevented a meeting between me and a
student who wrote that letter, although a professor is entitled to
protect his reputation and students are subject to ethical
codes.
You yourself defied a Ministry ruling for more than two years.
When I repeatedly challenge the university hearing in
May, 2003, you refer me to the Dean of Academic Affairs.
As president of a university, I would think you would consider
contempt for a Ministry ruling and due process of law a
serious issue. I fought this case for four years. Do you expect me to
fight another four years to remedy more abuses
committed immediately after my contracts are issued? That meeting, at
which I wasn't even invited, deliberately showed
scorn for law and due process of law. Why should I be asked to have
confidence in due process of law here?
As you know, when forced to comply, at least partially, with the
Ministry ruling, instead of issuing a prompt apology to
the appellant, which a reputable administration would have done, the
university promptly weakened the legal benefits of that
ruling: repeating accusations already rejected in that ruling; claiming
I'm only entitled to partial retroactive pay; ignoring
compensatory claims; and showing unconcern for disciplining the student
who falsely accused me, although she is currently
a student and teaching part-time at our university.
Besides well-documented legal rights abuses at our university,
there is a pattern of passing responsibility from one official
to another in an endless cycle of irresponsibility: The Office of the
President refers me to the Dean of Student Affairs, the
Dean of Student Affairs refers me to the Vice-Dean of Student Affairs,
the Vice-Dean of Student Affairs quotes the
student, who says she doesn't want to come to a meeting.
Despite countless officials at our university, university policy is
finally dictated by a student.
What kind of policy is that?
An official can delegate responsibility, but never transfer it,
which remains his or hers by law, as the tragic case at Ho
Ping Hospital makes plain. If an official thinks a subordinate can do
the job, then there's no problem. But if the
subordinate fails to do so, the responsibility remains with the official
in charge.
You used the phrase "proper procedures."
First, as I said earlier, the university has a history of not
following proper procedures, so why do you invoke that phrase
to obstruct remedy but not to prevent abuses?
After defying the Ministry of Education Appeal ruling for more than
two years, within days of partial compliance with
that ruling, the university held a meeting repeating accusations against
me rejected in that ruling. Then when I apply for
remedy, I am told to follow "proper procedures."
Your so-called "proper procedures" has repeatedly delayed a
supervised meeting between me and the student who
falsely accused me, when such a meeting should be arranged in a day or
two. Apart from disciplinary action, a professor
has a right to request a supervised meeting with a student, for whatever
reason.
Still the question remains: Why hasn't disciplinary action been
taken against this student? Making false accusations
against a professor not only undermines confidence in all teachers, but
also in the sincerity of honest student complaints.
You refer to "proper procedures." But this seems to be a reason
for improper delay:
How much time does it take to arrange a supervised meeting between
a teacher and a student, for whatever reason?
How much time does it take to comply with a lawful Ministry ruling?

How much time does it take to issue a formal apology to the
appellant following a ruling?
How much time does it take to compensate an appellant?
How much time does it take to nullify the May 2003 university
meeting that undermined the legal benefits of the Ministry
ruling of 8 January 2003? If it took only days to arrange such a
meeting it should take even less time to nullify it.
If you were sincere when you referred to "proper procedures" you
would immediately begin those procedures and
inform me of specific action you're taking and a specific deadline,
probably of no more than days. Evasively referring to
"proper procedures" is unacceptable. My reputation and honor are at
stake and there should be no doubt that I am
committed to defending them, whatever the legal channels I must use.
Just the fact that your Dean of Student Affairs, Professor Ko
Huei-chen has delayed calling a meeting between me and
this student for years would cause an international scandal, when
officials in other countries could have done this in a day or
two.
Are you telling me there is no prompt and routine administrative
process for handling these issues?
Are you going to ask the Ministry of Education what to do every
time there's a routine request and then defy the same
Ministry when it's convenient to do so?
I won a Ministry ruling in 8 January 2001. You are bound, by law,
to protect the full benefits of that ruling, sincerely
and promptly. You are also bound, by law, to protect the reputation of
all professors at our university, whether native or
foreign. It is my right, by law, to use whatever legal means and
outside channels to uphold my rights at our university and to
request your cooperation in this goal.
This means immediate nullification of that university hearing in
May, 2003.
This means a formal apology.
This means an apology from that student.
This means full compensation.
This means considering the interruption to my academic career when
I apply for promotion this year.

Sincerely,

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