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

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

Letter to NCKU president, Kao Chiang

Subject:
Remaining Problems regarding the Prof. De Canio case
Date:
Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:14:27 -0700
To:
Kao Chiang
CC:
moe

President Kao Chiang,
National Cheng Kung University

cc: Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education

9 July 2003

Dear President Kao

As you know, I have written several previous email letters
concerning unresolved issues regarding National Cheng Kung
University's illegal dismissal of me in 1999. I have not received a
satisfactory response concerning any of these issues (the
first previous email, summing up all the issues, appears below).
First, apart from the original human rights violatioins,
administrative remedy that takes this long is unacceptable. Most of
these issues can be resolved in days rather than months.
The Lily Chen case remains formally unresolved, since I have not
yet received an apology.
The matter of the review meeting convened on a plagiarism
accusation that had already been rejected on Ministry appeal
(8 January 2001), is also unresolved, since I have not received an
official document that this meeting has been annulled. I
remind you, as I pointed out in my first email and on previous
occasions, that to revive an issue already rejected on appeal
is to undermine the very purpose of the appeal process. Therefore I
urge you, one final time, to respond, plainly, whether
that meeting has been annulled. If I do not receive a positive response
by the end of this week, I shall seek legal remedies
outside the university, as is my right.
The case of just compensation for losses suffered in the four years
that this case lasted has also not been completely
resolved, including court and travel costs, full back pay, and annual
increments and interest.
I remind you that despite constant warnings by Faculty Union and
MOE officials, the university continued to defy laws,
moral principles, and common sense for more than four years, at the
expense of taxpayers as well as myself and our
colleagues, while harming the reputation of our university. As
president of our university, you should be committed, above
all, to upholding the reputation of our university according to moral
principles and laws. Only by resolving these issues
quickly will we be acting in the best interests of our university. I am
not willing to wait much longer to resolve these issues
within the 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 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