[Fwd: Regarding the illegal dismissal case, now in its seventh year]

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

Subject:	Regarding the illegal dismissal case, now in its seventh year
Date:	Fri, 24 Jun 2005 02:54:46 +0800
From:	richard <invictus2002@yahoo.com>
Reply-To:	invictus2002@yahoo.com
Organization:	NCKU
To:	em50000@email.ncku.edu.tw
CC:	MOE <higher@mail.moe.gov.tw>, Prime Minister <eyemail@eyemail.gio.gov.tw>, Prime Minister <peu03@mail.gio.gov.tw>

National Cheng Kung University
Professor Kao Chiang,
President's Office

24 June 2005

Dear President Kao,

     As you know, the case of my illegal dismissal from National Cheng Kung University is now in its seventh year. The university not only illegally dismissed me in 1999, but has, under your administration, repeated countless human rights violations since then, despite a Minsitry of Education appeal ruling in my favor.
     You yourself, although president of a national university, refused to honor a legal Ministry ruling for more than two years. You yourself, though you are engaged in cultural exchanges with universities from democracies such as America, where Taiwan citizens are protected by laws, refuse to treat faculty here with the same respect for laws. On the contrary, you seem to feel no sense of shame over having your university lawyer argue in court that foreign faculty are not protected by the same laws that protect native faculty.
     Although this case is now in its seventh year, as I said above, and despite countless Ministry and judicial rulings in my favor, your administration continues to contest these matters in the courts and continues (in defiance of universal human rights principles that benefit Taiwan faculty living in democracies abroad) to deny human rights protections to foreign faculty here.
     Though this case is now in its seventh year, your administration still refuses to issue a formal apology for its human rights abuses in my case; your administration still contests legal benefits guaranteed to all appellants in favorable appeal rulings; and your administration still refuses to enforce penalties against a student, Chen An-chuen, who maliciously defamed me before my dismissal in 1999.
     I remind you that there is no compromise possible on these issues. Under no circumstances can I permit this case to close with no formal apology from the university or formal penalties against the aforementioned student. Nor will I accept anything less than full compensation, as guaranteed under appellate principles of law, as well as human rights principles to which Taiwan subscribes.
     I will continue to take all steps necessary to effect these just goals, based in principles of law and human rights. Besides principles of law and justice, I advise you to consider the long-term reputation of our university, for which you are responsible. For under no circumstances can you justify the conduct of officials at our university during the illegal dismissal process, or your administration's judicial defiance that followed the Ministry ruling in my favor. It is therefore in the best interests of all parties concerned to resolve these matters within the university, but also within principles of justice.

     Sincerely,

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

Letter to NCKU president, Kao Chiang

National Cheng Kung University
Professor Kao Chiang,
President's Office

24 June 2005

Dear President Kao,

As you know, the case of my illegal dismissal from National Cheng
Kung University is now in its seventh year. The university not only
illegally dismissed me in 1999, but has, under your administration,
repeated countless human rights violations since then, despite a
Ministry of Education appeal ruling in my favor.
You yourself, although president of a national university, refused
to honor a legal Ministry ruling for more than two years. You yourself,
though you are engaged in cultural exchanges with universities from
democracies such as America, where Taiwan citizens are protected by
laws, refuse to treat faculty here with the same respect for laws. On
the contrary, you seem to feel no sense of shame over having your
university lawyer argue in court that foreign faculty are not protected
by the same laws that protect native faculty.
Although this case is now in its seventh year, as I said above, and
despite countless Ministry and judicial rulings in my favor, your
administration continues to contest these matters in the courts and
continues (in defiance of universal human rights principles that benefit
Taiwan faculty living in democracies abroad) to deny human rights
protections to foreign faculty here.
Though this case is now in its seventh year, your administration
still refuses to issue a formal apology for its human rights abuses in
my case; your administration still contests legal benefits guaranteed to
all appellants in favorable appeal rulings; and your administration
still refuses to enforce penalties against a student, Chen An-chuen, who
maliciously defamed me before my dismissal in 1999.
I remind you that there is no compromise possible on these issues.
Under no circumstances can I permit this case to close with no formal
apology from the university or formal penalties against the
aforementioned student. Nor will I accept anything less than full
compensation, as guaranteed under appellate principles of law, as well
as human rights principles to which Taiwan subscribes.
I will continue to take all steps necessary to effect these just
goals, based in principles of law and human rights. Besides principles
of law and justice, I advise you to consider the long-term reputation of
our university, for which you are responsible. For under no
circumstances can you justify the conduct of officials at our university
during the illegal dismissal process, or your administration's judicial
defiance that followed the Ministry ruling in my favor. It is therefore
in the best interests of all parties concerned to resolve these matters
within the university, but also within principles of justice.

Sincerely,

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

Letter to NCKU president, Kao Chiang

12/4/2002 1:42 PM


President Kao Chiang
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

cc: Scholars at Risk
Ministry of Education
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
American Institute in Taiwan

December 3, 2002

Dear Professor Kao,

This letter is in response to your comment to the international human
rights agency, Scholars at Risk, that the university is following laws in
the handling of my dismissal case. As you read this letter, please consider
whether the university is following or has ever followed laws in this case.
As you know, in March 1999 the Department of Foreign Languages and
Literature held a meeting to effect my dismissal. Secret accusations were
used. These were neither proved nor investigated. I was unaware of the
meeting and denied a defense.
When a member of the Faculty Union challenged the legitimacy of this
dismissal, a secret accusatory letter was circulated at subsequent "appeal"
hearings to insure my dismissal. The letter challenged a grade a student
received eight years before.
The Ministry of Education Appeal Committee did not uphold these
accusations and boldfaced legal rights violations. Subsequently, the
student who wrote the accusatory letter admitted to the Vice-Dean of Student
Affairs that a university official solicited her letter.
You assured Scholars at Risk the university follows laws. Do laws
permit secret letters and unproved accusations? Moreover, why would a
student be allowed to challenge a grade received eight years before?
When a colleague and I spoke with your secretary-general, he informed
us you would not challenge a decision by a university committee. Apparently
a university committee is not in the wrong even if it commits a wrong or
violates due process of law and recognized rights.
As you know, I won a university appeal in December 1999. This was a
final disposition. However, university counsel, acting as chair, wrote a
tactical decision that returned my case to the department claiming the
Teacher’s Law does not protect foreigners.
You affirmed the university follows laws. What law allows
discrimination against foreign faculty?
In January 2002, the Ministry of Education Appeal Committee ruled my
dismissal could not be upheld. The university "interpreted" this to mean I
should be reviewed again. But why appeal if an appellant can hope only to
appeal again?
Appeals are not contestable until the stronger side wins. If so, the
respondent can forever submit new arguments and the appeal is never final.
The rule of final arbitration was established to insure justice and not
power prevailed. Otherwise, there are laws, but not law as understood in
democracies.
The Ministry of Education has sent five warning letters to issue the
retroactive contract. Although you were appointed by the Ministry of
Education and subject to public laws, you and your legal counsel have defied
these letters and these laws.
Instead, over my formal protest, the university convened unsanctioned
hearings and repeated accusations rejected in the Ministry ruling. A member
of the Faculty Union formally discredited the methods of these hearings.
Although the university presumed to investigate me, my grievance action was
denied on the bogus claim I have no legal relationship with the university!
Recently, the university filed a lawsuit contesting my employment at
the university. The lawsuit affronts legal principles.
First, university counsel ignored the Ministry ruling and subsequent
warning letters to issue the contract.
Then university counsel argued foreigners have no right to appeal. In
law, protest must be made before the disposition of a case, not after. By
not contesting the Ministry appeal, the university accepted my right to
appeal and is therefore subject to the Ministry ruling.
Finally, the university curiously argued it could not employ me since I
was teaching at another university. But the reason I'm teaching elsewhere
is because the university has scorned the legal ruling of the Ministry of
Education.
Although the court rejected the university's lawsuit, the university
has appealed. The university has now defied a Ministry ruling and court
decision, as well as admonitory letters from the Ministry of Education,
Scholars at Risk, and our Faculty Union advising principles of law, due
process, and fair play.
Meanwhile I have been frustrated trying to effect justice against the
student who libeled me. Curiously, at our university, legal rights are
ignored to persecute a foreign professor but invoked to defend a student who
libeled him.
Since March 1999, I have taxied all over Tainan to claim countless
registered deliveries announcing an endless cycle of hearings. This paper
chase in itself would discourage petitionary action by other faculty. Do
you believe foreign faculty will intermit their academic careers for years
in an elusive pursuit of justice at our university?
Remedial action should have routinely followed my illegal dismissal.
Disciplinary action against the student should have been automatic, since
her letter was solicited, malicious, without foundation, and submitted
secretly. Yet this case appears to have no end in sight; unless the Control
Yuan, using disciplinary privileges, reminds the university it is a public
institution bound to public laws.
In view of the above facts, your recent letter (21 November) asking my
patience while the university appeals is hollow, if not offensive. Despite
your legal options, there is no moral legitimacy to the university’s appeal.

In conclusion, I repeat the question asked at the beginning: Do you
believe our university is following or has ever followed laws in the
handling of my case?

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

Legal Rights Abuses at National Cheng Kung University

4/28/2003 6:25 AM
Subject: Important: Legal rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University in
Tainan, Taiwan (ROC); in response to the president of NCKU claiming that
laws were observed in a dimissal action against an American
professor
To: tecroinfodc@tecro-info.org
CC: rquinn@uchicago.edu, Ray Dah-tong

Chien-jen (C.J.) Chen,
Dr. Lyushun Shen,
Mr. Michael Ming-Shian Tsai
Taiwan Representative Office
Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO)
4201 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20016-2137
Tel: 202-895-1800
Fax: 202-363-0999
tecroinfodc@tecro-info.org

cc: Scholars at Risk
NCKU Faculty Union

27 April 2003

Dear Sirs,

I am outraged that Kao Chiang, the president of National Cheng Kung
University, claims the university has followed laws in my dismissal case
(Letter #0920002126, 23 April 2003).
From the beginning, my dismissal was illegal, based on secret and
unproved allegations (29 March 1999). To insure my dismissal, more
secret accusations were solicited (9 June 1999) and secretly circulated
(14, 25 June 1999).
These illegal actions are fully documented. Why does Kao Chiang
claim the university has followed laws? Is it lawful to libel a
professor or solicit secret letters against him?
On 3 December 1999, the University Appeal Committee canceled my
dismissal, yet the university refused to issue my contract (27 December
1999). Instead, it returned my case for further “review,” claiming the
Teacher’s Law does not protect foreign teachers. This decision not only
defied the Teacher’s Law, Article 32, but also commonsense: A final
appeal that subjects an appellant to further review is pointless.
But this decision was a tactical maneuver that allowed the
committee to ignore countless legal violations and cancel my dismissal
on a single technicality, assuming another cycle of review hearings
would discourage me. These hearings lasted from the Department of
Foreign Languages Review meeting on 10 March 2000 to the University
Appeal decision on 18 August 2000, which concluded that the Teacher’s
Law does not protect foreign teachers.
On 8 January 2001, the MOE Appeal Committee canceled my dismissal
and boldfaced rights violations. In defiance of that ruling, NCKU
refused to issue a contract (27 March 2001).
The MOE sent eight letters, on 11 May, 14 June, 7 August, 27
August, 3 May 2002, 15 October, 2 December, 17 January 2003 ordering the
university to issue the contract. The university defied these letters.
How can a university defy the Ministry of Education and claim to be
following laws?
In contempt of the Ministry ruling, the NCKU Review Committee
repeated its dismissal action (12 September 2001), using accusations the
Ministry already rejected. These hearings, in defiance of the Ministry
ruling, were illegal and doubly improper, since the university had not
even issued me a contract.
Kao Chiang claims observance of law. What law allows a university
to use tax-paid money to investigate a teacher without legal basis?
On 18 June 2002, the NCKU Appeal Committee canceled my dismissal
and again refused me a contract. Instead, the university filed a
lawsuit at the Tainan District Court, claiming, in denial of the
Ministry ruling, “there is no employment relationship between the NCKU
and De Canio.” Indifferent to legal principles, the lawyer now
contested my right to appeal at all, although I had already won several
appeals and been subjected to countless appeal hearings.
On 11 October 2002, the Tainan District Court ruled that, “until a
legal dismissal, the employment relationship between the NCKU and De
Canio is valid and continues.”
On 14 November 2002, the university appealed to the Taiwan Higher
Court. The judge asked NCKU to settle. In response, on 22 January
2003, university officials tried to extort a “settlement” that violated
the legal substance of the Ministry ruling, offering partial salary if I
resigned from the university. Otherwise, the university threatened to
contest the case for years.
These officials are not only without a sense of law, but without a
sense of shame. Hiding behind committees, they forget that committees
are not above the law, but answerable to the law.
The university’s contempt for human rights is obvious to anyone
with a fourth-grade education. Kao Chiang’s claims to be following laws
suggest a tactical ploy of naivete. But ignorance of the law, real or
feigned, is no excuse in law, where transparency, not duplicity, is the
rule.
The law is “what the common citizen understands it to be.” A legal
ruling is not a word puzzle, except to those puzzled by recognized
standards of good faith and fair play, such as keeping one’s word,
respecting final rulings, and, where wrongs are committed, admitting
them. Officials, who, by law, represent these values, must first uphold
them. They should be more concerned about the loss of those values than
their loss of face.
The goal of appeal is to insure that justice prevails. But in a
university where rule by committees has replaced rule by law, illegal
hearings are used punitively, to harass and intimidate and force an
appellant’s resignation.
This case is now in its fifth year. It has affected my reputation,
medical care, income, and academic career. It has seriously undermined
confidence in administrative remedy at National Cheng Kung University.
Despite warnings from the Faculty Union, the Ministry of Education,
and the Taiwan courts, university officials, using tactical delays, have
cost taxpayers millions of dollars and recklessly discredited their
university. Abiding by neither moral principles nor a sense of shame,
they will not acknowledge the authority of the law until they stand in
judgment before it.

Sincerely,

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

Letter to NCKU president, Kao Chiang

From:
5/19/2003 1:29 AM
Subject: ATTN: Professor Kao Chiang, President of National Cheng Kung
UniversityTo: z7912001@email.ncku.edu.tw
CC: moe

Professor Kao Chiang
President
Professor Kao Chiang
President,
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

cc: Ministry of Education

18 May 2003

Dear President Kao,

I would like to address, briefly, several issues regarding the
Ministry award decision, in my favor, dated 8 January 2001.
You are certainly aware of the noncompliance of the university
administration regarding the enforcement of that ruling until recently,
when I was issued two retroactive contracts for the academic years 1999
to 2003.
In addition, as I understand it, the Department of Foreign
Languages and Literature was recently given a deadline of 15 May, 2003
to submit my name for the issuance of next year's teaching contract, in
compliance with the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001. I have been
informed that, instead of submitting my name, pursuant to the request of
the personnel office, the department suggested it would "review" me
again, based on accusations already rejected in the Ministry ruling of 8
January 2001.
Please be advised, Professor Kao, that our university is governed
by law. The Ministry ruling already mentioned is the law and no
official can arbitrarily interpret, reverse, nullify, attenuate, or even
approve the legal benefits of that ruling or otherwise impede its
enforcement, which includes issuance of a continuous contract to August,
2005 and beyond.
In a democracy, an official must execute the law, not "review" it.
An attempt at another "review" is, in fact, an attempt to nullify the
Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001 and is legally improper. Merely the
fact that the university has been compelled to issue two two-year
retroactive contracts should be sufficient in itself to warn the
university administration of the binding legal authority of the Ministry
ruling. It is your responsibility, as president of the university, to
recognize this, however belatedly.
Apart from the Ministry ruling, the letter from the personnel
office, which established a deadline of 15 May, is an official letter.
An official letter cannot be answered unofficially, by telephone or
hearsay. Therefore, unless my department had returned an official
response by that date, stating lawful reasons for noncompliance, the
department has, in fact, surrendered its administrative privileges and
responsibilities either to the personnel or presidential office.
As president of a national university, Professor Kao, your only
responsibility is to the law of Taiwan, which includes Ministry rulings
based on that law. The Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001 insured my
return to National Cheng Kung University, regardless of the defiance of
that ruling on the part of some university officials.
In conclusion, please be advised that I am committed to defending
the rights of American faculty at our university. And I will use
whatever channels available, including administrative, civil, and
criminal remedies, to protect those rights.
In addition, I urge you, as host of foreign faculty, to defend the
rights and dignity of all foreign faculty at our university, not only on
behalf of the law, but in return for the legal protections
and rights your compatriots enjoy abroad, not to mention America's
commitment to Taiwan's democracy.
In view of the urgency of this matter, as well as the well-known
dilatory tactics previously used by university officials, I am
committed to resolving this case, including issuance of next year's
contract, within days.

Sincerely,

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

Letter from NCKU president, Kao Chiang

Apparently former NCKU president, Kao Chiang knew that the official language in Taiwan was Chinese but he didn't know he had to enforce an official Ministry ruling in Taiwan:

6/11/2003 8:36 AM

Dear Prof. de Canio:
I have forwarded your e-mail to Prof. Su Yan-Kuin,
Dean of Academic
Affairs, who is the right person for you to talk to.
If you are
considerate
enough, please invite an interpreter to go with you
since the official
language here in Taiwan is Chinese.

Chiang Kao

Letter to NCKU president, Kao Chiang

Date:
Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:03:26 -0700
To:
Kao Chiang
CC:
moe

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

cc: Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education

15 July 2003

Dear President Kao,

Please advise your Dean of Student Affairs, Professor Huei-chen Ko, that
there is no reason to "investigate" anything to call
a student into her office for a meeting with me and, if necessary,
others.
Please advise her to set up a meeting between me and this student
within days.
Thank you.

Sincerely,

Professor Richard de Canio
(06) 237 8626

Letter to NCKU president, Kao Chiang

Subject:
ATTN: President Kao Chiang, regarding legal rights abuses at
National Cheng Kung University
Date:
Mon, 09 Jun 2003 23:23:17 -0700
To:
Kao Chiang , moe
,

[Enclosed email, 9 June 2003]

President Kao Chiang,
National Cheng Kung University

Cc: Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education

9 June 2003

Dear President Kao

I am writing this email to protest the May 2003 University hearing
related to my dismissal case in 1999. According to official minutes,
committee members concluded I committed plagiarism.
First, all issues related to my July 1999 dismissal were formally
resolved in a Final Ministry Appeal ruling issued on 8 January 2001. I
urge you to respect that final ruling in accordance with law.
Necessarily, all accusations formally rejected on final appeal are also
final or the appeal itself would not be final.
The university's presumption to "review" me again not only defies
the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001. It ignores the history of legal
rights abuses committed by university officials since the first
dismissal action at the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
"review" meeting in March 1999, chaired by Lee Ching-Hsiung.
I find it ironic that officials who committed these violations have
not even been subjected to formal university review; while I, who won a
Ministry appeal ruling after formal university review, have been
subjected to repeated review. I remind you of the facts, beginning with
the first department "review":
I was never informed of the meeting. I was not invited to it. I
was not informed of accusations. I was not allowed to defend myself
against them. The accusations were never investigated or proved.
Nonetheless my dismissal passed. Instead of canceling my
dismissal, Dean Tu Yung-Ching, who chaired the college committees,
accepted a secret (and presumably solicited) letter, which subsequently
circulated at higher committees to insure my dismissal.
Professor Lee Chen-er chaired the final university committee and
thrice ignored me when I mentioned the secret letter. Despite this
secret letter, the university appeal committee upheld my dismissal,
until the Ministry of Education rejected it and bold-faced legal rights
violations.
It would be questionable to contest a Final Ministry ruling if
university officials observed laws in the first place. But to contest a
Final Ministry ruling in view of countless legal rights violations is
indefensible.
I remind you that the university's defiance of the Ministry ruling
for more than two years not only denied me my rights. From my
understanding of law, no official has a right to impede, obstruct, or
otherwise delay the course of justice, including the prompt execution of
government rulings. Indeed, in America, a lawyer who advised a client
to do so would be disbarred.
Let me also remind you that delay in compliance with the Ministry
ruling undermined the reputation of the university, compromised the
Ministry of Education, and cost taxpayers money. As president of a
public university, you should accept responsibility for this.
An official of a university is responsible to the law. The case at

Hoping Hospital tragically illustrates this. Committee rulings are no
defense. Democracy is rule by law, not committee. If laws are ignored,

there is no point to committee hearings, except harassment of an
appellant and his humiliation.
The plagiarism accusation shows this. The university refused to
investigate, although I offered to submit evidence to Dean Tu at the
College hearing. After I won the Ministry ruling, and in defiance of
that ruling, the university solicited three outside readers, two of whom

were discredited. Then the university presumably solicited three more
readers and used this as a basis of yet another committee ruling four
years after the first case. True to form, the university neglected to
invite my defense at this meeting in May!
Not that it would have changed things: Administrative remedy is not

a party game of hit and miss and try again. An appellant has limited
resources. The law recognizes this and limits the exercise of unequal
power. Beyond this is abuse of power.
Will university violations bear scrutiny in the Legislative Yuan?
I doubt it.
Now whether I like it or not, as an American professor at National
Cheng Kung University, the burden of protecting the rights of American
professors has fallen on me. I am committed to defending those rights
at our university. In view of this commitment, I advise the following:

First, the university ruling that I committed plagiarism be
formally and promptly nullified.
Second, the case of the student who submitted a secret and false
accusation against me be formally resolved, with an apology from this
student, an admission of complicity, and official penalty.
Third, compensation related to this case, including travel costs,
court costs, and full salary be made. The argument that a professor who

is illegally dismissed is owed half salary on reinstatement is absurd.
In view of countless legal rights violations committed by university
officials at our university, I doubt if this policy can be defended at a

legislative hearing in Taipei.
Fourth, a formal apology and acknowledgment of wrongdoing by the
university is necessary.
Fifth, special consideration of the four-year interruption to my
academic career should be given when I apply for promotion to full
professorship next year.
As you know, I have a full teaching schedule at our university next

academic year. I also have commitments this summer. Therefore, please
contact a member of the Faculty Union to effect negotiations promptly.
The travesty of law at National Cheng Kung University has gone on long
enough. I expect these matters to be resolved by the end of June.
Beyond then, I will use legal channels outside the 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 NCKU president, Kao Chiang

Sat, 28 Jun 2003 01:28:42 -0700

To:
Kao Chiang
CC:
Student Affairs , moe


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

cc: Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education, Office of
Student Affairs

28 June 2003

Dear President Kao,

I have repeatedly contacted Dean Ko, of Student Affairs, concerning
the case of the student, Ms. Chen An-chuen, who
wrote a spiteful and secret complaint about a grade she received eight
years before. This complaint was used in my
dismissal hearings in 1999.
Before contacting a reporter this week, I wish to give you a final
chance to consider the issues.
A student's rights do not include the right to libel a professor.
A student has the right to challenge a grade, usually within
ten days of receiving it. In this way, the truth of the matter is
easily decided by outside parties.
Nobody, in law, is required to defend himself many years later when
it's impossible to do so. Otherwise a professor can
be dismissed simply by showing he once failed a student. Unless the
university defends such a policy, it should punish this
student.
But Dean Ko has failed to do so. As I recall, I received no
official response from her office concerning this matter.
Instead, she referred me to her vice-dean. But by law she is
responsible to me, even if her vice-dean is responsible to her.
The case is simple and simply resolved: A student wrote a secret
and spiteful letter accusing a professor and should be
punished.
A student with an honest complaint does not use spiteful language
or a secret letter or wait eight years to claim, with no
evidence, she unfairly failed a course.
In fact, when she phoned me to ask if she had failed, I pleaded
with her to take back her exam but 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, suggesting I locate her
exam.
Next day, a colleague told me that Ms. Chen warned if I pursued the
matter she would contact a lawyer.
Ms. Chen claimed in court she failed unjustly and that I told the
chairman I destroyed the exam.
First, this former chair and now Dean of Liberal Arts, Professor
Ren Shyh-jong, has a history of misbehavior at our
university. He used unsigned and unofficial student evaluations to
libel me and effect my dismissal in 1994. When his
dismissal was reversed by a College committee, he admitted his dismissal
action was not deliberated by the committee.
Then he refused to appear at a hearing to investigate his use of
unofficial student evaluations.
If, as Ms. Chen claims, I told Professor Ren I destroyed the exam,
why didn't Professor Ren, then Chairman of our
department, investigate? If Professor Ren is telling the truth, then he
should be punished for failing to investigate. But if he is
telling the truth, why didn't he use Ms. Chen's grade to support his
dismissal action in 1994?
Because Ms. Chen's claims are untrue, as my letter in 1994 shows:
If I had destroyed the exam and told the chairman so, why would I
offer, in writing, to locate the exam? Why would Ms.
Chen refuse a chance to prove her claim?
The answer is clear to a reasonable person. Ms. Chen ignored my
letter because,

1. She believed I had her exam, and
2. She believed the exam would show she failed with cause.

With many chances to contest her grade at a formal hearing, Ms.
Chen chose to make a secret complaint so I couldn't
defend myself. Since her accusation was false, Ms Chen wanted secrecy.
There is evidence this student spoke falsely.
First, she hid important facts, such as receiving three high passes
from me the year she failed.
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 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.
My grades were among her highest as an undergraduate, including a
90+. But she accused me over 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 she admitted to Vice-Dean Tsai
that a university official asked for her letter. Either she lied in
court or she lied to Professor Tsai.
Usually the person telling the truth seeks a formal hearing. Ms.
Chen has avoided this, despite a request by the
vice-dean.
University officials accepted her secret letter, circulated it, and
used it at my dismissal hearings. The fact that my dismissal
was reversed does not protect 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 hearing. I am
requesting a meeting for Monday, 30 June. The
meeting should include me, Ms. Chen, the current Dean of Liberal Arts,
Ren Shyh-jong, a dean from the Office of Student
Affairs, and a member of the Faculty Union.
At this meeting, Ms. Chen should explain why she wrote a secret and
spiteful letter eight years after receiving a grade. I
will ask she be formally censured and write a letter of admission and
apology. Then I will consider the case closed.
But university officials should explain why they accepted Ms.
Chen's secret complaint in the first place (based only on her
word) and why they delayed administrative remedy.
Please understand if I receive no response about a scheduled
meeting, as requested, I shall seek redress outside the
university.
Thank you.

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:
ATTN: Legal Rights Abuses at National Cheng Kung University
Date:
Sun, 15 Jun 2003 15:18:15 -0700

To:
Kao Chiang
CC:
moe

President Kao Chiang
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

cc: Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education

15 June 2003

Dear President Kao,

In your last email (12 June 2003) you advise that the "right
procedure" is to discuss the disputed university hearing with
Dean of Academic Affairs, Su Yan-Kuin, who chaired the committee.
I am puzzled why you refer to a "right procedure" when wrong
procedures are routine at our university, beginning with
my illegal dismissal in 1999. Are you claiming that secret letters and
unproved accusations are "right procedure"? It seems
the only time a "right procedure" is mentioned is when a petitioner
tries to right wrongs committed against him.
For example, without investigation, in 1999 a college dean accepted
a secret student letter complaining about a grade she
received eight years before. Yet when the professor tries
administrative remedy against the student, officials use terms such
as "rights," "proof," "investigation," "facts," and other claims of
"right procedure."
Why weren't these terms used to protect the teacher in the first
place, instead of using them only to protect the student
who wronged him? Instead, I'm assured that "God will punish the
student." I am certain the official who said that would not
rely on God's justice if his relative suffered similar abuse in America.

Indeed, an official who appeals to God's justice when his duties
require routine justice should be dismissed. But then,
based on a documented history of abuses at our university, many
officials should be dismissed. The fact that this, indeed,
has not yet happened is not praiseworthy. It shows serious shortcomings
in administrative remedy at our university and has
already discredited our university. It reflects poorly when a foreign
professor is presumed guilty, while officials who brazenly
violate Ministry and Taiwan laws are presumed innocent.
As Confucius argued, before there can be justice, one must "rectify
the names." As I understand it, this means to use
words correctly, not deviously; as if to speak of "square vases"; or
final appeals that are not final; or "interpretations" of the
law that are audaciously scornful of common sense.
Once we "rectify the names," the only "right procedure" is justice
based on laws as they are commonly understood.
Prices in a menu indicate local currency, whether currency symbols are
printed or not. No Taiwan citizen would gobble
down a lobster dinner then argue that he "interprets" the price in
weaker currency, or even play money.
Yet why not? According to our officials, my appeal was merely
"play." And, like children, they seem to enjoy the game
so much they want to continue playing it. Unfortunately, not until
these officials or their relatives are treated the same way in
other countries will they realize that rights upheld for others today
protects them tomorrow.
I will not rehearse the history of abuses in this case again. That
will be done through other channels of legal remedy.
I conclude by reminding you that the only "right procedure" is to
uphold laws at our university, not to protect officials who
violate laws or to pass the responsibility to others.

Sincerely,

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

Letter to NCKU president, Kao Chiang

Subject:
Reply to President Kao's email regarding legal rights issues at
National Cheng Kung University
Date:
Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:22:34 -0700
To:
Kao Chiang
CC:
moe

President Kao Chiang
The Office of the President
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

Cc: The Ministry of Education
The Department of Higher Education
The Faculty Union of National Cheng Kung University

12 June 2003

Dear President Kao,

Please consider reading my email again. I asked that you, as
president of our university, effect a just resolution to this case,
including the prompt nullification of the meeting chaired by Dean Su;
travel, court, and salary compensation; and apologies for official
misconduct. Therefore I advise that your secretary schedule a meeting
for this purpose as soon as possible.
As you know, my colleagues at the NCKU Faculty Union and I have
already devoted nearly five years correcting abuses committed by
university officials, some of whom have either little knowledge of, or
little regard for, laws and are seemingly indifferent to moral
principles. The university's own lawyer contested a legitimate ruling
sanctioned by the Ministry of Education, as if there were no law in
Taiwan or the university were a law unto itself. Later, two officials
threatened to contest the Ministry ruling for years unless I resigned
from the university. Another official accepted a secret letter from a
student complaining about a grade eight years before, merely on the
basis the student said she would repeat her claim in court. If I told
this official I was willing to claim in court I was Santa Claus, I
suppose he would believe I was Santa Claus. Other officials insist that

although my illegal dismissal was canceled, I should receive only half
pay compensation.
Although laws are ignored when persecuting a foreign professor,
they are invoked when the professor appeals for justice. When I
requested that the student who wrote her letter be punished, one
official talked about the student's rights. What about a professor's
rights? What rights protect a student from penalty for misconduct?
What rights entitle an official to ignore an official complaint?
But to evade responsibility, officials delegate responsibility to
one another in a circle game that's played for months or years. One
official even suggested that God, not he, would punish the student
involved in misconduct. As far as I know, God is not an official at our

university; and if he were, even he would have a hard time convincing
some officials here to act in accordance with principles of justice.
In this system of delegated responsibility, presumably no official
is responsible. But in a lawful society, all officials are responsible,

beginning with the highest, as the recent tragic incident at Ho Ping
Hospital shows.
As far as I'm concerned, disciplining officials at our university
is your responsibility, not mine. The Ministry ruled in my favor on 8
January 2001 and canceled my university dismissal. In doing so, it
insured full compensation for salary and other losses related to my
illegal dismissal. It also insured that all accusations formally
adjudicated by the university and rejected on appeal are final, or no
appeal would ever be final until the appellant finally loses. Since an
appellant can never match his limited resources against the greater
resources of an institution, the university would always win. Appeals
would be useless. Power, not justice, would prevail. But the intent of
the law is to insure that justice, not power prevails.
Besides, as I said in my last email, I pleaded to have accusations
investigated by university officials in 1999. But, contrary to Ministry

rules and common sense, officials ignored me. Yet after I won the
Ministry ruling, instead of holding meetings to review the officials who

illegally effected my dismissal, the university held a meeting to review

me.
In view of these facts, I advise you to decide whether the meeting
chaired by Dean Su was legally proper or whether the university's
actions in general are defensible.
Regarding a final settlement, please arrange a meeting between us
as soon as possible. If you wish our dialogue to be conducted in
Chinese, that is not a problem with me. Our main consideration should
be the language of the law and principles of justice.

Sincerely,

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

Letter to NCKU president, Kao Chiang

Subject:
ATTN: President Kao Chiang, regarding legal rights abuses at
National Cheng Kung University
Date:
Mon, 09 Jun 2003 23:23:17 -0700

To:
Kao Chiang , moe


President Kao Chiang,
National Cheng Kung University

Cc: Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education
Faculty Union of National Cheng Kung University

9 June 2003

Dear President Kao

I am writing this email to protest the May 2003 University hearing
related to my dismissal case in 1999. According to official minutes,
committee members concluded I committed plagiarism.
First, all issues related to my July 1999 dismissal were formally
resolved in a Final Ministry Appeal ruling issued on 8 January 2001. I
urge you to respect that final ruling in accordance with law.
Necessarily, all accusations formally rejected on final appeal are also
final or the appeal itself would not be final.
The university's presumption to "review" me again not only defies
the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001. It ignores the history of legal
rights abuses committed by university officials since the first
dismissal action at the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
"review" meeting in March 1999, chaired by Lee Ching-Hsiung.
I find it ironic that officials who committed these violations have

not even been subjected to formal university review; while I, who won a
Ministry appeal ruling after formal university review, have been
subjected to repeated review. I remind you of the facts, beginning with

the first department "review":
I was never informed of the meeting. I was not invited to it. I
was not informed of accusations. I was not allowed to defend myself
against them. The accusations were never investigated or proved.
Nonetheless my dismissal passed. Instead of canceling my
dismissal, Dean Tu Yung-Ching, who chaired the college committees,
accepted a secret (and presumably solicited) letter, which subsequently
circulated at higher committees to insure my dismissal.
Professor Lee Chen-er chaired the final university committee and
thrice ignored me when I mentioned the secret letter. Despite this
secret letter, the university appeal committee upheld my dismissal,
until the Ministry of Education rejected it and bold-faced legal rights
violations.
It would be questionable to contest a Final Ministry ruling if
university officials observed laws in the first place. But to contest a

Final Ministry ruling in view of countless legal rights violations is
indefensible.
I remind you that the university's defiance of the Ministry ruling
for more than two years not only denied me my rights. From my
understanding of law, no official has a right to impede, obstruct, or
otherwise delay the course of justice, including the prompt execution of

government rulings. Indeed, in America, a lawyer who advised a client
to do so would be disbarred.
Let me also remind you that delay in compliance with the Ministry
ruling undermined the reputation of the university, compromised the
Ministry of Education, and cost taxpayers money. As president of a
public university, you should accept responsibility for this.
An official of a university is responsible to the law. The case at

Hoping Hospital tragically illustrates this. Committee rulings are no
defense. Democracy is rule by law, not committee. If laws are ignored,

there is no point to committee hearings, except harassment of an
appellant and his humiliation.
The plagiarism accusation shows this. The university refused to
investigate, although I offered to submit evidence to Dean Tu at the
College hearing. After I won the Ministry ruling, and in defiance of
that ruling, the university solicited three outside readers, two of whom

were discredited. Then the university presumably solicited three more
readers and used this as a basis of yet another committee ruling four
years after the first case. True to form, the university neglected to
invite my defense at this meeting in May!
Not that it would have changed things: Administrative remedy is not

a party game of hit and miss and try again. An appellant has limited
resources. The law recognizes this and limits the exercise of unequal
power. Beyond this is abuse of power.
Will university violations bear scrutiny in the Legislative Yuan?
I doubt it.
Now whether I like it or not, as an American professor at National
Cheng Kung University, the burden of protecting the rights of American
professors has fallen on me. I am committed to defending those rights
at our university. In view of this commitment, I advise the following:

First, the university ruling that I committed plagiarism be
formally and promptly nullified.
Second, the case of the student who submitted a secret and false
accusation against me be formally resolved, with an apology from this
student, an admission of complicity, and official penalty.
Third, compensation related to this case, including travel costs,
court costs, and full salary be made. The argument that a professor who

is illegally dismissed is owed half salary on reinstatement is absurd.
In view of countless legal rights violations committed by university
officials at our university, I doubt if this policy can be defended at a

legislative hearing in Taipei.
Fourth, a formal apology and acknowledgment of wrongdoing by the
university is necessary.
Fifth, special consideration of the four-year interruption to my
academic career should be given when I apply for promotion to full
professorship next year.
As you know, I have a full teaching schedule at our university next

academic year. I also have commitments this summer. Therefore, please
contact a member of the Faculty Union to effect negotiations promptly.
The travesty of law at National Cheng Kung University has gone on long
enough. I expect these matters to be resolved by the end of June.
Beyond then, I will use legal channels outside the 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

7/18/2003 3:39 AM
Subject: CONCERNING A MEETING WITH LILY
CHENTo: Kao Chiang
CC: Huei-chen Ko ,
moe

Dear President Kao
I'm losing patience with the matter of arranging a meeting between me,
a dean, and the student who wrote a secret letter, Lily Chen.
This is a simple matter. A professor has the right to ask for such a
meeting. A dean has the responsibility to arrange such a meeting. A
president has the responsibility to make sure administrators under him act
according to their responsibilities and the law.
It is also the responsibility of a president of a university to conduct
internal affairs in such a way as to spare higher agencies the burden of
handling them.
Please arrange a meeting between me, a dean, and Lily Chen as soon as
possible.
Thank you.

Sincerely,


Professor Richard de Canio
(06) 237 8626

Letter to NCKU president, Kao Chiang

7/19/2003 12:06 PM
Subject: Regarding outstanding problems in the Prof. Richard de Canio
caseTo: Kao Chiang
CC: moe

President's Office
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

cc: Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education

18 July 2003

Dear President Kao,

There seems to be a communication problem between us. Because so far I
have not received a response from your office suggesting you are aware of
the serious nature of the issues I've already related in previous emails.
Try to understand: Officials at our university conspired to effect my
dismissal. They solicited secret letters and circulated them. You and your
legal counsel defied the Ministry of Education for two years before
belatedly complying with the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001.
Finally, although a student currently employed by our university wrote
a secret, spiteful and libelous letter accusing me of failing her unfairly
eight years before, she has yet to be punished by university officials.
Instead of cooperating with me to effect a just resolution of this case,
with minimal discipline against this student following an apology,
university officials seem to be helping the student to avoid any
responsibility for her actions, thus undermining a teacher's rights as well
as the moral reputation of our university. One would think a university
administration would cooperate with the teacher to enforce discipline rather
than cooperate with the student to avoid it.
Other issues must also be settled, such as a formal apology for the
harm to my reputation and full back pay, in addition to a formal
nullification of the meeting that undermined the legal rights and benefits
of the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001.
Considering the well-documented history of human rights abuses at our
university, why do you think it is my responsibility to encourage your
resolution of these matters? A reputable university administration should
take the initiative in resolving these issues.
Confucius said, "A gentleman admits his mistakes." I believe a
gentleman should also forgive mistakes, following admission from offending
parties.
I am willing to do this, with no more than the compensation due me and
appropriate apologies, from the student as well as from the university
administration. Allowing this case to be further litigated or exposed will
only undermine the repuation of our university. At the same time, you
cannot reasonably expect me to wait months or years while our committees,
whose credibility has already been undermined by their handling of my case,
clarify basic principles of law that are evident to most other scholars in
the international community.

Sincerely,


Professor Richard de Canio
National Cheng Kung University
(06) 237 8626

Case of Student Involved in Misconduct

7/23/2003 1:12 AM
Subject: ATTN: Case of student involved in
misconductTo: Kao Chiang
CC: Huei-chen Ko ,
moe , Control Yuan


National Cheng Kung University
President's Office
President Kao Chiang

22 July 2003

Dear President Kao,

Yesterday, your Dean of Student Affairs, Professor Ko Huei-Chen wrote
me an email, the substance of which was translated to mean that, in her
opinion, the case of the student involved in misconduct was closed.
I urge you in the strongest possible words to insure that Dean Ko
responds to a routine request from a faculty member to call this student
into her office for a supervised meeting with me. It seems to me this is my
right as a faculty member and Professor Ko's responsibility as Dean of
Student Affairs. Dean Ko should not be allowed arbitarily to close an
issue, based on the three reasons she gives:
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. Besides, the question remains why it took Dean Ko's office so long to
come to this decision, because none of the facts have changed since the
court decision she mentions as her second reason.
Referring to the court decision is itself wrong. 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. In the same way, being acquitted in
court of theft does not 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, Dean Ko's argument that this current student (and part-time
employee) was not a student when she wrote her accusation is wrong, since
the student repeated her claim to the Vice-Dean of Student Affairs,
insisting it was the truth. When she repeated her claim (last year) she was
(and is now) currently a student.
Consult with the Vice-Dean of Student Affairs about this matter. By
repeating her claim she no longer falls under the umbrella of protection
that Dean Ko has kindly opened for her. I would not be so determined to
have this student punished if she had retracted her accusation when given a
chance to do so by the vice-dean recently.
But she repeated her claim that what she said was the truth. Indeed,
this was the very basis the vice-dean used as an excuse not to punish her:
"She insists she was telling the truth," as I recall the vice-dean saying.
This in itself is odd. Since if it was the truth, the student should
want to repeat it as often as possible, especially in the Office of Student
Affairs. Since when does a person who accuses another try everything
possible to avoid accusing him again under more ideal conditions: in public
rather than secret, before a dean rather than a chairman, and have the
accusation formally recorded rather than secretly circulated?
If she repeated her claim that what she said was the truth only
recently, in private interview with the Vice-Dean of Student Affairs, why
would she refuse to repeat her accusation to the Dean of Student Affairs
with the accused professor present? After all, if I failed a student
unfairly, I should be punished for this. But perhaps this student believes
she accused a professor unfairly and might be punished instead. But if this
is the case, then she should be punished.
However Dean Ko seems to want it both ways, or many ways. First I was
told her office could not handle such a complaint. Then I was told the FLLD
department should 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 the student's. (Apparently the evidence convinced your
office that my word, with documentation, was stronger.) Then I was told the
student's mother did not want her to go to a meeting. After that I was told
that God would punish the student. Now I'm told the court decision prevents
further inquiry of the matter.
Now there's a French film with a 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.
Let's just take two of the "reasons" given above. First I'm told last
year the student could not be disciplined since she insisted her accusation
was "truthful." That means she was a student when she repeated her original
claim. But now I'm told that no action can be taken because she was not a
student at the time she made her secret accusation.
There's a common saying: Two reasons are as good as none. That's
because when telling the truth, one reason is enough. If I'm late for
school because my train was late, that's all I have to say. But if I'm late
for school because I got drunk the night before, I may have to say the train
was late and my child got sick and the train schedule was wrong anyway and I
went to the wrong classroom and I thought the exam was on a different day.
Now the facts are plain. Either the student retracted her accusation
when she spoke to the vice-dean while currently a student or she repeated
it. If she retracted it, perhaps she cannot be punished as a student, since
her original accusation was made when not a student and she retracted it
while now a student. But at the same time, my reputation has been
protected.
On the other hand, she repeated her original claim, while now a
student. In which case my reputation has not been protected, but the
student can be punished.
It's one or the other but cannot be both at the same time.
Apart from the punishment of this student, I would like to call your
attention to other serious issues in your dean's handling of this case.
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 your dean delayed such a meeting for about two years. This kind of
delay should not be acceptable at a university. Administrative complaint
and remedy should be prompt and efficient. After all, it took the
university about three months to complete my illegal dismissal (including
appeals). Why should it take years to punish a student who was at least
partly responsible for my dismissal?
In addition, a question that officials outside the university should
reasonably ask is why officials here 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 not merely false, but
unbelievable on the face of it. Moreover, officials who conspired with her
know this to be the case.
Another issue, which undermines the apparent sincerity of the
university administration in handling this case, is why, even assuming the
student did not repeat her claim when a student, the university does not
start other disciplinary action against her as a current part-time employee
of the university. After all, it doesn't matter that a man committed a
murder while a clerk at a department store if he's a president of that
department store when he's belatedly charged with the crime. The status of
the individual does not change the status of the crime. Murder is murder
regardless of the fact that I was a student when I committed the crime but a
professor when charged with the crime. Are prosecutors going to say, "We
can't charge this fellow with murder, since he's no longer a student?"
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.
But please be presently advised that unless I receive a response no
later than today that the Dean's Office intends to invite this student in
for a supervised meeting, I will forward this email, along with other
documents, to the Vice-President's Human Rights Office in Taipei and let
them handle this case.

Sincerely,


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

Letter to NCKU president, Kao Chiang

9/26/2003 9:45 AM
Subject: CONCERNING STUDENT MISCONDUCT AT NATIONAL CHENG KUNG
UNIVERSITYTo: Kao Chiang
CC: moe , Control Yuan ,
Huei-chen Ko


Kao Chiang
President, National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

cc: Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education, Control Yuan,
Professor Huei-chen Ko, Dean of Student Affairs

26 September 2003

Dear President Kao,

As you know, the case of the student who wrote a secret, malicious
letter against me has not yet been resolved, since the student has neither
been punished nor even publicly admonished about her action. This is
unacceptable. A university must abide by ethical standards if it is to have
academic credibility.
Moreover, this case is more serious than other cases.
First, it resulted in the dismissal of a professor.
Second, the student is now a part-time teacher as she continues her
graduate schooling. The relationship, if any, between her secret letter
(exactly at the time when the College needed "evidence" to insure my
dismissal) and the letter itself should be investigated if the university is
to uphold standards of ethics and integrity.
Other issues are no less important:
First, when a professor requests a university dean to invite a student
for a supervised meeting, this request should be honored. There is no
reason to deny or delay such a request. There is no law, so far as I know,
preventing a university dean from inviting a student to a supervised meeting
with a professor. Indeed, one would think this is precisely the reason an
Office of Student Affairs is set up. The fact that a vice-dean in that
office can protest, in apparent "excuse," that, "The student doesn't want to
come," shows serious problems in administrative remedy at our university. I
know of no university in the world where an official has to request
permission of a student to discipline that student.
Furthermore, the constant appeal to "lawyers" on the part of officials
at our university will continue to undermine the credibility of our
unviersity as a democratic institution. A democratic institution cannot be
run by lawyers; it must be run by faculty, with officials as their
representatives, not as their guardians. The university policy of govenment
by lawyer is undermining the intent of democratic process at our university
while at the same time keeping the "face" of democratic process.
Lawyers do not represent laws in democratic societies; lawyers
represent clients; only laws represent laws. "Interpretation" of laws in a
democracy is best left to the judiciary, under both constitutional right and
restriction. If officials need lawyers to do their jobs, why not fire all
the officials and hire the lawyers as officials instead?
Finally, even if one believed for a moment that the student involved
could not be punished because she was not a student when she wrote her
letter (and I would like to hear what public officials, including lawmakers,
in Taipei have to say about this), this is no excuse on the part of the
university to do nothing about the student at all. Clearly, it is your
responsibility as president to insure that ethical codes are observed by
students, whether through the Office of Student Affairs or another channel.
But the fact that this student worked part-time as a secretary in the
president's office even after she wrote her secret letter cannot but cast
doubt on the sincerity of officials involved in this case.
Whatever the facts of this case, I wish to make clear that I am
determined to effect a full resolution of it and to use all legal channels
until such resolution is complete, including an apology from the student, a
formal retraction of an accusation implicitly accepted by the College of
Liberal Arts, and a formal apology from the university.
Finally, I encourage you, one more time, to advise officials at our
university to cooperate in the just handling of this case while the
controversy is still confined to the 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

Kao Chiang
President
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

cc: Prime Minister, YU Shyi-kun
Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education

24 July 2003

Dear President Kao

Unfortunately, there seems to be a major communication problem
between us. It's the kind of
communication problem
between faculty and officials that is partly responsible for the
failure of educational reform in
Taiwan that is now being
discussed here in Taiwan.
Try to understand, your failure to respond to a serious issue of
human rights violations at our
university is also a sign of an
underlying problem of either negligent or incompetent officials
who, by their negligence or
incompetence, are impeding
advances in education.
Now the university made accusations against me in its first
dismissal, in 1999. Due to countless
human rights violations
committed by officials at our university, as well as
insubstantial proof, the Ministry rejected those
accusations in its ruling on
8 Janaury 2001.
It seems to me a final Ministry ruling should be respected as
final, not merely advisory. By defying
this ruling for more
than two years, you have shown disrespect for Ministry of
Education regulation and laws, for
Taiwan laws, for due process
of law, for human rights, for moral principles, and for
taxpayers' money. In addition, you have
shown scorn towards foreign
academics, towards your own colleagues from the Faculty Union who
repeatedly advised you to
follow laws, and to an
international human rights group that inquired into the case.
At the same time, your actions suggest indifference to the
general progress of education in
Taiwan, a progress that cannot
be separated from strict observance of administrative duties
under the law. Finally, by failing to
vigorously uphold laws in
defense of my rights and reputation, you have undermined my
reputation at this university.
Under no circumstances will I allow a university committee to
undermine the full legal benefits of a
superior ruling by the
Ministry of Education. I am entitled to the full benefits of that
ruling, including the conclusion of all
accusations rejected in
that ruling. If a university committee can disregard a Ministry
ruling, on whatever claim, then the
Ministry of Education
appeal is without value and, ultimately, the value of the
Ministry of Education as a regulatory
institution is undermined, as well
as all academic standards and accreditation imposed by that
Ministry.
National Cheng Kung University has been abusing committee
hearings for so long it's a travesty
of what due process is
supposed to be. A committee hearing was intended to be a sincere
review, based on impartial
accusations, vigorous
investigation and objective evidence, while observing due process
of law and the right of the
accused to a complete
defense. Instead, our university convened closed meetings, nade
reckless, unproved accusations
of which I was not even
informed beforehand; and then, when those accusations were
questioned, another secret letter
was circulated to insure my
dismissal. The secret letter claimed I failed a student eight
years before and the accusation was
accepted on no other basis
than the student's claim it was true.
Despite these egregious rights violations that would discredit a
bushiban, much less the so-called
"fourth-ranked
university in Taiwan," university officials show no contrition
following the Ministry Appeal
cancellation of my dismissal and no
gesture of apology, which is what any reputable administration
would have made promptly,
welcoming my return as a faculty
member.
Instead, the university tried to contest the appeal ruling as not
applying to foreign faculty. Yet I'm
from a country that has
guaranteed the survival of Taiwan and where the children of my
compatriots, possibly of my own
family, might end up dying
in defense of your country.
After defying the Ministry ruling for more than four years,
rather than issue an immediate formal
apology, university
officials promptly held a meeting to repeat the same accusations
rejected on Ministry appeal, as if
to show the Ministry of
Education and colleagues at our university that there is no law
in Taiwan; or, rather, university
officials are the law and
they can do whatever they want.
I suppose the message is: "All faculty had better be careful. We
can accuse you of anything we
want. Moreover, the
laws and Ministry of Education will not protect you. Or, if they
do, finally, it will not be worth the
wait; since so many years
will have passed before you win that you will have sacrificed
your career anyway."
It is this kind of docile, fearful, timid bunker mentality that
is retarding the progress of education in
Taiwan. All the laws,
all the well-intentioned proposals for education reform will not
mean anything so long as this
bunker mentality, where all
officials protect one another out of fear, survives at our
universities. The best laws, as well as the
best intentions, can be
corrupted by officials who, whether from fear or incompetence or
arrogant pride, fail to
implement them. These are, as an
editorial in The China Post said yesterday, committees that meet
without decisions or make
decisions without
implementation.
Let me remind you yet again, I was not reviewed once by your
committees, but countless times,
even after the Ministry
ruling, which would be called "abuse of power" or "abuse of
office" in my country and subject to
criminal prosecution. You
repeated accusations rejected on Ministry appeal immediately
after the ruling. When those
accusations were rejected, you
repeated them again immediately following your belated (and
partial) compliance with the
Ministry ruling in May. This is, in
the Chinese proverb, "death by a thousand cuts."
What university in a lawful society would defy the Ministry of
Education for more than two years?
In what lawful society
would the president of a university that did so remain in office?
In what lawful university would
committee hearings be
abused as they are at ours, as a tool of humiliation, constantly
subjecting a faculty member to
repeated unproved
accusations, even after a Ministry appeal ruling in his favor?
In your public speech the other day, you talked about not having
sufficient funds at our university.
Yet our university has
wasted countless millions of dollars on my illegal dismissal,
while defying a Ministry ruling. And
this despite eight warning
letters, advisory letters from an international human rights
group based in America, personal pleas
by members of the Faculty
Union, official letters from the Faculty Union, advice from the
Taiwan court, and repeated letters
from me.
Under the circumstances, do you think you should remain as
president of our university? Do you
think officials involved
in this misconduct, whether from negligence or incompetence or
malicious collaboration should go
unpunished? Do you
think taxpayers should pay several more millions of dollars
before this case is finally resolved,
with countless more meetings
at our university and in Taipei?
Your claim that you depend on committee decisions is
unacceptable. First, committee decisions
must abide by laws.
Since when is a committee allowed to assume judicial or
legislative functions, "interpreting" laws
and Ministry rulings? They
"interpret" laws in totalitarian countries, not in democratic
countries. In democratic and other
lawful countries they obey
laws.
First, a Ministry ruling is not subject to "review,"
"interpretation," or "approval" by a university
committee. If so, the
committe is law, not the ruling. And that's evidently the intent
of the May, 2003 meeting that
repeated accusations rejected
in the Ministry ruling and, only after that meeting, issued my
current contract. The intent was
evidently to tell the world that
the university is the final law in Taiwan and, "faculty beware."
Is this the way to insure a robust
and fearless faculty in order
to advance education reforms in Taiwan?
I will conclude by repeating what I have said in previous emails:
I expect this case to be resolved
within a reasonable
deadline of no more than days or at most weeks, including full
compensation; full retroactive
salary; a formal apology and
retraction of accusations; discipline of the student who wrote a
malicious and secret letter, a
formal nullification of the May
2003 university hearing; and formal consideration of the abuse I
suffered when I apply for
promotion this year. So long as
this case remains unresolved, I will use all legal channels
available to me to resolve it in the
shortest time possible.


Sincerely,


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

Concerning student misconduct at National Cheng Kung University

Subject:
CONCERNING STUDENT MISCONDUCT AT NATIONAL CHENG KUNG UNIVERSITY
Date:
Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:45:21 +0800
From:
vertigo@ms22.hinet.net
To:
Kao Chiang
CC:
moe , Control Yuan ,
Huei-chen Ko

Kao Chiang
President, National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

cc: Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education, Control Yuan,
Professor Huei-chen Ko, Dean of Student
Affairs

26 September 2003

Dear President Kao,

As you know, the case of the student who wrote a secret, malicious
letter against me has not yet been resolved, since the
student has neither been punished nor even publicly admonished about her
action. This is unacceptable. A university must
abide by ethical standards if it is to have academic credibility.
Moreover, this case is more serious than other cases.
First, it resulted in the dismissal of a professor.
Second, the student is now a part-time teacher as she continues her
graduate schooling. The relationship, if any, between
her secret letter (exactly at the time when the College needed "evidence" to
insure my dismissal) and the letter itself should
be investigated if the university is to uphold standards of ethics and
integrity.
Other issues are no less important:
First, when a professor requests a university dean to invite a student
for a supervised meeting, this request should be
honored. There is no reason to deny or delay such a request. There is no
law, so far as I know, preventing a university
dean from inviting a student to a supervised meeting with a professor.
Indeed, one would think this is precisely the reason an
Office of Student Affairs is set up. The fact that a vice-dean in that
office can protest, in apparent "excuse," that, "The
student doesn't want to come," shows serious problems in administrative
remedy at our university. I know of no university in
the world where an official has to request permission of a student to
discipline that student.
Furthermore, the constant appeal to "lawyers" on the part of officials
at our university will continue to undermine the
credibility of our unviersity as a democratic institution. A democratic
institution cannot be run by lawyers; it must be run by
faculty, with officials as their representatives, not as their guardians.
The university policy of govenment by lawyer is
undermining the intent of democratic process at our university while at the
same time keeping the "face" of democratic
process.
Lawyers do not represent laws in democratic societies; lawyers
represent clients; only laws represent laws.
"Interpretation" of laws in a democracy is best left to the judiciary, under
both constitutional right and restriction. If officials
need lawyers to do their jobs, why not fire all the officials and hire the
lawyers as officials instead?
Finally, even if one believed for a moment that the student involved
could not be punished because she was not a student
when she wrote her letter (and I would like to hear what public officials,
including lawmakers, in Taipei have to say about
this), this is no excuse on the part of the university to do nothing about
the student at all. Clearly, it is your responsibility as
president to insure that ethical codes are observed by students, whether
through the Office of Student Affairs or another
channel. But the fact that this student worked part-time as a secretary in
the president's office even after she wrote her
secret letter cannot but cast doubt on the sincerity of officials involved
in this case.
Whatever the facts of this case, I wish to make clear that I am
determined to effect a full resolution of it and to use all
legal channels until such resolution is complete, including an apology from
the student, a formal retraction of an accusation
implicitly accepted by the College of Liberal Arts, and a formal apology
from the university.
Finally, I encourage you, one more time, to advise officials at our
university to cooperate in the just handling of this case
while the controversy is still confined to the 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

From:
11/6/2003 9:33 PM
Subject: Regarding pending matters related to my illegal dismissal in
1999To: Kao Chiang
CC: moe , eyemail@eyemail.gio.gov.tw,
peu03@mail.gio.gov.tw, mail@mail.moe.gov.tw, vp@mail.oop.gov.tw,
Control Yuan

Kao Chiang,
President, National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

cc: Office of the Premier, Minister of Education, Control Yuan, Taiwan
Commission on Human Rights

6 November 2003

Dear President Kao,

I think it's about time that the university administration issued a
formal apology for the misconduct of officials involved in my illegal
dismissal in 1999. This apology is long overdue. It is, indeed,
routine for officials of a reputable university to issue an apology
following a superior ruling in an appellant's favor. It should be
considered an even more urgent matter considering the flagrant legal
rights abuses that officials of our university committed.
In addtion, as you know, the current administration defied that
Ministry of Education ruling (8 January 2001) for more than two years
before complying. I believe officials owe not only me but Ministry of
Education officials apologies for their noncompliance with a legal
ruling.
Finally, the issue of the student engaged in misconduct at our
university must be settled at the formal level. This means the student
must be called into an official meeting for this purpose, prepared to
submit both an apology and an admission of wrongdoing.
Let us resolve these matters, not only in respect of principles of
justice, but also of our university's reputation.

Sincerely,

Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 2378626