Fwd: An appeal to uphold international human rights protections for American professors in Taiwan

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard John <rdca25@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 3:26 AM
Subject: An appeal to uphold international human rights protections for American professors in Taiwan
To: scholarsatrisk@nyu.edu
Cc: barbara.snyder@case.edu, coeinfo@u.washington.edu, chancellor@usg.edu, trustees@auburn.edu, jgogue@auburn.edu, drice@siu.edu, engineeradmin@tamu.edu, Dan_Jones@tamu-commerce.edu, hultin@poly.edu, Board.Trustees@uc.edu, president@uc.edu, dbennett@ucsd.edu, president@temple.edu, president@tamu.edu, president@po.utexas.edu, techpres@ttu.edu, presidents.office@sdsu.edu, Deb.Ackerman@asu.edu, kchriste@berkeley.edu, ua.president@alaska.edu, sybor@alaska.edu, presofc@colostate.edu, peacockke@appstate.edu, sga@uh.edu, info@twc.edu, glmathisen@central.uh.edu, rob.watts@usg.edu, trustees@purdue.edu, president@purdue.edu


To Scholars at Risk
New York, N.Y.

cc: American universities that may maintain academic exchanges with National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan

10 October 2010

Dear Colleagues,

In view of your university's academic exchanges with National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan, and as an American professor who taught at that university for 22 years, I think it imperative that you be informed of a history of human rights abuses committed by officials here (see attached jpeg file for partial evidence).

In 1999 I was illegally dismissed as an Associate Professor in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature. A secret letter was circulated claiming, without proof, I failed a student eight years before!

Though that first dismissal was canceled on university appeal, I was told I had to appeal again, since, as a "foreigner," I was not protected by Taiwan's Teacher's Law. (These are the same professors who benefit from human rights when they matriculate or teach abroad.) In other words, the only benefit an American professor has if he wins an appeal is the right to appeal again!

Fortunately my dismissal was overturned by Taiwan's Ministry of Education in an appeal  ruling dated 8 January 2001. However, despite the fact that the university held appeal hearings of its own and attended those in Taipei, the university now claimed that as a "foreigner" I had no right to appeal in the first place.

For nearly two and a half years, despite eight warning letters from the Ministry of Education, the university refused to enforce that ruling. In the meantime it contested the ruling in the courts and, at an official meeting, threatened indefinite delays through court appeals if I didn't resign!

Even after the university complied, in May 2003, it continued to hold "hearings" on my case and imposed penalties, as if I never won an appeal. Those penalties were overturned by the Ministry of Education.

The university never compensated me for economic losses I incurred fighting the case and the courts never awarded punitive damages. In fact the university even contested my right to a retroactive salary!

To the present day, university officials have refused to compensate me (apart from the retroactive salary), apologize for human rights violations, punish officials involved in misconduct (including the circulation of a secret letter), or even admit human rights violations.

These professors and their children benefit from human rights protections abroad. These same professors espouse democracy when they present at international conferences or write journal articles condemning Mainland China.

Moreover, their university benefits from academic exchanges with American universities established on human rights principles. Yet despite a three-tiered appeal process, and numerous appeal hearings, not a single committee had the integrity to cancel a dismissal that involved so many human rights abuses that the Ministry of Education Appeal ruling bold-faced them in its ruling. Apparently their priority was to cover for officials involved in misconduct instead of effecting administrative remedy of that misconduct. In fact, these committees stubbornly repeated its dismissal action, often for the same reasons, even after the Ministry ruling warned of human rights violations involved in the first dismissal action.

Quite frankly, as an American citizen and an American professor, I don't think an American university should maintain academic exchanges with such a university. Presumably academic exchanges should be based on observance of human rights principles and mutual respect.

An American university that continues exchanges with such a university will compromise its own integrity as an academic institution once these issues are exposed. Moreover, taking a firm stand on behalf of these issues now will protect American (and other foreign) professors in Taiwan in the future.

I strongly urge you to do the right thing, however inconvenient it may be to do so. At the very least, American exchange universities can impose a probationary status on National Cheng Kung University until its human rights violations are remedied according to international principles of human rights, which Taiwan's president recently endorsed.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio,
(Formerly) Associate Professor (retired)
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

Letter to Scholars at Risk

Scholars at Risk

Dear Professor Yuh,

Thanks for your email.
Since I last wrote, the Taiwan Ministry of Education Appeal
Committee ruled, in February, 2001, to invalidate my dismissal, finding
countless irregularities committed during the many committee hearings on
my case.
They have also issued several notices since then to reactivate my
teaching contract immediately. But, thus far, these have been ignored
by the university. Hence, I have filed a lawsuit for the issuance of my
contract and
for compensatory ("spiritual") damages, mostly to cover costs accrued
during the nearly two and a half years of my appeal.
Apart from the pending issues, I wish to emphasize key points here.
The main point is that National Cheng Kung University has repeatedly
shown it is unwilling to "play" by rules or norms recognized by much of
the international community. Indeed, these violations should concern
the
international community.
First, officials here have repeatedly failed to observe even the
most basic protections of legal rights, including the right to defense,
the obligation to investigate and prove accusations, the right against
"double
jeopardy," and the right to appeal.
For example, often I am not even notified of accusations against me,
much less invited to defend myself against them.
Repeatedly (indeed, as recently as June of this year), accusations
are made of which I am not even aware, except by general reference
(accusations made in unidentified letters, etc.).
In addition, although Ministry of Education laws require that all
accusations be investigated, new accusations are repeatedly made against
me without being investigated, much less proven; while old accusations,
although already rejected by the Ministry of Education Appeal decision,
are
repeatedly made again, as if, indeed, an appeal decision was merely a
piece of paper and had no binding status.
As you can see, this involves the issue of "double jeopardy"
(regardless its name in Taiwan law) as
well as the right to appeal.
For I have won on appeal on two different
occasions:
The first was the University appeal decision, which, I was
then
informed, was not binding, since I was a foreigner and had to be
reviewed again. In other words, laws at National Cheng Kung University
do not apply equally to foreign faculty! Yet, apart from common sense
(why have an appeal, if nothing is gained
by appeal?), a Tainan expert in university law assured me that, since
I won my university appeal, I should request my retroactive contract and
back salary. But these, in fact, were never issued.
Then, after winning my Ministry of Education appeal decision, and
following several stern notices by the Ministry of Education that the
university immediately issue me my contract, the university is still
reprobately
insisting
that I be reviewed again. They have since established a pretense of
having an outside committee investigate accusations against me. They
have notified me of a new hearing in my case; but I have protested these
actions to be in violation of the law; and, specifically, in violation
of the Ministry of Education appeal decision in my favor. Now, I ask
you: in what other democratic nation in the world would appeal
decisions be nullified in this manner? This is not only in contempt of
a specific ruling but of general, and universally acknowledged
principles of justice and fair play.
These violations, including contempt for lawful process and defiance
of the Ministry of Education decision in my favor, are egregious by any
standards. I don't see why National Cheng Kung University should be
allowed to behave like this with impunity. And my Chinese colleagues
here in Taiwan argue
that NCKU would be more fearful of losing face and suffering possible
sanctions in the international community than of lawsuits or possible
internal sanctions imposed by the Ministry of Education here.
Clearly, what is happening at National Cheng Kung University is not
merely wrong, but grievously wrong. Apart from all other issues,
already covered here and in documents included in previous email, if an
appeal decision
is not honored, then why have an appeal process at all? This case is
not only an example of injustice against an individual, but it is a
mockery of the very idea of justice or of any process enforcing it.
Finally, there is the more general issue of the Employment Law
passed a couple of years ago. According to this law, foreign laborers
should be annually reviewed.
This law is very ambiguous. Some Chinese colleagues, who have both
a legal and linguistic grasp of the law, insist the law was intended for
"laborers." Second, it was intended in a lenitive, rather than
punitive,
sense. That is to say, it was intended to "liberalize" or facilitate
the re-employment of foreign laborers directly by the employers
themselves, bypassing annual review by outside agencies. Indeed, the
Ministry of
Education appeal decision in my case asserted teachers are protected in
all cases by the universal Teacher's Law, except where the Teacher's Law
does not apply. Finally, I have been informed that there is a
Grandfather's
clause to that Employment Law, and that it should not apply
retroactively.
There are several issues here. First, regardless of the Employment
law or how it is interpreted, in an academic community, all academics
should be treated equally. Taiwan professors, so far as I know, do not
receive
a double standard of treatment at British or American universities.
Second, even if we resign ourselves to this unjust double standard
governing foreign and native faculty, most democracies would agree that
no law should
be applied retroactively in any case (how can one nullify assumed rights
at a later date?). Third, academics (in Taiwan as elsewhere) should
make policy in an honorable, which means a patent, manner with patent or
obvious
meanings. The law should not allow meanings to be "teased" out of or
into it. In any case, one would have hoped that, by now, the Ministry
of Education would have issued a formal announcement addressing the
key issues of this law, regarding its application, its limits, its
retroactive protections, and so forth. Because the law, framed as it
is, in effect allows unrestricted abuse by any official against foreign
teachers
here. My Chinese colleagues have informed me of several cases of
foreigners who were dismissed based on this Employment law. Rather than
put up a lengthy battle in the courts to establish the meaning or proper
interpretation
of the law, they gave up the fight and bitterly left, one (a French
teacher, as I've been told) with a broken heart. Obviously foreigners
can't be expected to fight a lengthy battle of judicial interpretation.
This is
really the responsibility of other academics here, assuming they
reciprocate the (usually) fair and just treatment they or their
relatives receive in foreign countries where they matriculate or teach.
But, to be honest, with the
exception of a very limited number of conscientious colleagues, it seems
that most Taiwan academics simply do not care about general issues of
legal protections of foreigners ("relationships" obtain in the
university system, not laws);
or, if they do care, do not care enough to do anything about
it. Hence, on recommendation by those few conscientious colleagues, I
appeal, instead, to the international community.
Therefore, I would hope that you would take the more general issues
involved in this individual case seriously and that your sympathy and
concern will result in some form of intervention or policy position.
At the same time, a Chinese colleague has advanced the
idea of perhaps establishing a Taiwan branch of SCHOLARS AT RISK here
in Taiwan. Perhaps you could explain if this is possible and how to
establish such an affiliated branch here.
Thank you very much for your attention and assistance in this case.
Sincerely,


Richard de Canio.

Letter to Scholars at Risk

Yuh Wen Ling
Scholars at Risk ~ The University of Chicago
Email: yuhwen.ling@eudoramail.com


Dear Professor Yuh,
Thanks for your email.
Since I last wrote, the Taiwan Ministry of Education Appeal
Committee ruled, in February, 2001, to cancel my dismissal, finding
countless irregularities committed during the many committee hearings on
my case.
They have also issued several notices since then to reactivate my
teaching contract immediately. But, thus far, these have been ignored
by the university. Hence, I have filed a lawsuit for the issuance of my
contract and for compensatory ("spiritual") damages, mostly to cover
costs accrued during the nearly two and a half years of my appeal.
Apart from pending issues, I wish to emphasize key points here.
The main point is that National Cheng Kung University has repeatedly
shown it is unwilling to "play" by rules or norms recognized by much of
the international community. Therefore, these violations should concern
the international community.
First, officials here have repeatedly failed to observe even the
most basic protections of legal rights, including the right to defense,
the obligation to investigate and prove accusations, the right against
"double jeopardy," and the right to appeal.
For example, often I am not even notified of accusations against me,
much less invited to defend myself against them.
Repeatedly (indeed, as recently as June of this year), accusations
are made of which I am not even aware, except by general reference
(vague accusations made in unidentified letters, etc.).
In addition, although Ministry of Education laws clearly require
that all accusations be investigated, new accusations are repeatedly
made against
me without being investigated, much less proven; while old accusations,
although already rejected by the Ministry of Education Appeal decision,
are repeatedly made again; as if, indeed, an appeal decision was merely
a piece of paper and had no binding legal status.
As you can see, this involves the issue of "double jeopardy"
(regardless what it is called in Taiwan law) as well as the right to
appeal.
It is important to stress that I have won on appeal on two separate
occasions:
The first was the University appeal decision. However, I was then told
that the decision was not binding, since I was a foreigner and had to be
reviewed again. In other words, laws at National Cheng Kung University
do not apply equally to foreign faculty! Yet even a Taiwan legal
professor, and expert on university laws, insisted to me that I had won
the appeal, therefore was entitled to a retroactive contract and back
pay! But the university ignored due process, based on what are
obviously devious readings of laws.
Then, after winning my Ministry of Education appeal decision, and
following several admonitory notices from the Ministry of Education to
issue the contract, the university is still reprobatively insisting
that I be reviewed again. Indeed, they have since established a
pretense of having an outside committee investigate accusations against
me, even though those are the same accusations the Ministry of Education
rejected in my appeal victory. The university has notified me of a new
hearing in my case; but I have protested these actions to be in
violation of the law; and, specifically, in violation
of the Ministry of Education appeal decision in my favor.
Let me ask you a direct question: in what other democratic nation in
the world would appeal
decisions be nullified in this manner? This is not only in contempt of
a specific ruling but of general, and universally acknowledged
principles of justice and fair play.
In addition, under the cover (or "color") of office, university
officials are engaged in an obvious policy of persecution; because, as
the Ministry of Education appeal judgment pointed out, accusations are
constantly changed, added, and dropped on whim.
There is, in other words, not even the pretense of legal process at
National Cheng Kung University. The university simply does not want to
"lose" the case (therefore "lose face") regardless of both Taiwan and
international legal norms.
It is important to point out that there is really no institutionalized
advocacy here as in other democratic countries. Foreigners are pretty
much on their own when it comes to institutionalized advocacy.
For example, in America, a foreigner would have a bevy of ACLU lawyers
taking up such a case, since it is a clear-cut case of discrimination.
There would also be wide-spread media coverage.
Indeed, last year, a reasonably similar case of official misprision at
a Hong Kong university drew massive media attention and student
protests, forcing a serious administrative investigation. I know,
because I was in Hong Kong during one phase of the investigations.
But Taiwan, in general, has a very inactive faculty. And when I phoned
the Taiwan Association for Human Rights two years ago, the person I
contacted said as much; in fact, he claimed there were only one or two
colleagues working with him! He said there was not much interest in
human rights here.
Therefore, please understand, that if it were not for a few colleagues
who have supported me from the very beginning, based solely on their
sense of justice, I could not possibly have contested this case, much
less won it (and, as I indicated above, even this, against all legal
principles, continues to be disputed by the university).
The residence problem in itself has been a serious obstacle in fighting
this case; and, disreputable as it seems, there is no question that
university officials have hoped, for the more than two years this case
has been contested, that I would not possibly be able to survive in
Taiwan long enough to obtain justice. I would get tired of having my
visa renewed (every two months), run out of money, need medical care (my
medical insurance was canceled with my contract), lack advocacy, or
numerous other problems facing a foreigner. And this kind of "dirty
pool" politics, by an institution presumably democratic in structure and
part of an international academic community, should be sanctioned.
In summary, university violations, including contempt for lawful
process and defiance of the Ministry of Education decision in my favor,
are egregious by any standards. I don't see why National Cheng Kung
University should be allowed, by the international community, to behave
like this with impunity. And my Chinese colleagues
here in Taiwan argue that NCKU would be more fearful of losing face and
suffering possible
sanctions in the international community than of lawsuits or possible
internal sanctions imposed by the Ministry of Education here.
Clearly, what is happening at National Cheng Kung University is not
merely wrong, but grievously wrong. Apart from all other issues,
already covered here and in documents included in previous email, if an
appeal decision is not honored, then why have an appeal process at all?
If the university knew it would not honor an appeal, why allow the
appeal in the first place?
This case is not only an example of injustice against an individual, but
it is, indeed, a blatant mockery of the very idea of justice or of any
process enforcing it.
Finally, there is the more general issue of the Employment Law
passed a couple of years ago. According to this law, foreign laborers
should be annually reviewed.
There are several issues here.
First, all academics should be treated equally. Taiwan professors, so
far as I know, do not suffer a double standard of treatment at British
or American universities.
Second, even if we resign ourselves to this unjust double standard
governing foreign and native faculty, most democracies would agree that
no law should be applied retroactively in any case (how can one nullify
assumed rights at a later date?).
Although the meaning of the law has been contested, it enabled the
chairman of my department to "review" all foreign teachers, regardless
how long we’ve been teaching at the university, as if we were, indeed,
hired laborers rather than colleagues.
Finally, the law is being used to intimidate foreign teachers here. My
Chinese colleagues have informed me of several cases of foreigners who
were dismissed based on this Employment law. Rather than put up a
lengthy battle in the courts to establish the application or proper
interpretation of the law, they gave up the fight and bitterly left, one
(a French
teacher, as I've been told) with a broken heart.
Obviously foreigners can't be expected to fight a lengthy battle of
judicial interpretation. This is
really the responsibility of Taiwan academics, assuming they reciprocate
the (usually) fair and just treatment they or their relatives receive in
foreign countries where they matriculate or teach.
But, as I observed above, with the exception of a very limited number
of conscientious colleagues, it seems that most Taiwan academics simply
do not care about general issues of legal protections of foreigners.
"Relationships" obtain in the university system, not laws; and
relationships favor Taiwan faculty, not foreigners. Hence, on
recommendation by those few conscientious colleagues, I appeal, instead,
to the international community.
Therefore, I would hope that you would take the more general issues
involved in this individual case seriously and that your sympathy and
concern will result in some form of intervention or policy position.
At the same time, a Chinese colleague has advanced the idea of perhaps
establishing a Taiwan branch of SCHOLARS AT RISK here in Taiwan.
Perhaps you could explain if this is possible and how to establish such
an affiliated branch here.
Thank you very much for your attention and assistance in this case.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio.

Letter to Scholars at Risk

Scholars at Risk

Dear Professor Yuh Wen Ling,

I appreciate your interest in the issues of this case. However, I
would like you to clarify the level of involvement of you or SAR in this
case. In a strict sense, nobody is at "risk" here. And I am certain
there are graver issues brought to the attention of SAR. Still, I would
like to make several points:
1. Although I was reluctant to contact SAR, my Chinese colleagues
insisted I do so. (In fact, one of them forwarded your web page to
me.) They remain seriously concerned about the failure of legal
implementation here.
2. I use the phrase "legal implementation" because of the devious or
convoluted nature of adjudication involved. Just now, we returned from
a court session and the university lawyer did not even deign to appear,
requesting a postponement until mid-August. It was granted. Yet it is
obvious that, lacking any legal justification in their case against me,
the university knows its only hope are these endless delays (presumably,
I cannot stay and fight this case much longer).
Indeed, in one form or another, the university administration has
effected delays for more than two years now. This is without doubt the
most devious adjudication one could imagine. Let me sum up once more:
1. My dismissal was voted in March of 1999. There were so many
irregularities and legal violations, my Chinese colleagues assured me
the case could not possibly pass.
2. Nonetheless, it did pass, without any real investigation, defense,
etc. The dismissal notice itself was clearly libelous and based merely
on unproven and undocumented accusations that have since been rejected
by the MOE appeal committee.
3. Under the circumstances, the University Appeal Committee had to
cancel the dismissal. But, very deviously, they did not award me the
retroactive contract/salary, as logically/legally they should have.
Instead, they concocted an argument that as a foreigner, I had to have
another review!
4. After countless delays, the university passed the same dismissal,
using the same uninvestigated accusations. This time the University
Appeals committee passed it. By this time, there was no doubt in the
minds of my sympathetic colleagues that the case was an albatross for
the university and they approved the dismissal hoping to discourage me.
5. In January of this year, in a strongly worded decision, the
Ministry of Education Appeal Committee canceled my dismissal. The MOE
decision pointed out that not a single accusation was proven or
investigated as it should have been and therefore the dismissal could
not be maintained.
6. The University deviously "interpeted" this to mean that I should be
reviewed again.
7. The Ministry of Education sent a strongly worded letter that the
decision can only mean my contract should be revived and appropriate
compensation issued.
8. The university ignored this too. The MOE sent another letter
saying, in plain language, to issue the contract immediately.
9. The university has ignored this.
10. In defiance of universally recognized principles of the terminal
process of appeal, and in defiance of the MOE appeal decision as well as
two MOE letters mentioned above, the university reviewed me yet again!
Under protest, and referring to my appeal victory, I declined to respond
to accusations already rejected by the MOE appeal judgment. Still under
protest, I was persuaded by sympathetic colleagues to appear before the
University appeal committee. We circulated my protest to the MOE as
well. I wished to make clear from the beginning that I could not accept
the legality of any hearing following my MOE victory and using the same
accusations.
11. This Monday (23 July) was the university hearing. My colleague
spoke on my behalf and clarified all the issues. We also issued a
written statement making clear that I was there under protest and did
not acknowledge the legality of the hearing, since the MOE had issued an
appeal decision in my favor.
12. The university appeal committee decided not to make any decision,
but to wait for the court case this morning (25 July).
13. The university lawyer did not even appear and the case was
postponed to mid-August.
The issues here are very plain.
Clearly, a Taiwan university is declining to honor basic and universal
principles of justice, good faith, and fair play. The university has
rules of investigation and does not abide by them. It has legal
principles and does not abide by them. It has an appeal process and
does not abide by the decision or makes a devious interpretation: I'm a
foreigner and am therefore not protected by the appeal process. Why
have an appeal process at all? The MOE reviews the case and issues its
decision and the university does not abide by it. The MOE issues two
interpretations of its decision, namely that the university should issue
a contract and retroactive compensation, and the university does not
honor this.
I spoke to a friendly judge not involved in my case. I challenged her
to name another country in the world where an appeal decision is not
honored. She could not do so. I repeatedly asked her, "What is the
point of having an appeal process if the university does not have to
honor the appeal decision? If I lose, I lose; if I win I lose also. So
why have an appeal process?" She could not answer.
Apart from other avenues we've been advised to seek, my sympathetic
colleagues once more encouraged me to seek assistance from the American
congress. Clearly, what is happening in this situation is wrong, at
almost every level one looks at it. It goes against universally
acknowledged principles of legal process and legal sense (how can a
professor win an appeal only to be forced to appeal again?). It goes
against principles of fair play, honor, and good faith. Obviously, if
the university never intended to honor an appeal, why not at least say
so from the beginning? Finally, it goes against rules of international
reciprocity. Why should Taiwan professors be protected by American laws
if American professors are not protected by Taiwan laws? And make no
mistake: The laws are there but they are being deviously interpreted by
some parties, or defied in some instances (as when the university defies
the Ministry of Education decision), or simply ignored. In addition,
because of the endless institutional resources and monetary means the
university has, it can indulge every routine of delay at its
convenience, while even a couple of weeks delay may mean a lot to me. I
emphasize, this case has been in continuous adjudication since March of
1999! (I should inform you that National Cheng Kung University is
considered one of the leading universities in Taiwan.)
Surely there is something Scholars at Risk can do here. Is it possible
to issue a statement such as this: "Taiwan professors are protected by
legal process and laws in foreign countries; we expect foreign
professors to be similarly protected when they teach at Taiwan
universities."
At the same time, I am planning to contact an American senator about
this issue. If you know of any who would be particularly concerned
about this issue, please let me know.
Like my Chinese colleagues insist, we have waited for justice within
the Taiwan system long enough. If Taiwan academics wish to have the
sympathy of the international community, they have got to practically
implement democratic laws and protections in addition to writing them
down.
In any case, please respond to this email one way or another; and
please make your position, or the position of SAR plain; because,
although I contacted SAR many months ago, I am still unclear about the
level or kind of interest you support.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio.

Letter to Scholars at Risk

Dear Professor Quinn,
Thanks very much for your considerate response. I have delayed
responding a few days, hoping to contact concerned Chinese colleagues
regarding your letter.
There is divided opinion here concerning the best route to take. A
Chinese colleague in Tainan insists that congressional contact is the
most important route. He is convinced that officials here are more
sensitive to this kind of international pressure than to legal
authority.
As is well known, Taiwan is still very much a culture of
relationships. Hence my inquiry about congressional appeal. In this
context, the web page of Scholars at Risk was also forwarded by a
Chinese colleague concerned with mobilizing outside pressure to resolve
this case.
The facts are officially documented and plain. I won my case after a
long appeal process. The Ministry of Education has sent no fewer than
three warning messages for the university to issue the contract.
Instead, the university is dishonorably acting as if the process of
appeal is never final until it favors the university.
Apart from universal principles of law and justice involved
here, there are the additional issues of honesty, good faith, and fair
play: the values we presumably teach our students and our children
("keep your promises," "abide by your previous agreement," etc.).
I should add that the university never contested the appeal process
until after I won following a two-year battle. If this does not go
against commonly accepted principles of fair play (apart from legal
issues), I don't know what does. Imagine if a student kept passing an
exam and the teacher and Dean of the College kept telling her she would
have to repeat the exam--indefinitely, or until she failed.
I believe this kind of refusal to play by the rules on the part of any
university should be of concern to academics anywhere in the world.
Taiwan parents would be the first to protest if their child suffered the
same duplicit treatment while studying or working abroad. Principles of
justice and reciprocity require one country to protect rights of
foreigners the same way they rely on these rights, indeed take them for
granted, when they themselves live abroad.
Concerning your two suggestions for action, I see them as short-term
and long-term objectives. I believe a letter to the Ministry of
Education would definitely be helpful in the short-term goal concerning
the issuance of the contract and to remind the Ministry of international
community and norms.
(I should point out that the Ministry has favored me, but the
university has thus far ignored the Ministry. Still, in proper
democratic process, of course, the Ministry should legally contest the
university, not I.)
If Scholars at Risk is willing to send such a letter, the address is,

THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
5 CHUNG SHAN S. ROAD
TAIPEI, TAIWAN 100
R.O.C.
ATTN: DR. OVID TZENG,
MINISTER OF EDUCATION

I am not certain if staff at Scholars at Risk can read Chinese. But,
if so, feel free to request faxed (or emailed) documents of
the appeal decision and later warning letters from the Ministry of
Education to the university.

As for your other suggestion of having a letter published, this seems
useful in the long-term goal of establishing principles of equity for
foreign faculty in Taiwan. Right now, it seems, even foreign faculty
associated with a university for more than ten years can be dismissed
without legal appeal or protections.
Thank you again for your consideration of this case.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio.

Letter to Scholars at Risk

11/17/2001 1:53 PM
Subject: Update on the National Cheng Kung University appeal
caseTo: rquinn@uchicago.edu
CC: yuhwen.ling@eudoramail.com,

Professor Robert Quinn
Scholars at Risk
16 November, 2001

Dear Professor Quinn,
This is to update you on the events concerning my appeal against
dismissal at National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan.
As of this moment, the case continues to go around in circles. The
Control Yuan, the highest "watchdog" governmental body, responded to my
official complaint by asking the Ministry of Education what it has done;
the Ministry of Education asked National Cheng Kung University what it
has done; National Cheng Kung University responded by saying that, since
I took legal action against the university, it must delay the internal
handling of the case until the legal action is over.
Of course, the main legal and moral issue, that I won the appeal (in
fact, two appeals), is completely ignored. Besides, where else in the
world is an individual obligated to go to court to enforce legal rulings
on his own behalf? It's as if a judge in Boston said, "Release the
prisoner" and the jailer refused to do so and the prisoner had to
litigate for two years to get himself released. Of course, in Boston
the recusant jailer would immediately be convicted of contempt; and the
case would be executed by government officials, not the individual.
I think it's outrageous that foreign professors are vulnerable to
malicious misconduct in this manner, while Taiwan professors receive the
protection of laws in democracies abroad. I only hope that Scholars at
Risk is willing, in some form, to make clear that foreign professors
should be protected by laws in all countries that observe democratic law
at all.
I would also like to report that, although I have petitioned several
humanitarian agencies here, including a private judicial watchdog body,
a Chinese human rights association, a Taiwan human rights association,
and the president of a national university union, I have received no
response, much less support. One newspaper editor responded that he was
too busy doing other things. Except for two or three individuals of
exceptionally high moral conscience, I have received absolutely no
support, despite the fact that the issues of human rights violations,
and now clear defiance of Ministry rulings, is both documented and
plain.
This evening I wrote a FAX to the Ministry of Education, reminding
him of the Ministry's legal obligations in this case. I include it with
this email.
In the meantime, I thank you for your letter to the Minister of
Education, which almost certainly was helpful.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626

Letter to Scholars at Risk

Scholars at Risk Network 5828 S. University Avenue Chicago,
IL 60637
Telephone: 773-834-4659 Facsimile: 773-702-9286 Email:
rquinn@uchicago.edu

From:
8/15/2000 1:00 AM
Subject: Human rights abuses


14 August 2000

Dear Scholars at Risk:

Your address was forwarded to me by a Chinese colleague, since he
thought you might be helpful in responding to the discriminatory abuses
against foreign, mostly American, professors in Taiwan, specifically in
the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature at National Cheng
Kung University, in Tainan.
I can send you more detailed complaints (in both Chinese and
English) if necessary or requested to do so.
There have been long-standing abuses against American professors
at National Cheng Kung University.
More recently, in summary, the university has been allowed to
slander and libel at least one American professor with impunity.
In all cases, the professor was never notified of accusations
against him; nor was he allowed to defend himself. Later,
following protests from Chinese faculty, he was allowed a belated
and perfunctory statement at several meetings. Accusations against
the professor were never proven and most are mere innuendo. In all
the accusations, the professor was not notified until after they were
used against him or else was notified by friendly colleagues who
informed him of them unofficially!
These accusations were then used to terminate the professor's position
at the
university, despite the apparent protection of the so-called Teacher's
Law and Ministry of Education regulations that state that all
accusations must be properly investigated and proven.
To get around the protection of the Teacher's Law, which guarantees
legal protections to Taiwan teachers, the university
has claimed that, as a foreign teacher, the professor is not protected
by the same rights as Taiwan teachers.
This is not only legally, but morally, absurd. A representative of
Taiwan's Administrative Court remarked (if unofficially) that this is
legally absurd, since there is only one law in democratic countries.
Finally, even if this were the case, this would not mean that the
teacher has no HUMAN RIGHTS at all, including the right to defend
himself against slander and libel!
The Faculty Union of the university, as well as the national
Teachers' Union of Taiwan has protested this treatment. A campus lawyer
on university law also can't understand how the law could be used in the
discriminatory way that it has been used.
Yet, the Ministry of Education has played the fence on this issue
for more than a year, issuing very vague statements about "following the
laws," but never really committing themselves to a moral position or
enforcing laws at the university, which is, of course, precisely their
obligation.
The result is academic and moral chaos, which can be FULLY
SUBSTANTIATED by native colleagues in sympathy with human rights as well
as moral and academic standards.
The policy seems to delay the entire process of appeals (which has
already gone on for more than a year) for so long that the plaintiff
will be forced to leave the country and give up his appeal. Such a
policy is morally reprehensible.

Sincerely,


Professor Richard de Canio.

Letter from Scholars at Risk

3/1/2002 5:12 AM
Subject: Re: Update on my case in TaiwanTo: yuhwen.ling@eudoramail.com


Yuh Wen Ling wrote:

> Dear Professor de Canio,
> Thank you for your email of February 23. We will update your case promptly.
>
> In the meantime, we ask that you keep us updated after the March 6th hearing. Please let us know a) the nature

of the hearing and b) what happens, if anything. We look foward to your email and wish you the best.
>
> Sincerely,
> Yuh Wen Ling
>
> ---
> Yuh Wen Ling
> Scholars at Risk Network ~ Human Rights Program
> The University of Chicago
> 5828 South University Avenue
> Chicago, Illinois 60637
>
> *Telephone: 773-834-4659
> *Website: http://scholarsatrisk.uchicago.edu
> *Email: yuhwen.ling@eudoramail.com
>

Dear Yuh Wen Ling,
Thanks for your message. As you can see, democracy in Taiwan is
somewhat different from our understanding of the word elsewhere.
In the last several days (from 20-28 February), I have sent
numerous faxes to the new Minister of Education in an attempt to provoke
intervention, especially stopping that lawsuit, which in effect
challenges the
Ministry's own ruling (a few of these faxes are attached, below)! The
only response was a vague phone call to a colleague that they were
handling a complaint from several weeks back. For all we know, the
person who phoned might have been a college student assisting at the
phones.
Most recently, I sent a long fax to a dean of National Cheng Kung
University, who has repeatedly ignored my attempts to investigate a
student who sent a malicious and secret letter from a student that was
instrumental in my dismissal in 1999. Again, I have been ignored.
I also sent a message to the President of Taiwan (attached).
As I understand, Scholars at Risk did make contact with the
Ministry of Education a while back. If I can be informed of the
substance of the communication made, I would appreciate it. A Ministry
official seemed a little concerned about the exposure, which doubtless
helped. But
bureaucracies here are very good at stonewalling: What is a special
crime called "obstruction of justice" in our country is really routine
administration here (I think this is a safe generalization to make).
This is
why it is so difficult to effect change here, because there is really no
onus of blame, no burden of culpability, no sense of responsibility.
Thanks again for assistance and concern.
Richard de Canio.

Letter to Scholars at Risk

16 July 2002

Dear Mr. Quinn,

I am writing this letter in view of two letters you wrote to the
university on behalf of Professor Richard de Canio, which were forwarded to
me yesterday, as soon as Professor de Canio received them. In my capacity
as a member of the National Cheng Kung University Faculty Union, I feel it
is incumbent upon me to clarify issues of the case involving Professor de
Canio.
As you may know, in March of 1999, a departmental dismissal action was
started against Professor De Canio. From the beginning, this dismissal
action involved rather serious violations of laws, regulations, and due
process of law. For example, Professor De Canio was not even informed of
accusations against him before the dismissal action. In addition, a secret
letter was circulated at the committee hearings the passed his dismissal.
I will not repeat all the details of this case. Suffice it to say,
that, due to obvious legal violations, the university was compelled to
"cancel" Professor De Canio's dismissal. However, although the university
should have then revived Professor De Canio's contract, instead the case was
returned to the department for further "review." Part of the reasoning was
that, in view of the fact that Professor De Canio is a foreigner, and
despite the cancellation of his dimissal , a further review was necessary.
This was an improper ruling for several reasons. First, it violated
university regulations, as they have been commonly understood at our
university. Then it violated the normal principle in law that a favorable
ruling in an appeal must produce legal benefits or the ruling is without
substance. Finally, of course, it violated the principle of equal treatment
for all faculty, regardless of nationality.
Equally of concern to us is the fact that this equivocal appeal ruling,
denying Professor De Canio any tangible benefits while enjoining further
investigation and the burden of his continued defense, amounts to open-ended
persecution of the appellant. This, indeed, is a tactic that has been
repeated numerous times since that first appeal ruling. Indeed, Professor
De Canio has defended himself at countless hearings at the department,
college, university, and even Ministry levels, with no legal benefits except
(according to the university) the right to appeal again. This is clearly an
abuse of Professor De Canio's rights, his human dignity, and the spirit of
the democratic laws as written and commonly accepted in Taiwan, even if not
enforced.
Most recently, in June, 2002, Professor De Canio was reviewed yet again
by the department, college, and university, despite a Ministry appeal
decision in his favor in February, 2001. I have just received the
university's official ruling. It states that his dismissal has been
canceled, but his case should be returned to the department for further
review.
It is apparent that the university, knowing it can not legally dismiss
Professor De Canio, is hoping to delay issuance of his contract for as long
as is necessary until Professor De Canio forfeits the legal benefits that
are rightfully (and lawfully) his. As it is, Professor De Canio, pending
the final disposition of this case, has suffered great hardship simply
staying in Taiwan for more than three years, with countless visa problems,
lack of medical insurance, and financial worries.
Thanks, however, to the support of several colleagues, who are
determined to obtain justice for him, Professor De Canio has been able to
continue to pursue his rights. But he has paid a heavy price for a justice
that should be his routinely under democratic laws.
Thus the claim by President Kao Chiang that laws are being followed at
National Cheng Kung University is clearly false. Just the fact that the
university is not accepting the Ministry ruling belies President Kao's
claim. In addition, the university has filed a lawsuit against Professor De
Canio, attempting to nullify the Ministry's ruling. In fact, the university
lawyer has argued in court that Professor De Canio, as a foreigner, really
has no right to appeal. Not only is this a falsehood, belied by the
university's own appeal hearings in his case, but it contradicts the
university's participation in the Ministry hearing, even sending university
representatives to Taipei to argue its case. Only after losing their case
did they decide Professor De Canio had no right to appeal in the first
place.
I hope this letter has clarified key issues in this case. And I hope,
as both an academic and a citizen of Taiwan, that, in protecting the rights
of Professor De Canio, Scholars at Risk will, in addition, have helped us to
advance democratic principles at our universities, not only for the benefit
of foreign academics, but for that of our own compatriots as well.

Sincerely,

Professor Ray Dah-tong,
Associate Professor
Department of Mineral and Chemical Engineering
National Cheng Kung University
1 Ta-hseuh Road,
Tainan, Taiwan
(2757575) 62831
Email: raydon@mail.ncku.edu.tw

Letter from Scholars at Risk

8/1/2002 7:23 AM
Subject: RE: Abuses at National Cheng Kung University in
TaiwanTo:

Dear Professor,

I am sorry for your continuing difficulty. Before I write another
letter, please fax me copies of the two letters mentioned in Professor
Ray Dahtong's letter to me (the first, "in May 2002, the MOE sent the
fourth letter ordering the university to reinstate De Canio’s
position," and the second "President Kao even sent a sarcastic letter,
after request, to De Canio, saying that he was asking the MOE how to
issue the teaching contract." This will help me to know how to
respond.

Thanks,

Rob Quinn

Letter to Scholars at Risk

7/13/2003 1:33 PM
Subject: ATTN: Robert Quinn; Regarding the case at National Cheng Kung
UniversityTo: rquinn@midway.uchicago.edu

Mr. Robert Quinn
Scholars at Risk

12 July 2003

Dear Mr. Quinn,

Several weeks ago, National Cheng Kung University agreed to issue
retroactive contracts and an automatic revival contract for the next two
years, in belated compliance with the Ministry ruling of 8 January
2001.
Despite this partial compliance with the Ministry ruling, the
university still contests whether I am entitled to full retroactive
pay. Odd as it may sound, the university claims that since I wasn't
teaching during the four years of my appeal, I should not receive a
teaching salary, which is one-half of our annual salary. Also the
university has ignored compensatory claims, such as court costs, etc.
Finally, no sooner was my contract revived than the university
convened a meeting on my case. At this hearing, to which I wasn't
invited, the committee concluded that I had committed offenses rejected
in the Ministry appeal ruling of 8 January 2001. Such an action
resembles the Mainland Chinese challenge to final judicial rulings in
Hong Kong, now being contested by human rights groups. The difference
is, the Mainland Chinese government makes no claim to democratic
principles, while faculty at my university do.
I have already protested, and have formally appealed, this attempt
to undermine the legal benefits of a final appeal ruling. I feel
confident this latest university tactic to save face will be overturned,
at least in the long run.
But you can see how unstable due process of law is at our
university. Needless to say, no action has been taken against officials
involved in legal rights abuses during the history of my case.
Therefore, I leave it to the discretion of your institute whether to
further pursue this matter or expose issues related to my case.
For now, I wish to express my appreciation for the assistance I
received from you and your colleagues at Scholars at Risk. I would also
like to acknowledge the assistance of dedicated Chinese colleagues in
Taiwan.
Please feel free to contact me for any reason. In the meantime, I
wish you the best.

Sincerely,

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

Letter to Scholars at Risk

Robert Quinn
Director
Scholars at Risk Network
http://scholarsatrisk.uchicago.edu

c/o Human Rights Program
University of Chicago, Pick 124
5828 South University Avenue
Chicago, IL 60637
tel: 773-834-4408
fax: 773-702-9286
e-mail: rquinn@uchicago.edu

25 August 2000

Dear Dr. Quinn,

Thank you for your response to our previous email.
Enclosed are several letters from Taiwan professors detailing legal
and human rights abuses in this case.
As can be seen from the letters, there are serious issues of both
legal and human rights violations in this case.
At the same time, there is reasonably clear evidence of a lack of
commitment on the part of higher institutional authorities to enforce
protections of foreign faculty in Taiwan in such a manner as to be
reciprocal with the protection of the rights of Taiwan citizens in other
democratic countries.
Protective laws and rights are ambiguously worded in such a way as
to tip the hat to the legal rights and norms of democratic law while
nullifying the efficacy of legal protections in practice, since any
authority (chairperson, dean, committee chair) can "interpret," select,
or enforce laws to suit any occasion or purpose. There is the show of
democracy without either its transparency or objectivity. Democracy
becomes, in such a situation, a mere form with little substance.
Practically speaking, it is, for the most part, still relationships,
rather than laws, that govern many conflicted transactions in Taiwan.
To be fair, ordinarily the difference between rights and relationships
is theoretical merely. But this is based (as in a legitimate democracy
it should not be) on the good will of the parties, rather than the good
laws of the country.
Moreover, at its worst, as at National Cheng Kung University, where
there are, quite bluntly, many corrupt, negliglent, or incompetent
officials, there is no practical difference between the incrimination of
a foreign professor and, say, the incrimination of a member of the Falun
Gong in Mainland China, susceptible to arbitrary and capricious
discrimination and persecution, selective or maliciously specific laws,
secret meetings and accusations, unknown accusers, and discriminatory or
selective interpretation and enforcement of laws to effect the
malevolent goals of adversaries with a personal axe to grind.
(Admittedly, no foreign professor has yet been incarcerated, to the best
of my knowledge, but this should not minimize the other human or civil
rights abuses involved in this case.)
I should add that a dismissal notice has legal status yet, in
Taiwan, bypasses legal protections. The university functions as a court
of law without the protections of a court of law. Accusations that
would never survive in a court of law are easily "legitimated" by
university committees and officials with a severely limited grasp of
democratic process or rights.
The dangers become clear when one attempts to describe the "status"
of this case, which is mired in a no-man’s land of endless deferral of
rights, responsibilities, and protections. The Ministry of Education
claims it has no authority over its universites (despite the fact that
illegalities have been fully documented); the District Attorney claims
the university is a private institution and therefore not liable to a
public law such as libel; the Administrative Court asks the Ministry of
Education to investigate; the Ministry of Education asks the university
to investigate; the university asks its officials to investigate
accusations against themselves with predictable results. The
Administrative Court then explains to the plaintiff that the
investigation has been completed and no legal problems were discovered.
When the circuit is completed, the routine justifies itself and
seems to fulfill democratic norms of appeal, investigation, etc., when,
in fact, nothing can be less democratic in substance.
In many ways, Taiwan is still a culture of benevolence rather than
laws. One official at the Ministry of Education literally said that
"teachers are considered above the laws" in Taiwan. An official at the
Administrative Court disputed that statement as absurd and insisted that
the MOE official was speaking for herself. Nonetheless, in practice,
this seems to be the case; and, despite clear violations of both
criminal laws and Ministry of Education regulations, the Ministry of
Education has claimed it is powerless to intervene; while the Minister
of Education, Dr. Ovid Tseng, has repeatedly declined to respond to
letters written to him in both English and Chinese.
The simple fact is that Taiwan officials must ensure that the rights
of foreign faculty are fully protected, in the same way that Taiwan
faculty rely on due process and protections in the democratic countries
where they teach or where their children go to school.

Sincerely,

Professor Richard de Canio

Letter to Scholars at Risk

Robert Quinn
Director
Scholars at Risk Network
http://scholarsatrisk.uchicago.edu

c/o Human Rights Program
University of Chicago, Pick 124
5828 South University Avenue
Chicago, IL 60637
tel: 773-834-4408
fax: 773-702-9286
e-mail: rquinn@uchicago.edu

29 September 2000

Dear Professor Quinn,
The following attachments relate to incidents at the Department of
Foreign Languages and Literature that go back to 1992. I attach them to
establish a larger context of abuses in terms of both chronology and
pattern.
The incident related in these attached pages involved
alleged intimidation of foreign faculty from attending meetings
convened for the election of the next departmental chairman. Since
the then current chairman, a candidate for re-election, was
unpopular with foreign faculty,
he allegedly intimidated foreign faculty from casting a vote,
and thus having a voice in the outcome of the election. The
alleged intimidation is only euphemistically referred to in
this attached document.
These documents indicate the long-standing problems at
National National Cheng Kung University and suggest a
pattern of official indifference to them. The Chairman at the
time, for example, was, regardless of these documented abuses,
appointed to a second term as Chair and has, since that time,
flagrantly engaged in a continued pattern of abuses against
foreign faculty to this very day (he is frequently referred to in
previous documents sent).
NOTE: The Department of Foreign Languages and Literature,
sometimes abbreviated as FLLD is, in these attachments, abbreviated as
D.F.L.L.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio.

Letter to Scholars at Risk

27 September 2000

Dear Dr. Quinn,
Enclosed are additional documents concerning rights abuses at National
Cheng Kung University. Not only do these documents indicate a pattern of
abuses against foreigners here, but the *same* abuses (such as slander or
defamation), usually committed by the *same* people. This is almost
"understandable," since a Ministry official informed us, somewhat
apologetically, that, in China, "teachers are considered above the law."
Thus apart from the serious nature of the abuses themselves and the
pattern of persecution involved, which goes back at least to 1994, what
should be of equal concern is that at least one of the parties involved in
this pattern of abuses against foreigners (the former chairman of the
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature) seems to have been granted
virtual immunity from either prosecution or censure, despite the grievous
nature of the abuses in which he has been involved. This includes:

1. In 1994, this chairman solicited, then disseminated, unofficial,
secret, defamatory, and presumably forged evaluations against a professor.
2. In 1995, this chairman was again the object of an official complaint
submitted to the Faculty Union (attached).
3. In 1996 the then former chairman again resorted to slander, claiming
that an American professor "bribed" his students by giving them high grades
(attachment). Although in this instance the evaluations were presumably
legitimate, the former chairman nonetheless inappropriately used these
evaluations to prevent the professor's promotion.
(Evaluations are not supposed to be used punitively. Apart from other
reasons, some professors, including this particular chairman, only
infrequently file them.)
Although this chairman would most likely have been expelled from most
universities for his forgery of defamatory student evaluations in 1994, in
fact he not only went unpunished for that offense and other offenses related
to the 1994 attempted dismissal, but actually maintained political strength
to the degree that, in 1996, he appeared on all three promotional hearings.
Although the chairman's illegal activities at the promotional hearing
prompted additional hearings, the professor's promotion, until then
automatic for doctorate professors, was ultimately interdicted anyway.
(Apparently, the committees were angry that he appealed his case to the
Ministry of Education, thus embarrassing the university.) In frustration,
the professor transferred to a Kaohsiung university, where he was routinely
promoted to Associate Professor, as he should have been at National Cheng
Kung University. The same thing happened to a Chinese professor persecuted
by the same faction. This professor transferred to another university and
was routinely promoted.
4. In 1999, this former chairman collaborated with colleagues to
dismiss an American professor. Despite a history of abuses related to
student evaluations, he is quoted in one secret and libelous letter in
support of a student's claim that she was punitively failed ten years
before, a claim that even a Ministry official found "incredible," if only
because it was ten years old when it was made.
5. What is demonstrated in these and previous documents is an obvious
pattern of abuses against foreign, specifically American, professors; as
well as the obviously inadequate, if not completely indifferent, response by
supervisory officials, either at the university or Ministry level, assuring
the continued violations of human rights at National Cheng Kung University
and (potentially if not yet actually) at other universities in Taiwan.
Rather ominously, university officials and committees, probably formerly
only ineffectual in implementing democratic process at their hearings, and
trying to effect justice quietly (in traditional terms of relationships,
rather than laws), have now assumed a largely defenisve stance, apparently
"closing ranks" behind their culpable colleagues. Presumably, by closing
ranks and routinely ratifying the latest dismissal action, these committees
hope that the maligned professor will find the situation hopeless,
disappear, and the scandal will in this way be contained. Stability is
apparently more important than democracy at National Cheng Kung University.
Let me sum up the serious nature of the recent dismissal action and
related issues.
There is no question that secret and unproven accusations against a
professor were made. This is fully documented by minutes. (That this is
part of a pattern is apparent by attached documents.)
Moreover, additional secret and unproven accusations were made at appeal
hearings.
Ministry of Education regulations were flagrantly violated (for example,
that "accusations must be proven").
Accusations against the professor were added or dropped depending on
convenience or whim.
Accusations were contradictory (in 1999, an accusation that "the
professor was not teaching his specialty" became, in 2000, an accusation
that "the professor was teaching his specialty but did not get enough
students five years ago").
The professor's university appeal victory, presumably final, was
deviously interpreted to mean that the professor had to be reviewed by his
department again. This means that foreign professors have neither rights
nor dignity here.
Outside the university, Ministry officials seem indifferent to
violations of the law at committee hearings; their apparent concern is that
the three meetings required by law were convened, regardless of procedural
violations. (Whether this is merely a provisional, and not a final or
ultimate judgment, remains to be seen.)
The local District Attorney claims that what happened to the professor
is not really libel, since what happened was "private," not public, although
the unproven accusations resulted in the professor's dismissal from the
university!
The Taiwan Association of Human Rights apologetically tells the
professor that there are only two or three members in their organization and
the recent earthquake (in September 1999) had used up their manpower. He is
told that recruitment of more members has been unsuccessful, since citizens
are not interested in human rights issues.
There seem to be no pro bono or activist lawyers here.
There seems to be no genuine investigative press here. English-language
newspapers have thus far declined to publish signed letters with
references. The press (at least the English-language press) seems to be far
more cautious here. It simply reports a public action, but is not itself
expository or investigative. Compare the media handling of the relatively
more innocent infractions at the University of Hong Kong, which dominated
the media for weeks and continue to do so.
There is thus a genuine feeling of frustration over enforcement of human
rights here.

Sincerely,
Richard de Canio.

Letter to Scholars at Risk (New York)

9/27/2000 2:48 AM
Subject: Re: National Cheng Kung UniversityTo: rquinn@midway.uchicago.edu,


Robert Quinn
Director
Scholars at Risk Network
http://scholarsatrisk.uchicago.edu

c/o Human Rights Program
University of Chicago, Pick 124
5828 South University Avenue
Chicago, IL 60637
tel: 773-834-4408
fax: 773-702-9286
e-mail: rquinn@uchicago.edu

26 September 2000

Dear Dr. Quinn,

This is another followup to previous email regarding abuses of legal
rights at National Cheng Kung University in Tainan.
I enclose, on the advise of a Chinese colleague, a scanned image file
of a letter signed by the president of National Cheng Kung University and
dated 20 April, 1993.
The letter

(a) suggests the concerns then current on the part of foreign faculty
concerning equal treatment at the university; and
(b) the assurance or promise of equal treatment;
(c) the violation of that promise the very next year by the illegal and
unethical dismissal action against a foreign professor in 1994 (cf.
documents previously sent to you);
(d) the violation of that promise in 1999 by another illegal and
unethical dismissal action against a foreign professor. Violations in this
case are grievous, have been fully documented by the Faculty Union of
National Cheng Kung University, and have been sent to you in English
translation.

It must be emphasized that President Maa's promise of equal rights and
equal treatment was reiterated by the subsequent university president, Wu
Jin. (This document is in Chinese, but can be sent on request.) This
promise has also been ignored by university officials.
I hope that the attached is of additional help to you.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio.

Letter to Scholars at Risk (New York)

Robert Quinn
Director
Scholars at Risk Network
http://scholarsatrisk.uchicago.edu

c/o Human Rights Program
University of Chicago, Pick 124
5828 South University Avenue
Chicago, IL 60637
tel: 773-834-4408
fax: 773-702-9286
e-mail: rquinn@uchicago.edu

25 September 2000

Dear Dr. Quinn,
Enclosed are scanned images from the 1994 publication of the Faculty
Union (then, Faculty Association) of National Cheng Kung University.
The publication included the attached complaint against the chairman of
the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, following the illegal
and unethical dismissal of a foreign (American) professor in 1994.
Fortunately, thanks to the assiduous intervention of members of the
Faculty Union, the illegal and unethical dismissal was overturned, but just
barely (with only the minimal three votes necessary to overturn it).
Unfortunately, the fact that these violations not only took place but
were actually repeated, in a second dismissal action in 1999 (still
pending), suggests the indifference of university faculty to basic ethical
norms and democratic rights.
The complaint attached here explains (in Chinese and English) the nature
of the abuses involved, quoting relevant university laws and statutes
violated in the dismissal action.
It will be seen that the violations involved were basic human rights
violations, including the right to be informed of accusations, the right to
an open hearing, the right to defend onself, and the right to challenge
libelous or defamatory accusations, especially concerning one's moral and
professional reputation.
The officially published complaint shows that evaluations used against a
foreign professor were used in a highly selective, thus discriminatory,
manner, regardless of the suspect provenance of the evaluations.
In addition, of course, the evaluations were maliciously and secretly
solicited, secretly disseminated, and used to discredit and dismiss the
professor without the slightest regard for the professor's basic human
rights and reputation.
It should also be pointed out that, amazingly, although the dismissal
was technically reversed, the chairman was never punished or formally
censured and the professor never received an official apology for defamatory
actions against him, actions that would be considered criminal in most
democratic societies.

Sincerely,
Richard de Canio.

Letter to Scholars at Risk (New York)

9/22/2000 11:59 AM
Subject: Rights at NCKU,
TainanTo: rquinn@uchicago.edu, Paul Chow ,
Ray Dah-tong

Dr. Robert Quinn
c/o Human Rights Program
University of Chicago, Pick 124
5828 South University Avenue
Chicago, IL 60637
tel: 773-834-4408
fax: 773-702-9286
e-mail: rquinn@uchicago.edu

21 September, 2000

Dear Dr. Quinn,

In light of your request for further documentation and laws concerning a
recent dismissal at National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan, I wish
to put the events at that university in a broader perspective, one more
germane to the concern of a human rights organization.

Since the late 1980s there has been documented abuses committed against
foreign, specifically American, professors at the Department of Foreign
Languages (sometimes, FLLD) at National Cheng Kung University (sometimes,
NCKU). These abuses are fully documented by the NCKU Faculty Union and some
have been published in its annual bulletin. Specific abuses included the
intimidation of American faculty and their interdiction from departmental
meetings.

In addition, in 1994, an FLLD chairman solicited three libelous and
scurrilous evaluations against a professor. One evaluation contained the
scribbled words, "this professor lusts after beautiful women."

Evaluations were obviously solicited; they gave no proof for any assertion;
they were not signed or officially registered with the Department of
Academic Affairs. Yet those evaluations were used at a secret departmental
Review meeting to effect the professor’s dismissal.

Despite obvious abuses, that dismissal was just barely reversed at the
College level. Only the courageous personal intervention of one committee
member assured the minimal votes (3) to reverse the dismissal. There were
maybe six or more members, however, who voted to sustain the dismissal.

One committee member, when challenged why, in the light of the illegal and
libelous accusations, he wanted to vote to sustain dismissal, reportedly
responded, "You vote your way and I’ll vote mine." Perhaps you can call
this "mature" democracy in action at NCKU.

Despite the dismissal, the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts, in apparent
collusion with the FLLD Chair (they were friends), and in order to "save
face," wrote in the official minutes that, although the dismissal was
overturned, "the professor was cautioned to improve his teaching and to
co-operate with colleagues." But an honorable member of that committee
(referred to, above) insisted that no discussion, much less vote, took
place.

I wish to call to your attention, already evident in the previous
rehearsal, a pattern of using the forms of democracy, with none of its
substance, which will be repeated throughout the dismal history of abuses
related here.

Apparently emboldened by the indifference of their superior officials, an
American professor was illegally dismissed in 1999. To effect this, a
secret Review meeting was held. A document signed by 3 members of that
Review committee (adversaries of the impugned professor), was used by that
Review committee to "prove" accusations against that professor at the Review
committee!

(Other than this letter signed by 3 members of the Review committee, the
accusations were never proven. Rather the letter, signed by 3 members of
the Review committee, were used as proof by the other 2 members of that
committee.)

The professor was never notified about the scheduled Review committee. He
had no idea of accusations against him, although the department Chairman had
an entire year, or more, to investigate the accusations, inform the
professor of them, and enable the professor’s defense. This was never done,
although, apart from common sense and common decency, as well as
internationally accepted norms of democratic process, the Ministry of
Education has a rule that all accusations must be proven.

But such a violation of democratic etiquette was hardly new to the
department. Previously, the department chair made accusations against an
American professor that he "bribed" his students by giving them high
grades. This unsupported statement was then used at an official meeting to
deny promotion to that professor, who then resigned to teach at a university
in Kaohsiung.

Regarding the dismissal case, the professor’s dismissal was facilitated by a
controversial new "employment law." There are a number of issues related to
this law that should concern a human rights organization.

First the legality of such a law. Should such a law, enjoining
discriminatory policy against foreign teachers, be acceptable in a so-called
democratic society?

Second, should any new law lack a grandfather clause, i.e. a retroactive
clause exempting those previous to the passage of the law?

Third, the Employment law has been abused to initiate an annual "review" and
potential dismissal of foreign professors in a discriminatory and demeaning
way, and regardless how many years they’ve been associated with their
universities. Not only is this discriminatory in itself, but it leads to
further grievous abuses, as this complaint demonstrates. Would civil rights
groups in Western countries tolerate the passage of a similar employment law
against foreigners, especially without any retroactive protections in the
law? I hardly think so.

In addition to being a bad law in itself, the Employment law was clearly
used selectively to persecute "undesirables" in the department (NCKU was the
only university of which we are aware that actually used this law punitively
against faculty). This is clearly an abuse of lawful process, however good
or bad a law may be in itself.

But this selective use of laws is quite common at the Department of Foreign
Languages and Literature. To give an obvious example, plagiarism is rampant
in Taiwan’s educational system; so rampant, in fact, that a Chinese
colleague has informed me that American journals have blacklists for Taiwan
faculty with well-known reputations for plagiarism. Moreover these reputed
plagiarists include high-profile faculty and administrators, among them
college deans and ministry officials.

Yet laws and due process are firmly enforced in these cases to favor the
accused. In those cases, the accusation must be "proven." Moreover, even
if obvious, the plagiarism is never used as a basis for dismissal. Yet an
accusation of plagiarism against foreign faculty, at least one in disfavor
with the department, is apparently a legitimate basis for dismissal, even
when there is no legitimate basis for the accusation.

But due process is a farce at NCKU anyway. At a college appeal meeting,
convened precisely to enable an appeal by the professor unfairly "reviewed"
and then dismissed by the department review committee, further "evidence"
was solicited by the members of that committee in order to further
"incriminate" the professor.

I wish to emphasize that in all of this "travesty of justice" (as a Chinese
colleague has phrased it), many abuses aren’t even concealed and they can be
confirmed in official minutes. It’s as if these committee members are so
ignorant or negligent of democratic process that they don’t even know what
facts might embarrass or incriminate them; or else, they are so confident
that they are above the law here (as a Ministry official suggested), that
they just don’t care.

For example, it is a known fact that the three accusatory student letters
solicited by the College Appeal committee were actually dated in June,
1999. The original departmental review meeting was held in late March,
1999.

It is difficult to unpack all the legal absurdities or abuses here. First,
how can an appeal meeting, established for the benefit of the accused, be
used to further accuse him? How can issues that had no bearing on the
review dismissal be introduced at an appeal hearing? How can accusations
not even proven, but rather solicited, even have a substantive legal status
at an appeal hearing?

(One accusation claimed the professor had punitively failed a student ten
years ago! Even a Ministry official said, in a phone conversation, that she
found such an accusation, ten years old, "incredible"!)

In addition, how can documents solicited by an appeal committee be used as
impartial evidence by that appeal committee? How can the egregious abuses
committed by the department review committee be overlooked by the appeal
committee? How can documents dated in June be used to discuss issues of a
review meeting held in March of the same year?

For rhetorical purposes I am being redundant, but any reader can begin to
see the ridiculously dubious status that democracy has at National Cheng
Kung University. In addition, as a Chinese colleague has affirmed,
university law makes plain that an appeal committee cannot return a case
back to the review committee, which was done several times in the case now
under discussion.

I wish to emphasize that further accusations solicited by the appeal
committee were entirely secret and were revealed to the accused professor
only by just committee members who felt morally obligated to do so in
confidence. Indeed, even as late as the final university hearing, in June
of 1999, the secret accusations were not willingly revealed to the
professor. Rather, in defiance of the committee chair, one morally
conscientious committee member rehearsed the (until then, secret)
accusations for the benefit of the professor’s defense. This defense, by
the way, such as it was, was limited to about ten minutes and the professor
was invited to appear only at the last minute, under pressure from
conscientious faculty.

Months later, in December of 1999, the professor won an appeal decision by
the university. The vote was unanimous, 7-0. His dismissal was
"canceled."

But the university lawyer apparently exercised devious control over the
proceedings, to the advantage of the university.

First, he curtailed the hearing, which, it had been hoped, would expose all
the abuses and corruption in the department and subject them to a future
investigation. Instead, the university lawyer overturned the dismissal on a
relative technicality, obviating further discussion of many other grave
violations. Once this was accomplished, the vote was unanimous and the
meeting was adjourned very quickly.

This, of course, conveniently exonerated the chair from exploring other,
grievous abuses committed by university officials. Now the university
lawyer, despite an obvious conflict of interest, not only sat on the appeal
committee and voted, but actually framed the committee decision, apparently
against strong protest from other committee members. And, in this decision,
it was decided that, although the professor had won his appeal, nonetheless,
as a foreign employee, he had to be reviewed again by his department,
starting a new chain of farcical democratic abuses at National Cheng Kung
University.

(I should point out that a professor of law, whom many consider the leading
expert on university law in Taiwan, was certain, following the appeal
victory, that the professor was legally entitled to a teaching contract and
strongly urged him to go to the personnel office and request it!)

Indifferent to norms against double jeopardy, during the new academic year,
a new review committee was empowered, hand-picked by the professor’s
adversaries, most, as I’ve been informed, with minimal academic credentials.

It should be pointed out that the university had missed the deadline set by
university regulations. However, apparently, those regulations are only
enforced against an accused professor, not a university committee. In other
words, if the professor had not filed an appeal before the deadline, he
would have lost his right to appeal. But if the university misses the
deadline, the university does not forfeit its right to appeal. It will
simply be reminded that it has missed the deadline and to file its appeal as
soon as possible!

Similarly, if the university wins the appeal decision, the appeal decision
is final. The professor does not get a second chance. But if the professor
wins, the university gets a second chance to dismiss the professor, at least
if he’s a foreign professor. Therefore the case is returned to the
department for further review. This is "mature democracy" at National Cheng
Kung University. And all of this has been fully documented.

At its second hearing, the Review committee gave no reasons for its
dismissal vote. On appeal, the College committee insisted that reasons for
dismissal must be given.

Yet the College, according to university regulations, cannot return a case
back to the Review committee. Once again, the case should have been
terminated; instead it was again returned to the Review committee for
further jeopardy of the professor.

(This is reminiscent of the case against the Irish writer, Jonathan Swift,
when, every time the jury announced an acquittal, the trial judge enjoined
further deliberations, hoping for a guilty verdict.)

Compelled to give reasons, the Review committee repeated the reasons of the
previous year. But these accusations had neither been investigated nor
proven the previous year or since, as university regulations require.

For good measure, there were additional accusations. Although the first
dismissal was based on the fact that the professor was *not* teaching his
specialty, the claim instead became that the professor *was* teaching his
specialty but had problems getting enough students five years ago.

Apart from whether a professor can be dismissed for not getting enough
students, and apart from other professors who cannot get enough students and
are not dismissed, how can a professor be dismissed for something that
happened five years before the year of review? This is another example of
how the Employment law has been used as a tool of terror, giving any
university carte blanche to engage in unjust persecution of foreign faculty.


Despite these egregious and chronic violations, the final university
committee approved the dismissal. The university appeal committee, once
again chaired by the university’s own legal consultant, subsequently
approved the university decision.

It should be emphasized that the university’s dismissal notice, including
unproven accusations of wrongdoing made against the professor, functions as
a legal document, yet effected without the legal protections guaranteed by
basic human rights and democratic process. This document not only upholds
the dismissal of the professor, but jeopardizes his future employment at
other universities.

I understand that there are more critical examples of human rights abuses
all over the world, but depriving a university professor of his reputation
and therefore his means of making a living is comparable to an illegal
incarceration. In one way, it’s worse; for a person may be finally released
from his incarceration, but the dismissal notice, including unjust
accusations, is permanent.

My intent in this letter is not to argue according to Taiwan law or legal
experts. To quote a line from Hamlet, "it needs no ghost to tell us" the
obvious. It needs no local laws to tell legal rights and human rights
activists the obvious. Either the law allows this, in which case the law is
at fault; or the law does not allow this, in which case law enforcement is
at fault and not the law itself. Either problem should concern human rights
organizations when it clearly violates human rights, including the right to
legal protection in a foreign country.

We recognize this, for example, whenever Mainland Chinese authorities put
Falun Gong members into prison based on selective and punitive (as distinct
from just) laws. We recognize this when citizens are denied due process,
basic rights, and credible legal representation or appeal.

Regardless of legal details of Taiwan law, the cumulative facts related
here, all of which can be easily documented by creditable representatives of
the National Cheng Kung University Faculty Union as well as by independent
faculty members and official minutes, clearly discredits any claim to
democratic process or human rights protections at National Cheng Kung
University. And these violations can and do have grievous consequences for
the dignity, reputation, and future employment of foreign professors here.

Documented abuses detailed here are too flagrant and serious to be ignored.
These are not merely technical violations, but a mockery or "travesty" of
justice, which jeopardize the employment, reputation, and careers of foreign
professors here, who, presumably, are vulnerable to any university
conspiracy with no legal protections, including rights outside the
university.

For example, the Tainan District Attorney rejected claims of criminal libel
against members of the Review committee who used a signed letter to effect
the professor’s dismissal,

1. Despite the fact that the letter was signed by Review committee members
who then used their letter to justify their "review";
2. Despite the fact that accusations made were unproven and never
investigated;
3. Despite the fact that a previous Chairman had declined to accept those
accusations, calling them unproven;
4. Despite the fact that the regulations of the Ministry of Education
require that all accusations be immediately investigated;
5. Despite the fact that Taiwan’s Chief Justice has ruled that university
committee members can be held accountable for libel based on unproven
accusations at university meetings;
6. Despite the fact that the accusations were recklessly or maliciously
made (it’s inconceivable that nobody thought to inform the professor of
accusations against him before they were accepted as conditions for his
dismissal);
7. Despite the fact that the accusations were maliciously placed in the
department mailboxes of the professor’s colleagues;
8. Despite the fact that the professor lost his job as a consequence of
those accusations;
9. And despite the fact that the professor’s future employment has been
jeopardized by those accusations.

As for the media, letters to newspapers about this case have been
repeatedly ignored. On the other hand, a lengthy letter, written by an
American professor in support of Dr. Lee Ho Wen and sternly rebuking the
American government for legal rights abuses, was published yesterday in an
English-language newspaper here.

This case, of course, would be a "dream case" for any civil rights lawyer
in America. It is basically "cut and dried." Abuses were committed. Those
abuses are fully documented. Those abuses were flagrant. They were
grievous. They had a punitive pattern. The abuses resulted in the loss of
reputation and employment of the victim. What more could any lawyer hope
for? Most lawyers would take such a case either on a pro bono or
contingency basis, assured of both moral and final pecuniary victory. The
fact that the victim was a foreigner would almost insure civil rights
interest in the case. Apparently, in America, illegal aliens have more
rights than legal aliens here.

Unfortunately, the situation is different here, where teachers (at least
native teachers) are considered above the law (as a Ministry official
quaintly phrased it); and where, apparently, the law itself is considered a
ceiling rather than a sky; where it is painted to look at, but not to reach
beyond.

As for civil rights organizations, I’ve been informed that the Taiwan
Association for Human Rights includes only several members. And I am
unaware of any pro bono civil rights lawyers here; I assume they’re all in
America.

In such a situation, intervention by an international human rights
organization, however low-key, could be productive. Taiwan people are
fundamentally decent. They merely need to be reminded, like many of us, to
do the right thing. And, admittedly, the right thing isn’t always the easy
thing.

They also need to be reminded that democracy is not merely a political
label, but a political tool, including political rights. And these rights
must be enforced, even when the plaintiff is a foreigner. Perhaps
especially when he is a foreigner.

Sincerely,


Richard de Canio,
Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan.
Email: vertigo@ms22.hinet.net