Taiwan Association for Human Rights
Hsin-sheng S. Road, Section 3
Lane 25, No. 3, 9th Floor
Taipei, TAIWAN
Telephone:886-2-23639787
Facsimile:886-2-23636102
E-mail:tahr@seed.net.tw
cc: Scholars at Risk
University of Chicago
16 August 2003
Dear Ms. Wu,
I appreciate the involvement of TAHR in the case of human rights abuses at
National Cheng Kung University, in Tainan. From what I understand, a
lawmaker, upon request, contacted the Ministry of Education and was advised
issues were in administrative process.
However, this case should not be reduced to an administrative matter.
Rather it involves a history of abuses, as well as basic problems in
administrative remedy at all institutional levels.
An appeal that drags on for years (in my case, more than four)
undermines the purpose of administrative remedy. A process without
conclusion or punishment of officials is no remedy, but delays remedy.
These are causes for concern and reflect a wider problem.
Abuses have become routine at our university. Several professors have
resigned, frustrated by administrative remedy.
University regulations, presumably protecting faculty, are vague and
easily ignored by officials indifferent to democratic principles. Advised
the university president was defying the law, one dean expressed disbelief.
After all, she said, the university had a lawyer.
Perhaps such naivete is feigned. Even uneducated people know that
lawyers represent a client, not the law, while democracy is rule by law, not
lawyers.
But the fact that a Ministry of Education committee boldfaced countless
violations in its ruling of 8 January 2001 shows our officials are
undereducated about human rights. This lack of education should concern
human rights groups.
Indeed, our officials routinely adopt democratic forms while basing
decisions on relationships. Vague regulations make this easy, such as
(translated): “The chairman may see the need to invite an accused professor
for the purpose of defense,” making that rule open to arbitrary application,
allowing or barring a professor’s defense.
Rights, such as the right to appeal, turn out, in reality, to be no
rights at all. Rules insuring due process seem good on paper. But these
regulations are easily ignored.
Laws are differently used or interpreted, as happened in my case. A
committee is considered legal so long as the right number of committee
members is present, regardless of the number of rights violated. Principles
of right and wrong are replaced by rules of right and wrong procedures.
Committee members are not even certain of what they voted for until a
committee chairman writes it. In my case, committee members thought they had
voted to cancel my dismissal, according to law, and were surprised to read a
decision that referred my case for further “review.”
So law at our university is in the hands of a few officials who advance
their designs against the public interest. Is there a difference between
Mainland Chinese officials writing selective laws to punish the Falun Gong
and a few officials using laws arbitrarily to punish some and reward
others? Is there a difference between unjust laws and interpreting just
laws for unjust goals?
As everyone knows by now, the university “interpreted” a Final Ministry
Appeal to mean the appellant, an American, should be reviewed again.
Indeed, not merely again, but again and again, endlessly reviving
accusations rejected on appeal. This is the form of democracy without its
substance and a travesty of its purpose.
Human rights officials should not be deceived by a process that took so
long and continues, with revivals of accusations rejected in the Ministry
ruling of 8 January 2001, forcing another appeal. How long will this
mockery of law be tolerated before someone voices public concern?
The purpose of administrative appeal is to allow for a time-limited
remedy, preventing a stronger party from harassing the weaker. This
discourages misconduct while encouraging appeal. Principles of human
rights, including final appeal, insure that justice, not power, prevails.
The alternative is what happened in my case, even worse when a foreign
professor has visa concerns. Except for a few enlightened colleagues who
dedicated themselves to justice, and the sacrifice I myself made, I could
not have outlasted the delay tactics of university officials who violated
laws with impunity.
Their violations were not technical errors but human rights abuses.
Officials should not solicit secret letters, suborn students to write them,
or collude to secretly circulate them. These abuses are documented,
including letters from former students retracting suborned accusations.
In addition, when the president of a university ignores a Ministry
ruling for more than two years, I call that obstruction of justice,
regardless what it’s called in Taiwan. A president of the United States was
forced to resign for obstruction of justice, while the president of our
university was re-elected.
These abuses are typical, not isolated examples. It's commonly hoped
officials act for the best. But democracy advances by suspecting the worst.
However, based on a culture of subservience ("relationships"),
committee members presume the best. The assumption seems to be that whatever
an official did was right or he would not have done it.
Thus committees routinely ratify ("rubber-stamp") decisions rather
than deliberate them. Since nobody is held accountable, misconduct is
commonplace.
In a culture of face, a petitioner is considered outside the system
instead of part of it. He is wrong rather than trying to right wrongs.
Review becomes revenge. Officials convince committees to accept
baseless accusations. Or laws are “interpreted” to suit committee aims.
Other officials then “close ranks” in support.
Committees protect each other instead of the law. Yet democracy is a
government of laws, not committees. Committee members should uphold the
law, not replace it.
Reversals on technical grounds delay remedy. Afterwards, committees
spitefully repeat the same accusations or invent new ones, saving face while
the appellant loses time and finally gives up.
Meanwhile, officials stonewall by passing responsibility to others.
The assumption is no one is responsible.
But in a democracy, everyone is responsible, from the top down, or
there are laws, but no Law. A human rights group should be concerned about
this, since human rights issues cannot be separated from human welfare, as
the cover-up at Ho Ping hospital showed.
When a dean ignores a request for a supervised meeting with a student
who wrote a secret accusatory letter, human rights are at stake but also the
common welfare. Professors have a right to request a supervised meeting
with a student, or why have an Office of Student Affairs? How can there be
academic standards if no officials enforce them? And if there are no
academic standards, the future of Taiwan education is dim.
Court decisions, reviewed in a previous email, should be of related
concern. A district attorney should not be allowed to dismiss a complaint
on hearsay testimony. Nor should he excuse review members of libel because
their accusation was based on a letter they themselves signed. And if a
court concludes it is reasonable for a student to complain of a grade
received eight years before, this undermines confidence in judicial remedy
in Taiwan and discourages international association.
I think human rights groups should be concerned about these issues,
affecting education as well as the general welfare. No faculty member aware
of my case, as most are, will defend academic standards against peer
pressure knowing administrative remedy is futile. But if education is
compromised, so is the future of Taiwan.
Finally, a human rights group should be concerned that faculty, instead
of advancing human rights, are indifferent to, or in violation of, them. In
view of these issues, it seems to me concern should be publicly voiced to
encourage development of human rights here.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
Showing posts with label Taiwan Association for Human Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taiwan Association for Human Rights. Show all posts
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Letter to Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR)
10/14/2003 1:00 AM
Subject: Letters to TAHRTo: TAHR@yahoo.com
Taiwan Association for Human Rights
Hsin-sheng S. Road, Section 3
Lane 25, No. 3, 9th Floor
Taipei, TAIWAN
Telephone:886-2-23639787
Facsimile:886-2-23636102
E-mail:tahr@seed.net.tw
cc: Scholars at Risk
University of Chicago
9 August 2003
Dear Ms. Wu,
Since you spoke to me about understanding human rights violations at
National Cheng Kung University, I thought that, apart from previously
emailed and faxed documents, I'd summarize the human rights principles on
which I am requesting your intervention:
First, a foreign professor has the same rights as native Taiwan
citizens, including the right to due process of law and appeal. These
protections should be enforced according to Taiwan's laws and international
principles: A final appeal is final. Issues rejected on appeal cannot be
revived. Remedy includes complete compensation and formal apology.
Regarding general principles of law, a university official must
promptly comply with a legal ruling. No official has the right to
"interpret" a ruling. Only the judiciary has the right to interpret laws,
within constitutional limits.
If a government official does not understand a ruling or how to execute
it, he should resign his office or be subject to administrative and criminal
penalties. No official can claim not to understand what a final appeal
ruling means! It means compliance.
No official has a right to impede or obstruct or otherwise delay prompt
execution of rulings. An official involved in such misconduct should be
promptly dismissed, subject to further penalties or censure.
Yet the university president defied a Ministry ruling for more than two
years. Not only wasn't he punished, but he was recently re-elected to a
second term. At a public forum, he deplored a lack of university funding.
Yet he allowed the university to contest a legal Ministry ruling for more
than two years, costing millions of dollars.
I was told the president would not over-rule a committee decision.
This is commendable policy, unless a committee violates the law. Public
officials are obligated to over-rule committees that transparently violate
laws. No committee can defy a Ministry ruling.
The practical consequences of this injures appellants, which invites
further abuses. Since no one is held accountable for errant committee
rulings, committee rulings can be used punitively, to punish an appellant.
Regardless if the decision is overturned, most appellants could not
realistically commit themselves to administrative remedy, undermining the
purpose of final appeal, which is to limit harassment of appellants.
Officials must execute legal rulings in a transparent manner, according
to the face value of the ruling or law; what "the common citizen would
understand or do." A "final appeal" is universally considered final.
That's why it's called a "final" appeal.
This would be obvious to a fourth grade student. Yet our university
committees concluded that a final appeal subjects faculty, at least if he's
American, to further "review."
Then a final appeal is not final: It is, in other words, a square vase,
as Confucius put it. Indeed, an appeal is pointless. It's better being
dismissed sooner than later. Like the turtle in the Chinese fable who
protests, "If you want to eat me, say so in the first place. Why do it in a
roundabout way?"
Democratic law does not discriminate. As a representative from
Taiwan's Administrative Court protested four years ago: "Taiwan is a
democracy. One law applies to everyone." But university officials needed
more than four years to figure this out, at taxpayers' expense.
Part of the problem is the special status committees have at our
university. This is partly based on a culture of subservience
("relationships") and partly on a general passivity or indifference among
faculty members.
Yet democracy is a government of laws, not committees. Committee
members should uphold the law, not replace it.
But law is either misunderstood or scorned at National Cheng Kung
University. Because of a culture of subservience, an official soon convinces
a committee to accept a baseless accusation or a law is “interpreted” to
suit committee aims. It takes years contesting abuses only to have
committees punitively repeat them. Meanwhile, committee members stonewall
inside their bureaucratic caves, each official referring to another in a
chain of irresponsibility. In this way, no one is responsible instead of
everyone.
Because of the special status that committees and officials have in a
culture of subservience, the appellant is presumed guilty rather than
innocent. Committees routinely ratify ("rubber-stamp") decisions rather
than deliberate them, favoring colleagues over an outsider. But democratic
principle favors a petitioner to balance the power of the many.
In view of an appellant’s limited resources, the principle of final
appeals limits harassment of an appellant and discourages reckless
accusations. The fact that the Ministry of Education Appeal Committee
bold-faced countless legal rights violations shows that our committee
members are either grievously under-educated about, or actually scornful
towards, legal principles. One official even told me he didn't care about
the law!
Yet why should officials care about the law if the law does not care to
censure their misconduct? Defiant, they hide in their bureaucratic caves
until a petitioner gets tired of the chase.
The results are plain in the history of my dismissal case. The
chairman of my department used secret accusations to dismiss me. The Dean
of the College of Liberal Arts, who could have promptly terminated the
injustice, instead accepted a secret student letter merely on the student's
claim. I suppose if I claim I'm Santa Claus he'd believe that too. Three
times I asked the chair of the university review committee about the
contents of that secret letter and he silently stared at me. But after
winning a university appeal, I was told nonetheless, as a foreigner, I would
have to be reviewed again.
After the Ministry ruling, I requested discipline of the student who
wrote the letter. The Dean and Vice Dean of Student Affairs gave me the
run-around for more than two years, like the turtle in the Chinese fable. I
heard every improbable excuse why no action could be taken. Rights are
ignored to injure a professor but invoked to prevent remedy:
“The student was not a student when she wrote her letter.” “She
insisted what she wrote was true.” “The case is pending in the courts.”
“The court ruling prevents further action.” “The student doesn’t want to
come.” “Her mother doesn’t want her to come.” “God will punish her.”
After countless summary faxes and emails, periodically, and with comic
dignity, I was asked to write yet another summary of my complaint. Or I was
told the vice-dean or dean was "collecting evidence."
Although I read of such a bureaucratic maze, in Franz Kafka's The
Trial, I never thought I’d live it myself. Recently I learned the vice-dean
resigned over a sex scandal. If based in fact, I wasted two years appealing
to moral principles he was violating.
Yet democracy is a government of laws as well as moral principles. We
call those principles "human rights."
So apart from laws, what dean has the right to prevent a supervised
meeting between a student and a professor for disciplinary reasons?
Obviously university officials are protecting themselves as well as the
student, since they solicited the student's letter in the first place.
On what moral principle can university officials claim an appellant is
entitled to only half pay since he wasn't teaching during the years of his
illegal dismissal? Or that he should be denied annual increments for those
years? On what moral basis would officials delay a formal apology and
compensation or expect an appellant to fight for benefits he won?
Yet no official at National Cheng Kung University has yet been punished
for flagrant violations of laws and for human rights abuses a fourth grade
student would recognize. Certainly delaying the enforcement of a Ministry
ruling would be called obstruction of justice in my country. Using official
authority to slander and libel a professor is a serious offense, subject to
criminal penalties in many countries. Using one's office to "investigate" a
professor on accusations already rejected in an appeal ruling is abuse of
office, regardless what it's called in Taiwan.
If Taiwan pursues international membership it must, as Confucius said,
"rectify the names" and call things by the proper words, which common
citizens recognize. Using committees to repeatedly harass a professor with
accusations never proved and already rejected on appeal is wrong, even if a
university calls it "review."
Ironically, I encouraged officials to investigate accusations before my
final dismissal in 1999, but was ignored. After the Ministry ruling in my
favor, the university claimed the right to review and investigate me again.
If accusations repeatedly rejected on review and appeal are always
subject to revival a final appeal is pointless. It's better the Taiwan
government warned foreign teachers about risks teaching in Taiwan.
The Taiwan Association for Human Rights should recognize the dangerous
precedent of conduct that establishes the university as a final judicial
agency. Apart from issues of law and human rights, this also threatens
academic freedom, since teachers lose confidence in remedy outside the
university.
These actions reflect the indifference of superior agencies that,
rather than discipline subordinates for misconduct or incompetence, request
another cycle of hearings. Routinely, university officials oblige by
stubbornly repeating their mistakes.
This punishes the appellant rather than the officials, who benefit from
such dilatory tactics, as my case, now in its fifth year, shows. Ideally, a
petitioner quits the fight and transfers.
Indeed, the secretary-general at our university defiantly told a
Chinese colleague in my presence that if university officials had acted
improperly, the Ministry of Education would have punished them. Yet a few
weeks later, the university finally (if only partly) complied with the
Ministry ruling.
But by treating legal rights violations as administrative errors rather
than criminal acts, the Taiwan government fosters a culture of lawlessness.
Indeed, someone at the Ministry of Education informed a Chinese colleague
and me that, "In our society, teachers are considered above the law."
Yet it's not enough to espouse democratic principles at international
conferences but abide by authoritarian values at home. Taiwan officials
seem indifferent about "face" when accusing their Mainland Chinese
counterparts over the issue of Taiwan's rights. Yet they put face above
democratic principles when protecting their colleagues against a foreigner's
rights.
The SARS scandal at Ho Ping Hospital in Taipei shows the dangerous
consequences when officials put face above the public interest. Prompt
punishment of these officials showed that the Taiwan government is able to
act to defend the public interest.
Unfortunately, libel against a foreign professor is not considered of
public interest. The District Attorney rejected my libel suit against
university officials on hearsay testimony. When a Faculty Union member
later contradicted the hearsay testimony, the D.A. apologized but did not
reopen the case.
Similarly, an accusation by review committee members was not considered
libel because it was based on a signed letter. Yet members of the same
committee signed the letter. The accusation was neither investigated or
proved, I was not informed of it or allowed to defend myself, and it
resulted in my dismissal. Yet the case was dismissed.
Finally, I lost my libel case against a student who wrote a secret
accusatory letter because, according to the judge, it was "reasonable" for a
student to believe she failed unfairly, even though the student complained
eight years later and without basis. Using this case precedent, any student
can accuse a teacher of unfair grading many years before. Why should
foreign faculty risk their careers here?
That student's malicious letter was used at my dismissal hearings. The
letter was solicited. Yet the court ruled that since the student's letter
circulated secretly, against university regulations, committee members could
not have accredited the letter.
Then why was it solicited and circulated? Evidence that should have
inculpated the student as well as university officials was used to excuse
them.
Transcripts showed the student concealed high passes in my classes and
low grades in other classes. A letter proved I offered to locate this
student's exam as late as 1994 (the class was in 1988).
But without adversarial cross-examination, all testimony is equally
accredited. Judicial inquiry is complaisant and avuncular, pleasing both
sides with a show of judicial equality. But how does that benefit the
victim?
Presumably this shows a foreigner has a right to judicial action in
Taiwan. But if a student can write a secret spiteful letter accusing a
professor of an unfair grade eight years before, on no basis than her claim;
and it is shown the letter was solicited by university officials and
secretly circulated at dismissal hearings, resulting in dismissal; and if
the student's claims are further discredited when a letter shows the
professor offered to locate her exam as late as 1994 and the student ignored
the letter; and if the student claims to "forget" she took other courses
from this teacher in which she received high passes the same year she claims
she unfairly failed; if, after months of litigation, with months between
sessions, a litigant cannot prove libel and thus restore his honor, then I
suggest that foreigners be advised of risks teaching in Taiwan.
True, many people in Taiwan are kind. But they naively succumb to
pressure from powerful colleagues. Two of my former students admitted their
defamatory letters against me were solicited and unmerited and they
regretted writing them.
They wrote formal retractions.
Older Taiwan academics are less reluctant to admit abuses at our
university. Few probably consider them abuses, since anything done in the
name of relationships is a virtue.
One dean responded incredulously when told the president was defying
the law by not complying with a Ministry ruling. She protested that could
not be, since the university had a lawyer. As it turned out, a colleague
with no background in law defeated that lawyer in court.
Official naiveté, feigned or real, is not conducive to the advancement
of human rights in Taiwan. It's commonly assumed here that officials act
for the best. But democracy advances on a two-sided politics of suspicion,
expecting the best but suspecting the worst.
The worst is that officials maintain official routines. Thus official
complaints have been useless, only increasing the registered documents I
have to pick up at post offices all over Tainan.
Taiwan's newspapers publish numerous letters applauding Taiwan's
democracy and affirming human rights, including the right to
self-determination. But they seem curiously indifferent to human rights
abuses at one of their own universities.
Yet a conflict of interest at a Hong Kong university a few years ago
captivated the Hong Kong media, while campus activists protested. That's
commonplace in a robust democracy.
So far, contacts with human rights organizations have been futile. One
human rights activist told me no one was interested in human rights. Yet
when students at National Cheng Kung University were cited for downloading
MP3 files, Taipei lawyers promptly volunteered pro bono assistance. I've
been hoping for pro bono representation for more than four years, to no
avail. Yet the students, whatever sympathy I feel for them, did not have
the law on their side. I do.
This case is now in its fifth year. It has affected my medical care,
my income, and my academic career. I’ve been harassed by countless illegal
university hearings intended to humiliate me and force my resignation from
the university. Professional colleagues, among the privileged few with
regard for human rights at our university, have dedicated countless hours to
effect justice while other faculty seem indifferent.
Thus despite warnings from the Faculty Union, the Ministry of
Education, the Taiwan courts, and an international human rights
organization, university officials, with tactical naiveté, continue to defy
the law, at no cost to themselves. Instead they have cost taxpayers
millions of dollars and recklessly brought National Cheng Kung University,
the Ministry of Education, and the Taiwan government to the brink of
scandal. Abiding by neither moral principles nor a sense of shame,
university officials will not acknowledge the authority of the law until
they stand in judgment before it.
You wonder what's going on at National Cheng Kung University when it's
obvious: It’s a culture of subservience, where relationships are put above
laws; and where a pattern of unpunished human rights abuses going back many
years reflects a public tolerance of these abuses.
I believe abuses at National Cheng Kung University should concern
anyone dedicated to human rights in Taiwan. Therefore I urge your
commitment to this case, until there is complete closure, compensation, and
penalties where appropriate. The university should admit wrongdoing and
promise to educate faculty on human rights principles. You will not only be
aiding an American citizen, returning the favor received from civil
activists in America; you'll also be advancing the cause of human rights in
Taiwan.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
Subject: Letters to TAHRTo: TAHR@yahoo.com
Taiwan Association for Human Rights
Hsin-sheng S. Road, Section 3
Lane 25, No. 3, 9th Floor
Taipei, TAIWAN
Telephone:886-2-23639787
Facsimile:886-2-23636102
E-mail:tahr@seed.net.tw
cc: Scholars at Risk
University of Chicago
9 August 2003
Dear Ms. Wu,
Since you spoke to me about understanding human rights violations at
National Cheng Kung University, I thought that, apart from previously
emailed and faxed documents, I'd summarize the human rights principles on
which I am requesting your intervention:
First, a foreign professor has the same rights as native Taiwan
citizens, including the right to due process of law and appeal. These
protections should be enforced according to Taiwan's laws and international
principles: A final appeal is final. Issues rejected on appeal cannot be
revived. Remedy includes complete compensation and formal apology.
Regarding general principles of law, a university official must
promptly comply with a legal ruling. No official has the right to
"interpret" a ruling. Only the judiciary has the right to interpret laws,
within constitutional limits.
If a government official does not understand a ruling or how to execute
it, he should resign his office or be subject to administrative and criminal
penalties. No official can claim not to understand what a final appeal
ruling means! It means compliance.
No official has a right to impede or obstruct or otherwise delay prompt
execution of rulings. An official involved in such misconduct should be
promptly dismissed, subject to further penalties or censure.
Yet the university president defied a Ministry ruling for more than two
years. Not only wasn't he punished, but he was recently re-elected to a
second term. At a public forum, he deplored a lack of university funding.
Yet he allowed the university to contest a legal Ministry ruling for more
than two years, costing millions of dollars.
I was told the president would not over-rule a committee decision.
This is commendable policy, unless a committee violates the law. Public
officials are obligated to over-rule committees that transparently violate
laws. No committee can defy a Ministry ruling.
The practical consequences of this injures appellants, which invites
further abuses. Since no one is held accountable for errant committee
rulings, committee rulings can be used punitively, to punish an appellant.
Regardless if the decision is overturned, most appellants could not
realistically commit themselves to administrative remedy, undermining the
purpose of final appeal, which is to limit harassment of appellants.
Officials must execute legal rulings in a transparent manner, according
to the face value of the ruling or law; what "the common citizen would
understand or do." A "final appeal" is universally considered final.
That's why it's called a "final" appeal.
This would be obvious to a fourth grade student. Yet our university
committees concluded that a final appeal subjects faculty, at least if he's
American, to further "review."
Then a final appeal is not final: It is, in other words, a square vase,
as Confucius put it. Indeed, an appeal is pointless. It's better being
dismissed sooner than later. Like the turtle in the Chinese fable who
protests, "If you want to eat me, say so in the first place. Why do it in a
roundabout way?"
Democratic law does not discriminate. As a representative from
Taiwan's Administrative Court protested four years ago: "Taiwan is a
democracy. One law applies to everyone." But university officials needed
more than four years to figure this out, at taxpayers' expense.
Part of the problem is the special status committees have at our
university. This is partly based on a culture of subservience
("relationships") and partly on a general passivity or indifference among
faculty members.
Yet democracy is a government of laws, not committees. Committee
members should uphold the law, not replace it.
But law is either misunderstood or scorned at National Cheng Kung
University. Because of a culture of subservience, an official soon convinces
a committee to accept a baseless accusation or a law is “interpreted” to
suit committee aims. It takes years contesting abuses only to have
committees punitively repeat them. Meanwhile, committee members stonewall
inside their bureaucratic caves, each official referring to another in a
chain of irresponsibility. In this way, no one is responsible instead of
everyone.
Because of the special status that committees and officials have in a
culture of subservience, the appellant is presumed guilty rather than
innocent. Committees routinely ratify ("rubber-stamp") decisions rather
than deliberate them, favoring colleagues over an outsider. But democratic
principle favors a petitioner to balance the power of the many.
In view of an appellant’s limited resources, the principle of final
appeals limits harassment of an appellant and discourages reckless
accusations. The fact that the Ministry of Education Appeal Committee
bold-faced countless legal rights violations shows that our committee
members are either grievously under-educated about, or actually scornful
towards, legal principles. One official even told me he didn't care about
the law!
Yet why should officials care about the law if the law does not care to
censure their misconduct? Defiant, they hide in their bureaucratic caves
until a petitioner gets tired of the chase.
The results are plain in the history of my dismissal case. The
chairman of my department used secret accusations to dismiss me. The Dean
of the College of Liberal Arts, who could have promptly terminated the
injustice, instead accepted a secret student letter merely on the student's
claim. I suppose if I claim I'm Santa Claus he'd believe that too. Three
times I asked the chair of the university review committee about the
contents of that secret letter and he silently stared at me. But after
winning a university appeal, I was told nonetheless, as a foreigner, I would
have to be reviewed again.
After the Ministry ruling, I requested discipline of the student who
wrote the letter. The Dean and Vice Dean of Student Affairs gave me the
run-around for more than two years, like the turtle in the Chinese fable. I
heard every improbable excuse why no action could be taken. Rights are
ignored to injure a professor but invoked to prevent remedy:
“The student was not a student when she wrote her letter.” “She
insisted what she wrote was true.” “The case is pending in the courts.”
“The court ruling prevents further action.” “The student doesn’t want to
come.” “Her mother doesn’t want her to come.” “God will punish her.”
After countless summary faxes and emails, periodically, and with comic
dignity, I was asked to write yet another summary of my complaint. Or I was
told the vice-dean or dean was "collecting evidence."
Although I read of such a bureaucratic maze, in Franz Kafka's The
Trial, I never thought I’d live it myself. Recently I learned the vice-dean
resigned over a sex scandal. If based in fact, I wasted two years appealing
to moral principles he was violating.
Yet democracy is a government of laws as well as moral principles. We
call those principles "human rights."
So apart from laws, what dean has the right to prevent a supervised
meeting between a student and a professor for disciplinary reasons?
Obviously university officials are protecting themselves as well as the
student, since they solicited the student's letter in the first place.
On what moral principle can university officials claim an appellant is
entitled to only half pay since he wasn't teaching during the years of his
illegal dismissal? Or that he should be denied annual increments for those
years? On what moral basis would officials delay a formal apology and
compensation or expect an appellant to fight for benefits he won?
Yet no official at National Cheng Kung University has yet been punished
for flagrant violations of laws and for human rights abuses a fourth grade
student would recognize. Certainly delaying the enforcement of a Ministry
ruling would be called obstruction of justice in my country. Using official
authority to slander and libel a professor is a serious offense, subject to
criminal penalties in many countries. Using one's office to "investigate" a
professor on accusations already rejected in an appeal ruling is abuse of
office, regardless what it's called in Taiwan.
If Taiwan pursues international membership it must, as Confucius said,
"rectify the names" and call things by the proper words, which common
citizens recognize. Using committees to repeatedly harass a professor with
accusations never proved and already rejected on appeal is wrong, even if a
university calls it "review."
Ironically, I encouraged officials to investigate accusations before my
final dismissal in 1999, but was ignored. After the Ministry ruling in my
favor, the university claimed the right to review and investigate me again.
If accusations repeatedly rejected on review and appeal are always
subject to revival a final appeal is pointless. It's better the Taiwan
government warned foreign teachers about risks teaching in Taiwan.
The Taiwan Association for Human Rights should recognize the dangerous
precedent of conduct that establishes the university as a final judicial
agency. Apart from issues of law and human rights, this also threatens
academic freedom, since teachers lose confidence in remedy outside the
university.
These actions reflect the indifference of superior agencies that,
rather than discipline subordinates for misconduct or incompetence, request
another cycle of hearings. Routinely, university officials oblige by
stubbornly repeating their mistakes.
This punishes the appellant rather than the officials, who benefit from
such dilatory tactics, as my case, now in its fifth year, shows. Ideally, a
petitioner quits the fight and transfers.
Indeed, the secretary-general at our university defiantly told a
Chinese colleague in my presence that if university officials had acted
improperly, the Ministry of Education would have punished them. Yet a few
weeks later, the university finally (if only partly) complied with the
Ministry ruling.
But by treating legal rights violations as administrative errors rather
than criminal acts, the Taiwan government fosters a culture of lawlessness.
Indeed, someone at the Ministry of Education informed a Chinese colleague
and me that, "In our society, teachers are considered above the law."
Yet it's not enough to espouse democratic principles at international
conferences but abide by authoritarian values at home. Taiwan officials
seem indifferent about "face" when accusing their Mainland Chinese
counterparts over the issue of Taiwan's rights. Yet they put face above
democratic principles when protecting their colleagues against a foreigner's
rights.
The SARS scandal at Ho Ping Hospital in Taipei shows the dangerous
consequences when officials put face above the public interest. Prompt
punishment of these officials showed that the Taiwan government is able to
act to defend the public interest.
Unfortunately, libel against a foreign professor is not considered of
public interest. The District Attorney rejected my libel suit against
university officials on hearsay testimony. When a Faculty Union member
later contradicted the hearsay testimony, the D.A. apologized but did not
reopen the case.
Similarly, an accusation by review committee members was not considered
libel because it was based on a signed letter. Yet members of the same
committee signed the letter. The accusation was neither investigated or
proved, I was not informed of it or allowed to defend myself, and it
resulted in my dismissal. Yet the case was dismissed.
Finally, I lost my libel case against a student who wrote a secret
accusatory letter because, according to the judge, it was "reasonable" for a
student to believe she failed unfairly, even though the student complained
eight years later and without basis. Using this case precedent, any student
can accuse a teacher of unfair grading many years before. Why should
foreign faculty risk their careers here?
That student's malicious letter was used at my dismissal hearings. The
letter was solicited. Yet the court ruled that since the student's letter
circulated secretly, against university regulations, committee members could
not have accredited the letter.
Then why was it solicited and circulated? Evidence that should have
inculpated the student as well as university officials was used to excuse
them.
Transcripts showed the student concealed high passes in my classes and
low grades in other classes. A letter proved I offered to locate this
student's exam as late as 1994 (the class was in 1988).
But without adversarial cross-examination, all testimony is equally
accredited. Judicial inquiry is complaisant and avuncular, pleasing both
sides with a show of judicial equality. But how does that benefit the
victim?
Presumably this shows a foreigner has a right to judicial action in
Taiwan. But if a student can write a secret spiteful letter accusing a
professor of an unfair grade eight years before, on no basis than her claim;
and it is shown the letter was solicited by university officials and
secretly circulated at dismissal hearings, resulting in dismissal; and if
the student's claims are further discredited when a letter shows the
professor offered to locate her exam as late as 1994 and the student ignored
the letter; and if the student claims to "forget" she took other courses
from this teacher in which she received high passes the same year she claims
she unfairly failed; if, after months of litigation, with months between
sessions, a litigant cannot prove libel and thus restore his honor, then I
suggest that foreigners be advised of risks teaching in Taiwan.
True, many people in Taiwan are kind. But they naively succumb to
pressure from powerful colleagues. Two of my former students admitted their
defamatory letters against me were solicited and unmerited and they
regretted writing them.
They wrote formal retractions.
Older Taiwan academics are less reluctant to admit abuses at our
university. Few probably consider them abuses, since anything done in the
name of relationships is a virtue.
One dean responded incredulously when told the president was defying
the law by not complying with a Ministry ruling. She protested that could
not be, since the university had a lawyer. As it turned out, a colleague
with no background in law defeated that lawyer in court.
Official naiveté, feigned or real, is not conducive to the advancement
of human rights in Taiwan. It's commonly assumed here that officials act
for the best. But democracy advances on a two-sided politics of suspicion,
expecting the best but suspecting the worst.
The worst is that officials maintain official routines. Thus official
complaints have been useless, only increasing the registered documents I
have to pick up at post offices all over Tainan.
Taiwan's newspapers publish numerous letters applauding Taiwan's
democracy and affirming human rights, including the right to
self-determination. But they seem curiously indifferent to human rights
abuses at one of their own universities.
Yet a conflict of interest at a Hong Kong university a few years ago
captivated the Hong Kong media, while campus activists protested. That's
commonplace in a robust democracy.
So far, contacts with human rights organizations have been futile. One
human rights activist told me no one was interested in human rights. Yet
when students at National Cheng Kung University were cited for downloading
MP3 files, Taipei lawyers promptly volunteered pro bono assistance. I've
been hoping for pro bono representation for more than four years, to no
avail. Yet the students, whatever sympathy I feel for them, did not have
the law on their side. I do.
This case is now in its fifth year. It has affected my medical care,
my income, and my academic career. I’ve been harassed by countless illegal
university hearings intended to humiliate me and force my resignation from
the university. Professional colleagues, among the privileged few with
regard for human rights at our university, have dedicated countless hours to
effect justice while other faculty seem indifferent.
Thus despite warnings from the Faculty Union, the Ministry of
Education, the Taiwan courts, and an international human rights
organization, university officials, with tactical naiveté, continue to defy
the law, at no cost to themselves. Instead they have cost taxpayers
millions of dollars and recklessly brought National Cheng Kung University,
the Ministry of Education, and the Taiwan government to the brink of
scandal. Abiding by neither moral principles nor a sense of shame,
university officials will not acknowledge the authority of the law until
they stand in judgment before it.
You wonder what's going on at National Cheng Kung University when it's
obvious: It’s a culture of subservience, where relationships are put above
laws; and where a pattern of unpunished human rights abuses going back many
years reflects a public tolerance of these abuses.
I believe abuses at National Cheng Kung University should concern
anyone dedicated to human rights in Taiwan. Therefore I urge your
commitment to this case, until there is complete closure, compensation, and
penalties where appropriate. The university should admit wrongdoing and
promise to educate faculty on human rights principles. You will not only be
aiding an American citizen, returning the favor received from civil
activists in America; you'll also be advancing the cause of human rights in
Taiwan.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Letter to Taiwan Association for Human Rights
From:
8/16/2003 11:35 AM
Subject: Concerning Human Rights Abuses at National Cheng Kung
UniversityTo: tahr@seed.net.tw
CC: rquinn@midway.uchicago.edu
BCC: Ray Dah-tong,
Paul
Taiwan Association for Human Rights
Hsin-sheng S. Road, Section 3
Lane 25, No. 3, 9th Floor
Taipei, TAIWAN
Telephone:886-2-23639787
Facsimile:886-2-23636102
E-mail:tahr@seed.net.tw
cc: Scholars at Risk
University of Chicago
16 August 2003
Dear Ms. Wu,
I appreciate the involvement of TAHR in the case of human rights abuses
at National Cheng Kung University, in Tainan. From what I understand, a
lawmaker, upon request, contacted the Ministry of Education and was
advised issues were in administrative process.
However, this case should not be reduced to an administrative
matter. Rather it involves a history of abuses, as well as basic
problems in administrative remedy at all institutional levels.
An appeal that drags on for years (in my case, more than four)
undermines the purpose of administrative remedy. A process without
conclusion or punishment of officials is no remedy, but delays remedy.
These are causes for concern and reflect a wider problem.
Abuses have become routine at our university. Several professors
have resigned, frustrated by administrative remedy.
University regulations, presumably protecting faculty, are vague
and easily ignored by officials indifferent to democratic principles.
Advised the university president was defying the law, one dean expressed
disbelief. After all, she said, the university had a lawyer.
Perhaps such naivete is feigned. Even uneducated people know that
lawyers represent a client, not the law, while democracy is rule by law,
not lawyers.
But the fact that a Ministry of Education committee boldfaced
countless violations in its ruling of 8 January 2001 shows our officials
are undereducated about human rights. This lack of education should
concern human rights groups.
Indeed, our officials routinely adopt democratic forms while basing
decisions on relationships. Vague regulations make this easy, such as
(translated): “The chairman may see the need to invite an accused
professor for the purpose of defense,” making that rule open to
arbitrary application, allowing or barring a professor’s defense.
Rights, such as the right to appeal, turn out, in reality, to be no
rights at all. Rules insuring due process seem good on paper. But
these regulations are easily ignored.
Laws are differently used or interpreted, as happened in my case.
A committee is considered legal so long as the right number of committee
members is present, regardless of the number of rights violated.
Principles of right and wrong are replaced by rules of right and wrong
procedures.
Committee members are not even certain of what they voted for until
a committee chairman writes it. In my case, committee members thought
they had voted to cancel my dismissal, according to law, and were
surprised to read a decision that referred my case for further “review.”
So law at our university is in the hands of a few officials who
advance their designs against the public interest. Is there a
difference between Mainland Chinese officials writing selective laws to
punish the Falun Gong and a few officials using laws arbitrarily to
punish some and reward others? Is there a difference between unjust
laws and interpreting just laws for unjust goals?
As everyone knows by now, the university “interpreted” a Final
Ministry Appeal to mean the appellant, an American, should be reviewed
again. Indeed, not merely again, but again and again, endlessly
reviving accusations rejected on appeal. This is the form of democracy
without its substance and a travesty of its purpose.
Human rights officials should not be deceived by a process that
took so long and continues, with revivals of accusations rejected in the
Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001, forcing another appeal. How long
will this mockery of law be tolerated before someone voices public
concern?
The purpose of administrative appeal is to allow for a time-limited
remedy, preventing a stronger party from harassing the weaker. This
discourages misconduct while encouraging appeal. Principles of human
rights, including final appeal, insure that justice, not power,
prevails.
The alternative is what happened in my case, even worse when a
foreign professor has visa concerns. Except for a few enlightened
colleagues who dedicated themselves to justice, and the sacrifice I
myself made, I could not have outlasted the delay tactics of university
officials who violated laws with impunity.
Their violations were not technical errors but human rights
abuses. Officials should not solicit secret letters, suborn students to
write them, or collude to secretly circulate them. These abuses are
documented, including letters from former students retracting suborned
accusations.
In addition, when the president of a university ignores a Ministry
ruling for more than two years, I call that obstruction of justice,
regardless what it’s called in Taiwan. A president of the United States
was forced to resign for obstruction of justice, while the president of
our university was re-elected.
These abuses are typical, not isolated examples. It's commonly
hoped officials act for the best. But democracy advances by suspecting
the worst.
However, based on a culture of subservience ("relationships"),
committee members presume the best. The assumption seems to be that
whatever an official did was right or he would not have done it.
Thus committees routinely ratify ("rubber-stamp") decisions rather
than deliberate them. Since nobody is held accountable, misconduct is
commonplace.
In a culture of face, a petitioner is considered outside the
system instead of part of it. He is wrong rather than trying to right
wrongs.
Review becomes revenge. Officials convince committees to accept
baseless accusations. Or laws are “interpreted” to suit committee
aims. Other officials then “close ranks” in support.
Committees protect each other instead of the law. Yet democracy is
a government of laws, not committees. Committee members should uphold
the law, not replace it.
Reversals on technical grounds delay remedy. Afterwards,
committees spitefully repeat the same accusations or invent new ones,
saving face while the appellant loses time and finally gives up.
Meanwhile, officials stonewall by passing responsibility to
others. The assumption is no one is responsible.
But in a democracy, everyone is responsible, from the top down, or
there are laws, but no Law. A human rights group should be concerned
about this, since human rights issues cannot be separated from human
welfare, as the cover-up at Ho Ping hospital showed.
When a dean ignores a request for a supervised meeting with a
student who wrote a secret accusatory letter, human rights are at stake
but also the common welfare. Professors have a right to request a
supervised meeting with a student, or why have an Office of Student
Affairs? How can there be academic standards if no officials enforce
them? And if there are no academic standards, the future of Taiwan
education is dim.
Court decisions, reviewed in a previous email, should be of related
concern. A district attorney should not be allowed to dismiss a
complaint on hearsay testimony. Nor should he excuse review members of
libel because their accusation was based on a letter they themselves
signed. And if a court concludes it is reasonable for a student to
complain of a grade received eight years before, this undermines
confidence in judicial remedy in Taiwan and discourages international
association.
I think human rights groups should be concerned about these issues,
affecting education as well as the general welfare. No faculty member
aware of my case, as most are, will defend academic standards against
peer pressure knowing administrative remedy is futile. But if
education is compromised, so is the future of Taiwan.
Finally, a human rights group should be concerned that faculty,
instead of advancing human rights, are indifferent to, or in violation
of, them. In view of these issues, it seems to me concern should be
publicly voiced to encourage development of human rights here.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
8/16/2003 11:35 AM
Subject: Concerning Human Rights Abuses at National Cheng Kung
UniversityTo: tahr@seed.net.tw
CC: rquinn@midway.uchicago.edu
BCC: Ray Dah-tong
Paul
Taiwan Association for Human Rights
Hsin-sheng S. Road, Section 3
Lane 25, No. 3, 9th Floor
Taipei, TAIWAN
Telephone:886-2-23639787
Facsimile:886-2-23636102
E-mail:tahr@seed.net.tw
cc: Scholars at Risk
University of Chicago
16 August 2003
Dear Ms. Wu,
I appreciate the involvement of TAHR in the case of human rights abuses
at National Cheng Kung University, in Tainan. From what I understand, a
lawmaker, upon request, contacted the Ministry of Education and was
advised issues were in administrative process.
However, this case should not be reduced to an administrative
matter. Rather it involves a history of abuses, as well as basic
problems in administrative remedy at all institutional levels.
An appeal that drags on for years (in my case, more than four)
undermines the purpose of administrative remedy. A process without
conclusion or punishment of officials is no remedy, but delays remedy.
These are causes for concern and reflect a wider problem.
Abuses have become routine at our university. Several professors
have resigned, frustrated by administrative remedy.
University regulations, presumably protecting faculty, are vague
and easily ignored by officials indifferent to democratic principles.
Advised the university president was defying the law, one dean expressed
disbelief. After all, she said, the university had a lawyer.
Perhaps such naivete is feigned. Even uneducated people know that
lawyers represent a client, not the law, while democracy is rule by law,
not lawyers.
But the fact that a Ministry of Education committee boldfaced
countless violations in its ruling of 8 January 2001 shows our officials
are undereducated about human rights. This lack of education should
concern human rights groups.
Indeed, our officials routinely adopt democratic forms while basing
decisions on relationships. Vague regulations make this easy, such as
(translated): “The chairman may see the need to invite an accused
professor for the purpose of defense,” making that rule open to
arbitrary application, allowing or barring a professor’s defense.
Rights, such as the right to appeal, turn out, in reality, to be no
rights at all. Rules insuring due process seem good on paper. But
these regulations are easily ignored.
Laws are differently used or interpreted, as happened in my case.
A committee is considered legal so long as the right number of committee
members is present, regardless of the number of rights violated.
Principles of right and wrong are replaced by rules of right and wrong
procedures.
Committee members are not even certain of what they voted for until
a committee chairman writes it. In my case, committee members thought
they had voted to cancel my dismissal, according to law, and were
surprised to read a decision that referred my case for further “review.”
So law at our university is in the hands of a few officials who
advance their designs against the public interest. Is there a
difference between Mainland Chinese officials writing selective laws to
punish the Falun Gong and a few officials using laws arbitrarily to
punish some and reward others? Is there a difference between unjust
laws and interpreting just laws for unjust goals?
As everyone knows by now, the university “interpreted” a Final
Ministry Appeal to mean the appellant, an American, should be reviewed
again. Indeed, not merely again, but again and again, endlessly
reviving accusations rejected on appeal. This is the form of democracy
without its substance and a travesty of its purpose.
Human rights officials should not be deceived by a process that
took so long and continues, with revivals of accusations rejected in the
Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001, forcing another appeal. How long
will this mockery of law be tolerated before someone voices public
concern?
The purpose of administrative appeal is to allow for a time-limited
remedy, preventing a stronger party from harassing the weaker. This
discourages misconduct while encouraging appeal. Principles of human
rights, including final appeal, insure that justice, not power,
prevails.
The alternative is what happened in my case, even worse when a
foreign professor has visa concerns. Except for a few enlightened
colleagues who dedicated themselves to justice, and the sacrifice I
myself made, I could not have outlasted the delay tactics of university
officials who violated laws with impunity.
Their violations were not technical errors but human rights
abuses. Officials should not solicit secret letters, suborn students to
write them, or collude to secretly circulate them. These abuses are
documented, including letters from former students retracting suborned
accusations.
In addition, when the president of a university ignores a Ministry
ruling for more than two years, I call that obstruction of justice,
regardless what it’s called in Taiwan. A president of the United States
was forced to resign for obstruction of justice, while the president of
our university was re-elected.
These abuses are typical, not isolated examples. It's commonly
hoped officials act for the best. But democracy advances by suspecting
the worst.
However, based on a culture of subservience ("relationships"),
committee members presume the best. The assumption seems to be that
whatever an official did was right or he would not have done it.
Thus committees routinely ratify ("rubber-stamp") decisions rather
than deliberate them. Since nobody is held accountable, misconduct is
commonplace.
In a culture of face, a petitioner is considered outside the
system instead of part of it. He is wrong rather than trying to right
wrongs.
Review becomes revenge. Officials convince committees to accept
baseless accusations. Or laws are “interpreted” to suit committee
aims. Other officials then “close ranks” in support.
Committees protect each other instead of the law. Yet democracy is
a government of laws, not committees. Committee members should uphold
the law, not replace it.
Reversals on technical grounds delay remedy. Afterwards,
committees spitefully repeat the same accusations or invent new ones,
saving face while the appellant loses time and finally gives up.
Meanwhile, officials stonewall by passing responsibility to
others. The assumption is no one is responsible.
But in a democracy, everyone is responsible, from the top down, or
there are laws, but no Law. A human rights group should be concerned
about this, since human rights issues cannot be separated from human
welfare, as the cover-up at Ho Ping hospital showed.
When a dean ignores a request for a supervised meeting with a
student who wrote a secret accusatory letter, human rights are at stake
but also the common welfare. Professors have a right to request a
supervised meeting with a student, or why have an Office of Student
Affairs? How can there be academic standards if no officials enforce
them? And if there are no academic standards, the future of Taiwan
education is dim.
Court decisions, reviewed in a previous email, should be of related
concern. A district attorney should not be allowed to dismiss a
complaint on hearsay testimony. Nor should he excuse review members of
libel because their accusation was based on a letter they themselves
signed. And if a court concludes it is reasonable for a student to
complain of a grade received eight years before, this undermines
confidence in judicial remedy in Taiwan and discourages international
association.
I think human rights groups should be concerned about these issues,
affecting education as well as the general welfare. No faculty member
aware of my case, as most are, will defend academic standards against
peer pressure knowing administrative remedy is futile. But if
education is compromised, so is the future of Taiwan.
Finally, a human rights group should be concerned that faculty,
instead of advancing human rights, are indifferent to, or in violation
of, them. In view of these issues, it seems to me concern should be
publicly voiced to encourage development of human rights here.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
Letter to Taiwan Association for Human Rights
From:
8/9/2003 5:22 PM
Subject: Summary of Human Rights Abuses at National Cheng Kung University
(1999 - present)To: tahr@seed.net.tw
CC: rquinn@midway.uchicago.edu
BCC: Ray Dah-tong,
Paul, vertigo
Taiwan Association for Human Rights
Hsin-sheng S. Road, Section 3
Lane 25, No. 3, 9th Floor
Taipei, TAIWAN
Telephone:886-2-23639787
Facsimile:886-2-23636102
E-mail:tahr@seed.net.tw
cc: Scholars at Risk
University of Chicago
9 August 2003
Dear Ms. Wu,
Since you spoke to me about understanding human rights violations at
National Cheng Kung Universtiy, I thought that, apart from previously
emailed and faxed documents, I'd summarize the human rights principles on
which I am requesting your intervention:
First, a foreign professor has the same rights as native Taiwan
citizens, including the right to due process of law and appeal. These
protections should be enforced according to Taiwan's laws and international
principles: A final appeal is final. Issues rejected on appeal cannot be
revived. Remedy includes complete compensation and formal apology.
Regarding general principles of law, a university official must
promptly comply with a legal ruling. No official has the right to
"interpret" a ruling. Only the judiciary has the right to interpret laws,
within constitutional limits.
If a government official does not understand a ruling or how to execute
it, he should resign his office or be subject to adminsitrative and criminal
penalties. Otherwise, I know of no official who claims, as our university
officials do, that he doesn't understand what a final appeal ruling means!
It means compliance.
No official has a right to impede or obstruct or otherwise delay prompt
execution of rulings. An official involved in such misconduct should be
promptly dismissed, subject to further penalties or censure.
Yet the university president defied the Ministry ruling for more than
two years. Not only wasn't he punished, but he was recently re-elected to a
second term. At a public forum, he recently deplored a lack of university
funding. Yet he allowed the university to contest a legal Ministry ruling
for more than two years, costing millions of dollars.
I was told the president would not over-rule a committee decision.
This is commendable policy, unless a committee decision is in violation of
the law. Public officials are obligated to over-rule committee decisions
that transparently violate laws. Clearly no committee can defy a Ministry
ruling.
Officials must respond to legal rulings in a transparent manner,
according to the face-value of the ruling or law; what "the common citizen
would understand or do." All over the world a "final appeal" is considered
final. That's why it's called a "final" appeal.
This would be obvious to a fourth-grade student. Yet our university
committees concluded that a final appeal subjects faculty, at least if he's
American, to further "review."
If so, a final appeal is not final: It is, in other words, a square
vase, as Confucius put it. Indeed, an appeal is pointless, since it's
better being dismissed sooner than later, like the turtle in the Chinese
fable who protests, "If you want to eat me, say so in the first place. Why
do it in a roundabout way?"
Democratic law, in any case, does not discriminate. As a
representative from Taiwan's Administrative Court protested four years ago:
"Taiwan is a democracy. One law applies to everyone." But university
officials needed more than four years to figure this out, at taxpayers'
expense.
Part of the problem is the charismatic status committees have at our
university. This is partly based on a culture of subservience (what are
called "relationships") and partly on a general passivity or indifference
among faculty members.
Yet democracy is a government of laws, not committees. Committee
decisions must be based on laws. Laws justify a committee decision, not the
other way around. Committee members must uphold the law, not replace it.
But law is misunderstood or deliberately scorned at National Cheng Kung
University, where committee members believe what they vote is law. Many
committees seem to ratify ("rubber stamp") lower decisions rather than
deliberate them.
The fact that the Ministry of Education Appeal Committeee bold-faced
countless legal rights violations shows that our committee members are
grievously under-educated about, if not actually scornful towards, legal
principles. One high official even told me he didn't care about the law!
The results are plain in the history of my dismissal case. The
chairman of my department used secret accusations to dismiss me. The Dean
of the College of Liberal Arts accepted a secret student letter merely on
the student's claim. I suppose if I claim I'm Santa Claus he'd believe that
too. Three times I asked the chair of the university review committee about
the contents of that secret letter and he silently stared at me. After
winning a university appeal, I was told that, as a foreigner, I would have
to be reviewed again.
After the Ministry ruling, I requested discipline of the student who
wrote the letter. The Dean and Vice-Dean of Student Affairs gave me the
runaround for more than two years, like the turtle in the Chinese fable. I
heard every improbable excuse why no action could be taken:
The student was not a student when she wrote her letter. She insisted
what she wrote was true. The case was pending in the courts. A court
decision prevented further action. The student didn't want to come. The
student's mother didn't want her to come. God would punish her.
Periodically, and with official dignity, I was asked to write yet
another summary of my complaint. Or I was told that the vice-dean or dean
was "collecting evidence."
When I first read of such a bureaucratic maze, in Franz Kafka's The
Trial, I never thought I would live it myself. Recently I learned the
vice-dean resigned over a sex scandal. If based in fact, then I wasted two
years appealing on moral principles he was violating.
Yet democracy is a government of laws as well as moral principles. We
call those principles "human rights."
Apart from laws, what dean has the right to prevent a supervised
meeting between a student and a professor for disciplinary reasons?
Obviously university officials are protecting themselves as well as the
student, since they accepted the student's letter in the first place.
On what moral principle can university officials claim an appellant was
entitled to only half-pay since he wasn't teaching during the years of his
illegal dismissal? Or that he should be denied annual increments for those
years? On what moral basis would officials delay a formal apology and
compensation or expect an appellant to fight for benefits he won?
Yet no official at National Cheng Kung University has thus far been
punished for flagrant violations of laws and for human rights abuses a
fourth-grade student would recognize. Certainly delaying the enforcement of
a Ministry ruling would be called obstruction of justice in my country.
Using official authority to slander and libel a professor is a serious
offense, subject to criminal penalties in many countries. Using one's
office to "investigate" a professor on accusations already rejected in an
appeal ruling is abuse of office, regardless what it's called in Taiwan.
If Taiwan pursues international membership it must, as Confucius said,
"rectify the names" and call things by the proper words, which common
citizens recognize. Using committees to repeatedly harass a professor with
accusations never proved and already rejected on appeal is wrong, even if at
our university it's called "review."
Ironically, I pleaded to have officials investigate accusations before
my final dismissal in 1999, only to be ignored. After the Ministry ruling
in my favor, the university claimed the right to review and investigate me
again.
If accusations repeatedly rejected on review and appeal are always
subject to revival a final appeal is pointless. It's better the Taiwan
government be up front about this and warn foreign teachers about risks
teaching in Taiwan.
The Taiwan Association for Human Rights should recognize the dangerous
precedence of conduct that establishes the university as a final judicial
agency. Apart from issues of law and human rights, this also threatens
academic freedom, since teachers lose confidence in remedy outside the
university.
These actions reflect the indifference of superior officials who,
instead of dismissing subordinates for misconduct or incompetence, merely
tell them to redo a decision. This punishes the appellant rather than the
officials, who benefit from such dilatory tactics, as my case, now in its
fifth year, shows.
Indeed, the Secretary-General at our university defiantly told a
Chinese colleague in my presence that if university officials had acted
improperly, the Ministry of Education would have punished them. Yet a few
weeks later, the university finally (if only partly) complied with the
Ministry ruling.
Thus responsibility for routine human rights abuses at our university
lies with regulatory agencies that protect or excuse negligent conduct, only
advising it be redone. Routinely, university officials oblige by stubbornly
repeating their mistakes.
But by treating legal rights violations as adminstrative errors rather
than criminal acts, the Taiwan government is fostering a culture of
lawlessness. Indeed, someone at the Ministry of Education informed a
Chinese colleague and me that, "In our society, teachers are considered
above the law."
Yet it's not enough to espouse democratic values but live by
authoritarian values. Taiwan officials seem indifferent about "face" when
accusing their Mainland Chinese counterparts over the issue of Taiwan's
rights. Yet they put face above democratic principles when protecting their
colleagues against a foreigner's rights.
The SARS scandal at Ho Ping Hospital in Taipei shows the dangerous
consequences when officials put face above the public interest. Prompt
punishment of these officials showed that the Taiwan government is able to
act to defend the public interest.
Unfortunately, libel against a foreign professor is not considered of
public interest. My libel suit against university officials was rejected by
the District Attorney partly on hearsay testimony. When a Faculty Union
member later contradicted the hearsay testimony, the D.A. apologized but did
not reopen the case.
Similarly, an accusation by review committee members was not considered
libel because it was based on a signed letter. Yet the letter was signed by
members of the same committee. The accusation was never investigated or
proved, I was not informed of it or allowed to defend myself, and it
resulted in my dismissal. Yet the case was dismissed.
Finally, I lost my libel case against a student who wrote a secret
accusatory letter because, according to the judge, it was "reasonable" for a
student to believe she failed unfairly, even though the student complained
eight years later and without basis. Using this case precedent, any student
can accuse a teacher of unfair grading many years before. Why should
foreign faculty risk their careers here?
That student's malicious letter was used at my dismissal hearings. The
letter was solicited. Yet the court ruled that since the student's letter
circulated secretly, against university regulations, the letter could not
have been accredited by committee members.
Then why was it solicited and circulated? Evidence that should have
inculpated the student as well as university officials was used to excuse
them.
Transcripts showed the student concealed high passes she received from
me and low grades she received from other teachers. A letter proved I
offered to locate this student's exam as late as 1994 (the class was in
1988). But without adversarial cross-examination, all testimony is equally
accredited. Judicial inquiry is complaisant and avuncular, pleasing both
sides with a show of judicial forbearance. Yet one side suffered injury
while the other side was not held accountable.
If a student can write a secret spiteful letter accusing a professor of
an unfair grade eight years before, on no other basis than her claim; and it
is shown that the letter was solicited by university officials and secretly
circulated at a professor's dismissal hearings, resulting in his dismissal;
and if the student's claims are further discredited when a letter shows the
professor offered to locate her exam as late as 1994 and the student ignored
the letter; and if the student claims to "forget" she took other courses
from this teacher in which she received high passes the same year she claims
she unfairly failed; if, after months of litigation, with months between
sessions, a litigant cannot prove libel and thus restore his honor, then I
suggest that foreigners be advised of risks teaching in Taiwan.
True, many people in Taiwan are kind. But they naively succumb to
pressure from powerful colleagues. Two of my former students admitted their
defamatory letters against me were solicited and unmerited and they
regretted writing them. They wrote formal retractions.
Older Taiwan academics are less reluctant to admit abuses at our
university. Few probably consider them abuses, since anything done in the
name of relationships is a virtue.
One dean responded incredulously when told the president was defying
the law by not complying with a Ministry ruling. She protested that could
not be, since the university had a lawyer who certainly knew the law. As it
turned out, a colleague, with no background in law, defeated that lawyer in
court.
Such official naiveté, whether feigned or real, is hardly conducive to
the advancement of human rights in Taiwan. Official complaints have
been useless, only increasing the registered documents I have to pick up at
post offices all over Tainan.
Taiwan's newspapers publish numerous letters applauding Taiwan's
democracy and affirming human rights, including the right to
self-determination. But they seem curiously indifferent to human rights
abuses at one of their own universities.
Yet a conflict of interest at a Hong Kong university a few years ago
captivated the Hong Kong media, while campus activists protested. That's to
be expected in a robust democracy.
So far, contacts with human rights organizations have been futile. One
human rights activist told me no-one was interested in human rights. Yet
when students at National Cheng Kung University were cited for downloading
MP3 files, Taipei lawyers promptly volunteered pro bono assistance. I've
been hoping for pro bono representation for more than four years, to no
avail. Yet the students, whatever sympathy I feel for them, did not have
the law on their side. I do.
This case is now in its fifth year. It has affected my medical care,
my income, and my academic career. I’ve been
harassed by countless illegal university hearings intended to humiliate me
and force my resignation from the university. Professional colleagues,
among the privileged few with regard for human rights at our university,
have dedicated countless hours to effect justice while other faculty seem
indifferent.
Thus despite warnings from the Faculty Union, the Ministry of
Education, the Taiwan courts, and an international human rights
organization, university officials, with tactical naivete, continue to defy
the law, at no cost to themselves. Instead they have cost taxpayers
millions of dollars and recklessly brought National Cheng Kung University,
the Ministry of Education, and the Taiwan government to the brink of
scandal. Abiding by neither moral principles nor a sense of shame,
university officials will not acknowledge the authority of the law until
they stand in judgment before it.
You wonder what's going on at National Cheng Kung University when it's
obvious: It's a culture of subservience, where relationships are put above
laws; and where a pattern of unpunished human rights abuses going back many
years reflect a public tolerance of these abuses.
I believe abuses at National Cheng Kung University should concern
anyone dedicated to human rights in Taiwan. Therefore I urge your
commitment to this case, until there is complete closure, compensation, and
penalties where appropriate. The university should admit wrongdoing and
promise to educate faculty on human rights principles. You will not only be
aiding an American citizen, returning the favor received from civil
activists in America; you'll also be advancing the cause of human rights in
Taiwan.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
8/9/2003 5:22 PM
Subject: Summary of Human Rights Abuses at National Cheng Kung University
(1999 - present)To: tahr@seed.net.tw
CC: rquinn@midway.uchicago.edu
BCC: Ray Dah-tong
Paul
Taiwan Association for Human Rights
Hsin-sheng S. Road, Section 3
Lane 25, No. 3, 9th Floor
Taipei, TAIWAN
Telephone:886-2-23639787
Facsimile:886-2-23636102
E-mail:tahr@seed.net.tw
cc: Scholars at Risk
University of Chicago
9 August 2003
Dear Ms. Wu,
Since you spoke to me about understanding human rights violations at
National Cheng Kung Universtiy, I thought that, apart from previously
emailed and faxed documents, I'd summarize the human rights principles on
which I am requesting your intervention:
First, a foreign professor has the same rights as native Taiwan
citizens, including the right to due process of law and appeal. These
protections should be enforced according to Taiwan's laws and international
principles: A final appeal is final. Issues rejected on appeal cannot be
revived. Remedy includes complete compensation and formal apology.
Regarding general principles of law, a university official must
promptly comply with a legal ruling. No official has the right to
"interpret" a ruling. Only the judiciary has the right to interpret laws,
within constitutional limits.
If a government official does not understand a ruling or how to execute
it, he should resign his office or be subject to adminsitrative and criminal
penalties. Otherwise, I know of no official who claims, as our university
officials do, that he doesn't understand what a final appeal ruling means!
It means compliance.
No official has a right to impede or obstruct or otherwise delay prompt
execution of rulings. An official involved in such misconduct should be
promptly dismissed, subject to further penalties or censure.
Yet the university president defied the Ministry ruling for more than
two years. Not only wasn't he punished, but he was recently re-elected to a
second term. At a public forum, he recently deplored a lack of university
funding. Yet he allowed the university to contest a legal Ministry ruling
for more than two years, costing millions of dollars.
I was told the president would not over-rule a committee decision.
This is commendable policy, unless a committee decision is in violation of
the law. Public officials are obligated to over-rule committee decisions
that transparently violate laws. Clearly no committee can defy a Ministry
ruling.
Officials must respond to legal rulings in a transparent manner,
according to the face-value of the ruling or law; what "the common citizen
would understand or do." All over the world a "final appeal" is considered
final. That's why it's called a "final" appeal.
This would be obvious to a fourth-grade student. Yet our university
committees concluded that a final appeal subjects faculty, at least if he's
American, to further "review."
If so, a final appeal is not final: It is, in other words, a square
vase, as Confucius put it. Indeed, an appeal is pointless, since it's
better being dismissed sooner than later, like the turtle in the Chinese
fable who protests, "If you want to eat me, say so in the first place. Why
do it in a roundabout way?"
Democratic law, in any case, does not discriminate. As a
representative from Taiwan's Administrative Court protested four years ago:
"Taiwan is a democracy. One law applies to everyone." But university
officials needed more than four years to figure this out, at taxpayers'
expense.
Part of the problem is the charismatic status committees have at our
university. This is partly based on a culture of subservience (what are
called "relationships") and partly on a general passivity or indifference
among faculty members.
Yet democracy is a government of laws, not committees. Committee
decisions must be based on laws. Laws justify a committee decision, not the
other way around. Committee members must uphold the law, not replace it.
But law is misunderstood or deliberately scorned at National Cheng Kung
University, where committee members believe what they vote is law. Many
committees seem to ratify ("rubber stamp") lower decisions rather than
deliberate them.
The fact that the Ministry of Education Appeal Committeee bold-faced
countless legal rights violations shows that our committee members are
grievously under-educated about, if not actually scornful towards, legal
principles. One high official even told me he didn't care about the law!
The results are plain in the history of my dismissal case. The
chairman of my department used secret accusations to dismiss me. The Dean
of the College of Liberal Arts accepted a secret student letter merely on
the student's claim. I suppose if I claim I'm Santa Claus he'd believe that
too. Three times I asked the chair of the university review committee about
the contents of that secret letter and he silently stared at me. After
winning a university appeal, I was told that, as a foreigner, I would have
to be reviewed again.
After the Ministry ruling, I requested discipline of the student who
wrote the letter. The Dean and Vice-Dean of Student Affairs gave me the
runaround for more than two years, like the turtle in the Chinese fable. I
heard every improbable excuse why no action could be taken:
The student was not a student when she wrote her letter. She insisted
what she wrote was true. The case was pending in the courts. A court
decision prevented further action. The student didn't want to come. The
student's mother didn't want her to come. God would punish her.
Periodically, and with official dignity, I was asked to write yet
another summary of my complaint. Or I was told that the vice-dean or dean
was "collecting evidence."
When I first read of such a bureaucratic maze, in Franz Kafka's The
Trial, I never thought I would live it myself. Recently I learned the
vice-dean resigned over a sex scandal. If based in fact, then I wasted two
years appealing on moral principles he was violating.
Yet democracy is a government of laws as well as moral principles. We
call those principles "human rights."
Apart from laws, what dean has the right to prevent a supervised
meeting between a student and a professor for disciplinary reasons?
Obviously university officials are protecting themselves as well as the
student, since they accepted the student's letter in the first place.
On what moral principle can university officials claim an appellant was
entitled to only half-pay since he wasn't teaching during the years of his
illegal dismissal? Or that he should be denied annual increments for those
years? On what moral basis would officials delay a formal apology and
compensation or expect an appellant to fight for benefits he won?
Yet no official at National Cheng Kung University has thus far been
punished for flagrant violations of laws and for human rights abuses a
fourth-grade student would recognize. Certainly delaying the enforcement of
a Ministry ruling would be called obstruction of justice in my country.
Using official authority to slander and libel a professor is a serious
offense, subject to criminal penalties in many countries. Using one's
office to "investigate" a professor on accusations already rejected in an
appeal ruling is abuse of office, regardless what it's called in Taiwan.
If Taiwan pursues international membership it must, as Confucius said,
"rectify the names" and call things by the proper words, which common
citizens recognize. Using committees to repeatedly harass a professor with
accusations never proved and already rejected on appeal is wrong, even if at
our university it's called "review."
Ironically, I pleaded to have officials investigate accusations before
my final dismissal in 1999, only to be ignored. After the Ministry ruling
in my favor, the university claimed the right to review and investigate me
again.
If accusations repeatedly rejected on review and appeal are always
subject to revival a final appeal is pointless. It's better the Taiwan
government be up front about this and warn foreign teachers about risks
teaching in Taiwan.
The Taiwan Association for Human Rights should recognize the dangerous
precedence of conduct that establishes the university as a final judicial
agency. Apart from issues of law and human rights, this also threatens
academic freedom, since teachers lose confidence in remedy outside the
university.
These actions reflect the indifference of superior officials who,
instead of dismissing subordinates for misconduct or incompetence, merely
tell them to redo a decision. This punishes the appellant rather than the
officials, who benefit from such dilatory tactics, as my case, now in its
fifth year, shows.
Indeed, the Secretary-General at our university defiantly told a
Chinese colleague in my presence that if university officials had acted
improperly, the Ministry of Education would have punished them. Yet a few
weeks later, the university finally (if only partly) complied with the
Ministry ruling.
Thus responsibility for routine human rights abuses at our university
lies with regulatory agencies that protect or excuse negligent conduct, only
advising it be redone. Routinely, university officials oblige by stubbornly
repeating their mistakes.
But by treating legal rights violations as adminstrative errors rather
than criminal acts, the Taiwan government is fostering a culture of
lawlessness. Indeed, someone at the Ministry of Education informed a
Chinese colleague and me that, "In our society, teachers are considered
above the law."
Yet it's not enough to espouse democratic values but live by
authoritarian values. Taiwan officials seem indifferent about "face" when
accusing their Mainland Chinese counterparts over the issue of Taiwan's
rights. Yet they put face above democratic principles when protecting their
colleagues against a foreigner's rights.
The SARS scandal at Ho Ping Hospital in Taipei shows the dangerous
consequences when officials put face above the public interest. Prompt
punishment of these officials showed that the Taiwan government is able to
act to defend the public interest.
Unfortunately, libel against a foreign professor is not considered of
public interest. My libel suit against university officials was rejected by
the District Attorney partly on hearsay testimony. When a Faculty Union
member later contradicted the hearsay testimony, the D.A. apologized but did
not reopen the case.
Similarly, an accusation by review committee members was not considered
libel because it was based on a signed letter. Yet the letter was signed by
members of the same committee. The accusation was never investigated or
proved, I was not informed of it or allowed to defend myself, and it
resulted in my dismissal. Yet the case was dismissed.
Finally, I lost my libel case against a student who wrote a secret
accusatory letter because, according to the judge, it was "reasonable" for a
student to believe she failed unfairly, even though the student complained
eight years later and without basis. Using this case precedent, any student
can accuse a teacher of unfair grading many years before. Why should
foreign faculty risk their careers here?
That student's malicious letter was used at my dismissal hearings. The
letter was solicited. Yet the court ruled that since the student's letter
circulated secretly, against university regulations, the letter could not
have been accredited by committee members.
Then why was it solicited and circulated? Evidence that should have
inculpated the student as well as university officials was used to excuse
them.
Transcripts showed the student concealed high passes she received from
me and low grades she received from other teachers. A letter proved I
offered to locate this student's exam as late as 1994 (the class was in
1988). But without adversarial cross-examination, all testimony is equally
accredited. Judicial inquiry is complaisant and avuncular, pleasing both
sides with a show of judicial forbearance. Yet one side suffered injury
while the other side was not held accountable.
If a student can write a secret spiteful letter accusing a professor of
an unfair grade eight years before, on no other basis than her claim; and it
is shown that the letter was solicited by university officials and secretly
circulated at a professor's dismissal hearings, resulting in his dismissal;
and if the student's claims are further discredited when a letter shows the
professor offered to locate her exam as late as 1994 and the student ignored
the letter; and if the student claims to "forget" she took other courses
from this teacher in which she received high passes the same year she claims
she unfairly failed; if, after months of litigation, with months between
sessions, a litigant cannot prove libel and thus restore his honor, then I
suggest that foreigners be advised of risks teaching in Taiwan.
True, many people in Taiwan are kind. But they naively succumb to
pressure from powerful colleagues. Two of my former students admitted their
defamatory letters against me were solicited and unmerited and they
regretted writing them. They wrote formal retractions.
Older Taiwan academics are less reluctant to admit abuses at our
university. Few probably consider them abuses, since anything done in the
name of relationships is a virtue.
One dean responded incredulously when told the president was defying
the law by not complying with a Ministry ruling. She protested that could
not be, since the university had a lawyer who certainly knew the law. As it
turned out, a colleague, with no background in law, defeated that lawyer in
court.
Such official naiveté, whether feigned or real, is hardly conducive to
the advancement of human rights in Taiwan. Official complaints have
been useless, only increasing the registered documents I have to pick up at
post offices all over Tainan.
Taiwan's newspapers publish numerous letters applauding Taiwan's
democracy and affirming human rights, including the right to
self-determination. But they seem curiously indifferent to human rights
abuses at one of their own universities.
Yet a conflict of interest at a Hong Kong university a few years ago
captivated the Hong Kong media, while campus activists protested. That's to
be expected in a robust democracy.
So far, contacts with human rights organizations have been futile. One
human rights activist told me no-one was interested in human rights. Yet
when students at National Cheng Kung University were cited for downloading
MP3 files, Taipei lawyers promptly volunteered pro bono assistance. I've
been hoping for pro bono representation for more than four years, to no
avail. Yet the students, whatever sympathy I feel for them, did not have
the law on their side. I do.
This case is now in its fifth year. It has affected my medical care,
my income, and my academic career. I’ve been
harassed by countless illegal university hearings intended to humiliate me
and force my resignation from the university. Professional colleagues,
among the privileged few with regard for human rights at our university,
have dedicated countless hours to effect justice while other faculty seem
indifferent.
Thus despite warnings from the Faculty Union, the Ministry of
Education, the Taiwan courts, and an international human rights
organization, university officials, with tactical naivete, continue to defy
the law, at no cost to themselves. Instead they have cost taxpayers
millions of dollars and recklessly brought National Cheng Kung University,
the Ministry of Education, and the Taiwan government to the brink of
scandal. Abiding by neither moral principles nor a sense of shame,
university officials will not acknowledge the authority of the law until
they stand in judgment before it.
You wonder what's going on at National Cheng Kung University when it's
obvious: It's a culture of subservience, where relationships are put above
laws; and where a pattern of unpunished human rights abuses going back many
years reflect a public tolerance of these abuses.
I believe abuses at National Cheng Kung University should concern
anyone dedicated to human rights in Taiwan. Therefore I urge your
commitment to this case, until there is complete closure, compensation, and
penalties where appropriate. The university should admit wrongdoing and
promise to educate faculty on human rights principles. You will not only be
aiding an American citizen, returning the favor received from civil
activists in America; you'll also be advancing the cause of human rights in
Taiwan.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
Further documents related to human rights abuses and administrative incompetence at National Cheng Kung University in Tainan
From:
8/7/2003 11:11 AM
Subject: ATTENTION Ms. Wu: Further documents related to human rights abuses
and administrative incompetence at National Cheng Kung University in
TainanTo: tahr@seed.net.tw
BCC: Ray Dah-tong,
Paul
Ms. Wu
Taiwan Association for Human Rights
7 August 2003
Dear Ms. Wu,
Below are several emails that shed further light on the case of human
rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University. Believe me, these are only
a very small sampling of letters, in both English and Chinese, sent during
the last four years (I believe all of them together fill several cartons).
Yet a democracy is not supposed to be governed by letters, it's supposed to
governed by laws, and officials who know them and who know how to enforce
them. I include emails to government agencies in Taipei to show that I
repeatedly tried to effect justice through these agenices, including the
Ministry of Education, the Department of Higher Education, the Control Yuan,
but to no avail, except the belated and only partial compliance of the
university more than two and a half years later. Not a single university
official has yet been punished; and, indeed, Kao Chiang was recently
re-elected by our university as president for a second term, although this
may not yet have been finalized by the Ministry of Education. Another
official, the former Vice-Dean of Student Affairs just recently resigned
over a sex scandal published in the July issue of a Taiwan periodical. This
man, I should add, engaged in countless dilatory (delay) tactics over the
last two years when I repeatedly petitioned him to call a misbehaving
student into the Dean's office for a supervised meeting among us. After
every improbable excuse (including, absurd as it may sound, "She doesn't
want to come"!), I finally broke off communications with him. However, if
his sex scandal is based on fact, then that means that I wasted two years
trying to enforce ethical codes at a university while the vice-dean is
violating those codes himself! (Concerning these emails, once again, some
formats, including margins, were lost in the copy of the emails.)
Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education
cc: Control Yuan
20 July 2003
To Officials of the Ministry of Education and
The Department of Higher Education:
I wish to protest continued official misconduct at National Cheng Kung
University under the administration of its current president, Kao
Chiang. Instead of upholding laws and human rights, officials have used
improper procedures to injure my reputation and delay administrative
remedy.
On 8 January 2001, the Ministry of Education Appeal Committee
canceled my dismissal from the university in 1999, boldfacing legal
rights violations. The university defied the ruling for more than two
years, holding further hearings and dismissing me again, despite the
appeal ruling.
When a Taiwan court advised the university to settle, university
officials threatened to contest the case for years unless I resigned.
Under increased Ministry pressure, including eight warning letters, the
university finally issued retroactive contracts, while delaying revival
of a current contract. Forced to comply with the Ministry ruling, the
university then claimed I was not entitled to full retroactive pay,
since I did not teach during my illegal dismissal.
Finally, the university convened a meeting in May 2003 repeating
accusations rejected in the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001. This not
only undermines the principle of final appeal but also places the
university above the law.
Meanwhile, university officials have shown a pattern of misconduct
while, under color of law and "proper procedures," delaying remedy.
Officials scorned a Ministry ruling for more than two years, then
promptly convened a meeting to repeat accusations rejected in that
ruling. Yet they now appeal to "proper procedures" to delay
compensation. They conveniently ignored my rights but then appeal to
"proper procedures" to protect the student whose spiteful letter was
improperly accepted in the first place.
For the last two years I have requested a meeting between this
student and myself in the Office of Student Affairs, to no avail. Yet a
student who maliciously accuses a professor of unfair grading not only
undermines confidence in all teachers but also in honest student
grievances.
Apart from the issue of student misconduct, a professor has a right
to request a supervised meeting with a student without delay. This is
part of "proper procedures" in reputable universities elsewhere.
But at our university, "proper procedures" are ignored to persecute
a foreign professor but invoked to protect a spiteful student.
Officials allow reckless violations, defend and spitefully repeat them,
and only reluctantly comply with laws, while, under color of "proper
procedures," delaying remedy indefinitely.
University compliance with the law should be transparent, as well
as sincere and contrite, instead of stubbornly devious or defiant. A
university is not a shady business, but a social institution, upholding
ideal values.
Yet our university has not only undermined confidence in
administrative remedy but also in the law. Unable to defy the Ministry
ruling, the university weakened the effects of that ruling. It promptly
convened a meeting to repeat accusations rejected in that ruling. Then
it offered only partial retroactive pay. Ignoring documented
misconduct, the university continues to protect the student who falsely
accused me.
This suggests that despite the university's partial compliance with
the law, I was properly dismissed. There is only need to restore my
employment but not my reputation.
Thus the university becomes the law in Taiwan. An appeal outside
the university is possible, but of no exculpatory value.
This is unacceptable. I am entitled to the full benefits of a
final appeal ruling, including protection from repeated accusations
rejected in that ruling, a formal apology, and full compensation.
Please consider that in addition to flagrant human rights abuses
committed by university officials, delay in administrative remedy has
undermined confidence in law at our university. Hereafter, academics
(especially foreign academics) may ignore academic standards for fear of
retribution and futile remedy.
This will compromise education in Taiwan. Therefore I advise
stricter regulation of universities, including automatic penalties for
official misconduct.
For now, because of the history of human rights abuses at National
Cheng Kung University, I appeal outside the university for remedy:
First, and without delay, the university hearing, at which I was
not even present and based on accusations already rejected on Ministry
appeal should be formally nullified, according to rights of final
appeal.
Second, the case of the student who submitted a secret and false
accusation against me should be formally resolved, with an apology from
this student and penalty.
Third, compensation related to my dismissal, including travel
costs, court costs, and full salary should be made.
Fourth, a formal apology and acknowledgment of misconduct by the
university administration should be issued.
Fifth, special consideration of the four-year interruption to my
academic career should be shown when I apply for promotion to full
professorship next year.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(06) 237 8626
8/7/2003 11:11 AM
Subject: ATTENTION Ms. Wu: Further documents related to human rights abuses
and administrative incompetence at National Cheng Kung University in
TainanTo: tahr@seed.net.tw
BCC: Ray Dah-tong
Paul
Ms. Wu
Taiwan Association for Human Rights
7 August 2003
Dear Ms. Wu,
Below are several emails that shed further light on the case of human
rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University. Believe me, these are only
a very small sampling of letters, in both English and Chinese, sent during
the last four years (I believe all of them together fill several cartons).
Yet a democracy is not supposed to be governed by letters, it's supposed to
governed by laws, and officials who know them and who know how to enforce
them. I include emails to government agencies in Taipei to show that I
repeatedly tried to effect justice through these agenices, including the
Ministry of Education, the Department of Higher Education, the Control Yuan,
but to no avail, except the belated and only partial compliance of the
university more than two and a half years later. Not a single university
official has yet been punished; and, indeed, Kao Chiang was recently
re-elected by our university as president for a second term, although this
may not yet have been finalized by the Ministry of Education. Another
official, the former Vice-Dean of Student Affairs just recently resigned
over a sex scandal published in the July issue of a Taiwan periodical. This
man, I should add, engaged in countless dilatory (delay) tactics over the
last two years when I repeatedly petitioned him to call a misbehaving
student into the Dean's office for a supervised meeting among us. After
every improbable excuse (including, absurd as it may sound, "She doesn't
want to come"!), I finally broke off communications with him. However, if
his sex scandal is based on fact, then that means that I wasted two years
trying to enforce ethical codes at a university while the vice-dean is
violating those codes himself! (Concerning these emails, once again, some
formats, including margins, were lost in the copy of the emails.)
Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education
cc: Control Yuan
20 July 2003
To Officials of the Ministry of Education and
The Department of Higher Education:
I wish to protest continued official misconduct at National Cheng Kung
University under the administration of its current president, Kao
Chiang. Instead of upholding laws and human rights, officials have used
improper procedures to injure my reputation and delay administrative
remedy.
On 8 January 2001, the Ministry of Education Appeal Committee
canceled my dismissal from the university in 1999, boldfacing legal
rights violations. The university defied the ruling for more than two
years, holding further hearings and dismissing me again, despite the
appeal ruling.
When a Taiwan court advised the university to settle, university
officials threatened to contest the case for years unless I resigned.
Under increased Ministry pressure, including eight warning letters, the
university finally issued retroactive contracts, while delaying revival
of a current contract. Forced to comply with the Ministry ruling, the
university then claimed I was not entitled to full retroactive pay,
since I did not teach during my illegal dismissal.
Finally, the university convened a meeting in May 2003 repeating
accusations rejected in the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001. This not
only undermines the principle of final appeal but also places the
university above the law.
Meanwhile, university officials have shown a pattern of misconduct
while, under color of law and "proper procedures," delaying remedy.
Officials scorned a Ministry ruling for more than two years, then
promptly convened a meeting to repeat accusations rejected in that
ruling. Yet they now appeal to "proper procedures" to delay
compensation. They conveniently ignored my rights but then appeal to
"proper procedures" to protect the student whose spiteful letter was
improperly accepted in the first place.
For the last two years I have requested a meeting between this
student and myself in the Office of Student Affairs, to no avail. Yet a
student who maliciously accuses a professor of unfair grading not only
undermines confidence in all teachers but also in honest student
grievances.
Apart from the issue of student misconduct, a professor has a right
to request a supervised meeting with a student without delay. This is
part of "proper procedures" in reputable universities elsewhere.
But at our university, "proper procedures" are ignored to persecute
a foreign professor but invoked to protect a spiteful student.
Officials allow reckless violations, defend and spitefully repeat them,
and only reluctantly comply with laws, while, under color of "proper
procedures," delaying remedy indefinitely.
University compliance with the law should be transparent, as well
as sincere and contrite, instead of stubbornly devious or defiant. A
university is not a shady business, but a social institution, upholding
ideal values.
Yet our university has not only undermined confidence in
administrative remedy but also in the law. Unable to defy the Ministry
ruling, the university weakened the effects of that ruling. It promptly
convened a meeting to repeat accusations rejected in that ruling. Then
it offered only partial retroactive pay. Ignoring documented
misconduct, the university continues to protect the student who falsely
accused me.
This suggests that despite the university's partial compliance with
the law, I was properly dismissed. There is only need to restore my
employment but not my reputation.
Thus the university becomes the law in Taiwan. An appeal outside
the university is possible, but of no exculpatory value.
This is unacceptable. I am entitled to the full benefits of a
final appeal ruling, including protection from repeated accusations
rejected in that ruling, a formal apology, and full compensation.
Please consider that in addition to flagrant human rights abuses
committed by university officials, delay in administrative remedy has
undermined confidence in law at our university. Hereafter, academics
(especially foreign academics) may ignore academic standards for fear of
retribution and futile remedy.
This will compromise education in Taiwan. Therefore I advise
stricter regulation of universities, including automatic penalties for
official misconduct.
For now, because of the history of human rights abuses at National
Cheng Kung University, I appeal outside the university for remedy:
First, and without delay, the university hearing, at which I was
not even present and based on accusations already rejected on Ministry
appeal should be formally nullified, according to rights of final
appeal.
Second, the case of the student who submitted a secret and false
accusation against me should be formally resolved, with an apology from
this student and penalty.
Third, compensation related to my dismissal, including travel
costs, court costs, and full salary should be made.
Fourth, a formal apology and acknowledgment of misconduct by the
university administration should be issued.
Fifth, special consideration of the four-year interruption to my
academic career should be shown when I apply for promotion to full
professorship next year.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(06) 237 8626
Concerning Human Rights Violations at National Cheng Kung University in Tainan
From:
8/6/2003 5:25 PM
Subject: ATTENTION: Ms. Wu: Concerning Human Rights Violations at National
Cheng Kung University in Tainan]To: tahr@seed.net.tw
BCC: vertigo
Taiwan Association for Human Rights
6 August 2003
Dear Ms. Wu,
We just spoke over the phone concerning human rights violations at
National Cheng Kung University. To sum up the issues of this case,
which began in March 1999, I am sending you letters I sent to the Prime
Minister of Taiwan and other letters to officials at National Cheng Kung
University, including the president of the university, Professor Kao
Chiang, and the Dean of Student Affairs, Professor Ko Huei-chen
regarding outstanding issues in this case.
In addition I shall forward scans of letters that Scholars at Risk,
a human rights group based in Chicago, sent to the president of NCKU,
Kao Chiang, to no avail.
Try to understand the serious issues surrounding this case. Apart
from the reputation of a professor and issues of human rights, a case
like this reflects the arrogant attitude of so many officials at
National Cheng Kung University who seem to think they are above the law
and will never be held accountable to the law, or why the continued
defiance? There seems to be an arrogant confidence among these
officials that they will never be punished for misbehavior, whether this
is called negligence, malicious misconduct, or incompetence. Yet a
democracy cannot survive without accountability. Indeed, laws, the best
laws, are useless unless officials are held accountable for enforcing
them. This, by the way, means enforcing or executing laws and rulings,
not "interpreting" them any way an official finds convenient, which is
how the university lawyer responded to the Ministry ruling. As I have
pointed out frequently enough to the university and other agencies, in a
democarcy, only the judiciary has the constitutional right to interpret
laws, and even that right is bound, ultimately, by constitutional
protections.
There are a number of problems of administration at our
university. One, quite simply, is the problem of incompetent officials,
many of whom (as I've been told by them) don't know or care about the
laws. The second problem is malicious misconduct. The third is the
well-known policy of placing relationships over the law. The fourth is
misunderstanding laws in a democracy. Officials here seem to think laws
are like selections in a soda machine, where you pick one that best
covers the needs of the occasion: "This law will help me reward that
person and that law will help me punish that other person."
Consider Kao Chiang's written reply to the human rights
organization, Scholars at Risk when they questioned abuses at our
university (see the attached scan):
"Dear Robert, Thank you for your concern regarding this matter.
Please do not worry. We will do everything according to our laws,
regulations, etc."
This was at the same time that the university was defying the
Ministry of Education for more than two years! Scholars at Risk was not
impressed by this reply and sent back an even more strongly worded
letter, which, to my knowledge, Kao Chiang ignored. Yet I'm certain Kao
Chiang has criticized Mainland China for human rights violations, when
it's convenient.
I cannot impress upon you the time my colleagues and I have spent
on this case, the countless documents accumulated, the letters and email
and faxes sent all over Taiwan and outside of Taiwan and this case
remains unresolved and officials at our university are seemingly beyond
penalty or censure. How is this possible in a lawful society?
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
8/6/2003 5:25 PM
Subject: ATTENTION: Ms. Wu: Concerning Human Rights Violations at National
Cheng Kung University in Tainan]To: tahr@seed.net.tw
BCC: vertigo
Taiwan Association for Human Rights
6 August 2003
Dear Ms. Wu,
We just spoke over the phone concerning human rights violations at
National Cheng Kung University. To sum up the issues of this case,
which began in March 1999, I am sending you letters I sent to the Prime
Minister of Taiwan and other letters to officials at National Cheng Kung
University, including the president of the university, Professor Kao
Chiang, and the Dean of Student Affairs, Professor Ko Huei-chen
regarding outstanding issues in this case.
In addition I shall forward scans of letters that Scholars at Risk,
a human rights group based in Chicago, sent to the president of NCKU,
Kao Chiang, to no avail.
Try to understand the serious issues surrounding this case. Apart
from the reputation of a professor and issues of human rights, a case
like this reflects the arrogant attitude of so many officials at
National Cheng Kung University who seem to think they are above the law
and will never be held accountable to the law, or why the continued
defiance? There seems to be an arrogant confidence among these
officials that they will never be punished for misbehavior, whether this
is called negligence, malicious misconduct, or incompetence. Yet a
democracy cannot survive without accountability. Indeed, laws, the best
laws, are useless unless officials are held accountable for enforcing
them. This, by the way, means enforcing or executing laws and rulings,
not "interpreting" them any way an official finds convenient, which is
how the university lawyer responded to the Ministry ruling. As I have
pointed out frequently enough to the university and other agencies, in a
democarcy, only the judiciary has the constitutional right to interpret
laws, and even that right is bound, ultimately, by constitutional
protections.
There are a number of problems of administration at our
university. One, quite simply, is the problem of incompetent officials,
many of whom (as I've been told by them) don't know or care about the
laws. The second problem is malicious misconduct. The third is the
well-known policy of placing relationships over the law. The fourth is
misunderstanding laws in a democracy. Officials here seem to think laws
are like selections in a soda machine, where you pick one that best
covers the needs of the occasion: "This law will help me reward that
person and that law will help me punish that other person."
Consider Kao Chiang's written reply to the human rights
organization, Scholars at Risk when they questioned abuses at our
university (see the attached scan):
"Dear Robert, Thank you for your concern regarding this matter.
Please do not worry. We will do everything according to our laws,
regulations, etc."
This was at the same time that the university was defying the
Ministry of Education for more than two years! Scholars at Risk was not
impressed by this reply and sent back an even more strongly worded
letter, which, to my knowledge, Kao Chiang ignored. Yet I'm certain Kao
Chiang has criticized Mainland China for human rights violations, when
it's convenient.
I cannot impress upon you the time my colleagues and I have spent
on this case, the countless documents accumulated, the letters and email
and faxes sent all over Taiwan and outside of Taiwan and this case
remains unresolved and officials at our university are seemingly beyond
penalty or censure. How is this possible in a lawful society?
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)