Fwd: Regarding Edit Reverts on the Wikipedia page of National Cheng Kung University

November 5, 2010

To the President of National Cheng Kung University and Faculty Colleagues

VERIFICATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES AT NATIONAL CHENG KUNG UNIVERSITY
in View of Edit Reverts on the Wikipedia page of National Cheng Kung University

Since my Wikipedia Edit of the National Cheng Kung University page was deleted or reverted several times on the basis of being unsourced, I've added the following source documents from the Ministry of Education.

As these attached documents show, the claim made by Apache776 in the Revision History, dated 17:26, 20 October 2010, regarding my edit of human rights violations at National Cheng Kung University, is patently false:

"If true, a travesty, but no evidence or specifics provided. Also, sadly, it is a fact that at the time the alleged incident occured [sic], foreign faculty were not protected by the Teachers Law of the ROC."


Well, the "evidence" or "specifics" are now "provided." Unless these documents are contested, the dismissal action was indeed a "travesty," to use the words of Apache776.

As for the comment made by Apache776 that "it is a fact that at the time the alleged incident occurred, foreign faculty were not protected by the Teachers Law of the ROC" is disproved by these documents of the ROC. The incident was not "alleged" but actual, assuming legal rulings mean anything. In fact, presumably the only place where foreign teachers were not protected by the Teachers Law was at National Cheng Kung University. Therefore it's a "fact" that human rights were violated there.

Arguments against this fact cannot be sustained, unless the writer's use of the word "fact" is different from common or legal usage.

This is similar to the university's attempt to create a revisionist history of this dismissal case. But this revisionist history will not prevail, regardless whether it's exposed today or ten years from today. It has fallen on me to protect the reputation of American teachers in Taiwan and I intend to acquit myself of that responsibility, whatever it takes.

In a democratic society, institutional might does not create truth; principles of law create truth. Taiwanese should be especially sensitive to revisions of the truth, having suffered from historical revisionism themselves, regarding atrocities during World War II. In scope, of course, that was a far greater tragedy; but in principle it's no different. And before one can define the scope of an injustice one must first define the principles of justice. To create a double standard of justice, one for the victor (or the stronger party) and one for the victim (or the weaker party), is wrong in my case as it is in the other case. The same goes for Mainland China's recent antisecession law, which Mainland China considers a legal action, the way that National Cheng Kung University considers my 1999 dismissal a legal action.

The attached documents are legal rulings. To contest them is to say there are no shared principles of law and right in Taiwan, especially tendentious made by a high-ranked university in Taiwan.

The facts are plain and fully documented. In 1999, a letter was secretly circulated at several oversight committees to effect an illegal dismissal of a foreign teacher. After that dismissal was canceled in December, 1999, the university claimed foreign teachers were not protected by the Teachers Law (disputed in the attached documents), so the case was punitively treated as a hiring action, not a dismissal action, jeopardizing the teacher's employment on a new basis. This violates the basic principle of the right to appeal, namely that one will benefit from a favorable ruling, or why appeal?

The university subsequently held repeated appeal and review hearings and attended hearings at the Ministry of Education. When it lost the case, it then claimed foreigners had no right to appeal!

Whether Taiwan law observes the legal principle of estoppel (a previous legal claim or assumption cannot be subsequently contradicted or denied) is beside the point. This violates even the most basic principles of honesty and good faith. If the university violates these principles how can it expect its students to abide by them. Or how, on that basis, can it expect to maintain academic exchanges with universities in democracies abroad?

Sincerely,

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

Regarding human rights violations at National Cheng Kung University

Dr. Michael Ming-Chiao Lai
President
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

    November 4, 2010

    Dear President Lai and Colleagues,

    A Wikipedia user named Apache776 deleted one of my edits concerning human rights violations at National Cheng Kung University on the National Cheng Kung University page in Wikipedia. The summary claim was that, "If true, a travesty, but no evidence or specifics provided. Also, sadly, it is a fact that at the time the alleged incident occured, foreign faculty were not protected by the Teachers Law of the ROC."
    I am not certain who made this edit or what that person's affiliation with National Cheng Kung University is, if any. Nonetheless I feel compelled to formally address the issue.
    As you must know, my edit in the Wikipedia page is true by any reasonable standards of truth, so there's no conditional "if" about my claim that human rights violations were committed at National Cheng Kung University, with neither compensation, apology, nor even acknowledgment on the part of the university that human rights were violated.
    In view of a Ministry of Education ruling dated 8 January 2001, eight Ministry letters warning the university to enforce that ruling (finally enforced in May, 2003), and both judicial and Ministry rulings that foreigners were, at the time of the illegal dismissal (1999), protected by the Teachers Law, how is it possible that the statement by Apache776 can be true or in good faith?
    Since it is in fact true, then, by this user's own words, my dismissal was indeed a "travesty. As for "evidence or specifics," as much evidence or specifics as are required will be uploaded to the Wikipedia page, including the dates of the Ministry and court rulings.
    The claim that, "sadly, it is a fact that at the time the alleged incident occurred, foreign faculty were not protected by the Teachers Law of the ROC" will be discredited in those documents.
    Besides, even if what Apache776 wrote in his summary edit were true, that very statement would prove precisely the opposite of his apparent claim, that there were no human rights violations at National Cheng Kung University—unless discriminatory employment policies against foreigners are not considered human rights violations!
    Whether Apache776 is related to National Cheng Kung University in any way remains to be seen. What is evident, however, is that Apache776 is merely continuing a policy of revisionist history that is typical of National Cheng Kung University, as is evident in its refusal to issue a formal apology or even acknowledge that human rights were committed at all in my case, despite the documents I mentioned above, including judicial and Ministry rulings. If, in the face of these documents the university's stubborn refusal to acknowledge human rights violations is not a patent example of "revisionism," then I don't know what is.
    Indeed, that's all the more reason to pursue this case until it is formally resolved. I, as both a professor and an American citizen, cannot, and will not, allow a revisionist version of events ten or twenty years from now to replace the facts, especially if I, or those informed about the case, can no longer contest them. This will compromise not only my reputation but the reputation of American professors in general, when the revised version of what happened in the years 1999-2003 will imply that an American professor failed ethical or professional standards while teaching at the university, thus, by stereotyping, impugning all American professors. Would you like a Taiwanese professor to be falsely accused at an American university, compromising Taiwanese professors for years thereafter?
    In view of the revisionist tactics of the NCKU administration I wish to make clear that, however long it takes, I will pursue a formal resolution of this case and use all channels within the law to do so.
    I remind you that Taiwan has subscribed to international human rights charters. Those charters were created precisely to override arbitrary or capricious rulings by rogue agencies with the institutional means to do so, whether money, payroll lawyers, or other resources individuals cannot compete against. Otherwise there would be no need for human rights charters; laws would adequately insure remedy.
    But we know this is not necessarily the case. Taiwanese should know this  because, after all, Mainland China passed an antisecession law that it calls legal but which, based on international human rights charters, Taiwanese and other peoples who subscribe to democratic principles consider to be rogue legislation (i.e. outside international standards of human rights).
    I urge you to recognize once again that the refusal of National Cheng Kung University to acknowledge human rights violations in my illegal dismissal, to apologize for them, and to compensate them falls outside the norms of international standards of human rights, and that it is especially regrettable for a university that enjoys academic exchanges with countries that honor those rights.

    Sincerely,

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