Tainan Court Verdict and Proof of Determined Verdict (2002-2003) Regarding Illegal Dismissal and Human Rights Violations at National Cheng Kung University

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

November 6, 2010

Dear President Lai and Colleagues,

To insure there's no historical revision of the issues surrounding my illegal dismissal in 1999 and the university's morally dubious role in that dismissal, I am attaching the official court verdict (2002) and subsequent rejection of the university's appeal (2003). The very fact the university litigated a legal Ministry ruling, based on hearings at which university officials participated, shows duplicity and bad faith. Why attend hearings of an appeal committee if you don't plan to honor a ruling that favors the appellant?

Why the university would appeal an illegal dismissal that should not have happened in the first place is curious, especially since National Cheng Kung University boasts of its high rank among Taiwan universities. I would rather boast of upholding human rights than of an academic rank that apparently ignores human rights!

Despite all this patent documentation, impossible to misinterpret, some parties continue in their denial that human rights were violated or at least refuse to acknowledge they were. Therefore either these attached (and other) documents (see the blog at http://rdca45.blogspot.com/) are forged or those who claim there were no human rights violated are grievously misinformed or deliberately misrepresenting the facts.

I have a reputation to uphold and I have the reputation of my compatriots to uphold as well. No one ten years from now is going to argue an American professor was dismissed for ethical or professional reasons, thus compromising all American professors.

Therefore I am determined to resolve this case with a formal acknowledgment from the university of human rights violations. Anything short of that will allow a revisionist history of these events to replace the facts now or in the future. I cannot allow that.

I would encourage those of my former colleagues at our university with human rights sympathies to assist me in this endeavor and reciprocate the rights and hospitality you or your children received when  matriculated in democracies abroad. All it takes is a small number of you to insure human rights at our university. This will not only protect foreign faculty but also the reputation of National Cheng Kung University. Because I assure you, I will pursue this case through all legal channels until it is formally resolved according to international human rights principles.

The facts are plain and fully documented. In 1999, a defamatory letter was secretly circulated at several "oversight" committees to insure an illegal dismissal started in the Department of Foreign Languages. Presumably NCKU "oversight" committees were determined to exculpate their colleagues rather than protect the rights of the appellant.

After that dismissal was canceled in December 1999, the university claimed foreign teachers were not protected by the Teachers Law (patently false, as attached documents show), so the case was now punitively treated as a pending hiring action instead of a canceled dismissal action, jeopardizing the teacher's employment on a new basis. This violates the principle of appeal, namely that one benefits from a favorable ruling, or why appeal?

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

At least in US law the legal principle of estoppel prevents such duplicity, where a legal claim contradicts a previously established legal agreement (namely, my right to appeal, or why would the university hold appeal hearings and attend them in Taipei?).

Whether estoppel is observed under Taiwan law is beside the point. The university's action violated  the basic principles of honesty and good faith. Grade school kids ("sore losers") are expected to act like this, but not university officials! If the university violates these basic principles of fair play 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?

When the university could not win at the Ministry level it then filed a lawsuit! When it lost the lawsuit it then appealed and delayed enforcing the Ministry ruling in the meantime, using the pending court appeal as a new tactic to deny retroactive contracts and reinstatement.

In fact two NCKU officials tried to intimidate me saying the university would delay the case indefinitely in the courts unless I resigned! This is AFTER I won a legal Ministry ruling based on hearings university officials attended and never contested! Apart from obvious ethical principles, this violates another legal principle of US law, that a party cannot make a claim it failed to make at the appropriate time.

After eight warning letters from the Ministry of Education (see my Human Rights blog at http://rdca45.blogspot.com/), the university finally complied with the Ministry ruling dated 8 January 2001 in May 2003, nearly two and a half years later! Scholars at Risk, an international human rights group now based in New York, also sent two letters.

Presumably the university thinks it's a law unto itself. This is okay if you follow higher laws (Jesus, Buddah, Confucius, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr.) but not if you ignore them. And I see no rational excuse for ignoring the constitutional laws of one's own country, assuming they don't violate higher principles (equality under the law, basic freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, etc.). Moreover, these are laws university officials never contested until they lost the case.

Sincerely,

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

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

Re: Your concern over human rights

Kaohsiung City Council
No.192, Zhongzheng 4th Rd.,
Qianjin District,
Kaohsiung City 801,
Taiwan (R.O.C.)

18 October 2010

Dear Council Members:

I was quite impressed by the Kaohsiung City Council's formal dedication to human rights in Mainland China, and your principled determination that "the city government and private organizations not be allowed to invite to the city Chinese officials who have been accused of violating human rights" (The Taipei Times October 18, 2010, p. 1).
    I'm curious, however, if the Kaohsiung City Council would apply its resolution to Taiwanese officials who violate human rights as well. In 1999 I was illegally dismissed from National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) in Tainan. Although I won a Ministry of Education appeal ruling in January, 2001, the university's president, Kao Chiang, refused to enforce that ruling for nearly two and a half years, despite eight warning letters from the Ministry of Education (attached).
    The current university president,  Lai Ming-Chiao, has ignored my request for an official apology for these human rights violations. The president-elect, Hwung-Hweng Hwung, has also not responded.
    According to the Taipei Times article, "Kaohsiung City is a modern metropolis that protects human rights," and "both the city and private organizations should therefore highlight the universality of human rights."
    But the "universality of human rights" begins at home, at the local level. Yet NCKU officials argued in court, apparently unconcerned about what Thomas Jefferson called "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind," that "foreign" teachers were not protected by Taiwan's Teacher's Law. That was a violation of my human rights. It was also an insult to all Americans who defend the rights of Taiwanese both here and in our country.
    My illegal dismissal, which involved the circulation of a secret letter (the student who wrote that letter is currently employed as a teacher at NCKU), was also a violation of my human rights. The university's refusal to enforce a legal Ministry ruling was a violation of my human rights too.
    Finally, even after the university held (presumably bogus) appeal hearings, and then participated at Ministry appeal hearings in Taipei, it argued, after the Ministry's ruling favored me, that foreign teachers had no right to appeal in the first place! This is not merely a violation of my human rights, it's outright duplicity that would discredit a bushiban. Yet NCKU is a high-ranked university.
    Officials in Mainland China did not do this to me. Officials (and NCKU faculty) in Taiwan did this to me. Some of them may teach at, or have academic exchanges with, universities in Kaohsiung.
    Nor is this a matter of one or two officials. Numerous university committees at the department, college, and university levels, repeatedly passed my illegal dismissal, even after the Ministry ruling! If only a small number had taken a stand on behalf of human rights that dismissal would never have passed in the first place.
    That means a significant number of educated, or at least accredited, Taiwanese, many with American degrees, are either ignorant of, or indifferent to, human rights in Taiwan. Yet these same individuals were protected by human rights when matriculated or teaching in the US, and they presumably rely on American laws and human rights principles to protect their children there.
    One wonders how the Kaohsiung City Council would respond if an American university acted with similar duplicity against a Taiwanese professor or student; if a student from Kaohsiung passed his oral exams for an advanced degree at an American university and then, after passing, was told he had to retake his orals because Taiwanese are not protected by the same laws and rights that protect American students.
    The difference is most US news media would expose that case in days and the student would promptly obtain pro bono human rights assistance. The university would be quickly discredited, apologize, award the student his degree, and settle with appropriate damages.
    In Taiwan, despite numerous human rights groups here, I had to fight this case alone, with some valiant members of NCKU's Teacher's Union assisting me. Apparently, NCKU teachers exchanging ideas in the university coffee shop is more newsworthy than their ignoring human rights at their university, even as they "voice concern" over human rights violations in Mainland China. If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.
    True, human rights in Mainland China are life and death issues. But that's the point. We must make sure they don't become life and death issues here. It's easier to raise our voices than to raise our dead. Let's exercise our freedoms before we lose them. It's better to fight for human rights when you're free than to fight for freedom when you're not.  Amnesty International understands that.
    Yet not a single NCKU official involved in this case has been punished. Presumably that will help deter similar violations in the future. Presumably that will help establish a tradition of human rights here.
    The university has still not acknowledged its human rights violations, a policy that will probably continue when the new president assumes office in February, 2011, since he has already started a pattern of not responding to my emails about the issue. This does not bode well for human rights here.
    In Mainland China, with no human rights guarantees, a citizen stood up to a tank. In Taiwan, protected by human rights laws, principles, and charters, as well as the support of the international community, no one will challenge a university lawyer or president based on those statutes and principles, not to mention common sense and common decency.
    If a person wins an appeal surely that appeal must be enforced. If an American professor teaches here surely he is protected by the same rights that protect your citizens, just as you're protected in America. Even if you don't believe in human rights, surely you believe in reciprocity.
    I am sure all of you are good people. But, as Edmund Burke famously said, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.

    Sincerely,


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

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

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


To Scholars at Risk
New York, N.Y.

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

10 October 2010

Dear Colleagues,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

Fwd: Academic exchanges with National Cheng Kung University

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard John <rdca25@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 17:10:46 +0800
Subject: Academic exchanges with National Cheng Kung University
To: presofc@lamar.colostate.edu

Dr. Tony Frank
Office of the President
102 Administration Building
0100 Campus Delivery
Fort Collins, CO 80523-0100
(970) 491-6211
presofc@lamar.colostate.edu

Dear President Frank,

In 1999 I was illegally dismissed from National Cheng Kung University
(NCKU) in Tainan, Taiwan. Though I won on appeal in January 2001, the
university refused to honor that ruling for nearly two and a half
years, until May 2003 (see attached letters).
To effect its dismissal, NCKU claimed foreigners were not
protected by Taiwan's Teachers Law. After I won on appeal, the
university claimed foreigners had no right to appeal in the first
place! This, of course, not only violated legal principles of
transparency (estoppel, etc.), but elementary principles of decency
and fair play. One wonders how Taiwanese would react if one of their
students passed his graduate exams and was then told his pass was
invalid because he was a foreigner!
Other than confirming my reinstatement, Taiwan's courts neither
awarded me compensation nor imposed penalties on the university. The
university for its part has refused to effect remedy according to
international principles of human rights, which includes the right to
an apology, compensation, and appropriate penalties against culpable
officials regardless of their administrative status. To this day it
hasn't even acknowledged doing anything wrong!
I don't believe an American university should maintain academic
exchanges with a university that violates principles of human rights
and equity under the law. I therefore urgently request that your
university terminate exchanges with National Cheng Kung University
until proper remedy has been made in my case, based on human rights
principles accepted by all democracies.
For further information on this case, please consult my blog at
http://rdca45.blogspot.com/

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio.

Letter Regarding Human Rights to the Incoming President of National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan

Hwung-Hweng Hwung
President-Elect,
National Cheng Kung University

8 October 2010

Dear Dr. Hwung,

Congratulations on being elected next president of National Cheng Kung University (NCKU), a term that begins in February 2011. I sincerely wish you the best of luck in your administration.
    Unfortunately a university cannot be governed by luck. It must governed by administrative integrity, legal principles, and commitment to human rights principles and their enforcement. So far your university has shown a lack of concern in these areas, with no apparent attempt to remedy previous abuses or even acknowledge them.
    As you know, legal rights issues related to my illegal dismissal in 1999 have still not been resolved according to international principles of human rights accepted by all advanced democracies and endorsed recently by Taiwan's president. This is unacceptable, more so since NCKU maintains academic exchanges with numerous universities in my country and in other democracies abroad. Moreover, thousands of Taiwan citizens enjoy human rights protections when matriculated or teaching in those countries. Even if NCKU officials don't comprehend human rights principles they should be able to comprehend principles of reciprocity, on which Confucian ethics is founded.
    Quite frankly, I don't believe American universities (or other universities committed to human rights) should maintain academic exchanges with a university that egregiously violated the human rights of a professor and, moreover, has shown no attempt to remedy those violations or issue a formal apology for them. In view of this, I will use all legal options to effect a termination of American exchanges with your university.
     I will continue to pursue resolution of this case until it is settled according to international principles shared by all advanced democracies and academic institutions, regardless whether this is convenient to NCKU officials.

     Sincerely,

     Richard de Canio.