Dear [name omitted],
Thank you for your kind and sympathetic reply and your request for further details. Unfortunately you are an exception. Most of the faculty know of this case very well (see attachments). It started as an illegal dismissal by then chair, Li Chung-hsiung in March 1999. When the "evidence" (i.e. undocumented accusations; I was not even informed of the dismissal action until afterwards!) seemed insufficient a letter was solicited from a former student named Lily Chen (Chen An-chun, still teaching part-time here at FLLD, I think!) who claimed I failed her unfairly 8 years before. The letter was secret and I was allowed to read it only when I took the student to court several years later! (Brace yourself. There's more.)
When I heard her rumor several years after my grade I wrote her a letter offering to find her exam in my office. She ignored my letter; then several years later wrote that secret letter, even though she received three high passes from me. (See attachment for details.)
In December 1999 the university lawyer reversed my dismissal.But that was a tactical maneuver. I assume they wanted to delay as much as possible so I would lose my tourist visa extensions. Anyway, the lawyer now claimed teachers were not protected by the Teachers Law. So my case was returned to the department, but now as an employment issue not a dismissal issue. In effect this nullified the entire appeal process and my appellant rights while maintaining the semblance of appeal. Where in a democracy does a person win an appeal and gain nothing from it?
By the way, the MOE and courts rejected the lawyer's claim and strongly affirmed that foreign teachers are protected by the Teachers Law. In fact an official from Taipei, early in this case, rhetorically asked me, "Since when does a democracy have two sets of laws for people?" Another Taipei official laughed when she heard of Lily's accusation and said, "That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. How can a student complain about a grade eight years later?" I told her, "I'm glad you have a sense of humor because the people at our university don't see the humor in it."
Now the case is returned to the department for "more evidence." Instead of punishing the people who made false accusations against me, the "prestige" appeal or review committee asks, in effect, for more dirt, but better dirt. This is a democracy!
I finally won on Ministry appeal, January 8, 2001. Now the lawyer claimed foreign faculty have no right to appeal! The lawyer presides over appeal hearings at NCKU then when he loses at MOE he says I have no right to appeal. I assume this lawyer is a member of the Taipei Bar Association. I wrote them several letters and made several phone calls to no effect so far as I know. Of course Taiwan may have different laws! In American law we have the principle of estoppel. That is, the judge will "stop" or disallow a claim that contradicts a previous claim either voiced or implied. This is related to "mend the hold." That is, someone can't go to court dismissing a person for being drunk and then change the argument when they see they're about to lose the case and say the person was really dismissed for being late. Court proceedings, in other words, are principled, based on principles. In American law a university can't implicitly accept the right to appeal by holding appeal hearings then claim later an appellant has no right to appeal, especially after the appellant wins the appeal! It's ridiculous.
All this doesn't even take into account that a university with academic exchanges with US universities would even claim foreigners (i.e. in my case, Americans) have no right to appeal. This is what I will debate American exchange universities, in an American court if necessary.
So the lawyer starts a court action trying to interdict or impede enforcement of the legal Ministry ruling, even though the lawyer attended those hearings in Taipei and never contested my right to appeal during those hearings. Presumably the university wanted to gamble that I would lose the appeal and therefore did not want to publicly claim foreigners had no right to appeal at that time if they could avoid it in a public forum. So they gambled but when they lost the appeal they had no choice. Too many officials were guilty of misconduct and they couldn't risk me returning to the university to demand appropriate penalties, compensation, etc.
But the lawyer lost that case too. The courts said to issue retroactive contracts and enforce reinstatement. However NCKU's former president, Kao Chiang had other plans in defiance of both court and Ministry rulings. Despite the court rulings and despite the MOE Appeal Ruling and despite 8 warning letters issued by the MOE (see attached), Mr. Kao decided he, or at least the university administration, was a law unto itself; not in the sense intended by St. Paul in the New Testament, i.e. obeying a higher law, but in the sense of not obeying any law or ethical norms that most of us subscribe to: fair play, common sense, ethical principles, legal rulings, reciprocity, the Golden Rule (enunciated in both Christian and Confucian texts), etc. It's like a child knocking over the chess pieces when his opponent gains an advantage in the game.
I should add that no NCKU president has acted on this case; each one delegates the case to another official, presumably on the surmise that no one can be held accountable. I'd like them to try that at an American university. In American law, as President Truman's motto put it, "the buck stops" at the head official no matter how many delegates he has under him.
For example, the current president responded to the case when Dr. Lai was president, but now that Dr. Hwung is president he delegated the case to another official (out of respect I omit his name). So this is musical chairs, only NCKU is one of the highest-ranked universities in Taiwan, and it's not musical and it's not chairs, it's careers. The career of an American professor is at stake here; if the university learns this too late it's going to cost the university a plummet in its international ranking and, if American law is on my side, as I think it is, academic exchanges and the money and prestige that go with it.
Finally, after nearly two and a half years and two letters from the New York-based human rights group, SCHOLARS AT RISK (to whom Mr. Kao wrote, "Don't worry: we're following laws" or something to that effect), Mr. Kao finally gave in and issued the contracts followed by automatic reinstatement.
But officials had a new trick up their sleeve. (You see, people here don't like to lose. The problem is I don't like to lose either; and I've got the winning facts on my side.)
Now, despite the fact that I won the appeal, they wanted to review me again. Perhaps I was just curious, or perhaps I was encouraged to do so by a respectable colleague, but I actually attended one of those hearings, then promptly walked out when I discovered they had no interest in the Ministry ruling. One committee member actually got irate over some of my comments to that effect. She should be grateful I did not wish to embarrass that respectable colleague I referred to above or I would have responded in a manner more appropriate to the occasion.
In sum, ignoring the Ministry ruling, subsequent university committees ruled that I should be denied promotion and increments for six years. That too was overruled by the Ministry of Education.
So you see our so-called prestige committees were overruled on every issue. One prestige committee, chaired by one Lee Chian-er, former dean and presidential hopeful, circulated that secret letter from Lily Chen and though I asked three times to learn what was in that letter he ignored me three times. One courageous woman, a member of the Teachers Union, defied the chair and summed up the contents of the letter.
Anyway, I think that sums up the case. You say I should inform the rest of the faculty. But most of them know the case by now, as the attachments, which I've emailed the faculty previously, prove. A lot of our faculty matriculated and received accreditation at universities in America, England, and other established democracies where they were protected by principles of law and human rights. Some of them publish vocal attacks on Mainland China's poor human rights record. I contacted one such professor last year. He had published a strong attack on the lack of human rights in Mainland China so naturally I thought he would be sympathetic to the lack of human rights here. He never replied.
As for the people who signed that letter defending Lily Chen's unproved accusations, one claimed not to remember signing it. Another claimed he only meant he knew Lily more than he knew me. Even if one accepts that inane defense, is that a principle of justice? Do I make judicial decisions based on how long I know someone or on the facts along with principles of law (i.e. no proof favors the accused not the accuser or every teacher would be liable to the same treatment, including the signatory of that letter)? But in this culture of relationships the signatory probably assumed, due to his relationships, such an insult could not happen to him. That's no way to govern a university; that's no way to live one's life; as he'll find out when he comes to the end of it, as Thoreau phrased it.
Is there due process of law at NCKU? Are there principles of justice? Are there reputable review and appeal committees? I'll let you answer that question based on the facts rehearsed in this letter.
I appreciate your personal response. In nearly twelve years that I've periodically emailed such letters, not a single faculty member has responded. Two, including yourself, responded this time. Perhaps that's progress. And I wouldn't dismiss two either, exponentially, which can quickly lead to 4, then 16, and 256, etc. It's the same math that established the Declaration of Independence.
Cordially,
Richard de Canio
