To Department of Academic Freedom and Tenure

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Any advice on details? One question: did it take "years" to see L's letter or just a year?
Date:	Tue, 06 Oct 2009 01:49:31 +0800
From:	rdca25@gmail.com
To:	Raydon <raydon@mail.ncku.edu.tw>

Department of Academic Freedom and Tenure
American Association of University Professors
1133 19th Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Professors,

Thank you for your interest in this case. I want to sum up why I think the case is important:

   1. National Cheng Kung University is a high-ranked university in Taiwan, which makes its human rights violations of international concern. Furthermore it has numerous academic exchanges with American universities and should therefore be bound by shared principles of legal rights.
    2. The university's actions went far beyond a violation of human rights and defied basic principles of fair play. Surely no reputable academic institution would participate in an appeal then challenge its ruling just because it lost!
    3. The university's dismissal action was egregiously improper to begin with, including the circulation of a secret letter I was not allowed to view except by court order years later.
    4. The university's subsequent appeal process was a charade, since it circulated the secret letter. At one hearing, the chair defiantly refused to reveal the contents of the letter!
    5. When the university reversed the decision (for technical reasons) the case was returned to the department for "more proof," though the dismissal should have been canceled. The university argued foreigners had no employment rights (a claim rejected by the Ministry of Education). The university hearings were presumably a dilatory tactic intended to outlast my short-term visas.
    6. After the Ministry of Education reversed the dismissal action in January 2001 the university defied the MOE ruling claiming foreigners had no right to appeal, though the university participated in the MOE appeal process and even held its own appeals.
    7. The university president, Kao Chiang, defied the Ministry of Education ruling for more than two years, from January 2001 to May 2003, despite eight warnings letters from the MOE (previously attached) and even letters from the US-based human rights group, Scholars at Risk (previously attached).
    8. In the meantime, two officials argued the university would delay the case in the courts indefinitely unless I resigned at half pay.
    9. Even after reinstatement the university held hearings to impose penalties, despite the Ministry ruling in my favor. These penalties were reversed by the MOE.
    10. No official has been punished, either by the courts or the Ministry of Education, though documentation of abuses is transparent (see documents previously attached). Even after university president Kao Chiang defied the MOE for more than two years, he was approved for another three-year term.
    11. Though I periodically email documents and a cover letter to department colleagues, I've been ignored. These are the same faculty probably lauded as beacons of Taiwan's democracy when they present at international conferences.
    12. I have not received a formal apology from the university or compensation, nor did the courts award damages. Yet the case interrupted my academic career for four years, involved numerous trips abroad to renew short-term visas, and cost me and at least one colleague countless hours reading dozens of official documents, translating them, writing letters, and attending numerous university and court hearings. From what I learned at another college, this case was actually used at the MOE's orientation sessions for new college officials on what not to do in a dismissal action!
    I don't think American universities should approve academic exchanges with a foreign university that behaves in this manner. Surely American universities must regulate its academic exchanges abroad. Surely Taiwan is not above international laws of human rights and principles of fair play.

    Sincerely,


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

[Fwd: Regarding human rights abuses at a Taiwan university]

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Regarding human rights abuses at a Taiwan university
Date:	Wed, 07 Oct 2009 05:53:46 +0800
From:	rdca25@gmail.com
To:	president@purdue.edu
CC:	trustees@purdue.edu, kokini@purdue.edu, bralts@purdue.edu, george.p.mccabe.1@purdue.edu, purduenews@purdue.edu, andyg@purdue.edu, woodson@purdue.edu, vpec@purdue.edu

France A. Cordova
President
Purdue University

cc: Cliff Wojtalewicz
Executive Assistant to the President
Board of Trustees of Purdue University
Dr. Randy Woodson, Office of the Provost
Dr. Klod Kokini, Purdue University
Dr. Vincent Bralts, Purdue University
Dr. George McCabe, Purdue University
Dr. Andy Gillespie, Purdue University
Purdue News Service

Dr. Alysa Christmas Rollock
Vice President for Ethics and Complicance
Purdue University

7 October 2009

To Officials and Faculty of Purdue University:

Please let me sum up why I think the case at National Cheng Kung University in Taiwan is important:

    1. National Cheng Kung University is a high-ranked university in Taiwan, which makes its rights violations of international concern. Furthermore it has numerous academic exchanges with American universities and should therefore be bound by shared principles of legal rights.
    2. The university's actions went beyond a violation of human rights and defied even principles of fair play. Surely no reputable academic institution would participate in an appeal then challenge the ruling because it lost!
    3. The university's dismissal action was egregiously improper to begin with, including the circulation of a secret letter I was not allowed to view except by court order.
    4. The university's subsequent appeal hearings were a charade, since the secret letter was circulated. At one hearing, the chair defiantly refused to reveal the contents of the letter.
    5. When the university reversed the dismissal (for technical reasons) the case was returned to the department for "more proof," though it should have been canceled. The university argued foreigners had no employment rights (a claim rejected by the Ministry of Education). University hearings were presumably a delay tactic to outlast my short-term visas.
    6. After the Ministry of Education reversed the dismissal in January 2001 the university defied the ruling, claiming foreigners had no right to appeal, though the university participated in the appeal and held its own appeals.
    7. University president, Kao Chiang, defied the Ministry of Education ruling for more than two years (from January 2001 to May 2003), despite eight warning letters from the MOE (previously attached) and letters from the US-based human rights group, Scholars at Risk (previously attached).
    8. Meanwhile, university officials argued the university would delay the case in the courts indefinitely unless I resigned at half pay.
    9. Even after reinstatement the university held hearings to impose penalties, despite the Ministry ruling in my favor. These penalties were reversed by the MOE.
    10. No official has been punished, either by the courts or the Ministry of Education, though documentation of abuses is transparent (documents previously attached). Even after university president Kao Chiang defied the MOE for more than two years, he was approved for another three-year term. One questions what "democracy" means in Taiwan.
    11. My colleagues have thus far ignored the case and even sat on "review" hearings after the MOE ruling, as if that ruling had no legal force. Mainland China may not be a democracy, but an appeal ruling would be final there.
    12. I have not received a formal apology from the university or compensation, nor did the courts award damages. Yet the case interrupted my academic career for at least four years, involved numerous trips abroad to renew short-term visas, and cost me and at least one colleague countless hours reading dozens of official documents, translating them, sending replies, and attending numerous university and court hearings. Since my reinstatement I have spent considerable time trying to effect just closure in this case.
    From what I learned at another college, my case was actually used at orientation sessions for new college officials to warn what not to do!
    Surely American universities have the authority to sanction such misconduct at an exchange university. Surely Taiwan's academics are not above international laws of human rights and principles of reciprocity and fair play. Surely academic exchanges are not merely financial transactions but are governed by legal and moral principles.

    Sincerely,


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

Letter to President Lai and Colleagues regarding Liu Gi-zen's deposition to the court suggesting I unfairly failed a student, based on no evidence but the student's claim

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

Da Hsuan Feng,
Senior Executive Vice President

Dr. Hwung-Hweng Hwung,
Senior Executive Vice President

Dr. Chang Kao-Ping,
Dean of the College of Liberal Arts

Professor Huang Cheng Neng,
Chair of the NCKU Faculty Union

3 June 2009

Dear Colleagues,

I remind you that Liu Gi-Zen, whose promotion hearing is scheduled for June 11, wrote an accusatory letter against me to the court in November 2000, implying I failed a student, Chen An-chun, unfairly. Mr. Liu had no proof of Ms. Chen's claim and her claim was improper on the face of it, since she made it eight years after her grade, and in secret.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Liu's action was disreputable, more so in a culture supposed to respect teachers (unless Mr. Liu or our colleagues believe only Chinese teachers deserve respect). Mr. Liu's action is further discredited by the fact that he failed the same class Ms. Chen did.
Not all students respond antagonistically when they fail a class. These two students' actions must be judged by normal responses to failure. (See attachment 1.)
Falsely accusing a teacher of unfair grading compromises the entire grading system of a university. Thus Mr. Liu's insinuations not only discredited me but also our university.
There is also reasonable probability Mr. Liu's employment was a reward for his accusations. Is it coincidence two students who wrote accusatory letters against me were hired by our university (Lily Chen is currently a part-time teacher here)?
Here is a rough translation of Mr. Liu's letter to the court (see attachment, 0):

To the Judge of Tainan District Court,
. . . I and Ms. Chen An-Chun took the sophomore course British Literature. The teacher was Mr. De Canio. According to my memory, Mr. De Canio didn’t invite all students of the class to a dinner, only invited three students: [names omitted] and Chen An-Chun. The two former went and their final exams were 100. This is unfair. I hope the judge looks into the details. . . . Liu Gi Jen.

What especially irks is Mr. Liu's pretense to high moral principles, though the accusation is based on insinuations, hearsay, and flimsy "logic" that would embarrass a school child ("post hoc, ergo propter hoc"). Mr. Liu is masking malicious gossip as a morally conscientious deposition to the court. In this way he can damage the reputation of his teacher without incurring risks to himself.
The fact that his deposition cannot be punished under legal statutes should not absolve him from moral censure by our colleagues. I can depose that, "Professor Martha Chen had a male student in her office and the student got a 100 in the class. This is unfair." That would not be perjury if based on facts. But it would not reflect moral principles or probity either.
Mr. Liu, with equal perspicuity, could have written, "Two students wore skirts during the exam and received 100s. I wore pants and failed. This is unfair."
Perhaps Mr. Liu believes the rooster causes the sun to rise each morning. With more plausibility I could fax to the court, "Two students wrote accusatory letters against me and were hired by the university. This is unfair."
How did Mr. Liu know other students' grades or if they were fairly earned? He was a sophomore at the time. Who authorized him to evaluate a professor's grades? Besides, Lily Chen told the court I destroyed my exams according to former chairman Ren Shih-yung: on what basis could he judge?
All this is beside the point. A teacher's grading of other students is none of his business. Who made it his business?
If all students behaved as Mr. Liu did, no teacher would be safe from insinuations. He is now a teacher himself. Would he like it if he failed a student and her classmate faxed a similar letter to the court about him?
If Lily thought she failed unfairly there were authorized channels of remedy. Accusations outside those channels are not protected by law or moral principles.
Why didn't Lily file a formal complaint at the time but chose to file a complaint in secret, eight years later, when it was likely I would not learn of her letter or survive dismissal to contest it? How is it that Lily is the only student in 22 years to contest a grade, and she had to do it in secret? Anyone whose conscience hasn't been compromised by departmental politics could answer that question.
In his fax Mr. Liu also discredited two classmates who, he implies, passed unfairly. These students ranked first and second in their graduation year, exactly reflecting the grades they received in my class two years earlier. Thus Mr. Liu not only discredited these students, but our university, which ranked them.
The irony is that the first- and second-ranked students who passed their course were discredited while the two students who failed but wrote accusatory letters are now employed by our university. This doesn't boost university morale. This is what is "unfair," not failing a student who failed her exam.
These students filed complaints under the color of legitimacy, with grievous consequences to a professor, including loss of reputation and dismissal. That they expected to get away with their misconduct is proved by the fact that, up to now, they have gotten away with it. This (to use Mr. Liu's words) is the part that is unfair.
No student should be allowed to insult a teacher with impunity. These accusations were formally accredited; they must be formally discredited, with appropriate penalties to deter similar misconduct in the future.
As a student in America, Mr. Liu benefited from our legal principles: One can't accuse someone without proof or make reckless accusations with impunity. It is our responsibility to insure he learns those principles and observes them hereafter.
Moral probity should be one criterion of promotion. Unless Mr. Liu has proof I failed Ms. Chen unfairly, he must be held accountable.
But how can he have proof? Ms. Chen deposed to the court I destroyed my exams.
If an accuser has no proof, Mr. Liu assumes she must be telling the truth! Excuse me, but I thought it was the other way around.
Repeating a claim does not make it true. In some cases it makes it libel.
The circulation of the claim at formal hearings did not accredit the claim. It discredited officials who circulated it.
Colleagues even endorsed Lily's character to a court to justify her action, using our official address, as if on behalf of the university. (See attachment, 2.) In their letter they assured the judge that a student who wrote a secret and malicious letter contesting a grade eight years late was "a modest and virtuous young woman of good character."
The irony is, by defending the moral character of a student who contested a grade eight years late, in secret, and without proof, they proved themselves as unworthy to give a character reference as Lily was to receive it.
Some of them sat, or now sit, on our review committee, which secretly circulated the accusation. One was a former student of mine!*
As is obvious, respect for teachers in Taiwan is more virtual than real. A culture that honors teachers in precepts dishonors them in practice.
Another former student at least had the integrity to admit what he did was wrong and under duress (see attachment, 3). Still, one questions the moral fiber of a university where students are routinely solicited to discredit teachers and routinely oblige.
One colleague even solicited my vote, alleging not to recall signing the letter discrediting me! How can one discredit a colleague and not remember doing so? It boggles the mind of anyone with moral principles. That itself should disqualify him from ever sitting on our committees or holding office.
Indeed, all professors who signed that letter and who now sit on the Review Committee, including Rufus Cook and Aaron Chiou, must recuse themselves from Mr. Liu's review. If we upheld moral standards they should not be on that committee in the first place.
No professor in an American or British university would defend the character of a student who submitted a secret accusation against a teacher alleging an unfair grade eight years after the fact. No professor who defended a student's unproved accusation (or worse, claims not to remember doing so) can be expected to have the moral probity to make official decisions, least of all involving matters related to this case.
I will contest any hearing for Mr. Liu at which colleagues who signed that letter sit. Obviously if they supported Ms. Chen's accusation they will condone Mr. Liu's accusation.
If Mr. Liu still passes our department review committee, I urge the college committee to consider the facts related here and overturn that decision at their scheduled meeting on August 10. Beyond that there are legal options available to me.
Our university must protect foreign teachers if it is to maintain academic exchanges with universities abroad. Yet Lily Chen's secret and unproved accusations were accepted in ten days while my legitimate complaint against her has been ignored for ten years. Now Mr. Liu, who accused me without proof, is up for promotion instead of censure or dismissal!
When faculty defend students who improperly accuse a colleague, they discredit their univeristy as well as the teacher. Since officials, including former chair Li Chung-hsiung, circulated Lily Chen's letter at official hearings, it is part of the official record and must be formally removed from the record, with penalties to insure the gravity of the action.
Mr. Liu's letter, based solely on innuendo, must also be officially discredited. Although addressed to the court, it involves university matters against a faculty member and Mr. Liu is now a faculty member.
Since the accusations are on the record, discrediting those accusations must be on the record too. Since those accusations had grievous effect, including dismissal, the penalty must be commensurate. One doesn't deter bank robbers simply by returning the stolen money!
In a society that honors Confucian principles, no student should discredit a teacher with impunity. That the teacher was a foreigner should magnify the offense, not minimize it.
One often hears of Taiwan hospitality and Confucian respect for teachers. Both values have been discredited in this case.
But the much vaunted Taiwan advocacy of democracy has also been discredited. No colleague, to my knowledge, has voiced a protest, or even concern, over this case. Yet the facts are transparent unless one obstinately refuses to acknowledge them.
In a society that respects legal rights, no teacher should be accused outside due process of law. This includes the right to defend oneself.
No university committee in a democracy should have passed a dismissal based on grievous violations of human rights that the Ministry of Education Appeals Committee promptly recognized and corrected. No president of a university, such as Kao Chiang, should be allowed to defy a legal Ministry ruling. Taiwan democracy must begin in Taiwan, not in Beijing.
In a society where many, like Mr. Liu, are protected under the law when they matriculate or teach abroad, their former hosts should be protected under the law when studying or teaching here.
I was irreparably harmed by the collusion of students and university officials to discredit me. It cost me four years of my academic career and considerable expense.
The worst of it is many believed I could not stay in Taiwan long enough to contest their accusations or even learn about them, since they were made in secret. Only by court order, for example, was I allowed to read Lily Chen's letter. This aggravates the disgrace.
Do my colleagues want democracy in Taiwan? Then you must acknowledge the gravity of what happened and finally act to effect just closure. This case will not disappear otherwise. I guarantee that.
Though I "won" my case, I will not regain my reputation and dignity until all issues related to my illegal dismissal in 1999 are formally resolved. This includes an official apology, remedy, and compensation.
I appeal to my principled colleagues to effect closure in this case; not just to protect the rights of a foreign colleague and so reciprocate the justice you receive abroad or expect your children to, but also to protect the reputation of your university.
As an American I am obligated to insure that hereafter American professors are treated with respect in Taiwan. As Taiwanese you must insure the continuance, with mutual respect, of Taiwan-American academic exchanges.


Sincerely,

Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University

*Postscript (August 8, 2010): The name of this former student is Lai Chung-hsiung (Raymond Lai, now Dean of the College of Liberal Arts), for whom I wrote a strong reference letter five years before he discredited me in favor of Chen An-chun. My reference letter is dated 17 February 1995 (see attachment, 4), the letter to the court, obviously intended to discredit me in favor of Chen An-chun, is dated November 27, 2000.
What happened to the boasted respect for teachers in Taiwan? Or does that only apply to Taiwanese teachers, not to foreign teachers? To this day, Mr. Lai denies he discredited me in that letter to the court! He claims he was merely saying he knew Lily Chen longer than he knew me. Presumably the others who signed the letter also knew Lily Chen longer than they knew me! Presumably Mr. Lai makes judicial decisions based on how long he's known someone. In other words, we're back to the Chinese concept of "relationships" all over again, despite the fact that Mr. Lai teaches critical theory as one of his specialties!
But what reasonable person would make judicial decisions based on knowing a person longer rather than knowing the facts of the case? This applies doubly to Mr. Lai who not only deposed to a court but is a member of the judicial Review Committee. Does Mr. Lai make decisions on the Review Committee based on how long he's known someone? Then that's one more reason why he should be removed from that committee.
I should add that four of the signatories of that letter to the court were also on Ms. Chen's doctoral oral committee on January 18, 2007, including Professors Cook, Chiou, Ren Shyh-jong, and Lai.
The final irony is that the letter to the court defending Lily Chen as "a modest and virtuous young woman of good character" discredits the signatories to the letter instead of me. For no reasonable person (much less faculty of an accredited university) would defend a student who wrote a secret accusatory letter against her former teacher, complaining of a grade eight years after it was recorded, and without a single document as evidence other than her own claim. As I wrote in my original letter (above): "The irony is, by defending the moral character of a student who contested a grade eight years late, in secret, and without proof, they proved themselves as unworthy to give a character reference as Lily was to receive it."
Keep in mind several of the signatories of that letter are now on the important department Review Committee, holding the fates of their colleagues in their hands. If they use the same criteria to judge their colleages that they used in judging me (i.e. hearsay, gossip, innuendo, secret accusations, collusion) then the question must be asked if National Cheng Kung University is a legitimate academic institution, much less a reputable one. That letter to the court, based on no evidence but Lily Chen's claim and in defiance of all democratic principles (presumption of innocence, evidence, defense, statutory limits, etc.) not only discredits the faculty members who signed that letter but can only suggest collusion in the dismissal process. Where in any other university in the civilized and democratic world could you get seven faculty members to defend a student who accused a teacher in secret, without evidence, about a grade eight years before?
I remind my readers that several of the faculty members mentioned above now hold important positions at our university: Liu Ge-Zen, the student who supported Chen An-chun's accusation of an unfair grade without proof is now Director of the Foreign Language Center, a position formerly held by Lai Chung-hsiung. Mr. Lai himself is now Dean of the College of Liberal Arts. Aaron Chiou is now Chair of the Department of Foreign Languages of Literature. Lily Chen herself is listed on her Facebook page as Adjunct Assistant Professor. Apparently the only way to get ahead at National Cheng Kung University is to engage in collusion against a professor, even one's former teachers! The end result is these professors, attempting to discredit me, not only discredited themselves, but also their university, with consequences that may last for years, if not decades.

[Fwd: Regarding human rights abuses at a Taiwan university]

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Regarding human rights abuses at a Taiwan university
Date:	Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:12:23 +0800
From:	rdca25@gmail.com
To:	info@ap.org
References:	<4A5E870C.1080001@gmail.com> <001c01ca05de$34a5f350$6822748c@pjP>

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

15 July 2010

To The Associated Press,

I have had long-standing problems regarding human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) in Tainan, Taiwan. In 2001, Taiwan's Ministry of Education canceled my illegal dismissal (1999-2000), highlighting human rights violations. Instead of reinstating me, NCKU argued foreigners had no right to appeal, even though the university held appeal hearings and attended Ministry hearings.
    After defying Ministry of Education directives for nearly two and a half years, the university finally reinstated me in 2003, but without formal redress. NCKU currently has many academic exchanges with US universities. But I do not believe disregard for human rights is a basis for academic exchanges with universities that observe human rights.
    Currently several high-ranking NCKU officials are American citizens or have benefited from American democratic values. They have ignored my petitions to formally resolve this case with apologies, penalties, and compensation according to internationally recognized principles of law.
    Our universities should not maintain academic exchanges with a university that flagrantly violates human rights and scorns human rights principles.
    If, as was stated on the Purdue University news page, NCKU "is one of the most outstanding universities in Asia, if not the world," one must question if human rights are relevant in this assessment, or if human rights are relevant at all.
    The current president, Dr. Michael M. C. Lai, has ignored several requests to discuss this issue with me. Apart from not honoring an appeal the university itself participated in, the fact that NCKU would try to enforce discriminatory practices against foreign faculty should concern Americans and the American press in the US, especially since media and juridical options in Taiwan are almost nonexistent.
   Taiwan's courts seem to take away with one hand the rights they give with the other. It reminds me of a line from a Shakespeare play, "I can call the dead, but will they come?" You can sue officials in Taiwan, but will you win?
   The courts imposed no penalties on university officials, though the violations were egregious, willful, defiant and lasted several years. Other court cases were a waste of time and money.
    In my suit against a student who wrote a secret libelous letter, the court ruled it was not libel since no one outside the university read it. Yet the student's letter was secretly circulated at appeal and review hearings. According to most law dictionaries, a third party is sufficient to constitute libel.
    Similarly, my suit against Review Committee members who made unproved accusations was dismissed on the basis the accusations were not circulated outside the department.
    Another court ruled against compensatory damages (travel costs to renew my visas), insisting there was no need for me to have stayed in Taiwan. But when an American left Taiwan during a child custody dispute, the court ruled that by leaving Taiwan the father proved he had no interest in the child and awarded custody to the mother.
    In other words, "Heads I win, tails you lose." I won the contract case presumably because the court had to uphold a Ministry ruling. The wonder is it accepted the university's case at all, based on no acceptable legal principle. Still, the court imposed no punitive damages on the university and awarded no compensatory damages to me. Such rulings increase the risk among foreign faculty in Taiwan, who are less likely to fight for their rights knowing even if they win they nonetheless lose in terms of the cost and years to fight the case.
    Taiwan English-language newspapers, which espouse democracy daily, have ignored my letters as have Taiwan human rights groups. Yet Taiwan is almost always represented as an established democracy.
    We should not maintain academic exchanges with a university that flagrantly violates human rights and scorns human rights principles. Academic exchanges should not be based on economic exchanges but on human rights principles.
    I write not only as an American victim of human rights abuses in Taiwan but on behalf of all foreigners who teach here who may have been, or will be, subject to similar abuses without redress.
    I appreciate whatever exposure or editorial assistance available. My main goal is to effect just closure in this case, based on principles of international human rights laws and to obtain for Americans the same protections in Taiwan guaranteed to citizens of Taiwan in America.

    Sincerely,

    Richard de Canio
    Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
    National Cheng Kung University

Letters from Taiwan's Ministry of Education to National Cheng Kung University's President
Regarding Enforcement of an Appeal Ruling

These are English translations of eight letters from the Ministry of Education to National Cheng Kung University concerning my illegal dismissal and the university's refusal to abide by a legal Ministry ruling, even though the university participated in appeal hearings and only challenged my right to appeal after the ruling favored me. It even filed a lawsuit to challenge the Ministry's ruling, then used the court case to try to further delay issuing the contracts!
(The translations are by a member of the NCKU Faculty Union. Chinese copies are attached in JPEG and PDF formats. Below are paraphrases. In any version, the unprincipled conduct of National Cheng Kung University is evident.)

    1. April 6, 2001: "The university should make lawful remedy within a month."
    2. May 11, 2001 "The university should first revive the contract with Mr. De Canio, which is the proper remedy."
    3. June 14, 2001 "If there is no practical revival of the contract, the decision of the MOE Appeals Committee is equivalent to vain words. Procedural justice should be upheld first. The university should not use the results of its previous improper procedures as an excuse to delay reinstating the professor."
    4. August 7, 2001 "If the university willfully delays so as to damage the teacher’s rights, the university must bear complete responsibility."
    5. May 3, 2002 "The university should first revive the contract with Mr. De Canio starting from August 1, 1999, and compensate his salary. There is no need to wait for the court verdict."
    6. October 15, 2002 "The university should immediately process the application of contract extension permit."
    7. December 2, 2002 "The university’s request to wait for the court verdict is denied. Revive the contract with Mr. De Canio and compensate his salary as soon as possible."
    8. January 17, 2003 "Do as described in the letter of December 2, 2002."

[Fwd: Regarding human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan]]

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	[Fwd: Regarding human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan]
Date:	Mon, 19 Jul 2010 19:52:07 +0800
From:	rdca25@gmail.com
To:	info@studentworldassembly.org

To Student World Assembly

Students,

    I have had long-standing issues with National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan over human rights abuses and the failure of enforcement here.
    Despite Taiwan's nominal support of human rights, in fact actual enforcement is a different matter. Yet Taiwan universities have numerous exchanges with American universities and universities in other democracies.
    I don't believe it's acceptable that a Taiwan university should be allowed to defy human rights principles and yet maintain academic exchanges with universities that observe human rights protections equally for all students and faculty.
    Here's my most recent letter concerning  these issues, sent to Taiwan's Ministry of Education and to other parties that should be concerned over this matter. Please suggest what my other options are or whether you yourselves can expose these issues. One option is to insure the commitment of US universities that have sister exchanges with NCKU to terminate those exchanges on the basis of lack of enforcement of human rights protections.
    Thank you for your assistance.

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

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Regarding human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan
Date:	Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:38:30 +0800
From:	rdca25@gmail.com
To:	higher@mail.moe.gov.tw
CC:	em50000@email.ncku.edu.tw, cymail@ms.cy.gov.tw, mail@ms.cy.gov.tw, scholarsatrisk@nyu.edu, letters@taipeitimes.com, ethics1@siu.edu, lhernandez@calstate.edu, jpostma@calstate.edu, butler@ipfw.edu, lchsiao@taiwandemocracy.org.tw, tfd@taiwandemocracy.org.tw, editor@it.chinatimes.com.tw, edop@etaiwannews.com, tahr@seed.net.tw, peu03@mail.gio.gov.tw, editor@etaiwannews.com, hefpp@hef.org.tw, em50030@email.ncku.edu.tw, info@chinapost.com.tw, president@purdue.edu, barbara.snyder@case.edu

Ministry of Education
Taipei, Taiwan
Minister Wu Ching-ji

July 15, 2010


cc: The Control Yuan
The Prime Minister
NCKU President Lai Ming-Chiao
NCKU Secretary General
Taiwan Department of Higher Education
Taiwan Foundation for Democracy
Taiwan Association for Human Rights
The Humanistic Education Foundation
Scholars at Risk
California State University
Southern Illinois University
Case Western Reserve University
Purdue University
Taiwan Association of University Professors
The Taipei Times
The China Post
The China Times
The Taiwan News


Dear Minister Wu Ching-ji,

As you should know by now, the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) illegally dismissed me in March 1999 using unproved accusations against me. In fact, the department didn't even see the need to inform me of the dismissal action, which I learned from hearsay.
    When that dismissal seemed like it would not pass the College Committee, a letter from a student was secretly circulated at  so-called "appeal" and "review" hearings in a desperate attempt to insure my dismissal. The student complained she failed her class unfairly eight years before.
    Instead of rejecting that letter, and commencing a formal reprimand against department officials who submitted it, our so-called "oversight" committees continued to circulate it secretly at subsequent "appeal" and "review" hearings (I read the letter only after taking the student to court). Yet these committees continued to approve my dismissal, even though repeatedly warned of human rights abuses by Faculty Union representatives.
    In December of that year the university finally "canceled" my dismissal. But it now argued that American ("foreign") teachers were not protected by the Teacher's Law, which insures employment rights. The case was returned to the department, for "more evidence." The university lawyer presided at some of these hearings, despite conflict of interest.
    In order to renew my visas to fight the case, I had to travel repeatedly abroad, often every two months, costing me tens of thousands of dollars. Therefore I appealed to the Ministry of Education and won in January 2001. The Ministry highlighted human rights abuses in its ruling.
    This did not deter the university, which now argued Americans ("foreigners") had no right to appeal. We're talking here about the so-called "fourth-ranked" university in Taiwan, with numerous academic exchanges with American universities. We're talking about university officials and faculty who benefit from American degrees and human rights protections in the United States and elsewhere abroad.
    I should add this case repeatedly passed all the so-called "oversight" committees, sometimes unanimously. The case passed even after I won the Ministry of Education ruling.
    The Ministry of Education sent eight letters warning the university it must comply with the ruling, or its ruling would have no legal significance (see attachment). Still the university delayed for nearly two and a half years. Even after it complied it imposed penalties on me, as if I had lost the case. Those penalties were ultimately rejected by the Ministry too.
    But the university continues to be in a state of denial, as if it did nothing wrong. The current president, Lai Ming-Chio, has repeatedly refused to see me about resolving this case according to democratically accepted human rights principles, including apology, remedy, and compensation. Therefore I have no choice but to appeal to the international community until this case is resolved according to international human rights principles.
    I should add the Ministry of Education is partly responsible for the culture of arrogance that has established itself at our university. It allowed former president, Kao Chiang, to defy the Ministry for nearly two and a half years. Not only didn't it penalize Mr. Kao but it approved him for a second term as university president even after he defied the Ministry for nearly two and a half years.
    The courts for their part simply supported the Ministry's ruling, but without penalties against the university or its officials. How can democracy flourish without appropriate deterrent rulings? What's going to stop the university from treating other American or foreign faculty the same way, at no risk? This not only compromises foreign faculty here, but academic integrity as well, since foreign faculty are less likely to contest academic misconduct here.
    I should add neither the Taiwan media nor human rights groups have helped. A conflict of interest case at a Hong Kong university in 2000 made headline news for days. I know because I was in Hong Kong to renew my visa.
    This case is far more serious, yet no media here think it worthy of exposure. To my knowledge, only one reporter, ironically from a Chinese-language (not English-language) newspaper, published this case with some insight into the serious issues involved.
    Yet the case involved not only legal issues but also shameless duplicity on the part of officials at a high-ranked university here. The university held appeal hearings and also sent representatives to an appeal hearing at the Ministry of Education. But after it lost it claimed foreigners had no right to appeal.
    The university holds numerous academic exchanges with universities abroad, but denies equal rights to Americans here, claiming we're not protected by the Teacher's Law. Numerous Taiwan faculty enjoy human rights protections in America when they matriculate or teach there, but indifferently sit on committees "reviewing" an American even after he wins a Ministry of Education appeal. To my knowledge, not a single faculty member in my department (many with US degrees) has protested my treatment here.
    Since the university is in a state of denial, claiming it did nothing wrong, despite Ministry letters (attached) and other documents, if I drop this case, a revisionist version of what happened will soon prevail over the facts.  This must not happen.
    This case must be formally resolved according to international principles of law presumably shared by Taiwan and sister universities in America. On what other basis can there be academic exchanges?
    The Golden Rule is still the gold standard. Taiwan officials have only to reverse nationalities to see how offensive the university's actions are. Imagine an American university telling a Taiwan professor he's not protected by the same laws that protect Americans. Imagine telling a Taiwan professor after he wins an appeal in America that he had no right to appeal in the first place and therefore the appeal ruling will not be enforced. What would the reaction be among Taiwan citizens?
    National Cheng Kung University seems unable or unwilling to resolve this case according to human rights principles. Whether this is due to arrogance or ignorance is not my concern. My concern is to insure the rights of Americans.
    Because of the university's attitude, these rights can only be enforced by the Ministry of Education. Therefore the Ministry of Education must assume responsibility and insure the enforcement of human rights on my behalf.  Failing to do so may jeopardize not only the reputation of Taiwan universities but also academic exchanges with universities abroad.
    I will wait a few more days. If I don't receive a prompt and adequate response, I will open a web page exposing this case internationally. I will also continue to contact American universities and inform them of the human rights situation here. Hopefully they will  insure reciprocal exchanges based on equality under the law. Finally, I will continue to appeal directly to the US media and human rights groups, including student campus newspapers, until this case is resolved in a manner that upholds the rights and the dignity of Americans here.

    Sincerely,


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

[Fwd: Letter to Professor Chih-Chieh Chou Concerning Human Rights Abuses at National Cheng Kung University]

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Letter to Professor Chih-Chieh Chou Concerning Human Rights Abuses at National Cheng Kung University
Date:	Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:06:03 +0800
From:	rdca25@gmail.com
To:	ccchou@mail.ncku.edu.tw

Professor Chih-Chieh Chou
Department of Political Science,
Graduate Institute of Political Economy,
College of Social Sciences,
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

27 July 2010

Dear Professor Chou,

I recently came across your article in the university's Research Express  (Volume 12, Issue 9; February 26, 2010, online at http://research.ncku.edu.tw/re/commentary/e/20100226/1.html).
    You begin by lauding Human Rights Day, 2009, citing "the Universal Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights," then adding,

From now on, the citizens can resort to the articles of the Covenants to plea for compensation once they assume their rights and interests are deprived through laws violating the Covenants, which makes Taiwan the only Chinese society with comprehensive human rights framework around the globe. Such accomplishment is way ahead of China while they celebrate their 60^th anniversary and brag about their wealth and strong national defense power (p. 1). (My emphasis.)

    You refer "to the protection and installation of civilian economic and social rights," and, listing "practical rights issues," you conclude, contrasting China and Taiwan by stating that "Taiwan’s only competitive edge in interaction is the prevalent installation of these humanitarian values. Taiwan should seize the opportunity to demonstrate our Chinese human rights experience and its content to the international community!" (my emphasis).
    I applaud your concern over human rights in China. But I'm curious why you are so concerned about enforcing human rights in China when there are egregious human rights at our own university that you can help to enforce too.
    You are a professor at our university, so you should be aware that in 1999 I was illegally dismissed from the Department at Foreign Languages and Literature at our very university. A secret letter was circulated at several "oversight" committees, presumably to insure my dismissal when it became apparent the original accusations against me were invalid. I should add I wasn't even aware of those accusations until after the dismissal hearing, and then only by hearsay.
    My dismissal, egregiously in violation of basic human rights protections, nonetheless passed all "oversight" committees at our university. For obvious reasons it was overturned by the Ministry of Education on appeal in a ruling dated 8 January 2001. In pedagogic style, the ruling highlighted human rights abuses, presumably to insure NCKU officials would not repeat the same mistakes.
    However at our university even a legal Ministry ruling is not sufficient to guarantee human rights enforcement. Then what is the purpose of a Ministry appeal? I have no idea how our colleagues would answer that question if they felt compelled to.
    Subsequently, university president, Kao Chiang, refused to enforce that Ministry ruling for nearly two and a half years (attachment), even after an international human rights group, Scholars at Risk, queried him about the delay (see attachments). Only after repeated pressure from the Ministry of Education (attachment) did the university finally comply with a legal Ministry ruling. Even then the university tried to impose penalties against me, despite the Ministry ruling; as if I never won the case.
    However, before the university finally complied it argued foreign faculty are not protected by the Teacher's Law. Hence, even after the dismissal action against me was canceled, in December, 1999 after an eight-month delay (I remind you, I had to renew my visa every two months), I was informed I had to be "reviewed" again, since the case was now being treated not as a firing action but as a hiring action. Can you follow the logic here?
    American professors, you see, are not protected by the Teacher's Law, the same law that protects you, or the principle of equality under the law that protected you as a student in New York (SUNY).
    (The university actually went to court to prove this, apparently unconcerned about saying so in public; yet NCKU has been called the fourth-ranked university in Taiwan.)
    Now since it was the case (as the university argued) that the dismissal action was really a hiring action, even though the university's dismissal action could not pass the university committee I could lose my job anyway, for now it was an issue not of me being fired illegally but just of me not being hired, presumably on legal criteria. So, you see, semantics and human rights don't make good bedfellows.
    I'm curious, Professor Chou. According to our (NCKU) web site, you received your degree at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo. Did that New York university ever tell Taiwanese professors they were not protected by the same laws that protect American professors? If not, we have a human rights problem in Taiwan. Isn't that so?
    Now NCKU university held appeal hearings here. The university also sent representatives to appeal hearings at the Ministry of Education in Taipei. At no time did the university ever argue that Americans had no right to appeal. It would have been against the law as it's understood here anyway, although our officials have a different understanding of the law (attachment).
    But laws are beside the point now. I'm arguing fundamental honesty now, not law. Because after I won the Ministry of Education appeal the university then argued that, as a foreign teacher I had no right to appeal in the first place.
    I'm curious, Professor Chou, since your department is Political Science, and your specialties, according to our web page, include "Human Rights" and "Political Change," how is it possible for the university to hold appeal hearings, and even attend them in Taiwan, if, indeed, I had no right to appeal in the first place? Can you explain this legal conundrum to me, since my department is Foreign Languages and Literature and I'm relatively unenlightened about political science.
    But let me sum up the issues here for clarity. The university itself held appeal hearings, which involved numerous committee meetings in a three-tiered process, including department, college, and university committees. These "oversight" committees repeatedly passed my dismissal, before and even after the Ministry overturned it.
    The university also debated the case at the Ministry of Education in Taipei. Yet after the university lost it argued I had no right to appeal.
    This of course would be rejected in an American court based on the legal principle known as estoppel. Let me quote Wikipedia on this term:

Estoppel in its broadest sense is a legal term referring to a series of legal and equitable doctrines that preclude "a person from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative officers, or by his own deed, acts, or representations, either express or implied."

    But this is a legal principle. There's the deeper moral principle whose violation is even more audacious, since one does not expect officials of a university that is commonly called a prestige university in Taiwan to behave in such a duplicitous manner, more like children in a school yard who want to win a fight by whatever means than as accredited professors and honorable officials, especially since many professors here, like yourself, were accredited in the United States and were treated equitably while matriculated at universities or teaching there.
    Because of the serious human rights issues involved, I will fight this case no matter how long it takes. I have even opened a web site to that purpose.
    But in the meantime it worries me that every time someone googles for "human rights" and "Taiwan" they will find, not details about egregious human rights violations at National Cheng Kung University in Taiwan (although with my blog I hope to correct this problem) but the words of your article pleading to "Make Human Rights Work in Mainland China through Cross-Strait Dialogue."
    With all due respect, Professor Chou, although I applaud your concern over human rights in Mainland China, isn't it of more immediate concern to make sure that human rights work in Taiwan, specifically at our own university, first?
    Not only are you the author of that article in Research Express (previously published in United Daily), but the editorial staff of Research Express includes our current university president, Michael M. C. Lai, Senior Executive Vice President Da Hsuan Feng, and Senior Executive Vice President Hwung-Hweng Hwung. Yet I have repeatedly petitioned President Lai and other officials here to resolve this outstanding human rights case, to no avail. 
    In the 1960s there was a slogan, THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY. Although I applaud your thinking globally about human rights issues, I really think you should act locally too.
    Your well-meaning article reminds me of another saying, this one by Edmund Burke, that "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
    I will give my colleagues the benefit of the doubt and assume those not directly involved in my illegal dismissal or in the enforcement of that dismissal are "good" men and women. But by doing nothing about this case, the evidence of which is fully documented (and only partly represented in my attachment) you are not insuring (to quote from your article) "the protection and installation of civilian economic and social rights" in Taiwan.
    To paraphrase the final line of your essay, I modestly ask that you "seize the opportunity to demonstrate our Chinese human rights experience and its content to the international community!" by enforcing human rights at our university. This can be done by insuring a formal apology and compensation from National Cheng Kung University over its human rights abuses. If human rights can't be enforced here they certainly won't be enforced in Mainland China, no matter how many articles you publish.

    Sincerely,


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

[Fwd: Regarding principles of academic exchanges with sister universities abroad]

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Regarding principles of academic exchanges with sister universities abroad
Date:	Sat, 07 Aug 2010 09:39:45 +0800
From:	rdca25@gmail.com
To:	info@msche.org

Middle States Commission on Higher Education
3624 Market Street, 2nd Floor West
Philadelphia, PA 19104

August 7, 2010

Dear Commission on Higher Education,

As a teacher at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU), a Taiwan university with confirmed human rights violations (attachments), and thus far unable to effect legal remedy in Taiwan, I hope to pursue legal remedy in my own country, the United States. One option I've considered is to effect a legal termination of academic exchanges between NCKU and US sister universities based on human rights principles.
    In 2001 my illegal dismissal was overturned by the Minstry of Education but NCKU defied the ruling for nearly two and a half years. To this day, the university has declined to apologize or effect remedy based on international human rights principles and even denies human rights were violated.
    Academic exchanges should be based on reciprocal exchanges of core values, including human rights as well as academic standards. Exchanges should not be based solely on monetary interests.
    Since I have exhausted all legal channels in Taiwan, my only available option is to insure remedy at NCKU by effecting a termination of its academic exchanges with US sister universities.
    Are there legal statutes or bylaws that prevent academic exchanges with universities with confirmed human rights abuses (attachments)? I do not believe American universities should maintain academic exchanges with a university that violates, not only human rights principles but also principles of reciprocity.

    Thank you.

    Sincerely,

    Richard de Canio
    Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
    National Cheng Kung Universtiy
    Tainan, Taiwan
    886 (06) 237 8626
    rdca25@gmail.com