Ministry of Education
Taipei, Taiwan
Minister Wu Ching-ji
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
26 August 2010
Dear Minister Wu,
I am requesting that National Cheng Kung University president, Dr. Michael Ming-Chiao Lai, insure enforcement of human rights principles at National Cheng Kung University, in Tainan, Taiwan.
Taiwan's Chief Executive, President Ma Ying-jeou has repeatedly affirmed support for human rights principles, and Taiwan's Legislative Yuan on March 31, 2009 ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These ratifications seemed to endorse Taiwan's allegiance with the international community on the issue of human rights as well as its reciprocity with academic institutions in advanced democracies.
No academic institution that refuses to enforce human rights can credibly represent or collaborate with the international academic community. Not only is this an issue of human rights but of academic integrity as well, because if a university does not enforce human rights there is no guarantee it can insure academic standards or principles either. On what other basis can there be academic exchanges?
Academic relationships must be principled, not merely monetary, exchanges. No Taiwan university should, with impunity, be allowed to insult an American professor, deprive him of his rights, and then refuse to insure remedy once those rights are violated or, indeed, even acknowledge that his rights were violated.
But the facts are plain and fully documented. National Cheng Kung University grievously violated my human rights in its illegal dismissal in 1999; its circulation of a secret letter against me that same year; its subsequent defiance for nearly two and a half years of a Ministry ruling in my favor in January 2001; and its long-standing policy of refusing to compensate me for losses incurred during my dismissal ordeal and subsequent litigation, apologize for its violations, or even acknowledge that violations were committed in the first place. This is unacceptable, at least by international standards of countries that observe human rights principles and, presumably, by the human rights protections guaranteed in the human rights covenants that Taiwan recently signed.
According to Taiwan's government web site, "Conscious of its responsibilities, the ROC government is dedicated to safeguarding human rights and putting an end to all manner of social injustice and abuse of power. The people and government of the ROC fully share the universal value of upholding human rights and are determined to be a shining example of human rights protection."
In this case, as in others, actions speak louder than words.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(August 1988 - July 2010)
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
TIMELINE OF NCKU DISMISSAL ACTION
TIMELINE OF NCKU DISMISSAL ACTION
1. March 29, 1999 - the FLLD review committee passed the "dismissal" decision (no legal reasons.)
2. April 23, 1999 - Appeal to the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee's Appeals group.
3. May 3, 1999 - the College of Liberal Arts Appeals Group decided the "evidences" listed by the FLLD were not objective and solid. The case was sent back to FLLD for them to solidify evidences.
4. June 9, 1999 - the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee's Appeals Group rejected the appeal. (This was based on my former student, Chen An-Chun's secret letter submitted by FLLD chair, Li Chung-hsiung, claiming harassment.)
5. June 14, 2000 - the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee passed the "dismissal" decision. (No legal reasons.)
6. June 25, 1999 - the University Review Committee passed the "dismissal" decision (no legal reasons.)
7. July 28, 1999 - Appeal to the University Appeals Committee.
8. December 3, 1999 - the University Appeals Committee cancelled the "dismissal" decision. (Chairman was university lawyer, Wang)
9. March 10, 2000 - the FLLD Review Committee passed the "dismissal" decision (no reasons.)
10. March 21, 2000 - Appeal to the College of Liberal Arts Appeals group.
11. March 29, 2000 - the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee's Appeals Group rejected the appeal.
12. April 12, 2000 - the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee passed the "dismissal" decision (no reasons.)
13. April 17, 2000 - Appeal to the University Review Committee's Appeals Group.
14. April 28, 2000 - the University Review Committee's Appeals Group decided that for this case, the FLLD and CLA did not list reasons of dismissal. They should re-review.
15. May 5, 2000 - the FLLD review committee passed the "dismissal" decision (the same illegal reasons as previous year.)
16. May 10, 2000 - the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee passed the "dismissal" decision (the same illegal reasons as previous year.)
17. May 24, 2000 - the university review committee passed the "dismissal" decision (the same illegal reasons as previous year.)
18. June 12, 2000 - Appealed to the University Appeals Committee.
19. August 18, 2000 - the University Appeals Committee rejected the appeal (Chairman was Wang)
20. September 5, 2000 - Appeal to the MOE Central Appeals Committee.
21. January 8, 2001 - the MOE Central Appeals Committee cancelled the "dismissal" decision.
22. May 24, 2001 - the university informed that they have started the investigation of plagiarism, requesting "appellant's" "defense."
23. May 24, 2001 - the FLLD review committee passed the "dismissal" decision.
24. June 19, 2001 - the College of Liberal Arts review committee passed the "dismissal" decision.
25. June 28, 2001 - Appeal to the University Review Committee's Appeals Group.
26. July 5, 2001 - the University Review Committee's Appeals Group rejected the appeal.
27. July 23, 2001 - the University Review Committee suspended the "dismissal" decision, and requested that the FLLD provide more evidence to match the requirements of Employment Law: Article 41.
28. September 12, 2001 - the university review committee passed the "dismissal" decision (the same illegal reasons as previous year.)
29. October 23, 2001 - Appeal to the University Appeals Committee.
30. June 18, 2002 - the University Appeals Committee cancelled the "dismissal" decision. (Chairman was a different person).
From May 11, 2001 to April 21, 2003 the MOE sent 8 letters urging the university reinstate the professor.
31. May 6, 2003 - the university notified of issuing the contract and compensated part of the salary.
32. May 20, 2003 - the University Review Committee passed the "plagiarism is a light case, the punishments are：no promotion, no salary increments, no sabbatical leave within next six years."
33. March 22, 2004 - the MOE Central Appeals Committee cancelled the "compensating part of the salary" decision, ordered the university to make proper decision within 20 days.
34. November 1, 2004 - the MOE Central Appeals Committee cancelled the "punishments" decision, based on the reason the law cannot trace back to these cases occurred before its formal execution.
35. August 19, 2004 - the university compensated the rice money but still refused to compensate the four years (1999-2003) yearly salary increment.
36. October 17, 2006 Wang claimed to the Kaohsiung Administrative court: "Foreigners(teachers)are not protected by Educational workers employment law, foreigners are are governed by Employment law, not Teachers law." 37. March 13, 2007 Wang claimed to the Kaohsiung Administrative court: "Foreign teachers are not protected by the Teachers law. When the contract period is fulfilled the hiring-employment relationship spontaneously terminates.
38. August 28, 2007 - the university compensated the four years (1999-2003) yearly salary increment.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Letter to NCKU colleague who ran for Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and phoned to solicit my vote (!)
-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: | Letter to [Name omitted] |
|---|---|
| Date: | Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:42:44 -0700 |
| From: | Richard |
| To |
Dear [Name omitted],
Attached is a letter you signed claiming you would credit Lily Chen's word over mine. Yet her claim that she unfairly failed eight years before would be ludicrous to most rational people.
Worse,
This is especially so since you're on the Review Committee. Are you using the same standards to judge your colleagues in Review hearings that you used to judge me in this letter? Would you use the same standards as dean?
I'm curious what those standards were, because Lily deposed in court that I destroyed her exam. What "evidence" did you use? I thought people were presumed innocent and had to be proved guilty, rather than the other way around.
For the record, I did not destroy her exam. I wrote Lily a letter, offering to locate her exam in my office.
Lily ignored my letter. Years later, in 1999, she repeated her accusation in a letter secretly circulated at hearings that led to my dismissal!
Who sat on those committees? Not people from Mars or Mainland China, but citizens of Taiwan who expect Americans to die in defense of "Taiwan democracy."
I have no idea why you signed that letter or how (as you claim) you forgot doing so. You also claimed to forget accusing Professor [name omitted] of misusing university funds, though you finally admitted saying something like that.
Forgetting you did such things is worse than doing them. It suggests a reckless disregard for the reputation of colleagues—not a virtue in a dean.
In our phone talk, you disowned unethical practices. But consider the facts:
On 24 May 2001, you sat on a Review Committee meeting chaired by Li Chung-hsiung. Lily's letter was secretly circulated. How can I credit your claim you did not know about Lily Chen's case "until afterwards"?
You wish to be dean. One expects a university official to know, as well as enforce, legal principles.
You also said you defended me against the charge of plagiarism. But a meeting was held by the College of Liberal Arts at noon on 7 May 2003 on that issue.
You were among six members present. Official minutes show nobody protested the accusations.
You said you encouraged my colleagues to accept me, when you should have encouraged them to abide by principles of law instead. We can always live without people; we can't live without principles of law.
I quote from the Analects, chapter 24:
Tsze-kung asked, saying, "What do you say of a man who is loved by all the people of his neighborhood?" The Master replied, "We may not for that approve him." "And what do you say of him who is hated by all the people of his neighborhood?" The Master said, "We may not for that conclude he is bad. It is better than either of these cases that the good in the neighborhood love him, and the bad hate him."
Regarding your legal principles, as you boast, are they that principled? You say you said, "If" I failed Lily unfairly, "that's a serious accusation."
But where's the "if" when a student waits eight years to accuse a teacher and does it in secret? It's better to say, "If Kao Chiang defied a legal Ministry ruling, that's a serious accusation." But there's no "if" in that, since it's a plain fact he did so.
So when facts favor a person, you say "if," but when facts accuse a person, you don't say anything. But a dean must favor facts, and then stand up for them.
You also boast you defended a colleague accused of sexual assault because his accuser plagiarized. Was that a favor or a principled act? I wonder if it occurred to you the student's accusation might be true, regardless if she plagiarized.
That does not excuse lack of due process. But neither does it excuse your failure to defend principles of law rather than an individual.
The documented failure to observe legal principles at our university will undermine the credibility of NCKU as a legitimate academic institution. Committees routinely ignore due process, as you know, since you sat on those committees.
Yet decisions unanimously approved at our university are soundly rejected on Ministry appeal. Our committee members are ignorant of, indifferent to, or even contemptuous of law. This was clear when Kao Chiang defied a legal Ministry ruling for more than two years, then allowed an appellant who won an appeal to be "reviewed" again!
You boast hopefully of Mr. Kao's successor. But though the Ministry of Education has urged him to comply with its ruling, he has continued the stonewalling policies of his predecessor.
Deeply ingrained authoritarian habits prevent a fully rationalized enforcement of legal rights here. One committee member is recorded as having rebuked me for failing to admit accusations, though an appeal hearing is precisely set up to allow defense! (See Minutes, 7 May 2003.) Soon appellants will be given white penitent caps to wear, as during Mao's Cultural Revolution.
Due process is a wonderful thing. We don't know until it's too late.
As for your reputed ignorance, I am weary of colleagues who claim to know nothing of my case when people at other colleges and as far as Taipei know about it! How is that possible?
This case is now in its eighth year and involves blatant human rights abuses and contempt of law. Yet our colleagues seem more interested in holding dinner parties.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse before the law and, assuming a just God, it will be no excuse before God. But as for colleagues indifferent to the serious human rights issues involved in my case, or who boast ignorance about them, their votes may be enough to get you elected.
That's all I'll say on these issues. Despite your fervent denials over the phone, I must allow the evidence to speak for itself.
You may or may not wish to apologize for your actions, or even acknowledge them. I'll let the facts speak instead.
Nonetheless, I wish you well.
Sincerely,
Richard.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
The Lily Chen Case Concerning the Secret Accusation Against a National Cheng Kung University Professor. The secret letter (dated June 1999) was accepted as part of a dismissal action against the professor by then FLLD chairman LI CHUNG-HSIUNG and later secretly circulated at college and university hearings, at least one of them chaired by then Dean, LEE CHIAN-ER. Thrice I asked Mr. Lee to at least reveal the contents of the letter and thrice he refused or responded with silence. Only a woman professor had the courage to reveal, in summary, the contents of the letter (at National Cheng Kung University it takes a woman to do a man's job). I was able to view the actual letter only after I took the student who wrote it, Lily Chen, to court.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
[Fwd: Regarding rights abuses]
-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: | Regarding rights abuses |
|---|---|
| Date: | Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:52:52 +0800 |
| From: | rdca25@gmail.com |
| To: | online@purdueexponent.org |
The Exponent
P.O. Box 2506
West Lafayette, IN, 47906
(765) 743-1111
online@purdueexponent.orgDear Editors,
I have reported to Purdue University officials human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) in Tainan, Taiwan. Though I have sent several emails, with full documentation, thus far I have not received what I would consider an adequate response.
As you know Purdue has long-standing academic exchanges with NCKU. As an American citizen I don't believe an American university should maintain academic exchanges with a university that has, with apparent impunity, a documented history of human rights violations.
I don't think university exchanges should be based solely on economic interests, but on academic and human rights principles. If you as concerned students, citizens, and journalists are interested in this issue, please inform me and I will submit necessary documentation. Not only will you help to expose this case, but also insure American (and other foreign) faculty are treated equitably in the future.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)