The curious case of the Wirick case

Yesterday Charles (Chas) Wirick seems to have written his own blog to protest the one year suspension against him. A charge as it appears was related on starting the shooting rumor but he contends it wasn't him who began the rumor but others as he explained. He announced in his blog that he is appealing the ruling of the Student Conduct Board hearing.

There are questions as to how these hearings start. According to the Office of Student Conduct Disciplinary Proceedings (OSCDP) it appears that anyone can make any kind of charges:

Any member of the University community (administration, faculty, staff, and students) may request charges against any student(s) for alleged violations of the Student Code of Conduct.

Seems pretty easy to go after students if their is an agenda to retaliate.The OSCDP continues:

All allegations of violations should be prepared in writing and directed to the Coordinator of Student Conduct. In addition, any allegation of violations should be submitted as soon as possible after the event takes place.

If Charles Wirick says that others were the ones that started the rumors then where are the charges against them?

The Coordinator of Student Conduct may conduct an investigation to determine if the reported allegation(s) has merit and/or if they can be disposed of administratively by mediation or mutual consent of the parties involved on a basis acceptable to the Student Conduct Office staff. If the charges cannot be disposed of by mediation or mutual consent, the Student Conduct Office staff may later serve in the same manner as a non-voting member of the Student Conduct Board in a hearing.

Apparently mediation never occurred and that charges against Wirick were pending until after the hearing when they doled out the suspension as punishment.

According to disciplinary proceedings Charles Wirick does have the right to appeal his charges and suspension against him but there's a caveat...is it too late? Unless he has some new information or other relevant facts that were not available at the time of his hearing and within 5 days of his decision.

I. The student shall be informed of the right to appeal a decision to the Director of Student Conduct (or the Executive Director of Student Affairs, if the Director served as hearing officer in the case). A decision or judgment of the Coordinator of Student Conduct or hearing official may be appealed by either or both of the parties involved on the following grounds:

* The disciplinary conference was not conducted fairly and in conformity with prescribed procedures, which made it unfair. Deviations from designated procedures will not be a basis for sustaining an appeal unless significant unfairness results.

* New or newly discovered information that could not have been produced at the conference. In order for the Director of Student Conduct (or the Executive Director of Student Affairs, if the Director served as hearing officer in the case) to consider new information sufficient to alter a decision, or other relevant facts not brought out in the original conference, such information and/or facts must not have been known at the time of the original conference by the appellant.

* The decision is not supported by substantial information considering the record as a whole. That is, the facts in the case were not sufficient to establish that a violation of the Student Code of Conduct occurred.

* The sanction imposed was excessive or insufficient and not appropriate for the violation.

An appeal must be in writing, must indicate the basis of the appeal with an explanation, and must be made within five working days of the date the parties were notified of the decision. In an appeal case, sanctions assessed by the initial Coordinator of Student Conduct or hearing officer may be held in suspense until acted upon in appeal. The appeal will be reviewed by the Director of Student Conduct (or Executive Director of Student Affairs if the Director served as hearing officer), and he or she may affirm, reverse, or modify the sanction originally determined. The Coordinator of Student Conduct shall convey pertinent information related to the case. The decision of the Director of Student Conduct (or the Executive Director of Student Affairs if the Director served as hearing officer) is final.

Regardless, it appears to be a messy situation where the victim in all this appears to be Charles Wirick. What it appears is that miscommunication or misunderstanding was the possibility from those who could not understand Wirick's signing since he was still learning how to sign appropriately. He may have misapplied certain signed words or gestures that might have changed the context of what he was talking about and not about him making threats to do the shooting. Even Michael Sprouse made clear of Charles Wirick's background painting him through the implication that he's not a good signer because he was raised oral and with little exposure to Deaf culture and community.

Sprouse described Wirick in frank terms. “He was raised oral without much exposure to Deaf culture and community—and here at Gallaudet he, for the most part, was an outcast. Wirick vented to me before about deaf-to-deaf avdism, which enraged him. He didn’t like how Gallaudet treated him and didn’t know how to fit in the university.”

Big question of the day.  Did the Coordinator of Student Conduct, Student Conduct Office staff and Student Conduct Office itself ever consider the possibility of poor signing as a possibility for misunderstanding and miscommunication to occur causing other students to use that information and begin their own version of a rumor which ended up painting Wirick as a possible shooter?

After all in the Buff and Blue blog they wrote what Michael Sprouse said of Wirick on his signing:

“He looked so determined—full of menace—when he made that statement,” said Sprouse. He stated that Wirick described in graphic American Sign Language how the Kappa Gamma (KG) fraternity brothers, circled in their clique, would be gunned down in the cafeteria, and then the Phi Kappa Zeta (PKZ) sisters would be next."

Graphic ASL? I have two questions. If Charles Wirick not fluent in signing then how can it be "ASL"? It'd be more like PSE or lot of manual signing. Did Wirick sign in SEE? Second question, if it's not done in "ASL" then how was the "graphic signing" done? What did it look like? And so on. And if he's not that fluent or fluid in signing then shouldn't the possibility of poor signing be cause of this miscommunication and misunderstanding as a reason for rumors about him get out of control?

Yes, it appears that something is not right here. If Gallaudet University (i.e. Dr. Hurwitz) have any sense they should look into Wirick's case, the people in the Student Conduct Office and investigate further on these things.  Charles Wirick could be a case where he was unwittingly discriminated against and misunderstood because of his signing ability. And if so, then this does not bode well for all current and future students new to signing at Gallaudet University that their signing could be misconstrued/misunderstood as a threat to campus should they be in a casual discussion at a cafeteria, at Rathskeller or anywhere else on campus.  Did that happen to Charles Wirick? Was he a victim of poor circumstances here? Does Gallaudet University discriminate against poor signers?

We would like to know, Dr. Hurwitz. Do the right thing and look into this.


Addendum note: Curiously the Buff and Blue blog on Wirick is no longer available but I do have a copy of it should it not re-appear which I think it will to include news of Charles Wirick popping up with his own blog protesting the suspension. If not, then I will make the copy available for all.