I am Fiver! speaks again...

An anonymous commenter "I am Fiver!" left another comment under a blog I covered a few months back about this "Fiver" person. The guy who proclaimed to be "the most dangerous threat to their (Deafhood) plans."

Here's what he/she said after reading previous comments:

Interestingly, a number of readers posted their own experiences or views that seemingly reinforced a number of my own. These are independent and largely anonymous voices that lend validity to some of my assertions. Of course, there are always the naysayers.

Shel has been the most vociferous with her attempts to rationalize these methods that are oppressive to those children with residual hearing and speech that can be developed. The “bi-bi” approach, or rather “movement” is operating under the guise of “teaching language and culture.” This implies that ASL and Deaf culture are only incidental to the teaching, when in fact, those concepts are the main goal. Auditory methods and speech articulation are suppressed under the rationale that it is necessary in order for these children to “assimilate” ASL to proficiency. There are many fallacies regarding this assumption. But just bear in mind that these people are profoundly affecting the lives of these children by altering the primary language to ASL and by exposure to a culture that has not been defined.

There is no theory or empirical evidence that ASL is a “bridge” to English language learning, even though this very premise has been claimed by many renowned (unnamed) educators of the deaf. In the past these advocates for “bi-bi,” ASL, etc. have alluded to, or insinuated that such a thing exists. But when pressed, they admit that there is no evidence. This has not stopped them, however. They are fervently working to manufacture “studies” and seeking out established language experts to validate their methods, by claiming parallels about how hearing persons learn foreign language. It is not the same! Learners of a second language have already acquired their primary language!

The goal of our schools, whether they are public schools for the hearing or public (state schools) for the deaf, the majority of states require that English must be taught as L1 (English=First Language). This is not happening in deaf schools where ASL is being taught as L1 (ASL=First Language). In such cases, this is clear violation of state law. Children must be taught English in order to function and be economically viable in the world, once they leave the school. I suppose, I do not know, but suppose, that they will rationalize their actions by saying that deaf require a visual language in order to communicate. All that they are doing is engraining these children into a language that is little known or used outside of deaf circles.

The minds of young children are “in the process” of being wired in early childhood. Although much of this “wiring” occurs in the first 2-3 years, it continues for many years after this “ideal window” for language development. Once a child is “wired” for a language of a certain type, that mode becomes life-long and unlikely to change. Proponents of the “bi-bi” movement know this, and are pressing forward with this misguided approach that will create a whole new generation of deaf individuals bereft of English language skills, recognizable speech, and enculturation into an extremely small minority “society” that has historically, and likely to remain a social and economic under-class in perpetuity.

I shall stop now. May I ask those whom seem more interested in speculation about my identify and the desire to "defrock" me before the Deaf establishment that will cause the hammer to come down, please be so kind to simply focus on the message. I understand that you probably can't but then its sufficient evidence that what I am saying must grate at your sensitivities, perhaps even create a bit of paranoia?

I am Fiver!

Interesting comment. And, seriously folks, I don't know who this guy is. But he/she certainly brings up some interesting discussion. Are Deaf culture and ASL under assault?

Does Section 504 and ICED prevent "ASL at all times" at Gallaudet University?

Gallaudet University is an institution on higher learning and is supposedly home where communication accessibility reigns supreme.  However, students who go to Gallaudet University are not necessarily fluent in signing or even ASL.  Many do benefit from the use of their hearing aids or cochlear implants enabling them to speak and listen. But students new to Gallaudet University must contend with the fierce indoctrination of ASL. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if previous students left Gallaudet University because they were harassed for not being "Deaf enough" or that they feel they couldn't "fit in" which was how Charles Wirick probably felt.

For many students and staff on the campus of Gallaudet University the politics of being Deaf means that ASL should be the only means of communication on the campus of Gallaudet University for all students. That's what Ruiz is favoring in the Buff and Blue newspaper. But here's where it gets sticky with president Hurwitz.  He recently celebrated the new ICED resolution on the global call to "accept and respect all languages and all forms of communication." Which is good or is it? But then it gets compounded with Federal laws covering communication accessibility.

According to Section 504, and since Gallaudet University is a recipient of federal financial assistance, a post secondary institution has an obligation under to ensure accessibility to students with disabilities, including those with hearing loss and the need for communication accessibility.

An important responsibility of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is to eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability against students with disabilities. OCR receives numerous complaints and inquiries in the area of elementary and secondary education involving Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (Section 504). Most of these concern identification of students who are protected by Section 504 and the means to obtain an appropriate education for such students.

Section 504 is a federal law designed to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities in programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Section 504 provides: "No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . . ."

OCR enforces Section 504 in programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance from ED. Recipients of this Federal financial assistance include public school districts, institutions of higher education, and other state and local education agencies. The regulations implementing Section 504 in the context of educational institutions appear at 34 C.F.R. Part 104.

Services you should be able to request at Gallaudet University:

* American Sign Language Interpreter
* Signed English Interpreter (SEE-Signing Exact English or PSE-Pidgin Sign English)
* FM Systems and Conference Microphones
* Voice interpreter
* CART
* Remote Captioning
* Cued Speech Transiliterator
* I-Communicator
* Typewell/C-Print
* Professional or Volunteer Notetakers

Even though Gallaudet University obviously supports ASL many are calling for the exclusive use of ASL for all or ASL at all times. That'd be if only the educational institution in question was a private educational institution that receive no federal funding then it wouldn't fall under the rules of Section 504.  But since Gallaudet University receive annual federal funding for as long as it has been opened it must abide by Section 504 laws.  Section 504 gives the power over to students who may request communication accessibility other than ASL.

That's a stark but humbling reality there.

Since president Hurwitz supports the new ICED resolution which does call for pluralism and to "accept and respect all languages and all forms of communication," and that Gallaudet University must follow the laws under Section 504, it would be interesting to see how president Hurwitz can reconcile these things in the midst of a call for "ASL at all times" along with changing campus demographics seeing more hearing students while competing with other universities and colleges on recruiting and retaining deaf and hard of hearing students.

Maybe Gallaudet University is slowly losing it's recognition as a Deaf Mecca?

Anybody want a HUG? (click on it!)

Polls results: Cyberbullying problem on ASLrocks vs DVTV - which is worse?

Interesting polls results so far on the cyberbullying issue in ASLrocks and DVTV. I asked a question if cyberbullying a problem in ASLrocks and DVTV. Was the cyberbullying issue a serious one? Not really that bad ? Little or no cyberbullying? Or that cyberbullying simply does not exist? Both polls had a total of 77 votes so far and so it's not really a good sample or indicative of the true overall feeling about those sites. However, that being said, the poll results do provide a window of what people are saying.

Results for ASLrocks on a poll asking whether cyberbullying is problem over there:

- 70% of the votes selected "Yes, very serious."
- 12% of the votes selected "Yes, but not that bad."
- 10% of the votes selected "No, there is little or no cyberbullying.
- 8% of the votes selected "No, cyberbullying does not exist on ASLrocks" which garnered 6 votes.

Results for DVTV on a poll asking whether cyberbullying is a problem over there:

- 23% of the votes selected "Yes, very serious."
- 21% of the votes selected "Yes, but not that bad."
- 43% of the votes selected "No, there is little or no cyberbullying.
- 13% of the votes selected "No, cyberbullying does not exist on ASLrocks" which garnered 10 votes.

Perhaps the results for ASLrocks aren't a surprise since Convo Relay recently pulled their ads from ASLrocks (see here and here). After that happened ASLrocks reverted back to a members-only viewing site rather than continue to be an open and transparent site to all viewers, members and non-members alike. DVTV continues to be an open and transparent site.

Polls are still open for those who haven't voted. Remember, these polls are not scientific polls and results should be taken with a grain of salt. Nonetheless, results are interesting so far.

Gallaudet University's violation of the new ICED resolution?

In Leila Hanaumi's Buff and Blue article "It's time for the Gallaudet community to come together" was rather a bit revelatory stating that "we can not continue to demonstrate a militant attitude that causes new signers or hearing students feel excluded and in return, causes the deaf community to be a small and exclusive group."

I’ll be honest here. Before I read Ruiz’s article and the long line of comments that followed, I didn’t have a particularly strong opinion on this topic. Should we recognize Gallaudet as the Mecca of deaf people, a place where we can be the majority for once, and create rules of how, when, and where it would be unacceptable to speak rather than sign? Or should we stop battling the hearing students who come here to learn ASL and about deaf culture and treat them like the allies that they should be for us?

However, now I realize that every perspective is valuable to this discussion. I also realize that the demographics of Gallaudet is changing; we can not continue to demonstrate a militant attitude that causes new signers or hearing students feel excluded and in return, causes the deaf community to be a small and exclusive group. We must work together to expand our community by welcoming all kinds of members, regardless of their signing abilities, if we want to survive. This does not mean that we should hold ASL at a lesser value. Rather, this means that dialogues that involve the entire campus are necessary in order to understand one another and to agree on how we want to deal with this issue as a community.

Is she speaking for all of Gallaudet university? It is interesting when she said "we" as in "we cannot can not continue to demonstrate a militant attitude that causes new signers or hearing students feel excluded and in return causes the deaf community to be a small and exclusive group." Is Hanaumi saying that militancy was  and continues to be a problem on the campus of Gallaudet University that have caused new signers to feel excluded? Something like the Charles Wirick's case where he may have been a case of him getting "ganged up" on campus, so to speak? Also interesting is the latest poll result on whether people felt that Charles Wirick was bullied or not. Some 53% said 'yes' he was bullied versus 15% of those who said 'no.' Interesting poll result so far.

In Ruiz's article in the Buff and Blue it takes on different flavor that comes with a sense of an ultimatum to it:

Thus, a language policy must be accepted. ASL at all times. Language immersion at all times. Cultural representation at all times. No more wasting time coddling the hearing students or the Deaf students victimized by the hearing system who are not yet fluent users of ASL. It is time to rise up and unite, to recreate Gallaudet as a deaf embodiment.

Wouldn't this "ASL at all times" help create and foster more militant attitudes on campus? After all, questions remain on whether Charles Wirick was a victim of "militant attitudes" on campus.

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 audism, which enraged him. He didn’t like how Gallaudet treated him and didn’t know how to fit in the university.”

Not exactly what pluralism ought to be about on campus if students are routinely faced what Charles Wirick faced when it came to communication issues and acceptance. How many students left Gallaudet University because they could not "fit in" or that they felt they were not welcomed? The idea on pluralism for Gallaudet University might prove to be a conundrum for president Hurwitz since he was elated about the rejection of the ICED Milan decision. The conundrum would lie in the acceptance of a new ICED resolution, a global call to "accept and respect all languages and all forms of communication" in the education of deaf people. Remember, all forms of communication, and not just languages only.

Let me illustrate exactly why this might be a conundrum for president Hurwitz and Gallaudet University. I'll repeat what Joseph P. Rioto said earlier in Deaf Echo regarding pluralism and the ICED resolution and what it may mean for Gallaudet University in the very near future.

I would suggest that the university takes a hard look at the concept of pluralism. Although the word is not mentioned explicitly, the concept of pluralism is very obvious in the resolution that was adopted by the International Congress on Education of the Deaf (ICED) 2010 last summer. The resolution says to respect all languages and forms of communication. I do not need to elaborate the possible consequences if the university chooses not to abide by the resolution. Some of the arguments that I have seen apparently want to reject or greatly restrict the resolution and that is a serious matter.

In other words on "all forms of communication" they include CUED speech, SEE, PSE, and even oral (speech) to go along with ASL that must respected and accepted, and not restricted. Since president Hurwitz was elated about the rejection of the ICED Milan decision will he now support and embrace the new ICED resolution to respect all languages and all forms of communication at Gallaudet University and see that pluralism flourish on campus? Will he call for the end of militant ASL attitudes on campus? Will he support or be cool about "ASL at all times"? How about a call to end "hearing spaces" or a call to support it?  Will president Hurwitz find a way to help end bullying on campus against those who do not "fit in"?   Will he open up the Charles Wirick's case and order an in depth investigation to see whether Wirick was a victim of bullying or militant attitudes levied against him on campus? And see whether a one-year suspension against him was justified or not since bias appeared to have been against Wirick all along leading to his one year Gallaudet University suspension? Or will Gallaudet University turn a cold shoulder on the new ICED resolution calling for the concept of pluralism as implied in the resolution that was adopted by the International Congress on Education of the Deaf (ICED) 2010 last summer"?

All interesting stuff here. But will we witness president Hurwitz shoot himself in the foot soon?

Grushkin and his vlogs, cyberbullying and the outing of Candy

There seems to be a perception issue that I was constantly bringing up my Monopoly money gag that Grushkin (or "Don G.") apparently missed. In Grushkin's infinite wisdom he had the audacity to wade into all this with his constant complaints.  And so allow me to establish a time line and links to where and the number of times I brought up the Monopoly gag versus Grushkin's claim of "many, many times." 

On June 5th, 2010, I made a gag blog about (fake) money that was donated to FB's "Deafhood? No Thanks!" which is an ad hoc "organization" by which Grushkin replied in my comment section that started it all:

I think it's sad someone is donating such a large sum of money to a group that is about doing nothing instead of to a group that is about doing SOMETHING.

Four days later seemingly upset or mad he made a vlog on June 9th "Where is our money going?" raising a ruckus about why $656 (of fake Monopoly money) was going to an "unworthy" organization and how dare they use "our" money for that (Whose money again?? "Our"? Quite presumptuous, ain't it?) so-called organization.  Note the emphasis on "our money."  A rather arrogant thing to do by going around telling people how the donated money belong to their organization and to no one else. Because it's "our money!"  What an arrogant piece.

This prompted me to make a vlog/blog "A Critical Analysis" on that same day to clarify that the donation was fake in the first place, obviously so if one had paid careful attention to it. I also posted a link to my blog in "Deafhood? No Thanks!" Facebook site where people laughed and made their comments known there for next few days.

The next time I brought up the Monopoly money gag in Facebook was on June 29, 2010 and again here that same day. And that was basically the end of it. We all had our fun.

And then a long lull began after that. 

On August 29 I made a blog "Incredible Hulk Character equals Oppression to Deaf?" about Grushkin's Hulk vlog who claimed the Hulk's example was avdism. I basically laughed at that idea and in my comment section is where he made his first "intellectual" jab at me.

I'm sorry your intelligence and vision are too limited to see the big picture and contemplate alternate possibilities.

And in that same thread I responded as a reminder to him seen at the end of my comment:

Hey, we can play this "  intelligence"   game any time you want. The only problem is you actually brought it up.

Just a little reminder for the guy.

The lull continued.

And then on Sept 13th I did a blog ("My plan is working flawlessly! *rubs hands*") and in the comment section I responded to White Ghost's comment about a satire which reminded me of my Monopoly money satire saying it was the best one I did.

WG,

Well, yeah, still I think my Monopoly money blog satire was the best one yet. Too bad it took a video for me to do and explain to those who actually believed that money took place in the fake donation effort to the "Deafhood? No Thanks" group.

And sure enough, Grushkin was watching like a hawk and he complained again about my repeating his Monopoly money mistake in that same thread just below WG's comment:

Instead, you have shown a mean streak a half-mile wide (I won't give you a full mile, because that's reserved for another of your cronies, who truly deserves not to be named, who has actively sought the destruction of our community and unity). Why do I say "mean streak"? Just look at your obsession over my lack of care in reading your "monopoly"  blog. Instead of realizing that maybe I am human and did not read carefully all the way through, (and I DID leave you a comment to that regard, but you chose to delete it) you have instead chosen to continue to mock me at every turn with that. I, on the other hand, chose to ignore you, because ultimately, it is really a minor mistake on my part, but that mean streak of yours attempted to blow it up into an indictment of my intelligence and whatever else you decided to do with it. If you did not have a mean streak, you would have had your fun and left it alone. You did not.

My obsession? I only brought it up once in a response to White Ghost's comment almost 3 months later after the last time I brought it up. Yet, Grushkin was so insecure about his own embarrassing Monopoly money gaffe all of sudden he sees my bringing up the Monopoly money fiasco one more time almost 3 months later as the equivalent of being "obsessed." Also, as a side note as seen in the Grushkin's comment above, I've not deleted any of Grushkin's comment in my blogs though I'm not sure which blog of mine he's referring to. Sometimes comments do go into my spam folder for some odd reason. I have explained this before. I do not always notice the spam flag right away and I do "unspam" them recognizing those as legitimate comments whenever I notice the spam flag. On occasion I do get spams. I believe I did ask Grushkin to resend his comment again. Not sure at this point I'm pretty darn sure I did somewhere. Maybe he thought I deleted his comment when in fact it wasn't approved yet until I returned home or had not gotten around to approving his comment until much later? I don't delete comments unless they violate one of my rules.

On September 27 I did a blog "Fried brains and yummy desserts"  about trying to appear "academic" while touching briefly about the Monopoly gag to make a point. I hadn't brought this up gag again for almost a month later on October 23 after Grushkin made his zombie video about me on October 22.

Meanwhile from September to November on Grushkin's YouTube vlog site he seem to have lost it by making a spate of videos about me indirectly or directly on September 3 ("We're just expressing our opinion!"), September 13 ("Mike McConnell's Kangaroo Court"), September 17 ("'Go to Hell, Nattering Nabobs!'?"), September 19 ("You may be addicted to v/blogging if...."), and October 8 ("A new word and sign for blogging behavior!"). Funnily enough, he did say that he chose to ignore me starting on September 13.

And then on October 22 Grushkin tried to do his coupe de grace stab at me in his Halloween satire piece about me as "Kokonut" as having "no brains" with a video titled "A Deaf zombie wanders in cyberspace" with him playing the hapless and wondering "Deaf zombie." I can only surmise that he got his zombie inspiration from an earlier blog I did on October 19 ("Zombieland!"). Coincidence? I think not. Besides, who were those so-called "brainy" people in his video satire?

Remember what I said earlier that if he continues with the intelligence jab then he should expect a response from me in kind?  I did exactly that on October 23, 2010 I did a video piece called "Zombie Monopoly" in honor of his October 22, 2010 zombie video.

Satire is met with another satire. Not bullying but....satire. Get with the program, folks.

Though not surprising, two weeks later, on November 6 in Candy's own blog Grushkin continued to complain by commenting on what I did in making my Zombie Monopoly video "bordered on cyberbullying."  And quickly on that same day, November 6th ("For xxxx xxxxxx, AKA "Candy", on Cyberbullying") he did a YouTube vlog to complain once again this whole Monopoly affair by calling it a "borderline" cyberbullying example. He said so with a straight face while using Candy's real name and not her pseudo or anonymous name  "Candy." He attacked Candy about my Monopoly money satire only because she thought it was funny and a hoot. But here's a quick little history for the readers. This blogger "Candy" was outed by a surreptitious group of Deaf people who identified her by publicly announcing her real name even though she used a pseudo name as a security precaution whenever she blogged.  Once her real name was outed several Deaf people contacted her employer in the effort to get her into trouble.

Now, back on track.

What I'm demonstrating here is that Don Grushkin was the one who continued to bring up the whole Monopoly affair again and again saying that I referred to his Monopoly money faux pas "many, many, many times." He said this in his November 6 vlog and in Candy's blog on November 6. In actuality I brought up perhaps 4 or 5 times over the course of 4 months from July to October this Monopoly gag thing and not the "many, many times" he so tried to claim as happened.  

In my opinion, Grushkin's own zombie video about my intelligence wasn't a cyberbullying vlog. Even though, ironically so, he called my own "Zombie Monopoly" video as "border line" cyberbullying in his November 6 response as seen in Candy's blog.  My video was purely satirical in nature. A bit fun just as Grushkin had his fun playing the hapless Deaf zombie in his attempt to poke fun at my intelligence as a retaliation effort.  He simply found a way to vent his anger over his own misconceptions by claiming that I was bringing up his Monopoly money gaffe repeatedly and obsessively, at every turn making it sound like it was a daily occurrence. As you can see here the time line I constructed with the links to where and when I brought up his Monopoly money gaffe, you can see that I brought up the gaffe a few times and not the "many, many times" as Grushkin's tried to characterize it as.

Those are the facts.

Grushkin's own action and continual complaints are an indictment to his own intellectual insecurity.  His own PhD can't save him from it. My time line describes exactly how things went with links and dates. This will be used as a future reference for others to see and set the record straight. Everything's here as best as I could document them. I'm not bashful about it. And I certainly am not going to constantly squeal like a stuck pig over something I don't like.

Poll: Was Charles Wirick bullied and targeted unfairly?

Earlier I did a 3 part series about the Charles Wirick's case where rampant rumors and perhaps questionable actions by others resulted in the suspension of Charles Wirick. Read the three part series (Part 1, Part II - Rumors, and Part III - Ganged Up?) to understand what went on. There's a real possibility that Charles Wirick was a victim of on campus bullying of sorts.

Poll: Cyberbullying a problem on ASLrocks or DVTV?

Remember, this is not a scientific poll.

The Charles Wirick's Case: Part 3 of 3 - ganged up?

With all the recent bullying commentaries in various blogs with some serious ones and some nonsense ones I couldn't help but comment about Charles Wirick's whether if he was a victim of bullying of sort in this latest saga of some possible campus crime he was about to commit. Or so they say. From the looks of it he appeared to have been "ganged up" over the few days after he opined/warned Michael Sprouse about a possible Gallaudet University campus shooting. I or anybody else do not know what the exact words were and how they were expressed during the conversations between Wirick and Sprouse (and his friends that were with him - how many now?).

But first it'd be good to know what was Michael Sprouse was like as well as Charles Wirick by reading some of their writings or stories about them. For Sprouse as I found out he has written several blogs in Gallaudet's "gBlog - how we see it" that covered some of his likes, dislikes, and personal stories.  As for Charles Wirick, there was one other article written about him in the Buff and Blue on his attempt to go barefoot throughout the college campus. Reading comments in BnB's article about Wirick's alleged shooting threat gives us a few more additional insights about Charles Wirick and even to some degree about Sprouse, too.

Jeff    28. Oct, 2010 at 9:58 am #

I’ve talked to Wirick several times over my time here at Gallaudet, To me I felt that he were more outspoken than an outcast. it’s a shame that Sprouse chose to go and report him rather than sitting down and discussing that with him, to see where his viewpoint came from. I wonder if Sprouse and Wirick weren’t roommates, would all this drama have occurred? nobody can tell now. but I do agree that he made a poor choice in focusing on a specific clique.

I’ve also observed Wirick and he doesn’t seem to be an total outcast like the article portrayed him as.

The behavior of the cliques is a different article and issue though.

Michael Sprouse countered in the same comment thread (although Jeff clarified they both were floormates and not roommates):

Michael Sprouse  29. Oct, 2010 at 1:23 am #

I have spoken to Wirick several times before this specific conversation occurred and he was fixed on those two groups and I have seen where his viewpoint came from and when that conversation occurred and I knew that a) I could not risk assuming anything where things are at stake and b) I knew he needed serious help. Prior to this incident I have tried to help him to learn ASL in a natural setting which he desired and despite my suggestions,he did not socialize with people.

Interesting observation by Sprouse claiming that Wirick did not "socialize with people." What was the reason for bringing that up? How did he know that Charles Wirick did not socialize with people (i.e. people at Gallaudet University)? Exactly what does "socialization" must entail? Is "not socializing" a taboo on the campus of Gallaudet University?

And then for some reason this "Meredeth" person made comments in the same thread and made indirect allusions about Charles using words like "crazies" and made a direct reference to his mental health as if she had an inside scoop on his health history:

Meredith 27. Oct, 2010 at 10:52 am #

I agree with you that he has mental problems but as laypeople we can’t go around making diagnoses. That’s up to his doctor.

And there is no shame in mental illness if you get it taken care of. I’ve had problems myself. Getting treatment is the important part.

And later in the thread Meredith makes another indirect allusion that Charles Wirick went around making threats.

Meredith 08. Nov, 2010 at 10:32 pm #

Lots of people at Gallaudet don’t fit into Deaf Culture ideals, but they don’t go around making threats and such like.

According to what I've read in the BnB I never gotten the impression that Wirick was doing the threatening but more like opining and going overboard with it perhaps. On the other hand we still DO NOT have the whole story on this oversized drama coming mostly from one person and a BnB writer who did the story on Wirick. In fact, I'd say the BnB raised far more questions on the whole spiel consisting of out of control rumors and a story that seems to paint Wirick at the outset as a crackpot, a loner, mentally unstable and an outcast than anything else. Was BnB's example of good journalism at work or more like a mini-hit piece?

Part 1 of 3

Part 2 of 3

The Charles Wirick's Case: Part 2 of 3 - Rumors

Rumor, the longer it goes, the more people will pass it on down the more wild it can get. But in Charles Wirick's case it only took a few days before it spread like "wildfire" that began on a Sunday, September 26.  But on the third day, September 28, Wirick was "tried and convicted" that Tuesday afternoon with a summary sentence and was required to be accompanied by a DPS officer at all times. He ultimately decided to leave the university that day. Was this a case of Gallaudet University bullying him into leaving? But first, on rumors.

Now, note what I write in here. I have a lot questions about this whole affair including how Buff and Blue reported this. But let's go back to the beginning on how this whole rumor thing got going.

In BnB:

1) "Sophomore Michael Sprouse, a floor mate of Wirick, was among the first few to feel threatened. “I was at Carlin Hall talking with friends about shootings and rape cases that happen in today’s universities when Charles showed up."

Now, the topic Sprouse was talking about was about rape cases and shootings. What compelled Sprouse to talk about such a topic on September 26, 2010? Perhaps it was about an upcoming November 14, 2010 television show ID Investigation Discovery on the Gallaudet murders?  Or was it the anniversary of someone being shot on campus like Eric Plunkett on September 27, 2001? Although several months earlier on the same campus on February 3, 2001 Benjamin Varner was murdered as well. Perhaps it was the anniversary date of Plunkett's murder and the upcoming show helped set the stage for a rumor of an upcoming shooting on campus to spread like wildfire? But we'll never know exactly how the conversation went that day in Carlin Hall but the subjects was about murder and shootings. Did Wirick taunt Sprouse about a possible shooting of fraternity and sorority members on campus making as if Wirick was going to do it himself? Exactly what was the tone of that discussion that day? What was Sprouse's relationship to that of Wirick? An acquaintance? A familiar face? Someone he doesn't like? The same goes for Wirick's releationship with Sprouse. Maybe Wirick wanted to try and make friends and fit in when he decided to join in on the conversation that day? One thing for sure, they both knew each other.

Perhaps it was a simple case of miscommunication between the two with Michael Sprouse being fluent in ASL (native signer?) and Charles Wirick who may have signed less fluidly where Sprouse may have misunderstood the context of Wirick's discussion because of campus climate nowadays a shooting could very much happen on Gallaudet University's campus.  It was Michael Sprouse who described to BnB on Wirick's background:

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 audism, which enraged him. He didn’t like how Gallaudet treated him and didn’t know how to fit in the university.”

Raised orally, little exposure to Deaf culture and community, an "outcast," Deaf to deaf discrimination, and "didn't know how to fit in the university."  This raises the question on Wirick's signing ability which raises further questions that misunderstanding can happen between two people of differing signing abilities. 

What I could not help but notice is that the BnB story is mostly dedicated to Sprouse's version of the events and paints Wirick as a lunatic, so to speak. And did so by describing in great details the fact that he was from an oral background and had political views that the Gally administration and certain cliques were oppressing certain deaf, hh and Deaf people on campus.

And yet it was interesting to see that Michael Sprouse has a relationship with BnB as well as seen in his Gallaudet University blog on September 19, 2009:

A glimpse of College Life
By Michael


Is that you peering through one of the grand windows of Chapel Hall? Yes? Want a glimpse of what it’s like to be a Gallaudet Freshman? yes? Great! You have come to the right place! As a current freshman at Gallaudet, I discovered and took advantage of countless of opportunities here! To me, the best part of Gallaudet is not really the excellent academic standards but rather the wide array of student organizations! I am already involved in several organizations with a specialized focus on Media and Communications, the organization that I most enjoy working for is the Buff and Blue, the student newspaper! The Buff and Blue will be the subject of the next blog soon to follow! I am a writer for the Buff and Blue, I work with two awesome editors, Mark Ramirez and Alexander Abenchuchan, if you visit and bump in them, be sure to tell them hello! Through the Buff and Blue, I became involved in yet another organization, Student Body Government (SBG). The SBG pretty much functions like our government. More Details will follow the Buff and Blue post. I will occasionally post a blog spotlighting a specific organization!

This entry was posted on September 19, 2009 at 4:10 am and is filed under Gallaudet, Michael Sprouse. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

He's a writer for the Buff and Blue (or was at the time). He's into Media and Communications. Neither author of that BnB story nor Michael Sprouse put out a disclaimer on their relationships with the Buff and Blue organization and staff. This raises the bias question even further on this Wirick's case story in the Buff and Blue.

Moving along.  It was Michael Sprouse who was "among the first few to feel threatened," and was the first to report this. What about his friends he was with in Carlin Hall that day when Charles Wirick showed up to join in on the discussion? How many of these friends were there? Two, three, five friends? How many? Are these friends of Sprouse a fraternity or sorority members? What relationships did these "friends of Sprouse" have with that of Wirick? Did they know him, too? Were they native signers? Oralists?  After Wirick commented about a possible shooting that could take place on campus involving fraternity and sorority members did Sprouse and his friends go off and discussed with other people about what Wirick said that day or did they keep mum? We know that once rumor starts to propagate and over time it can quickly get distorted.

Next in BnB:

2) “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."

In the above paragraph, there are three key tags that are highly suggestive of subjective context: Sprouse claims Wirick was "so determined" and "full of menace" but there are no details on how Sprouse arrived to that conclusion. Did Wirick flinch at him? Did Wirick growl? Did Wirick drop F-Bombs like a drunk rapper? What did Wirick do that caused Sprouse to feel he was "full of menace" or even "determined"?

Other tag - the word "graphic". What is exactly "graphic American Sign Language?" "Graphic details" are one thing, but "graphic American Sign Language?" Was that an English error made by the writer of the BnB story? Either way, "graphic" is subjective and based entirely on Sprouse's claims. We don't know, for example, if Wirick alleged that the cateria would, for example,  "be the first place a shooting would happen. All you people go there all the time so it would be easy for someone to find ya'll, round ya'll up, and then shoot ya'll", that ain't graphic in my opinion. If anything, he would be making inferences based on what he knew about both Gallaudet and the cliques he mentioned - but "graphic?"

Is "graphic" someone saying, Is "graphic" someone saying, "I'm just ferocious. I want his heart! I want to eat his children!” Well, Mike Tyson said that once - was it "graphic?"

Or was it "graphic" like, "Someone will shoot you in between the eyes, and then your blood will squirt to kingdom come! And then your brains will oooooooze all over the place!"?

"Graphic"? Pretty subjective if you ask me. It sounds like the BnB writer simply took Sprouse's word as gospel. I wonder what "graphic detail" Sprouse and his friends used to describe to their friends that day on what Wirick said. Did the "graphic detail" get worse with each iteration of rumor that was continually spreading for over two days?

Next in BnB:

3) "Disturbed by Wirick’s statements, Sprouse went to his faculty advisor the following morning. He was referred to the Ombuds Behavior Intervention team and expressed his concern. Dean of Student Affairs Dwight Benedict prompted Sprouse to report the alleged threat to the Department of Public Safety (DPS)."

Here is what happened:

a) Sprouse was disturbed by Wirick's statements on Sunday night, September 26th (not yet "threatened").

b) Sprouse waited until Monday morning to contact his faculty advisor.

c) Sprouse was referred by faculty advisor to Ombuds Behavior Intervention team and expressed his concern.

d) Dean of Student Affairs "prompted" Sprouse to report the alleged threat to DPS.

Isn't that standard protocol nowadays at Gallaudet University?

Again, at least three different contacts were made by Sprouse to Gally officials, and only the Dean "prompted" Sprouse to contact DPS. I don't know exactly what the Ombuds Behavior Intervention team is about or what they do - why be referred to them if there was a genuine concern of a possible on-campus shooting threat? It appeared at the time that no one really knew what to do about Sprouse's claims who turned Wirick's discussion into a real shooting threat. But they referred him on to others until finally, he is "prompted" to contact DPS. But this "prompting" to contact DPS was not out of concern for the campus, but rather for Sprouse himself. Somehow, his concerns have evolved to a "threat" in the course of a single day's time.

Next in BnB:

4) "Sprouse felt that the DPS did not take the situation seriously and took no quick action. Later that day, in the afternoon, Sprouse said that Wirick approached him, seeming alarmed and saying that Sprouse misunderstood him. Sprouse felt uncomfortable and left."

Now, what compelled Wirick to approach Sprouse again? Was it that Wirick got word of that rumor about him saying he was going shoot up the campus and decided to approach Sprouse again to clarify what he said to him earlier that day?  Was it the rumor that alarmed Wirick compelling him to talk to Sprouse to clarify what was said earlier that day? Remember, it was Sprouse's word who said that it was he who misunderstood Wirick. Perhaps it was Wirick's signing ability because he was raised orally and had little or no exposure to Deaf culture and community that somehow caused that miscommunication in the first place? Why did Wirick come back to him to clarify his comment to Sprouse saying he misunderstood him - according to Michael Sprouse?  That misunderstanding was never articulated in the BnB story, and perhaps the "misunderstanding" could be about Wirick's contention that the environment on campus was ripe for an on-campus shooting spree, and not that he, himself, would hunt down Sprouse and knock off the first two vertebraes in his neck.  The BnB story launches right into Sprouse's feeling uncomfortable. Exactly what caused Sprouse to feel "uncomfortable"?

Next in BnB:

5) A little after noon on Tuesday, Sprouse saw Wirick at the Marketplace. 'Wirick would not stop staring at me with his demeaning and threatening look, so I decided to leave.

Again, the BnB story focuses on Sprouse's claims, "Wirick would not stop staring at me with his demeaning and threatening look." Another subjective account. Where is Wirick's account? Maybe Wirick tried to approach Sprouse to calm his paranoia? MaybeWirick was angry at Sprouse in helping spread a rumor that wasn't true and Wirick picked up on that rumor a day earlier?  Regardless, the BnB story seems dedicated to Sprouse's point of view rather than Wirick's.

Next in BnB:

6) ...outside of the Marketplace, Sprouse met a few students who claimed that Wirick already warned several KG brothers and PKZ sisters about the shooting threat. Not only that, but some of the students claimed that Sprouse would be the first victim. Frantic, Sprouse went to the DPS again. Still feeling unsafe after reporting, he went to Nikki Surber, the Coordinator for Residence Education at Carlin Hall and Clerc Hall. There, he was finally informed that the MPD and the DPS was taking care of the situation.

Note Sprouse is the first to be "warned" (and his friends that day in Carlin Hall...how many? I don't know). But in the BnB story it stated that "Wirick already warned several KG brothers and PKZ sisters about the shooting threat." Remember, this on day two. Why did Wirick go to the KG brothers and PKZ sisters? Perhaps Wirick tried to reign in the out of control rumor by going to them and clarify what he said to Sprouse the day earlier. Something that Sprouse didn't want to hear perhaps because he felt "uncomfortable" and left him as a rebuff to Wirick?

We can see that Sprouse had conversations with a few of his friends about on-campus security issues, including "the shooting threat." By this time in the BnB story, Wirick's statement has mutated into "the shooting threat," and this is all based on Sprouse's subjective claims. And with the added effect of one of his buddies telling him, I believe, that Wirick had singled out Sprouse as his first, intended victim. Perhaps Sprouse finally freaked out?  Yet I seriously question Sprouse's claims: he had just seen Wirick earlier that day, and Wirick had tried to explain the "misunderstanding" but Sprouse, apparently rebuffed him. Maybe Wirick was peeved or upset that Sprouse wouldn't let him discuss the misunderstanding and just stared or glared at him instead and Sprouse misinterpreted his "look"? But, the point about Sprouse's friends telling him that Wirick had singled him out is all based on speculation, and that speculation had caused Sprouse to incur ever-increasing fits of paranoia about Wirick, so much so that Sprouse went to the DPS once again, and they, apparently, did not find reasonable cause to investigate further. Perhaps Sprouse was a victim of his own rumor-mongering along with the help of his friends who perhaps quickly told others about what Wirick said on that first day? Perhaps the real victim is Wirick, and not Sprouse, of that rumor?

Later, Sprouse went to the Coordinator of Residence Education and complained, and apparently, that was when MPD and DPS got involved. I don't think that was by accident that the CRE would contact the DPS and MPD because I can see a scenario in which Sprouse claimed Wirick had specifically targeted him, and the CRE, fearing the worst, contacted the DPS/MPD. Ironically, why did the CRE contact police (if they did) and not the Dean of Student Affairs? Or why did the CRE confirm the police were on their way? Or how?

So, in the beginning, nobody knew what to do about Sprouse's claims. He was "prompted" to contact DPS and that was it. Later, he heard more rumors, got paranoid, went back to the DPS, and feeling still afraid, cajoled the CRE into somehow intervening. Initially, his concerns had to have been about an "on-campus shooting" or "the shooting threat", and on Tuesday, he felt he was being personally singled out based on rumors of his buddies, but that again conflicts with the Dean "prompting" him to contact DPS.

Next in BnB:

7) Many students reported their own concerns to the DPS during the same time period, with Sprouse’s report being the first one. All of the reports made to the DPS were based on Wirick’s comments about a possible shooting threat, even though Wirick never specifically mentioned that he himself would do the shooting."

Note earlier that Sprouse was the first to feel "threatened."

Secondly, I don't know where the BnB got that information that "many students reported their own concerns to the DPS during that same time period." Is that based on official DPS records or on Sprouse's own account? Also, considering that Sprouse is listed as the FIRST and "one of the first" people to report to DPS, I am curious to know if "many students" happen to be Sprouse's buddies - maybe they were the same ones who passed on the aforementioned rumor about Wirick targeting Sprouse? Or maybe they all decided to pretend they were afraid of Wirick and made false claims about Wirick based on his statements? Were these friends of Sprouse members of a fraternity and sorority? I'm asking that question since Sprouse had aspiration of becoming a frat member according to his blog on September 23, 2009.

Wow! Time sure does fly so fast! Tomorrow will mark one month since I came here to Gallaudet! I have seen and did a lot of things! From the announcements of the final four for the tenth president of Gallaudet University to a “mini fire” at the I. King Jordan Student Academic Center! One thing that I picked up within the first week here at Gallaudet, is that there is no DULL day at Gallaudet and that Tennis Shoes is a MUST! No rest for weary foot! I found myself in five organizations! I am particularly proud of the Buff and Blue, because the Buff and Blue opened up many doors for me! I am an alternate senator for the Buff and Blue. I attended the Student Congress, (Student Congress is pretty much the same as the actual U.S. Congress only except we don’t have Joe Wilson). I will be attending the Kappa Sigma Rush this thursday and I am determined to join the Kappa Sigma this Spring. I also will be attending the National Book Festival. (Watch for live blog feed directly form my phone while the National Book Festival.) i hope to get my camera by then so I can post pictures of the Festival!

Is Michael Sprouse currently a fraternity member of Kappa Sigma?

Also, there is no mention by BnB of "many students" having contacted DPS and having similar responses from the DPS. We're these "many students" also fraternity and/or sorority members since Wirick did go to a few of them on Tuesday in his effort to perhaps to clarify in order to squelch an ongoing rumor about him? We only know of Sprouse's account, and insofar as we know, at least four different Gally officials/offices were contacted, DPS three times, Secret Service and MPD Intelligence once - did "many other students" have a similar experience? I doubt it, or we'd have already known about it, especially considering there were fears of a purported "shooting threat" on campus.

Next in BnB:

8) As the words “concerns” and “rumors” imply, there were no backing evidence for Wirick’s involvement. Wirick, consenting to an interview, was willing to share his story and the documents he received from Student Conduct.

Wirick’s story matches that of Michael Sprouse. He saw Sprouse talking about shootings in today’s schools and jumped into the conversation, saying that he predicted that a shooting would happen. However, he never meant (or gave any thought) that he would do the shooting.


I think the last two sentences of the quote paragraph above suggest very much what Wirick was trying to convey to Sprouse during the Sunday conversation, and his later approaching of Sprouse in effort to clarify his statements. And probably, literally so, fell on deaf ears since the rumor already spread which probably painted Wirick into something he's not.

Sprouse's initial "concerns" mutated into a full-blown "shooting threat" BEFORE he ran into Wirick again on Tuesday. "Shooting threat" first appears at the Dean's office, but the BnB didn't demonstrate how Sprouse went from "concerns" on Sunday and Monday morning to "shooting threat" later on Monday WITHOUT having had additional contact with Wirick.

Could it be that Sprouse kept going to different people, fine-tuning his story as he went along? The rumor about Wirick intentionally targeting Sprouse could've been started by Sprouse, since, after all, Sprouse seems to be the FIRST person throughout the entire sequence of events relative to his conversation with Wirick. Sprouse was the FIRST to be concerned about Wirick; Sprouse was the first to contact DPS; Sprouse was the first intended victim of the rumored "shooting spree."  Did Sprouse start the rumor about the "shooting spree" and used it to solidify his claims against Wirick?

Why not?

Sunday and Monday morning, he wasn't feeling threatened; Monday afternoon, he was "prompted" by the Dean to contact DPS. Why? Obviously, the Dean didn't think it was an on-campus issue, and probably thought the issue was a personal one between Sprouse and Wirick and referred Sprouse to contact DPS. If the Dean was concerned for Sprouse's welfare, for example, and thought Wirick was a threat to campus in general, why "prompt" a student to take that responsibility and contact law enforcement? If the Dean was concerned for Sprouse's welfare in the context of Wirick's supposed stalking and hunting of Sprouse, then I could see why he would "prompt" Sprouse into contacting DPS, but that's not what seems to be the case in the BnB story: it sounds like the Dean, unsure about Sprouse's claims, referred him to the DPS. Or maybe the Dean was the first to hear "shooting threat" from Sprouse, and unsure of the facts, "prompted" him to contact DPS?

Either way, both BnB and Sprouse's comments do not show how he went from "concerns" to "shooting spree" in less than 24 hours. Sprouse's story seemed to have evolved going through the process.

Next in BnB (going over #8 again):

9) Wirick’s story matches that of Michael Sprouse. He saw Sprouse talking about shootings in today’s schools and jumped into the conversation, saying that he predicted that a shooting would happen. However, he never meant (or gave any thought) that he would do the shooting.

Wirick confirmed that he joined Sprouse's conversations; I am curious about the word "predicted" because, again, there isn't any evidence that describes HOW Wirick predicted a shooting on campus.

Some examples of predicting (note these examples have nothing to do with Wirick!):

a) "I predict your clique will be rounded up and branded with a hot-poker iron in the cafeteria tomorrow afternoon at 4:45 pm"

b) "I bet your clique would be the first to be targeted and 'cos ya'll eat in the cafeteria all the time, anyone could find you there and shoot ya'll up cos ya'll oppress people."

c) "Sometime in the next five days, there WILL be a shooting."

d) "At this rate, and with the way the administration treats its students, a shooting-spree could very well happen anytime soon."

Was the writer of the BnB story accurate in his use of the word "predicted" without offering any other proof of facts? As the above list should illustrate, any one of those sentences could be interpreted as a "prediction" - the BnB story doesn't offer any context regarding to what the "prediction" predicted, beyond " a shooting on campus" and Wirick's opinion. We only know that Wirick confirmed the original conversation, but we don't know what was predicted beyond the fact Wirick opined that there was a distinct possibility of a shooting on campus focusing on specific groups and a cafeteria.

Next in BnB:

10) "After clarifying the misunderstanding with Sprouse, Wirick began to suspect a possibility of a shooting incident. “Sprouse and friend Justin McDorman talked about shootings again. Justin was mad [about a Resident Advisor’s rule] and he said that’s why shootings happen. So I thought it was serious,” Wirick stated. Due to his political beliefs that Gallaudet oppresses many deaf people—sprouting from I. King Jordan’s “selfish, arrogant regime that hurt the University”—Wirick warned some of the KG brothers and PKZ sisters about the shooting threat. He believed that both KG and PKZ were being currently viewed as the biggest cliques at Gallaudet University through their being selective, judgmental, and intimidating in how they treat the student body. They would become the vent of the negative actions of the administration—hence, the likeliness of them being shot first, as Wirick put it."

More than halfway through the story, we find Wirick had tried to explain the misunderstanding to Sprouse. The story doesn't say WHEN, but I assume the initial attempt to clarify the misunderstanding took place during the original conversation; we also know Wirick attempted to clarify to Sprouse his statements a second time. The second sentence contains a prediction by Justin with the exception that Justin was "mad" and justified "why shootings happen." Isn't it interesting that Wirick is singled out for stating essentially the same thing as Justin? 

Second half of the above quoted paragraph: "He believed that both KG and PKZ were being currently viewed as the biggest cliques at Gallaudet University through their being selective, judgmental, and intimidating in how they treat the student body. They would become the vent of the negative actions of the administration—hence, the likeliness of them being shot first, as Wirick put it."

Is Wirick being targeted by BnB?  It seems very possible that Wirick had opined the same thing to Sprouse during the first conversation when the "misunderstanding" took place. I can clearly see Wirick making the case that the campus would be ripe for an on-campus shooting. Is it really a prediction if Wirick opines his belief that it was likely that there would be a shooting on campus someday? I don't think it was a prediction but Sprouse equated it as a prediction even though Wirick, as it seems, described that the environment would be ripe for such an incident.

Yet another subjective piece to this whole puzzle.

Next in BnB:

11)  Wirick then explained what happened on the 28^th. “Around noon [of September 28^th] the Mental Health Center sent me an email wanting to make an appointment with me. At 2 pm I went and met with the counselors. I explained to them about the oppressive system Gallaudet has—Gallaudet practices dictatorship. The administration is on a ‘power trip’ where they do not really bother to communicate and connect with the students or other departments. 

“I was very stressed and nervous, so the Mental Health Center wanted me to be hospitalized,” he continued.

Why did the Mental Health Center (MHC) contact Wirick around noon on Tuesday, the 28th?  Who contacted MHC about Wirick? Maybe that's not so relevant at this point but I am curious as what were the reasons for BnB to put that piece of sensitive information out to the readers? Even if Wirick gave them permission to print that I'd say it was rather reckless of BnB to print that piece of information. Rather a poor journalistic practice that looks more like a hit piece than not. That two paragraphs paint Wirick as some kind of a nut as having been contacted by the MHC and was told to meet with counselors, and was told by the Mental Health Center that he needed to be hospitalized.  That information certainly gives an immediate perception that he is mentally unstable or even ill.  Is this action ethical by publishing such a sensitive piece of information?

You have in that two paragraphs discussing the contacting by the MHC which envisions a person as "nutty" and details that person feeling about Gallaudet University by saying "Gallaudet practices dictatorship," "on a power trip," and other conspiracy theories. Essentially in a single paragraph the BnB managed to effectively paint Wirick as some kind of a lunatic who was required to seeking mental health counseling and hospitalization.

Good work, Derrick Behm, the author of that BnB story on Wirick.

Next in BnB:

12)  After questions and clarification, the USSS and the MPD determined that Wirick was not a threat, and even communicated with Wirick’s mother about the situation. However, Wirick was given an interim suspension for five days, and afterwards he was told that he would have to be accompanied by a DPS officer at all times. Wirick, embarrassed with the fact that the DPS would have to sit with him in class, decided to leave Gallaudet. By 5 pm on Sept 28th, the Office of Public and Media relations announced that “the situation is under control and there is no current threat to the campus community."

It is understood by now that Wirick was not a threat.  Yet he was suspended for five days and then told he would have to be accompanied by a DPS officer at all times. If he wasn't a threat then why was Wirick assigned a babysitter to follow him around wherever he goes but nothing was mentioned for how long this would take place. The BnB does not explain why.

Who made this decision to have Wirick suspended and followed without any specifics as to how long the accompaniment would go on? It is the responsibility of the Student Judicial Board (SJB) to dole out reprimands, suspensions and other forms of punishments.  But here it seems like the intent was to harass Wirick via a DPS officer following him around akin to holding a scarlet sign that says, "Charles Wirick is RIGHT HERE. I am FOLLOWING HIM. YOU ARE SAFE!" While students and staff stare at Charles Wirick as he attempt to go about his normal, daily routine.

The assignment of a DPS officer to follow him around doesn't make sense when he was declared as not a threat to students or to the campus of Gallaudet University. What were the exact charges deserving of a suspension? What were the exact charges deserving additional punishment to have Wirick followed by a DPS wherever he goes? Did Gallaudet University, or specifically, the SJB attempted to somehow try and harass or bully Wirick hoping he'd leave the campus for good? Was Wirick's rights violated if one looks up Gallaudet University's Students Rights and Freedoms: Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students guidelines?  Did the SJB ever inform Wirick his right to appeal the decision?

In all situations, procedural fair play requires that a student charged with misconduct be informed of the nature of the charges and be given a fair opportunity to refute them, that the institution not be arbitrary in its actions, and that there be provision for appeal of a decision.

Did the SJB ever informed Wirick on his right to appeal the decision, especially the assignment of a DPS officer to follow him every where while on campus? Sometimes I wonder if there were any hidden agendas among some of those in the SJB who have sought to somehow get Charles Wirick to leave Gallaudet University even though the charge(s) wasn't serious enough to have him expelled. This was done by assigning a DPS officer with him which would have caused undue embarrassment to Charles Wirick forcing him to ultimately decide on leaving Gallaudet University for good. Perhaps the SJB, those in the fraternities and people who generally don't like him got what they wanted?

In the BnB, at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, September 28, there was an announcement that there was "no current threat to campus community." Strange. All through the BnB story, we know that Sprouse talked to A LOT of people about his concerns/"shooting threat"/prediction, etc.; in contrast, Wirick "warned" the fraternities and sororities that there might be an upcoming shooting because due to the existing campus environment. Sprouse's first conversation with Wirick regarding "rapes and shootings" on campus had facilitated a general sense of fear, not just with Sprouse, but also for Wirick. Justin's opinion was essentially the same as Wirick except that Justin offered a MOTIVE (i.e. Wirick was mad) but Wirick claimed the cliques and school were oppressive, therefore creating the possibility (likeliness) of a shooting on campus rather than a prediction according to Sprouse's .

Why would there need to be an alert of a threat that never existed? Again, time and time again, I find Sprouse's version of the events to be contradictory and evolving towards his paranoia and fears, which were, again, reinforced not by Wirick but by Sprouse's friends. He appeared to have modified his story at each stop along the way on Monday; by Tuesday afternoon, he was freaking out because his buddies told him of a rumor that targeted him specifically, and despite Wirick tried to clarify his original statements on a few occasions involving a certain fraternity and sorority organizations.

What that in mind it leads me to question whether bias were present in the SJB where a few of them are members of a fraternity and/or sorority on issuing a requirement that a DPS officer be with Wirick at all times? In the past there were fraternity members who served on the SJB like Kelby Brick in the early 90s and Brad Porche' from 2003 and 2004. I believe it is common in the SJB to have a fraternity/sorority member or two on board.

Next in BnB:

13) Due to the late alert, the rumors were able to spread like a rapid wildfire throughout the campus. Wirick’s Student Conduct papers state that the first report was on Sept. 27 at 3:03 PM, followed by a series of reports throughout the morning on Sept. 28. Yet, nobody was alerted, allowing the rumors to brew some more.

What "late alert"? Monday, Sprouse was only "concerned"; by Monday afternoon, he was discussing "a shooting threat"; Tuesday, he freaked out because of his buddies' rumor, and shortly after that, he finally got the DPS to do something. Note the first report came on September 27 at 3:03 PM - who reported what where? I assume it means the DPS was contacted by Sprouse. In the chain of events, nothing indicates to me that Sprouse was genuinely concerned for his safety between Sunday and Monday - only on Tuesday does he give a reason for why he should be worried. But if he was genuinely concerned for his welfare on Sunday, then wouldn't he have contacted DPS that night? Or Monday morning, early? Why go to the faculty advisor?

What caused Sprouse to go from being concerned to being outright afraid to the point he had to contact DPS? Why did the Dean "prompt" him to contact DPS and not, say, the faculty advisor? Or someone else? I have mentioned that it seemed people didn't know what to do with Sprouse's claims, so they passed him around. Seems to me the Dean prompted Sprouse to contact DPS because the Dean felt it was an issue between two individuals, and not a campus issue. The Dean's actions contradict everything centered around "a shooting threat" and Wirick's so called "prediction."

In the sentence, "Yet, nobody was alerted, allowing the rumors to brew some more," seems to be a bit misleading. Sprouse (and possibly his friends with him in Carlin Hall that day) appeared to have alerted a lot of people; Wirick "warned" the cliques. "Nobody was alerted"? That is factually not true. Wirick "warned" or rather he explained to the cliques; the Dean of Student Affairs knew and "prompted" Sprouse to contact DPS; the Ombuds team was contacted by Sprouse; and Sprouse claimed he went to his faculty advisor; Wirick received noticed from the Mental Health Center so they were alerted by somebody;  and the fact that "many students reported their own concerns to the DPS during the same time period."

"Nobody was alerted"? Hardly.

There was no actual threat, so there was no need for any alert to be sent out. Regarding rumors, Sprouse appeared to have perpetuated the rumors himself by virtue of the fact he freaked out after his buddies told him he was targeted by Wirick.  From the BnB story it looks like that Wirick was somehow being blamed for the rumors "brewing"?  Although Wirick tried to STOP the rumors by trying to explain to Sprouse his views and to other people once he got whiff of a rumor about him circulating. Seemingly it was Wirick who tried to warn the cliques the same way he warned Sprouse of the potential of a shooting on campus, but I don't see Wirick spreading rumors. I see Sprouse spreading rumors and perpetuating them, but not Wirick.

Next in BnB:

14) However, the minimal action of sending a simple email by the Public Relations office was not enough to douse the rumors. Rumors had it that a gun was found. Some also said that Wirick brought the gun with him to the Marketplace. As many of the sources the Buff and Blue interviewed for this article explicitly stated, the rumors and lack of information harmed the morale and the reputation of the students.

See how a rumor starts? It began at Carlin Hall with Sprouse and his friends with Wirick making a comment about a potential shooting on campus involving fraternity and sorority members. And once Wirick left did Sprouse and his friends help perpetuate this fear whether it was due to miscommunication, perceived threats, body language, and so on.

Next in BnB:

15) "I feel like the Department of Student Affairs chose to sweep this problem under the rug.” The lack of communication between the departments on campus affected the faculty as well. Faculty members learned about the "threat" from students rather from officials on campus. All the assurance the campus got during the short span of the investigation was the fact that there was no threat and that the situation was now “under control.

All in all, in the sense of fair play, was Charles Wirick a victim of harassment and bullying by some students, some of the fraternity members, and even by some of the SJB in the effort to have him removed?


Next in BnB:

16) Wirick’s videophone hearing was on October 11, where the Student Conduct Committee informed him about their decision, which was to impose an one-year suspension. Wirick currently resides with his parents in Florida and is unlikely to return to Gallaudet in the near-future.

Last question, why did the BnB article state that it would be unlikely Wirick would return to Gallaudet in the near-future after his one year suspension is up? Under what basis did the author come to that conclusion? After all he was found to pose no threat to the campus of Gallaudet University. Or is there more to the story that Gallaudet University is not telling? And it is unclear on what the suspension was for.  Was it for helping perpetuate a rumor of an impending shooting or what?

See Part 3 of 3 - ganged up?.

Or if you missed Part 1 of 3 go here.

The Charles Wirick's Case: Part 1 of 3

What Buff and Blue wrote on the Wirick's case about a possible shooting concern on the campus of Gallaudet Univesity had me asking myself many questions. Something wasn't adding up right here. The more I read the more questions it raised. That article had more holes than a block of Swiss cheese and so I'm not sure what to make of it.  It raised more questions than it did to inform the public on what supposedly happened. Yes, supposedly, since the information was limited since I don't have all the facts.

If you had read in depth and carefully followed the timeline of that article you might start to notice a few things, even discrepancies, which should be enough to raise your own questions about the whole thing. One question I have is who really started the rumor wildfire by pouring gasoline on a spark started by Wirick in what appeared to be a casual conversation? The article seems present conflicting reports and raised questions about Gallaudet University's own processes as they appear to have "pass the buck" down onto somebody else in what could've been a serious case. There are questions about BnB own journalistic practices as well when the author, Derrick Behm, wrote the Wirick article. I have questions about the Student Judicial Board (SJB) which is comprised of several students who are responsibile in determing the "guilt" or "innocence" of students charged of a crime, or in this case, a "crime" may have been biased in their own approach in doling out a punishment.  In short, that BnB article raised more questions than not about the whole affair.

All of my analyses basically questions whether the whole process was unfair against Wirick. What the Bnb wrote raised more questions and questionable actions. Whether this was due to poor follow-ups, inconsistences, poor choice of words or bias in BnB's article "Wirick suspended for one year for shooting threat rumor," it leaves a lot to be desired for in answering questions here.

First off, let's start with the time line of events just to stream line. Since this is a long analysis my blog will be broken up into four parts so that it can be better followed and digested by readers. Part 1 of 4 is basically a time line piece so that you can go back and refer to it.

The Timeline (based on the Buff and Blue article):

Sunday evening, September 26 - Sprouse discusses "rapes and shootings"; Wirick joins the conversation at Carlin Hall and makes his opinion believing that a shooting take place on the Gallaudet Universty campus ; Wirick may have tried to clarify his point at this time to Sprouse.

Sunday evening, September 26 - Sprouse admits to being "concerned" but BnB story didn't say about what exactly he was "concerned" about. Wirick? Someone else shooting people? Generally concerned for the campus?

Sunday evening, September 26 - Sprouse admits to feeling uncomfortable - not yet felt threatened.

Monday AM, September 27 - Sprouse contacted his faculty advisor.

Monday between AM and mid-afternoon, September 27 - Sprouse contacts Ombuds Intervention team.

Monday between AM and mid-afternoon, September 27 - Sprouse contacts Dean of Student Affairs.

Monday afternoon, September 27 - Sprouse is prompted to contact DPS and does.

Monday, 3:03 PM, September 27 - First reported contact regarding complaint about Wirick

Monday afternoon, September 27 - Sprouse claims Wirick "approached him" and sought to clarify Sunday conversation.

Tuesday around noon, September 28 - Wirick is contacted by MHC via email.

Tuesday after noon, September 28 - Sprouse "saw Wirick in the marketplace" where Wirick gave "demeaning and threatening looks."

Tuesday after noon, September 28 - After leaving the Marketplace and seeing Wirick, Sprouse met with friends; friends inform him of a rumor involving Wirick targeting Sprouse.

Tuesday afternoon, September 28 - Sprouse contacted DPS (second time).

Tuesday at 2:00 PM, September 28 - Wirick meets with counselors at MHC.

Tuesday afternoon (unknown time), September 28 - Sprouse contacts CRE; CRE confirms DPS/MPD are involved/investigating.

Tuesday (unknown time) September 28 - Wirick was interviewed by USSS and MPD before volunteering to be transported to DC General’s CPEP center for a mental evaluation.

Tuesday (unknown time) September 28 - Wirick is interrogated (notice the Bnb story uses the word "interrogation") at the Kellogg Conference Center and Hotel.

The following were present at Wirick's "interrogation" on Tuesday, September 28:

- Department of Public Safety (DPS)
- Residential Life (CRE)
- Metropolitan Police Department (MPD)
- MPD Central Intelligence Agency
- the United States Secret Service (USSS)
- Associate Dean Carl Pramuk

Tuesday afternoon, September 28 - Wirick is given an interim suspension for five days, and afterwards he was told that he would have to be accompanied by a DPS officer at all times.

Tuesday afternoon (unknown time), September 28 - Wirick "decided to leave Gallaudet."

Tuesday by 5:00 PM, September - Office of Public and Media relations announced that “the situation is under control and there is no current threat to the campus community.”

Go to The Charles Wirick's Case: Part 2 of 3 - Rumors.

Gallaudet University - a 'Hearing Space' for all?

Recently I read a recent article in Deaf Echo on "Hearing Space, A Conversation Among Deaf Writers" where several people contributed to an online discussion regarding whether having a "hearing space" at Gallaudet University would be a good idea or not based on an unconfirmed proposal that such a "space" is being planned.

Let's start from the beginning. There is no way that Gallaudet University can enforce a rule that whoever enters the campus must sign only. A near impossibility. Firstly, those who are hearing or have some hearing loss (i.e. mild/moderate, with hearing aid) should not be made to feel that they cannot use their own voice at a table at, for example, one of Gallaudet University's eateries while dining with another hearing person or two. This "hearing space" is really about using one's own voice to communicate and not about a "hearing" status per se. It should be called "Open Zone" or something similar instead because there are people with hearing loss who prefer or are more comfortable in using his/her own voice or are in a position where you have non-signers and must use voice to communicate.

Now, second question, should these "Hearing Space" designations come to fruition on campus will these designated areas allow people with hearing loss to use it as well so they can talk instead of signing? Suppose a group of hard of hearing people with their hearing aids prefer to go to these designated areas? Should this "Hearing Space" only be available for hearing people? What about people with hearing loss who grew up talking and listening with their hearing aids (or in this case nowadays cochlear implants) who have no problem in having oral discussions with other people?

But to have a designated lounge room or a designated area where people are free to talk without fear for reprisal or scorn reminds me of this picture below:

Water fountains with "white" and "colored" signs above them

An approved segregation between "hearing people" and "deaf people" by giving hearing people their own "colored fountain" in the effort to appease people and not upset the rest of Gallaudet University's population of deaf people for using their voice to communicate.What this brings to mind is the concept of shame by practicing semi-inclusiveness, "You are welcomed here but you need to go to a separate place first because you're not like us."

Right now I am unclear if this "Hearing Space" would be more like having a designated lounge, sort of like a teacher lounge. Or does this "space" include a designated spot at one of the dining or eatery places on campus such as Rathskellar or the Marketplace? More clarification is needed on exactly what this "Hearing Space" entails.

What about people who talk on their cell phones on the campus of Gallaudet University? The moment a hearing or hard of hearing person picks up his cell phone to answer it while on campus at Gallaudet University in a pubic place is essentially creating his/her own "hearing space" to begin with. And, yes, Gallaudet University is a public place and talking on a cell phone isn't a crime. Will people be encouraged to use these segregated but designated "hearing spaces" just so they can talk on the cell phones without fear for reprisal or scorn? Or heaven forbid lose their job because somebody caught a hearing teacher talk on her cell phone in Rathskellar?  Or have hard of hearing students earn their Scarlett Letter 'A' for daring to use his cell phone to talk while at the Marketplace?

Believe it or not I've actually witnessed an interpreter who received a phone call on his cell phone and proceeded to talk out in the open near the Marketplace. But he signed while he talked. Does this make it any better? It was rather odd that for a private and personal call he'd make his discussion publicly known for all those "eavesdroppers." Oh, sure, people will say it's about "respect" but I don't see it that way any more than people signing what they've just texted for all "eavesdroppers" to see.

A discussion among people at a table (e.g. the Marketplace) is usually a private affair and whatever they say shouldn't be of any interest to outsiders, deaf or hearing. Eavesdropping is disrespectful. This isn't about communication access among deaf people but rather about the relative privacy of communication in a public place.

I liked what Joseph P. Rioto had to say commenting about this so called "Hearing Space" (see third comment):

I would suggest that the university takes a hard look at the concept of pluralism. Although the word is not mentioned explicitly, the concept of pluralism is very obvious in the resolution that was adopted by the International Congress on Education of the Deaf (ICED) 2010 last summer. The resolution says to respect all languages and forms of communication. I do not need to elaborate the possible consequences if the university chooses not to abide by the resolution. Some of the arguments that I have seen apparently want to reject or greatly restrict the resolution and that is a serious matter.

Respect for all languages and forms of communication goes both ways. Restricting them for the sake of ideology could lead to intolerance and discrimination by turning Gallaudet University into, as Joseph P. Rioto puts it, "a cathedral that is dedicated to the god of ASL." How far is too far? Until this "Hearing Space" is clarified we'll have a better grasp on exactly who brought up this idea and what issues drove people to suggest this "Hearing Space."

A video: The John Tracy Clinic story...the beginning

Here's a captioned video about how the John Tracy Clinic began. The knowledge about deafness and technology were so much further behind when compared to today. Yet the idea and concept that a deaf or hard of hearing child can learn to speak, especially with an aid of a hearing aid or cochlear implant nowadays, are still the same.  Since I am unable to embed that video on my blog because it currently disabled but you can certainly go over to YouTube and watch the black and white video story on how it all began.

You can also visit my video tribute to the John Tracy Clinic. My mother participated via the John Tracy Clinic correspondence course that helped set the path for me on developing my oral and auditory skills, and well as my English language development. The whole idea is that, yes, deaf and hard of hearing children can learn to talk. Remember the old quote, "Deaf people can do anything"? This includes learning how to talk as well.