Buff and Blue on the missing Wirick article

I received an email response not too long ago where I inquired into the missing Buff and Blue article on Wirick. It was an interesting email whose answer brings up bigger questions. I feel it's important for people to know what was in this email sent to me from someone on the inside.

Unfortunately, we had to take the article down recently due to personal concerns for safety. However, we will be meeting with several administrators about this article when second semester begins and then make a final decision about whether to remove that article permanently or to post it back up.


I apologize for the inconvenience!

Shouldn't the author of that article ought to have thought of that first before publishing it?  I responded back inquiring further about this so-called "safety" concerns and the reply was this.

Unfortunately, I'm not in the position to say who, but any concern of safety is always important, so the article is no longer public until further notice.

Now, I'm thinking with a question mark over my head over this so-called "concerns for safety." Safety concern for whom? The author who wrote it? The names of the people that were discussed in that article? And  what's interesting is that this article will be discussed among "several administrators"? Sounds serious if the BnB is meeting with "several administrators" just to decide over an article that the BnB wrote.  I'm wondering if this "safety" concern is more of a ruse and has more to do with preventing a potential lawsuit down the road? Who knows? Gallaudet University's spring semester began on January 18. It has been almost two weeks. Perhaps we'll here about this decision soon enough? And if they decide not to put the article back upon, will we know about it?

What do you think?

It has been about month and half since the article was removed from the public eye although I still have a copy of that article for those who request it.  You can still see bits and pieces of the article here.

You don't belong here at Gallaudet University

Worst thing to say to a deaf or hard of hearing person who is thinking of going to Gallaudet University, those who are currently students, or those who have been to Gallaudet University by another deaf person who is an alumnus by saying "you don't belong here at Gallaudet University." Yes, This was actually said against Charles Wirick in a case that showed increasingly the (circumstantial) evidence was more likely over miscommunication issues than anything else along with him being a target in the effort to get him to look like a trouble maker than not. Of course, there are possibly a few more varying factors that ultimately led to suspending Wirick for one year from Gallaudet University.

Lately, Charles Wirick's videos were removed for unknown reasons over the holidays. His account was also deleted.  If you haven't seen them then you're out of luck. But here's the burning question. Was bullying involved here that ultimately cost Wirick one year of suspension from Gallaudet University? Who was doing the bullying if any? Gallaudet University administration? The students? The Buff and Blue? By fraternity and/or sorority members?  Student Conduct Board? Who pushed whom over there? And why? Those the are questions I'm trying to raise here over my last several blogs about the Charles Wirick's case. What really happened here and seems like Gallaudet University does not really care or do not wish to address the issue at all.  How ironic and interesting to see all of a sudden Gallaudet University to start with this anti-bullying campaign just recently last year in 2010. Maybe they need to look at their own administration internally a bit more deeper and see who protecting who.  I'm sure it isn't the Pawheeves doing the protecting here which has mysteriously disappeared if you click on the link. But something is certainly going on within the system that has been worked in over the years,Vishnu or not. Right, Dwight?

Anybody who is deaf or hard of hearing is certainly welcomed to attend Gallaudet University and once there, no matter the preferred mode of communication, that person belongs there just like everybody else. It's really up to the person to decide for personal reasons on not wanting to go to Gallaudet University. And once that person graduates, he or she represents Gallaudet University. Just like me. I certainly belong but that's another story.  And I'll be sure to remind people that Gallaudet University must adhere to Section 504 ruling established by Congress.

Charles Wirick YouTube Video Response

Finally, Charles Wirick has something to say on YouTube video.

Previous blogs on Charles Wirick

Mystery of the missing BnB's Wirick article
The curious case of the Wirick case
Charles Wirick responds to charges in his blog
Poll: Was Charles Wirick bullied and targeted unfairly?
The Charles Wirick's Case: Part 3 of 3 - Ganged up? 
The Charles Wirick's Case: Part 2 of 3 - Rumors
The Charles Wirick's Case: Part 1 of 3

Mystery of the missing BnB's Wirick article

This has gotten rather curious. An article written by Derrick Behm on Charles Wirick about his one year suspension over his alleged spreading of his own shooting threat rumor has suddenly disappeared off of the face of the Buff and Blue electronic newspaper website. A website that is owned by Gallaudet University and operated by the The Buff and Blue staff. The October 26, 2010 article disappeared around during the week of December 13. That article may have disappeared on December 17th on the same day when, supposedly if it is him, Charles Wirick created his own blog to counter accusations that he was the one who perpetuated the shooting threat rumors. December 17th was also the same day I decided to do a blog about Wirick coming out with his own blog and that's when I tried to check out BnB's article "Wirick suspended for one year for shooting threat rumor" to see if any additional comments were added but only to find out that the article/blog was taken completely off of the BnB website. My question is this. Why was it removed, Derrick Behm?

This was the second time that BnB did this. The first time it was taken off briefly only to only to correct the article and then it came online shortly thereafter. So far it has been two days since the Wirick article was taken offline.  Although the March 23, 2010 article "Barefoot Trouble" on Charles Wirick is still available about his barefoot walking attempt on campus about him getting back to "nature" so to speak. 

Regardless, the missing BnB article on Wirick is not forever gone. I have it on my MediaFire file hosting page and is available to those who would like to see it. Contact me if you want a copy of the missing article. It can only be seen using the Windows Internet Explorer browser page since it was saved as a Explorer browser. The saved copy of that BnB missing article also contains the 28 comments. Before it was deleted I think there were in excess of some 30+ comments. Since we might not get any answers until after the Christmas break in January 2011 I will keep the missing article available to those who wish to view it in the Windows Explorer browser page. Just let me know.

For what it's worth, I think Charles Wirick might have a case against the Student Conduct Board. A lot of things are not adding up here.



Previous blogs on Charles Wirick

The curious case of the Wirick case
Charles Wirick responds to charges in his blog
Poll: Was Charles Wirick bullied and targeted unfairly?
The Charles Wirick's Case: Part 3 of 3 - Ganged up? 
The Charles Wirick's Case: Part 2 of 3 - Rumors
The Charles Wirick's Case: Part 1 of 3

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. 

Charles Wirick responds to charges in his blog

It appears that Chas (Charles) Wirick has set up his own blog to counter charges against him "Charles Wirick evidence from Cases." Go and read what he has to say, if the blog is in fact Wirick's which it does appears to be so. The same message in his blog was also left in my blog comment as well

I, Charles Wirick, am appealing the ruling of the Student Conduct Board hearing on two basis:

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

Fact:

There were no physical, verbal abuse, threats, intimidation, harassment, and coercion proven at the hearing. I did not, according to the facts do any of them.

Seven students reported a possible threat of a shooting according to DPS reports. This is suppose to be the reason why I was detained and questioned.

Facts according to DPS reports:

Justin Christian reported that Matt Harris and Jerrod Cunningham were talking about shooting.(It was these two and Justin McDormain and Michael Sprouse that were in the student center talking about the shooting before I arrived) Justin did not name me.

Justin McDormain is not a student. He said at the hearing that Michael started the rumor, not me.

Jelynn Louis reported that Matt Harris and Jerrod Cunningham were talking about a shooting. I was not mentioned.

Britny Latham stated that Matt Harris and Jerrod Cunningham were talking about a shooting and that he started a fire in the dorm. I was not mentioned.

Amanda Biskupiak admitted that I warned her, but she did not understand my sign.

Rachel Steingieser said the same thing as Amanda and repeated that she did not understand my sign.

Stacey DeLaune reported that I warned her about the shooting that 4 others were talking about in student center. She told me to go to DPS and report it so I did.

The sanction imposed was excessive and insufficient and not appropriate.

I was found guilty of spreading rumors that scared and caused panic. I was suspended for one year.

Fact:

I threatened no one.

I was told to report threats to staff, which I did.

I went to DPS and reported it.

I went to Nikki my dorm staff and reported it.

I did not start the rumors, proof shows that four other students did.(Justin, not a current student, admitted that Michael started the rumors at the hearing and he is Mike’s friend).

We are told to report threats. If rumors are grounds for suspension then that should have been the charge and all students that spread rumors should have gotten the same suspension. One year is excessive.

You can read previous blogs about the Charles Wirick case in Part I, II and III.

According to Charles the confusion and misunderstanding appears to revolve around the signing miscommunication on not being able to understand some of Charles Wirick's signing. I brought up this possibility in my earlier blog. Interesting. And that he wasn't the one who spread the rumor.

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?

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.