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.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
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.
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:
Part 1 of 3
Part 2 of 3
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:
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:
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.
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 28th. “Around noon [of September 28th] 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 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.
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 28th. “Around noon [of September 28th] 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.
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.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
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:
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):
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 |
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."
Sunday, November 07, 2010
A video: The John Tracy Clinic story...the beginning
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.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Equality! Why are there no deaf zombieeeeeees in films??
Since Halloween is fast coming up I thought I bring up this very, very, verrrrry important question that was inspired by a forum in the U.K. I came across. Actually it was in a newspaper forum "My Sun" with the thread title, "Are minorities under repesented in Zombie films?" After reading it I realized it was a thread inspired by another article "Call for greater representation of ethnic and disability groups in zombie movies."
Now, after thinking for a moment or two, aren't zombies technically "disabled" in the first place? You know, arms dropping off, missing eyeballs, missing or disintegrating brains, missing fingers, noses, etc? You get the idea. But have you ever seen zombies talk to each other? Why would they bother? They're dead. They just amble around mindlessly looking for fresh flesh to go after and turn those hapless once healthy victims into zombies.
Award winning director Tim Burton had this to say about using "disabled" zombies and the problems that might come with it in his upcoming 2011 zombie film.
Funnily enough as I write this zombie blog piece I am also watching "Haunted Mansion" with Eddie Murphy where he and his daughter are inside a mausoleum being attacked by zombies reanimated from their slumbers inside their dusty, cobweb covered coffins. Yep. No eyeballs. No muscles. Already decayed flesh. All bones. No muscle tone whatsoever. Yet those zombies managed to walk and "see" where their intruders are. But if they were deaf how would you know? They still manage to hear sound, too. Go figure. And they go about their usual patented zombie walking stance with arms outstretched doing the whole "arrrgh" thing over and over. Btw, no vocal cords either. Hmmmm.
Now, really. You can hire deaf actors to play the zombie part but who would notice a deaf zombie? Wouldn't a group of deaf zombies be at a disadvantage when they cannot hear where their next victims are? Of course maybe it might work if they had hearing aids. Nah. Batteries would be dead long ago. Same for cochlear implants, too. If you think about it, it would look silly on them anyways. Though it'd be easy for a hearing hero to come up behind a deaf zombie and kill it a la Zombieland but to attract deaf zombies' attention by playing a banjo just wouldn't work here. No matter how much noise you'd try they wouldn't come out after you.
Maybe that's a good thing?
Yet, I'm sure there are people out there that with enough creativity they can include anybody in a zombie film. Even the mindless ones. Although you might be surprised if you didn't know it already but there are deaf zombies out there. In fact, some of them ultimately lost their sanity and brains after playing an engrossing zombie Monopoly game and became zombies themselves. Maybe it might be a good idea to contact Tim Burton and suggest some deaf zombies for a change? Seriously. Give it a Zombieland shot.
Three more days til Halloween. Are you gonna be a mindless deaf zombie who like to eat brains? Ok. Whatever you do, DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK!!
Aaarggh! (repeat ad nauseum).
Now, after thinking for a moment or two, aren't zombies technically "disabled" in the first place? You know, arms dropping off, missing eyeballs, missing or disintegrating brains, missing fingers, noses, etc? You get the idea. But have you ever seen zombies talk to each other? Why would they bother? They're dead. They just amble around mindlessly looking for fresh flesh to go after and turn those hapless once healthy victims into zombies.
Award winning director Tim Burton had this to say about using "disabled" zombies and the problems that might come with it in his upcoming 2011 zombie film.
The problem is also acknowledged by award-winning director Tim Burton, whose new zombie film ‘Dark Shadows’ is scheduled for release next year. ‘The issue here is that the vast majority of the cinema-going public has grown up only being exposed to white able-bodied zombies. As a result, I just don’t think people are ready to see the hero of a film smashing the living hell out of an Asian learning-disabled zombie in a wheelchair.’
But Burton is keen to try and change audience perceptions. ‘We’re filming two versions of my next movie, and when the DVD is released it will come with the second version featuring disabled zombies. Although if I’m honest, the plot does suffer a bit. When the hero is cornered by a group of zombies on crutches, he just escapes down a flight of stairs before spending the rest of the movie hiding in a public library without wheelchair access.’Cueing on Burton's funny response about "disabled" zombies suppose we'd have a crowd of deaf zombies going after and terrorizing a bunch of hearing people and have a hearing hero save the day by "smashing the living hell out of Deaf zombies." I can see it already with some responding with outrage on claims of "avdism." Or show disgusts on how that zombie movie was attempting to inject subconsciously the viewing audience the idea of eugenics as being acceptable. Some might get the wrong idea just as Burton has said about using ethnic zombies to play the part.
Others in the industry, though, are concerned that unless is it is handled sensitively, including themes of ethnicity and disability in zombie movies could lead to prejudices being reinforced. ‘I recently saw a movie set in the American deep south,’ said film critic Mark Kermode, ‘in which a rural community is terrorised by a gang of Afro-Carribean zombies. I just worry that some, seeing the scene where the white farmers chase the black zombies out of town brandishing pitchforks and torches, might get the wrong idea and assume it’s a documentary.’Or something like that. *mumbles*
Funnily enough as I write this zombie blog piece I am also watching "Haunted Mansion" with Eddie Murphy where he and his daughter are inside a mausoleum being attacked by zombies reanimated from their slumbers inside their dusty, cobweb covered coffins. Yep. No eyeballs. No muscles. Already decayed flesh. All bones. No muscle tone whatsoever. Yet those zombies managed to walk and "see" where their intruders are. But if they were deaf how would you know? They still manage to hear sound, too. Go figure. And they go about their usual patented zombie walking stance with arms outstretched doing the whole "arrrgh" thing over and over. Btw, no vocal cords either. Hmmmm.
Now, really. You can hire deaf actors to play the zombie part but who would notice a deaf zombie? Wouldn't a group of deaf zombies be at a disadvantage when they cannot hear where their next victims are? Of course maybe it might work if they had hearing aids. Nah. Batteries would be dead long ago. Same for cochlear implants, too. If you think about it, it would look silly on them anyways. Though it'd be easy for a hearing hero to come up behind a deaf zombie and kill it a la Zombieland but to attract deaf zombies' attention by playing a banjo just wouldn't work here. No matter how much noise you'd try they wouldn't come out after you.
Maybe that's a good thing?
Three more days til Halloween. Are you gonna be a mindless deaf zombie who like to eat brains? Ok. Whatever you do, DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK!!
Aaarggh! (repeat ad nauseum).
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Halloween cochlear implant awareness
I received a hint and was directed to a Cafepress store on some Halloween items being sold as part of the whole cochlear implant awareness campaign. Check it out. Lots of items to choose from to buy and help support the cochlear implant awareness campaign at the Cochlear Implant Online Store.
Gallaudet University - an oppressive environment for deaf/hh students?
Here's a story from the Buff and Blue on how one Gallaudet University student seemed to have expressed his anger and disappointment in the wrong way by inferring that a shooting or shootings will happen again on campus. I believe this had to with the general Deaf on deaf oppressive campus environment from clique-y fraternities and sororities to general "Deaf on deaf" oppressive campus environment. His floor mate explained:
The first clue I got about this "attitude" seen on campus was through my good friend of mine who also grew up orally/aurally when we both lived in Washington while growing up. He was my first contact when I first arrived at Gallaudet University since he had been there for about a year or so prior to my arrival. He was the only person I knew on the whole campus. Soon after arriving I finally met him after so many years apart. He began to introduce me to a few people but soon quickly noticed a pattern of him avoiding me. I couldn't figure out why he acted like that. I soon found out he had joined a fraternity and once in he was lost in his own world of getting accepted by his own frat boys in the Alpha Sigma Pi or the "Cobra" fraternity. This was early on in 1988 when I first arrived. I shrugged it off and continued to make friends, learned about the Deaf community, ASL and continued my studies. I never had any desire to join a fraternity in the first place though I had gotten a few offers which was kind of funny looking back. I felt that joining a fraternity was simply too "clique-y" for my own taste simply because of my independent nature. I had better things to do than to worry about getting "accepted" by an organization.
Joke: Why did a frog hop across a busy road?
Answer: He was taking a leap of faith.
Back in 1990 or 1991 fake "FROG fraternity" t-shirt was set up as a joke aimed at fraternities and soroties when I was a student in Gallaudet University at the time it happened. Check out my blog piece I did in 2006 "One FROGgy year at Gallaudet University."
Something to think about. Is elitism a serious problem on campus thinking it's justified to have these, though rare, examples of Deaf on deaf/hh oppression? Maybe it's not a rare thing and it's more common than one would think?
If there are Deaf people who have actually accused Tayler Mayer, owner of Deafread, of being an "avdist" then we can certainly expect Deaf students (maybe some faculty members?) who have accused other deaf/hh and perhaps some Deaf students of avdism as well whether directly or indirectly. Pretty silly but it does happen. Just look at Tayler Mayer as an example of that elitist attitude.
But the question here is what is helping promote or encourage that kind of an oppressive environment on campus? Would some of the more highly sought after fraternities or sororities such as KG (Kappa Gamma) or PKZ (Phi Kappa Zeta) be somewhat or partially responsible in helping establish and promote that kind of an environment over the years where they are sometimes seen as an "elitist" members? What about sport jocks such as the football team? Wrestling? Baseball team? What about counselors who do not seriously take these types of oppression against new students who do not necessarily "fit in" in the general sense of the word here. Would it be possible that some of the Deaf faculty members may also help contribute to this environment on campus as well? Maybe some organizations or groups seen over the internet could have been indirectly responsible in helping encourage that "oppressive" environment on campus in an elitist sense? Maybe it's an "entitlement" or heirarchy thing like being a 7th, 8th or 9th generation Deaf person. Who knows? Perhaps Wrick exaggerated his claims in order bring attention to himself? Perhaps not and everything he said was true?
I think the Wrick's case brings up more questions than not on what's happening on the campus of Gallaudet University that led him to act that way. And that "unity" and acceptance on campus was never really the case in Wrick's eyes.
What do you think?
“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.”Some students, especially new ones who were brought up in an oral/aural environment are able to recognize, understand and cope with this general clique-y-ness circle in a Deaf environment seen on the campus of Gallaudet University. But in Wrick's case he claimed to have experienced these oppressive attitudes acted out his frustration by espousing alarming predictions of shootings on campus. But other students of similar upbringings might have shown their frustrations through suicides or by leaving the university which may or may not have been attributed to the well known Deaf on deaf oppression in some circles on the campus of Gallaudet University. I know this happens. I was one of them that experienced those attitudes against me in rare instances. But the difference here is that I recognized it was a problem early on and it wasn't about me but them.
The first clue I got about this "attitude" seen on campus was through my good friend of mine who also grew up orally/aurally when we both lived in Washington while growing up. He was my first contact when I first arrived at Gallaudet University since he had been there for about a year or so prior to my arrival. He was the only person I knew on the whole campus. Soon after arriving I finally met him after so many years apart. He began to introduce me to a few people but soon quickly noticed a pattern of him avoiding me. I couldn't figure out why he acted like that. I soon found out he had joined a fraternity and once in he was lost in his own world of getting accepted by his own frat boys in the Alpha Sigma Pi or the "Cobra" fraternity. This was early on in 1988 when I first arrived. I shrugged it off and continued to make friends, learned about the Deaf community, ASL and continued my studies. I never had any desire to join a fraternity in the first place though I had gotten a few offers which was kind of funny looking back. I felt that joining a fraternity was simply too "clique-y" for my own taste simply because of my independent nature. I had better things to do than to worry about getting "accepted" by an organization.
Joke: Why did a frog hop across a busy road?
Answer: He was taking a leap of faith.
Back in 1990 or 1991 fake "FROG fraternity" t-shirt was set up as a joke aimed at fraternities and soroties when I was a student in Gallaudet University at the time it happened. Check out my blog piece I did in 2006 "One FROGgy year at Gallaudet University."
Back in around 1990 or 1991 on the campus of Gallaudet University there was this new independent “fraternity” group who called themselves “FROG” with the Greek capital letters phi (F), rho (R), omicron (O), and gamma (G) or (ΦРОГ ). When finger-spelled it is spelled out as the letter “F,” “R,” “O,” along with an upside down “L” to look like the capital Greek letter “rho” which spells "FROГ."
This was a fine and dandy thing except that some of the fraternity members on campus were whining about the fact that “ FROГ “ was not a legitimate Greek organization. Probably because somebody misunderstood what this whole "FROG" thing was about. I remember hearing about this complaints and just laughed over it. The hilarity was over the fact that some of the campus fraternity members actually felt threatened by a group of people who wanted to sell green T-shirts with large greek letters that spelled "FROГ" on the front. This was never meant to be an official Greek organization. The people who brainstormed this idea just wanted to sell T-shirts to make a point and for people who are proud to be independents and not frat members. It was Robert Johnson, creator of Sextoon who was killed last year in a car accident, who helped set up and organize this short-lived ad hoc “Greek” organization.
This ad hoc "Greek" organization, "FROГ," was all about poking fun at the Greek organizations during their infamous Rock Festival weekends.
The beauty of FROГ was that anybody can join, except for members of legitimate Greek organizations on college campuses. Also, no hazing is required to be a member. Just buy the T-shirt and, voila, you're a member of the Greek "FROГ" organization. Ribbit. Ribbit.But this Wirick case raises some serious questions on the possibility of these "Deaf on deaf" and even "Deaf on Deaf" avdism charges that do exist on campus although I would suspect it's a rare thing if not uncommon when compared to 1990. Newer students may feel vulnerable because of their oral/aural upbringings or because of their cochlear implants who may get rejected because of that. Again, not a common practice, I believe. Some students are able ignore this problem while others, like Wrick perhaps, dealt with it differently. This is reminescence of how students who got bullied would retaliate in the wrong way against his/her oppressors. But this time is different, we have the ever pervasive internet, new words being invented to describe select oppression, and new groups over the internet that help create more fear and suspicion or create a false sense of unity that have perhaps helped foster bullying attitudes on the campus of Gallaudet University. What are the factors here that contribute to this attitude of elitism by the few on the campus of Gallaudet University?
Something to think about. Is elitism a serious problem on campus thinking it's justified to have these, though rare, examples of Deaf on deaf/hh oppression? Maybe it's not a rare thing and it's more common than one would think?
If there are Deaf people who have actually accused Tayler Mayer, owner of Deafread, of being an "avdist" then we can certainly expect Deaf students (maybe some faculty members?) who have accused other deaf/hh and perhaps some Deaf students of avdism as well whether directly or indirectly. Pretty silly but it does happen. Just look at Tayler Mayer as an example of that elitist attitude.
But the question here is what is helping promote or encourage that kind of an oppressive environment on campus? Would some of the more highly sought after fraternities or sororities such as KG (Kappa Gamma) or PKZ (Phi Kappa Zeta) be somewhat or partially responsible in helping establish and promote that kind of an environment over the years where they are sometimes seen as an "elitist" members? What about sport jocks such as the football team? Wrestling? Baseball team? What about counselors who do not seriously take these types of oppression against new students who do not necessarily "fit in" in the general sense of the word here. Would it be possible that some of the Deaf faculty members may also help contribute to this environment on campus as well? Maybe some organizations or groups seen over the internet could have been indirectly responsible in helping encourage that "oppressive" environment on campus in an elitist sense? Maybe it's an "entitlement" or heirarchy thing like being a 7th, 8th or 9th generation Deaf person. Who knows? Perhaps Wrick exaggerated his claims in order bring attention to himself? Perhaps not and everything he said was true?
I think the Wrick's case brings up more questions than not on what's happening on the campus of Gallaudet University that led him to act that way. And that "unity" and acceptance on campus was never really the case in Wrick's eyes.
What do you think?
Lou Ferrigno "The Hulk" pre-UFC 121 fight video interview - captioned
Here's a captioned video interview with Lou Ferrigno "The Hulk" on his thoughts oo the upcoming UPC 121 fight and about Matt Hamill. Don't miss this interview! Captions added courtesy of MMA Heat "Karyn Bryant." Be sure to send your kudos to her for having captioning available for those who need it in her interview with Lou Ferrigno. Also, word has it that Karyn Bryant will make sure that Matt Hamill get to meet Lou Ferrigno.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Video: Matt Hamill post fight response with reporters - captioned
Captions courtesy of Kokonut Pundit
Will Matt Hamill soon become one of the top 10 UFC fighters for his weight class? Only time will tell.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Matt Hamill post fight video interview - captioned.
Captions added courtesy of Kokonut Pundit.
Read here about what Tito Ortiz said about Matt Hamill by making fun of the Deaf community in pre-fight trash talk.
Tito Ortiz in post fight talk.
Student knocks off teacher in fight with round by round description of fight. Last night I gave all three rounds to Matt Hamill, the judges at the UFC also gave all three rounds to Matt Hamill.
Matt Hamill wins fight against Tito Ortiz!
It was great watching Matt Hamill face his former coach and trainer during his TUF days. I was at the Buffalo Wild Wings Bar and Grill during their Saturday fight nights where I had the chance to see the fight on 15 different screens of all sizes throughout the restaurant. The place was packed only because the Phillies vs San Francisco baseball game for the World Series slot. My wife and I had to stand for nearly 3 hours with the last 2 hours watching the UFC 121 fights. Then it was finally Matt's turn to fight. The ultimate test in battling it out against a former coach and trainer. In all three rounds Matt dominated them with the last round had Tito getting his own taste of Matt's patented "Ground and Pound" meat grinder. By the time it was over everybody knew Matt won the fight. Even Tito Ortiz raised Matt's arm recognizing that he won even before the announcement was made. Tito's face was bloodied and bruised while Matt hardly had any bruise or even a cut on his face. This is a huge win for Matt tonight.
If you haven't seen my rare post-fight pictures of Matt Hamill and Tito Ortiz together rough housing around then don't miss it. Those pictures are not available anywhere else on the internet except at my blog.
ADDENDUM: Watch Matt Hamill post fight video conference - captioned!
If you haven't seen my rare post-fight pictures of Matt Hamill and Tito Ortiz together rough housing around then don't miss it. Those pictures are not available anywhere else on the internet except at my blog.
ADDENDUM: Watch Matt Hamill post fight video conference - captioned!
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Rare post fight picture of Hamill vs Ortiz
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Here's a rare post fight picture of Tito Ortiz delivering an underhook shot to the chin of the well known deaf MMA Matt Hamill. You won't find this picture anywhere else except on Kokonut Pundit. But it's not a picture you'd expect seeing how Hamill allowed himself to take one on the chin by Ortiz...all in the name of rough housing fun. A post fight picture after the TUF3 show. Of course, this group picture was taken over 4 years ago. Yet it is just bizarre considering the turn of events not knowing that these two MMA fighters would come to blow someday but 4 years later that revelation has come true today at the UFC 121 fight with Hamill versus his former MMA coach. Watch the pre-fight presser video with Ortiz and Hamill (not captioned). The UFC 121 fight starts at 7 PM (Pacific Time)/10 PM (Eastern Time).
ADDENDUM: Matt Hamill wins the fight! Watch the post fight video interview of Matt Hamill in caption!
A Zombie Monopoly Game!
Just in time for Halloween, too. Here's a zombie monopoly game that's easy to play even a deaf caveman can play it!
For more information on this game board go here.
For more information on this game board go here.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
How much is your blog or website "worth"?
Some interesting results when I compared Deaf, deaf or hard of hearing websites or blogsites do I see what their "valuations" are worth. Websites like Gallaudet university, Deaf Video TV, ASLrocks.net, Deafread, DeafVillage, DBC, AFA, DH Foundation, AGBell, and several blogs were compared. I got some surprising "valuation" like Deaf Video TV vs ASLrocks.net. Perhaps after reading this people will learn a few things about their own website or blogsite?
Gallaudet University ...............................($5,785)
Deaf Video TV ........................................($5,430)
ASLrocks ................................................($4,385)
Deaf Nation .............................................($2,119)
Deafread .................................................($2,031)
Cochlear Americas .................................($1,696)
AGBell ...................................................($65)
Fookem and Bug .....................................($52)
Kokonut Pundit .......................................($45)
John Tracy Clinic ...................................($38)
Eh? What? Huh? .....................................($31)
I Am Thankful for My Ears ....................($25)
We Cue! .................................................($25)
Jeff's Bionic World ................................($25)
Deafhood Foundation .............................($25)
The Holism ............................................($22)
Deaf Village ...........................................($19)
Seek Geo ................................................($17)
Candy .....................................................($14)
The Orange Deafie Blog ........................($13)
Kate-Louise's Cochlear Implant Blog ....($12)
Ann C's i.reflections ..............................($11)
Radio 666 FM .......................................($10)
Deafhood Discourses .............................($10)
DBC........................................................($9)
The ASL Project ....................................($6)
AFA .......................................................($5)
Try it. Plug in a website or blogsite's URL address and see how much it is "worth." Now, remember, the My Website Worth page has a disclaimer about making valuations:
Enjoy!
Gallaudet University ...............................($5,785)
Deaf Video TV ........................................($5,430)
ASLrocks ................................................($4,385)
Deaf Nation .............................................($2,119)
Deafread .................................................($2,031)
Cochlear Americas .................................($1,696)
AGBell ...................................................($65)
Fookem and Bug .....................................($52)
Kokonut Pundit .......................................($45)
John Tracy Clinic ...................................($38)
Eh? What? Huh? .....................................($31)
I Am Thankful for My Ears ....................($25)
We Cue! .................................................($25)
Jeff's Bionic World ................................($25)
Deafhood Foundation .............................($25)
The Holism ............................................($22)
Deaf Village ...........................................($19)
Seek Geo ................................................($17)
Candy .....................................................($14)
The Orange Deafie Blog ........................($13)
Kate-Louise's Cochlear Implant Blog ....($12)
Ann C's i.reflections ..............................($11)
Radio 666 FM .......................................($10)
Deafhood Discourses .............................($10)
DBC........................................................($9)
The ASL Project ....................................($6)
AFA .......................................................($5)
Try it. Plug in a website or blogsite's URL address and see how much it is "worth." Now, remember, the My Website Worth page has a disclaimer about making valuations:
"These numbers are estimates only based on criteria available to the domain name. It does not provide a value of the company behind the website."Despite that disclaimer you might get a fun kick on seeing what's your site is "worth." Or maybe not and throw a fit? There is no real valuation being estimated but a fake one that mirrors how much traffic a website or blogsite gets.
Enjoy!
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Zombieland!
Over the past several years I have progressively become one of the more well known deaf/hh bloggers by those who like to read blogs. Over time I knew I’d be delving deeper into the seemingly quixotic ideals of the Deaf world with each deaf-related topic I write. A topic that would either send people howling and convulsing along with the gnashing of their teeth, or have them nod their heads with understanding and concurrence. Maybe even get a chuckle or two from readers. Yet, what I've witnessed has become a paradoxically funny turn of events in an odd sort of way seeing how some people objected to on how I write my blogs almost as if they’re demanding that their own sensitive sensibilities not be violated. Well, no one forced them to read my blogs if they are THAT sensitive to begin with. Why bother reading them if you disagree with them and that you get upset easily? Maybe a little sunlight here and there helps?
Aargh!
I’m not a Deaf blogger but a blogger who happens to have a hearing loss. No need for a feel good label. I’m “a nationally known professional patriotic purveyor of highly entertaining and informative blogging” or so says the title description seen in my blog which describes me pretty accurately I suppose. What I write is my own artful expression of what I want to discuss what's on my mind. But this isn't the first time when people have gotten upset over my writings. This has been going on since I started blogging in back in 2004. Yet, realize that each of us bloggers carries certain strength to the community whether it’s the deaf/hh communities or the Deaf community. But to blog is to express oneself in a variety of ways. Yet some people tend to convulse a bit now and then.
Aargh!
Next, this whole “anti-deafhood” claim is getting a bit out of touch with reality here when it was simply about how people have politicized “deafhood” that people disagree with. It was a philosophical concept that was contrived and invented as a feel good word to muck about with. Remember that paradoxically funny turn of events I said earlier? Well, this is one of them when people get upset whenever Deaf, deaf or hard of hearing people who speak up up on how they don't care for the word. Some disagree with the word seeing it as the equivalent as someone inventing the word "blindhood" or "intellectually-challengedhood" or "wheelchairhood" or whatever other nonsense words to be contrived, manipulated, and mangled like once fresh human beings turned into zombies with appendages and bodyparts falling off. And whenever people disagree over something, then they're labeled "anti" something. If I disagree with the word "blindhood" and then suddenly you get people go on the warpath screaming with zombie-like expressions with fingers pointing at you with large eyes and gaping mouths, "You anti-blindhood! You anti-AFA! You anti-deafhood!" Whatever. Maybe we're just a bunch of pro-common sense people to begin with? Instead people vulgarize the word constantly. You know, zombie-like vulgarization.
Aargh!
I’ve also seen how people attempt to use “social guilt” in the effort to somehow “control” or "influence" how people should write, think or say (e.g. “anti-this” and “anti-that”). Rather than agree to disagree people go overboard using “social guilt” to push their own brand of agenda around. I’ve seen how people are easily misled by false claims or myths like how faulty cochlear implants have shocked children as if it was a wide spread problem. That is an example of an (highly) exaggerated claim since about 1/10th of 1 percent of implanted children in one case study (922 patients) experienced “shocking sensation” (rather than “shocked children” since it envisions a picture of kids gettting shocked like sticking a fork into an outlet plug or something). In that case study I mentioned only 1 patient experienced that “hard failure” of getting that "shocking sensation" from an implant as reported in a recent 2008 Otology & Neurotology report. What's next? Cochlear implants will turn kids into little zombie runts?
Aargh!
Oh, by the way, be sure to buy your latest zombie wig to go with your upcoming zombie Halloween outfit. There's nothing scarier than a zombie with a blond wig!
Aargh!
Thursday, October 14, 2010
When captioning was bad in 1990
Even today, we still see captioning errors that still make you shake your head or do a double take on what you just witnessed like this one here.
As always, both are examples of human errors when human captioners are involved listening to the words where sometimes they do not always get it right. Still, we should be thankfull of that access and we'll see plenty more captioning on both tv and the internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)