<p>Whether or not the webcam incidents contributed in part (last straw) or in whole (emotional pain and humiliation) to Tyler’s suicide …not sure how much that matters because what Ravi did in and of itself, is pretty despicable even if no death had occurred (and most would agree that he likely never imagined a death would occur).</p>
<p>EDIT…I cross posted with epiphany…agree with her too, but am also saying even if it played no part in the suicide (I do believe it played at least some though)…the acts of Ravi still are terrible and against the law.</p>
<p>“It’s tempting to assign him to the first, except it’s pretty clear that he wasn’t being bullied, wasn’t being rejected by anyone he knew,”</p>
<p>We don’t know that he wasn’t being bullied or rejected. We have no idea, for instance, how the many students that Ravi invited to watch Tyler on video reacted and whether any of them did anything or said anything mean to Tyler. </p>
<p>For all we know, he could have been in a bathroom stall in his dorm and overheard others talking in a cruel way about how his roommate had videoed him making out with a guy.</p>
<p>Oh I don’t disagree at all on the fact that what was done was despicable and any legal charges will be played out. I just haven’t read anything that has convinced me that there was homophobia or hate crime involved or that the suicide was a direct result that would garner additional charges. I’m not on any “side” here or arguing any point of view. We just don’t know any details other than the few few that are substantiated. Most everything else is speculation.</p>
<p>^^^ i agree, if it had happened after the first incident…then maybe… but he knew about it, arranged for another meeting with his friend in the same room a few days later, and posted that he had solved the problem by turning the camera off, had gone on to have a great time and had reported it to the ra. So the 2nd taping never happened. Something made it all unbearable, but i think there is information missing as to what that was.</p>
<p>Yes, and what made living unbearable may have had no connection whatsoever to Ravi’s alleged conduct. We just don’t know–we may never know. It serves no useful purpose to assume that Ravi and Wei are responsible for Clementi’s suicide.</p>
<p>"FRESNO, Calif. — When Seth Walsh was in the sixth grade, he turned to his mother one day and told her he had something to say.</p>
<p>“I was folding clothes, and he said, ‘Mom, I’m gay,’ ” said Wendy Walsh, a hairstylist and single mother of four. “I said, ‘O.K., sweetheart, I love you no matter what.’ ”</p>
<p>Last month, Seth went into the backyard of his home in the desert town of Tehachapi, Calif., and hanged himself, apparently unable to bear a relentless barrage of taunting, bullying and other abuse at the hands of his peers. After a little more than a week on life support, he died last Tuesday. He was 13.</p>
<p>Regardless of how wonderful the person was who committed suicide, I’m beginning to think we have a societal responsibility to downplay these incidents as far as publicity goes. (Not put a shroud of silence over it like what used to happen, but not hype it or glorify it either.) After all, don’t suicidal people often consider the act of killing themselves as a punishment or eye-opener for the living? Don’t some people say to themselves “They’ll be sorry when I’m gone,” or “If I kill myself, then they’ll finally realize how much they hurt me and then they’ll have to live forever with the fact that they made me do this.” Or, “Once I’m dead, maybe then they’ll realize how much they really do love me.” So every time we put all over the media an image of the deceased as not only a wonderfully perfect person, but a true hero for what he endured, don’t we indirectly encourage suicide? We tell young people that when you kill yourself, then everyone will sit up and pay attention to you for once, and then gather around and say how great you were and how much they loved you. A young man in a neighboring town killed himself a while back and from then on his name was in the paper constantly, his praises were sung for weeks, and people organized a huge, annual community event in his honor. He seemed to have been a nice kid, but frankly, he was just an ordinary kid–no more, no less. In the old days, suicide was viewed as a cowardly, immoral act. While that stigma was not what we want, I’m beginning to think that now some people see suicide as the bold, courageous thing to do. That’s not what we want either. It’s just a terrible thing.</p>
<p>i also wonder if the huge media coverage, may lead some of these younger children to view it as something to do if upset… they may not have thought about it, until they hear about it</p>
<p>Any publicity should be focused on kindness and tolerance, and on mental health support groups that exist in each community, with particular emphasis on the ones that pertain to the case in question: Rutgers organizations which offer support to gay students, mental health facilities on campus and in New Brunswick, NJ suicide hotlines, etc. Also, I think some authority figure or head of one of the support organizations should put forth a model of a healthy way to handle situations of this nature, so in the future kids can formulate a sane plan of action and feel they have options.</p>
<p>There was a string of six suicides last year at Cornell, all by jumping off the campus’s famous bridges.</p>
<p>On the advice of experts, Cornell has been walking a fine line by trying to acknowledge the tragedy of these deaths without describing details or glorifying the deceased students in a way that could encourage copycats. </p>
<p>I had to seriously hunt around on the Cornell Web site to find a link to this story. Unlike most news stories for which Cornell officials are interviewed, it was not mentioned on the university’s home page. I am sure this is quite deliberate.</p>
<p>I agree with TheGFG and JHS. Why is the media not emphasizing the irresponsibility of the act of suicide? Yes, all too often, people get depressed and consider suicide. I know that we shrink from the idea of criticizing the young man who committed suicide, for fear of appearing unfeeling and insensitive. How does committing suicide make somebody a hero? Isn’t facing up to adversity, no matter how difficult it is, more heroic? So what message is the media sending to our children? Granted, the roommate’s actions were crass and beyond the pale of civil behavior, but no external event can be the sole cause of suicide. The person committing suicide is ultimately responsible for his own decision. Why don’t we appreciate the people who plug along in the face of adversity? Because somehow that is less dramatic, and we as a society do not point out unsung everyday heroes as role models to our children. Some children live such a hard life, and are abused, neglected and deprived of the most basic necessities, yet do not commit suicide. But such everyday resilience, unfortunately, does not make for good media. Suicide, ultimately, is a selfish choice…and a person who commits suicide cannot be absolved of the responsibility for the pain they cause their loved ones who are left behind.</p>
<p>Most people who commit suicide are very mentally ill. A logical mind wouldn’t take what most people fight to keep. You can’t judge their mind not knowing it. Just know it’s not a natural thing and for some there isn’t anything but black.
I wish there was support for everyone who is that hurting, sometimes it’s something that will pass, even if they think it wont, sometimes it’s chemical they need medical help, sometimes it is part of an addiction, but they aren’t capable of seeing things they way you do.</p>
<p>The media coverage of Clementi’s suicide is a cause for concern, but not because he isn’t being blamed for his own action. Rather, the reasons for concern include the extensive publicity about the incident and the failure to mention the likelihood that the invasion of his privacy by the other two students may not have been the only contributing factor.</p>
<p>There’s a lot of information on suicide prevention, including recommendations for the media, on the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention Web Site. [AFSP:</a> Understanding and Preventing Suicide through Research, Education and Advocacy](<a href=“Home | AFSP”>Home | AFSP)</p>
<p>With regard to the media, the site says this (among other things):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The site also has information on what to do if you are concerned that someone may commit suicide. Nowhere does it say that it is helpful to say that the act is irresponsible. In fact, the site advises:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is good reason for concern about the media coverage of Clementi’s suicide, but it is not because the media have not blamed him.</p>
<p>I disagree that he has been painted a hero by the media. He is being portrayed as a victim.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please. These people are usually not rational. They are often extremely clinically depressed, possibly chemically imbalanced, and suffer from a huge lack of healthy coping skills. They may truly believe they are doing those they leave behind a favor-their loved ones will no longer be burdened with them. Most of the time they are really not in their “right minds,” so criticizing them after the fact seems not only arrogant and judgmental, but completely pointless. We should not romanticize the notion of suicide. But neither should we criticize the deceased for not having been more mentally healthy or “resilient.”</p>
<p>There is a post on the Rutgers board which relates a somewhat similar instance with a female pair of roommates (and a third female) last semester (year?). It makes one reflect a bit on what the Rutgers response might have been to Tylers complaint. And also wonder about who the visitor was.</p>
<p>While the impressions of someone 3 years younger who hadn’t seen him in a couple of years may not be entirely accurate, looking at the photos, you get the impression he was a loner.</p>
<p>The editorial is a typical piece of clueless homophobic crap. “These groups want to be heard. They want the attention. They want their agendas to shine in the limelight.” Disgusting. As the comments to the editorial point out, far more eloquently than I could.</p>
<p>Wow, OK, He was a loner? May be he was. That doesn’t mean that he deserved to be peeped in and broadcast, does it? In fact, if he was a loner, he should really have been left alone.</p>