Introduction
Skepticism is healthy.
Questioning new communication methods is responsible.
But when skepticism becomes lazy, when it perpetuates myths instead of uncovering truth, it doesn’t just delay progress – it causes real harm.
For decades, nonspeaking individuals have been marginalized, misrepresented, and systemically doubted.
Today, many of them are spelling, communicating, attending college, and leading powerful advocacy efforts.
But public narratives, including recent articles, still often confuse outdated information with current reality.
This is a call to correct the record.
To clarify.
To honor the real voices that are already reshaping the future.
Part 1: How Modern Spelling Methods Differ From Early FC Methods
It’s important to recognize that Facilitated Communication (FC) represented a sincere and groundbreaking attempt to unlock communication for nonspeakers at a time when few believed it was even possible.
Many families and practitioners who embraced FC did so with deep love, hope, and belief in the hidden competence of their children and students.
While modern spelling methodologies like Spelling to Communicate (S2C) and Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) have refined and strengthened the pathways to independence—bringing structured motor development and prompt fading into sharper focus—we honor the role that early methods like FC played in challenging harmful assumptions and opening the door to new possibilities.
Progress does not erase the courage of those who came before—it builds upon it.
And our highest loyalty remains with the nonspeakers themselves: ensuring they have access to the tools, strategies, and respect they deserve to claim their full voices.
There’s a critical distinction that too many journalists, researchers, and skeptics continue to blur:
There are meaningful differences between Facilitated Communication (FC) and other communication methodologies like Spelling to Communicate (S2C), Rapid Prompting Method (RPM), and other structured spelling-based approaches—but collapsing them all under the same outdated narrative is not only inaccurate, it’s deeply harmful to nonspeakers.
Yes, there are distinctions in training, motor skill development, and methodology.
Yes, FC has a complex history—including some publicly discredited cases from the 1990s that are still referenced today.
But that’s exactly the issue.
When a journalist uses a decades-old example of failed FC practice to dismiss all forms of human-assisted communication—including S2C, RPM, and newer methods—they’re not offering a serious critique.
They’re using a discredited story to discredit the entire paradigm, even though these systems are vastly different in practice and philosophy.
The truth is:
They are all working—in different ways—for different people.
And yes, modern FC practitioners do incorporate fading protocols and scaffolding toward autonomy, just as S2C and RPM do in their own frameworks.
The problem isn’t FC itself.
The problem is how FC has been framed—and weaponized—by skeptics to discredit the broader community of nonspeaking individuals and the methods they rely on to communicate.
It’s like using a 1994 dial-up modem failure to claim Wi-Fi doesn’t work.
We need to get more precise.
More accurate.
More respectful.
That’s why we’ve been advocating for new terminology to reflect what’s actually happening across the spectrum.
Instead of lumping everyone together under “FC” or “AAC,” we’ve proposed identifying individuals using these tools as Cognitive Communicators (CCers)—because the thread that connects them isn’t the method, it’s the competence.
They are communicating through their cognition, regardless of motor supports or methodology.
To read more about why this distinction matters:
🔗 Reframing the Narrative: Why It’s Time to Evolve Spelling into ACC and CCers
Part 2: How Misrepresenting Legal Cases Hurts Nonspeaking Advocacy
The recent resurfacing of the Kevin Plantan case is a prime example of how selective storytelling distorts public understanding.
Court documents show that the communication methods used with the child in this case involved purposeful motor planning skill development, not traditional Facilitated Communication (FC).
Court records also confirm that behavioral signs of trauma were observed prior to the child’s spelling communication – contradicting the narrative that abuse allegations only arose because of flawed communication methods.
Additionally, expert witnesses critical of the child’s communication, including Dr. Howard Shane, never personally evaluated the child – instead relying on broad assumptions about nonspeakers rather than case-specific facts.
The dismissal of criminal charges, as reflected in the Summary Judgment ruling in Kelly Smith v. Kevin Plantan (2022), was procedural.
It did not equate to a finding of innocence.
It reflected the court’s unwillingness to subject a vulnerable child to a traumatic and inappropriate adversarial testing process (in other words, the message passing test that Shane himself promotes).
Selective omission of these critical facts isn’t just misleading – it also damages the very people who most deserve our protection and belief.
Part 3: Why Communication for Nonspeakers is a Spectrum, Not All or Nothing
There’s a cruel double standard at play.
When a child with a speech impediment needs an SLP to translate their words, no one doubts their intelligence.
When a stroke survivor struggles to find the right words, we scaffold, encourage, and wait.
When a non-native English speaker misspeaks, we meet them halfway.
Communication is a living, imperfect, co-created process.
We accept that everywhere—except when it comes to nonspeakers.
Suddenly, unless communication is flawless, immediate, and self-initiated without context or support, skeptics claim it’s invalid.
This standard is not scientific. It’s ableist.
We need to stop pretending communication perfection is the requirement for credibility because no human communicator has ever met that standard.
Part 4: Why Expert Skepticism About Nonspeaking Communicators Deserves Scrutiny
When evaluating the ongoing skepticism surrounding nonspeakers, it’s essential to ask:
Who profits from disbelief?
Experts like Howard Shane, often cited to discredit spelling communication, are not neutral actors.
- Shane has built a career—financially and reputationally—on defending a model where nonspeakers are seen as cognitively limited and dependent on expensive assistive technologies.
- He earns thousands, even tens of thousands of dollars, for testifying against families fighting for communication rights.
- His critiques are often delivered without direct evaluation of the individuals he judges.
Informed public discourse demands transparency.
It demands that we disclose when so-called “expert opinions” are tethered to institutional and financial conflicts of interest.
Part 5: Celebrating the Success of Nonspeaking Individuals Using Modern Spelling Methods
The success stories are not theoretical.
They’re here—living, breathing, thriving.
Stone:
- Completing high school-level academic work.
- Writing original poetry and songs.
- Shaping a future defined by intelligence, creativity, and hard-won independence.
Elizabeth Bonker:
- Graduated valedictorian from Rollins College.
- Delivered a national commencement address via typed speech.
- Founded Communication4All.org, supporting hundreds of families and opening doors for a new generation of communicators.
Countless others:
- Advocating in courts.
- Publishing books.
- Building organizations.
- Living full, brilliant, autonomous lives.
Closing: Choosing to Listen, Choosing to Believe Nonspeaking Voices
The question is no longer “Is it real?”
The proof is overwhelming.
The real question is:
Are we willing to listen?
Are we willing to evolve beyond outdated models and acknowledge the complex, beautiful reality of communication diversity?
Are we willing to honor those who spell their way through walls society built around them?
The future belongs to those who say yes.
Those who are willing to meet these voices not with fear—
but with faith, attention, and respect.
It’s time to stop asking nonspeakers to prove themselves.
It’s time for us to prove we are ready to hear them.
📄
Reference:
Summary Judgment ruling, Kelly Smith v. Kevin Plantan, Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Case No. 2020-15344, filed in 2022.
Author’s Note:
If you read an earlier version of this post, thank you—and thank you especially to those who reached out with thoughtful feedback. This section has been updated to more accurately reflect the nuances between different forms of human-assisted communication, including FC, RPM, and S2C.
The intention here is not to dismiss or discredit any method that is helping nonspeakers communicate, but to push back against blanket narratives that erase the progress, agency, and competence of Cognitive Communicators (CCers) today.
We all deserve better language—and better understanding. I’m committed to both.
