On March 4, students gathered in Eliot 314 with the purpose of discussing the issue of inclusivity among student groups. Hosted by the Multicultural Resource Center (MRC), the forum focused on the experiences that students have had with regards to race, class, and gender identity interaction within student-run campus organizations. The forum aimed to identify attitudes and patterns of interaction that alienate students from participating in groups and come with possible solutions.

Prior to the event, the MRC administered a survey asking students about their feelings and thoughts on student inclusivity. In the survey, the majority of responses indicated overall negative experiences of exclusivity among student groups; respondents often outlined experiences of misrepresentation of identity and passive hostility. When asked if respondents felt that their identities are widely represented on campus or in student groups on campus, 64.3 percent of respondents indicated no. Only half of the respondents felt that their identities were treated with respect and they were comfortable in attending/joining student groups.

The MRC also asked students to share extended comments on the causes of and possible solutions to such barriers. Major causes of exclusion included the lack of general student body diversity, exclusive language, microaggressions, and generalizations. Furthermore, the homogenous composition of student groups leaves little room for the representation of other minority groups and identities. Other causes included misperceptions and misrepresentations of minority identities and the dismissal of differing experiences within identities. Frustrations included self-segregation, the black-white color line, and disconnect in shared perspective and thus a lack of understanding of background and experience. Discomfort was also expressed towards the use of identity and political correctness for social capital or political points as well as with co-opted identity politics/language/identity terms. Among other causes, frustrations surfaced with the high level of attention given to power dynamics which are not adequately addressed and therefore reproduce dynamics where individuals do not approach each other as equals. Likewise, frustrations surfaced about hasty judgment from community members and lack of engagement in civil discourse with individuals who have hurt others or the community.

MRC interns directly addressed these issues with students at the forum in a discussion about experiences and solutions. The event started off with an examination of shared understandings of what student groups ideally provide. Answers included community, friends, solidarity, information, new perspectives, fun, and support. The next question gauged student experience. Answers included false assumptions, visibility or lack of visibility, erasure of certain identities, false groupings, institutionally incorrect definitions of diversity, impositions of identity, etc. Student comments at the forum mirrored survey responses. MRC intern Maya Campbell highlighted the stark difference between the responses of the first question and those of the second. An equally interesting observation was made during the discussion about the “one identity at a time” phenomena or a lack of intersectionality. Discussion at the forum made clear that regardless of group or cause, the various dimensions of identity and ways of experiencing identity affect how and why students participate across campus and thus need to be given attention.

After going through survey responses in small groups, the second part of the forum discussed possible solutions on three levels: institutional, group, and individual. A common problem underlying these solutions came from the actual composition of the general student body. Many expressed that without more actual diversity, these proposed changes and increased support will never quite be enough.

Reed is very slowly becoming a more diverse place in terms of its student body and (though more slowly) its faculty and staff; however, the rate of attraction and retention of students of minority backgrounds is largely jeopardized by the exclusive environment as well as issues of curriculum and student culture. Proposed solutions included the addition of academic programs to attract more students of minority identities, programs to address microaggressions and privilege, and expanding restorative justice (both institutionally and among student attitudes) within these dimensions. The discussion also called for an expansion of institutional definitions and groupings of minority identities, such as the false grouping of Asian/Pacific Islander and the generalized “Hispanic” term.

Several issues have surfaced regarding the MRC. The forum echoed similar concerns revolving around consistent programming aimed at exploring and supporting various identities. Tuesday Talks and the annual discussions around varying identity groups and the issues they face are not enough. Furthermore, this task falls on over-worked students, the Office for Inclusive Community (OIC) and Office for Institutional Diversity (OID) staff, and HCC counselors, asthis type of support is difficult to consistently provide at a place like Reed, for reasons ranging from limited institutional capacity to participation culture.

Frustrations with current work also surfaced regarding the inevitable focus on black-white race relations. The MRC strives to provide diverse, consistent support and hires student staff of various backgrounds hoping to address the layers of issues among various identity groups, but the OIC (encompassing the MRC) and the Dean for Institutional Diversity have finite ability to provide programming. An institutional expansion of these departments and internal offices should seriously be considered. The lacking infrastructure affects both current students and prospective expansion of diversity.

At the individual and group level, microaggressions and assumptions were asked to be checked: individually striving to be aware, observant, and sensitive is key. Engagement with differing experiences among and within various identities is vital. Hasty judgement must be avoided and room for growth with privilege and minority interaction must be allowed. Understanding the type of support (input from group, space for varying pursuits within a cause, listening or offering advice in the cases of support groups) is also important. On the individual level: ask if something might be offensive and why, read up on minority group experiences and what they are asking for in terms of treatment, know boundaries and respect them. Educate yourself.

Common sentiment among students at the forum recognized that student groups and most spaces want to be inclusive and would be excited to see a variety of identities at their meetings. However, inclusion is not just letting people into the room. Differing identities and their issues (and thus the goals aimed for and support needed for each identity) must be prioritized. One step is expanding the scope of the student group in terms of varying support and types of causes pursued. Realizations and observations of who is being disregarded and when — whether it is harmful or purposeful, and what the effects of that disregard are —  need to be analyzed.

A significant conclusion reached at the forum in relation to student group inclusivity, but applicable universally, is the necessity of diversity in leadership. Arguably, the most important step towards inclusivity is the placement of those of minority and/or historically marginalized identities in leadership, specifically among student groups. Such a step will immediately increase the comfort of possible participants, and likewise expand the scope of student-run organizations by introducing new or otherwise subordinated perspectives in leadership, and represent varying identity through simple visibility.

I am disappointed. An inclusive institution requires a leadership capable of listening, discussing and addressing differing opinions especially if these positions are presented with respectful and polite means. Recently, our community, that is Reed, has gone through a difficult time regarding opposing views and the lack of regard to community members and their own personal experiences. Let me state that I truly believe that everyone has a right to their opinion, yet words along with actions hold certain consequences and responsibility towards those that surround you.

A few weeks ago, there was an incident that placed into question administrative accountability towards one student. In a series of emails between freshman Jolon Timms and John Kroger’s administrative staff, the president made it clear that he is not open to engaging in difficult conversations with students, a dismissal that undermines Reed’s commitment to intelligent discourse and thought.Here is the interaction for your judgement. The student began by asking the following:

I was wondering whether or not I could possibly schedule a 20 minute appointment with John during his office hours this week… [S]hould I just stop by during his office hours…?  Also, can you tell me what his office hours are for this upcoming week?

This typical message and standard question that was responded promptly by secretary Dawn Thompson in the following encounter:

John’s office hours are tomorrow, Tuesday, 1-2pm, here in Eliot 312…. If you find that you don’t have enough time, we can set up a separate appointment for you.

I have copied my colleague, Liz Colie Gadberry, so that she is in the loop in case you need a separate appointment.

Jolon responded:

Thanks for the email. Unfortunately, I have class tomorrow during that time tomorrow. Does he have more office hours later in the week? (As I think about it, our conversation would probably only take 15 minutes – maybe even less.)

Liz Colie Gadberry responded:

Would 9:30 on Wednesday or Thursday of this week work for you?

After confirming the appointment Jolon received another email from Ms. Gadberry. This is where the exchange, in my opinion, becomes uncomfortable. Ms. Gadberry asks:

Can you give me a general idea of what you want to discuss with John? Also, what year are you and what is your major?

I’ve got you down for this Thursday at 9:30am.

Jolon responded:

Certainly. I am a freshman, chemistry major. I have prepared four simple questions for John about “political neutrality” at Reed. My hope is to develop an understanding and unpack the idea of “political neutrality” and then share my findings to the community through the quest and possibly other on-campus outlets. My research is ultimately for Fossil Free Reed’s (a student group on campus) use in understanding how the college currently thinks about itself with regards to its purpose.

This is when the administration seems to make an error. Ms. Gadberry had to respond:

I shared your request with John and he asked me to tell you that the college’s views on investment policy are set forth in the Investment Policy Statements…. and in Dr. Perlmutter’s Statement on Divestment.

John doesn’t have anything to add to those statements so he must send his regrets on your request for a meeting.

With this distant message, the administration ends communication with Jolon.

There are three issues that I have with this interaction. The first issue is why did Ms. Gadberry inquire on Jolon’s intent? Granted, it would allow Kroger to prepare for the encounter if given a general idea, yet isn’t such a conversation to be assumed personal? Jolon was already known to be part of Fossil Free Reed. Was this why Ms. Gadberry truly asked for his intent? Did the administration not want to deal with a student involved in a divestment campaign? The second issue was the misinterpretation of the purpose of the supposed meeting. The student’s purpose was not to ask the president on divestment or the college’s relationship towards fossil fuel investment. Instead, the student was interested in political neutrality. The appointment was supposed to be about something tangential to fossil fuel divestment. Instead, the administration associated Jolon’s involvement with Fossil Free Reed as the defining assumption in regards to the student’s goal. The final issue is obvious. The president has many obligations. With such position comes responsibilities towards the faculty, staff, board, and students. Ignoring a student, that as seen above, wishes for honest dialogue concerning in this case political neutrality, places in jeopardy the relationship with all the student body.  Will voices not be heard if the administration views certain student opinions to be an inconvenience? Is the administration undermining the students accessibility to be in open dialogue?

Are my concerns invalid? Do you think the administration lacked responsibility towards the student? Was this the right response from Kroger and his assistants? Is this proof of a institutional disconnect between students and administration?  There is no wish to antagonize Kroger, only raise questions on his accountability based on this incident. Are you disappointed?

With headlines ranging from The Daily Beast‘s “Rape Culture Troll Threatens Reed College” to Daily Caller‘s “Student Barred from Class for Disputing Rape Statistics”, Jeremiah True ’18 and his story have trended locally and nationally. Now, he is excluded from campus with a pending Honor Case against him.

His controversial petition to be restored to his Humanities 110 conference after a removal by his professor caught fire when Buzzfeed picked up the story on March 19. His professor, Professor of English & Humanities Pancho Savery, excluded True from the conference after a series of disruptive behaviors, which The Quest enumerated in an earlier investigation of this issue.

Generally, media attention was divided into three camps: those pro-True who supported his argument about free speech and first amendment right, those anti-True who noticed nuances in the line between individual freedoms and disruption of a classroom environment, and those who thought the situation was murky and that True’s approach has been unproductive.

In an interview with Charles C. Johnson, True said, “I’m basically trying to generate two sides in the media. Either it’s a free speech issue or I was continuously disruptive of class. And the second side simply isn’t true. I’m just drawing more and more media attention because I’m giving all of this evidence that I seem to be a jerk-wad, but I’m not. I’m hoping I can get more and more coverage until I use this to launch my media career.”

While True has welcomed media attention, Professor Savery has declined many interview requests. Instead, Professor Savery has received backlash, both via email and in the media, from his decision to exclude True from the conference. Professor Savery tells The Quest he has received approximately 160 emails from both Reed community members and from strangers all over the country. While many of them have been supportive, some — from primarily men with no affiliation to the Reed community — are “quite nasty.”

“Someone emailed and said that he is not going to allow his child to come to Reed because of me… One email put quotes around professor and said that I was an embarrassment to the profession. I have also been called a fascist, and I have no idea who these people [who have emailed me] are,” Professor Savery says.

Spring Break, but not for Spring Crisis  

Following the week’s earlier demonstrations by True, on Friday, March 20, True disrupted a forum on student activism, inserting himself into the space, declaring the attendees to all be “niggers” and then proceeding to ask each of them “Does anyone know why Pancho Savery has lied about me online?”

By Monday, March 23, True claimed he had 22 no-contact orders against him, which he states is a record high at Reed. Director of Community Safety Gary Granger could neither confirm nor deny this claim.

Over Spring Break, the Woodbridge residence hall, where True lived, held a community forum to talk about recent disruption on campus related to True’s actions both in the classroom and in the residence hall.

While the media flurry seemed to die down by the end of Reed’s Spring Break, True’s continuation of non-violent protests was not over yet.

Week after Spring Break

On Monday, March 30 at 9 a.m., True sat on the floor at the front of Vollum Lecture Hall during Hum 110 lecture under the chalkboard which read: “Restore Jeremiah True to their Conference” and “Your hypocrisy is showing Dr. Savery.” True remained on the floor wearing earbuds and removed his shoes while Professor of English & Humanities Laura Liebman proceeded to lecture on Virgil’s Aeneid. At the end of the lecture, True yelled out “Cowards!” to the general audience.

Just before 10 a.m. that same day, True stood outside of Professor Savery’s Humanities 110 conference on the third floor of the Performing Arts Building. When Professor Savery and the Humanities students began class, True approached the glass windows of the class, looking at the class and staring into the room. According to Professor Savery, the students were “upset and disrupted” by his presence, and the class proceeded to lower the blinds.

True persisted, walking back and forth along the length of the glass wall, occasionally peering through the cracks in the blinds and into the classroom. Professor Savery says, “I think people [in the conference] made the decision to ignore him, so as to not let him take class away from them because they thought that had happened too many times. We tried to have a normal class and ignore his presence.”

Lauren (not her real name) — who is in Professor Savery’s conference — found Jeremiah’s presence disruptive.

“His presence outside of the classroom was really aggressive,” she says. “I got up and shut the blinds so that he couldn’t just stare at us, but it was really scary. He still tried to peer in and glare at individuals in the class through the blinds, and it made all of us uncomfortable. One girl had to move where from where she was sitting so that she wouldn’t have to see him because it was so disruptive and distracting.”

Professor Savery continues, “I assumed when the Hum conference was over, it would be over.” He was wrong. Even after the Humanities 110 class ended, True remained outside of PAB 331 during Professor Savery’s next class, an upper-division English course titled “The War in Vietnam: 40 Years After.”

Professor Savery acknowledged True’s presence to his English conference, saying to his students, “We have the blinds down because, in case you haven’t noticed, we are being stalked.” The upper-division English students felt similarly unsettled by True’s unwarranted presence as an onlooker into the classroom.

During a lull in the middle of the conference, Zak Garriss ’15 asked for Professor Savery and the class’s permission to call Community Safety to ask True to refrain from disrupting the classroom. Garriss, like the majority of the students in the classroom, found True’s behavior to be “provocative and distracting.”

“[True] was stalking back and forth by the floor-to-ceiling glass windows, aping and mimicking Pancho’s gestures, glaring at Pancho, flapping his arms, and making strange theatrical movements. It was one of the worst conferences we had, and everyone was extremely quiet,” Garriss says, “If he was protesting, I don’t know who his audience was.”

Having received Garriss’s call, Gary Granger and Associate Dean of Students Bruce Smith came to the PAB and asked True to leave the area outside of the classroom. True left for approximately five minutes, but he returned to the PAB and continued his behavior for the remainder of the class. During class, Garriss emailed Granger and Smith, alerting them of True’s return. Granger and Smith arrived as students were milling out of class, and Smith spoke with True while Granger spoke with Professor Savery about the morning’s events.

Reaction to Monday’s events

Despite the fact that True has remained non-violent, Lauren says she still is not comfortable being near him.

“I am afraid of him, and he hasn’t really like — besides running around on the front lawn, slamming his fists on the classroom table, and lurking near our classroom — physically intimidated me, but I am afraid to be around him,” she says.

Many different College staff members and departments were involved in interacting with True. Student Services staff can maintain visibility on students in crisis through an online system called SASSI, or Shared Access to Student Services Information, which allows staff of the College to share notes and reports on particular students. To maintain standards of confidentiality, staff members could not confirm specifics about what they had done about True’s case specifically, but did indicate that in such a situation where a particular community member is a concern they do use this system.

By Tuesday, March 31 at 5 p.m., True was excluded from campus, and a Community Rights Subcommittee Honor Case was filed against him. A CRS case is a type of adjudication process which allows a community member to hold someone accountable for actions that affected the community, and not necessarily oneself personally.

In a written personal statement available to the public, True compiled an account of recent events from his perspective. True wrote, “I wish to return to class. I wish for Reed and Pancho to acknowledge that I belong in my class. I was not disruptive, nor was I threatening. I have brought attention upon myself in order to make a particular point. Language can not ever be violent. Violence is violent, and I was not violent nor did I threaten to enact violence.”

Professor Savery says, “I think that this [situation with True] is a real tragedy. I am upset about the things that he did, and I am upset about the distress that he caused to students in my classes. I am extremely upset about things that he put out on social media in which he said really nasty things about people from the Reed community and specific students in conference. I am upset about all of those things, but more important to me than all of that is the tragedy that [True] was someone who was talented and articulate, who had real talent with potential to do good and interesting things. Now, it seems like he is going in the wrong direction and wasting his talent.”

Professor Savery says he had looked forward to working with True during the student’s Reed career, but says now, “Rather than feeling any sense of triumph, I feel really sad.”

True was contacted for comment, but he declined. Instead, True replied with a link to the Jeremiah Josias Luther George True Public Figure Facebook page, with a tagged post from the night of April 2 asking for help to create “a large enough storm” to pressure Reed’s judicial process. The post links to an uncharacteristically short summary provided by True:

“On March 14, 2015, Reed college banned me from the conference portion of a mandatory general education course led by Professor Pancho Savery. Students in the class were uncomfortable with me citing facts to counter proven false claims that one in five women are raped on campus. I have also disputed accusations of rape commonly levied unfairly against men. This event was widely covered in the media, and since then my situation has deteriorated. In return for peacefully and civilly protesting my unfair treatment, Reed has deemed my lawful dissent so disruptive that they have banned me from campus, rendering me homeless. I sit now in a hotel (which I will soon no longer have as a home) awaiting recompense for the wrongs that have been done to me by the misguided policies of the college.”

Neither this short summary nor the longer narrative in “The Full Story” show that True acknowledges that his behavior may have created a hostile learning environment during his time in conference and in lecture.

Vice President & Dean of Student Services Mike Brody, Dean of the Faculty Nigel Nicholson,  and Bruce Smith all declined to comment on recent events with True.

Brody did confirm that, generally, “Making a decision [to exclude a student] often entails a very complex process of evaluating multiple factors as they evolve over time, and weighing the interests of an individual and those of the community as a whole. I am also acutely aware that when a student lives on campus, excluding them means evicting them.”

Currently, there is a Community Rights Subcommittee Honor Case filed against True. In emergency situations, the Dean of Student Services may exclude a student for an alleged violation, but a complaint must come to the Judicial Board or the Sexual Misconduct Board within six working days, according to Section 3.B. of the Student Judicial Board Code. In such cases, the exclusion shall remain in force until the conclusion of the judicial process.

On Friday April 10 at 10 PM, the Trans and Gender Non-Conforming Peer Group will be hosting an event called Gender Blender for the first time. As this dance will replace QA’s annual Drag Ball for the time being, we want to clarify the purpose of Gender Blender and generate excitement for the event.

In the past, Drag Ball has frequently been an unsafe space for trans and gender non-conforming students. To many, mainstream drag has racist, binary-enforcing, and transmisogynistic tendencies, and participants at Drag Ball have too often reproduced these dynamics. Costumes have typically fallen into two or three distinctive camps of caricaturized gender expression. Closeted or gender non-conforming attendees have met the assumption that they aren’t “actually dressing up” or performing the “opposite” gender correctly. Finally, many trans people have been alienated by the performative aspects of Drag Ball, especially given that trans women are often assumed to be “performing” their gender in the same way a drag queen would. Overall, Drag Ball felt like an event by and for cis people, often at the expense of trans participation.

While some trans students wanted to eliminate Drag Ball entirely, others expressed support for the event. For some, Drag Ball was the only night of the year they felt comfortable dressing in a truly self-expressive manner. They could finally wear what they wanted to without the risk of embarrassment or social alienation. Drag Ball helped some people better understand their gender identity.

To negotiate between these two perspectives, this year we’ve created Gender Blender, which differs from Drag Ball in some key ways. Most obviously, we’ve minimized the drag associations. While drag is often founded on binary stereotypes of masculinity and femininity, Gender Blender implies mixed signals, leaving room for a variety of creative possibilities. Next, we’ve done away with the performance aspect of the dance, and we’re playing plenty of great music by trans and gender non-conforming artists. Finally, we encourage participants not to assume who is and isn’t “dressed up,” and what gender expression they’re aiming to embody. We hope this will make the event more comfortable and inclusive for everyone, but we expect to reshape our future guidelines with community feedback.

While Gender Blender centers trans, gender non-conforming, and questioning individuals, all students are encouraged to come. Cis people also benefit from the opportunity to try out a new form of expression. We encourage all participants to respect the purposes of the event and behave in a way they feel is inclusive and honorable. Most importantly, we want everyone to show up ready to dance and have a great time.

I recently sat down with George Cole to discuss reformed meat products, Reed nudity, and his sunny outlook on life.

Where did you grow up?

I was born in California but I was raised here in Portland.

What is your favorite commons meal?

I actually have two. The first one is mac and cheese and the other one is meatloaf.

How long have you worked for Bon Appetit?

I’m on my 16th year.

Oh, wow, so you’re a veteran!

Yes, by the end of this year it’ll be 16 years.

What do you do in your spare time?  Do you have any hobbies?

I like to read […] I like mysteries of any kind.  […] I like to play pool. […] In my off time I like to spend time with my family.  Working here I miss a lot so when I have time off I spend time with them.

Do you have any pets?

No… I do like dogs, though.

Favorite breed?

Samoan Husky.

What do you honestly think of Reedies and our antics?

Umm…

There is a long pause during which memories seem to flash across George’s face as he recalls days of yore at Olde Reed. With a small shake of his head, he returns from his pensive moment.

I’m pretty much a veteran now. Most of the stuff that goes on here doesn’t even faze me anymore. I mean, my first three years here it pretty much blew me away, you know, with all that was going on here. But, from the time that I started years ago to now the antics have pretty much tapered down a little bit. When I first started it was really out of control.

He chuckles

What are some of the most ridiculous things we’ve perpetrated? Some of the stranger things.

Let me see… Well during Renn Fayre I’ve seen a lot. That’s where you guys get — well, you guys will pretty much get drunk any time — but during Renn Fayre I’ve seen people throw up here. And out here. [He gestures to all of Commons]

Before the remodel there was a wall right here, right here at the fireplace, and I saw a student just plow right into the wall. He was drunk so thank God he didn’t hurt himself, but he just went face first into the wall that was right here. He didn’t hurt himself but I’m sure if he had been not drunk he would have hurt himself a lot. But, um, let’s see the other thing too that I don’t see much of anymore, so I’m pretty sure it’s tapered down is years ago — and in the past five years as well — is there were a lot of naked days were the students would just get naked for any old reason. I mean [during] Renn Fayre it happens all the time still, but during the school year there were all kinds of days were people would just… be free. So… I would never be here for all this stuff but I’d see it in the Quest. They’d show pictures of this stuff and I’d say “Oh! Look what went on!” [He laughs peevishly]

One year Community Service came over and told me that my car had been paintballed. There was no damage but they wanted me to see how painted my car had gotten. In the midst of all that there was a swarm of naked people that just surrounded us. They were running in between us and I was going “Oh my goodness!” But sometimes when I’m leaving, because I leave around 11 or 11:30 p.m., sometimes there’ll be naked people running around and I’m thinking “It’s too cold for that! Put some clothes on!” I’m thinking to myself “When it gets warmer I understand, but when it’s cold why would you want to stand around being naked?”

Good point!

But it’s been pretty interesting. Through the years that I’ve been here there have been some sad things that [have] happened. There have been some students, uh, die through the years that I’ve been here through drug overdoses or we would hear that they’ve gone rafting and there was some kind of rafting accident. So, some sad things have happened.  The other thing, too, where I feel sad for you guys is the students that want to be here but whether they financially can’t stay and they’ve got to move on and do something else, or something happens to their health and they have to leave for some medical reason. Before they leave they say goodbye to me and say, “George, I’m so sorry! I have to leave.” They’ve got tears and they’re going “I don’t want to leave but I have to,” and I feel so sorry for them. They get so used to the way it is here and the closeness of all the students here and of course there’s the education they get here. But most of the people that leave, it’s a medical reason. For very few people it’s financial. There are a few, but not very many. But it’s been good. I wouldn’t still be here if I didn’t enjoy being here.

Do you ever secretly judge what students buy?

Uh, some of the food is pretty interesting. But I don’t keep it quiet. Sometimes I just look at the food and let it go by, and sometimes if it’s really strange I’ll comment about it. I’m going “Oh my goodness!” I go, “You really thought of that? I can’t believe it!”

Do you have any Commons secrets tucked away that you could tell me?  Can you reveal any nooks and crannies we should know about?

Cryptically

No…let me see…cigarettes…no…not really at all.  No…

The interviewer moves on, unconvinced.

Unprompted:

I’m not going to smoke weed with you guys. I’m not going to get drunk with you guys. I’m not going to do anything that would show Reed in a bad light or hurt the company [Bon Appétit] I work with here. I’m a pretty safe person in that respect. I get offers all the time about going to parties here or “George, you should come chill at the Chapel!” because you guys have events at the Chapel sometimes.

Do you feel a special kinship with other famous Georges?  Like George Washington, Curious George, and George Clooney?  I assume that there is some kind of kinship amongst the Georges.

Oh my goodness! Not George Clooney. The only one that fits me really is curious George. Even when I was a little kid curious George has been a part of me. My family has always associated Curious George with me and so have some friends outside of the family. With the Georges it would be Curious George that I’m most like.

Anything else?

It’s been an enjoyable ride working and having brief conversations with all the students.

A lot of people think that it’s a front but the way I am with you guys is actually the way I am outside. It’s not just because I really have to be because in customer service you have to be nice and all that, but it’s more that it’s just the way I am. I’m just like anyone else — I have personal problems and bills and family problems. I just don’t let any of that stuff bother me. I have a really good attitude and outlook on life. I think the reason for that is my disability. I’ve had to deal with a lot of stuff with my disability. There’s a lot of things I can and a lot of things I can’t do. I just go through life doing as much as I can do and not worrying too much about the stuff I can’t do. I’m basically just getting through life just like everyone else.

When I told my coworkers about this interview one of them said “You’re famous!” and I said “Oh, yes, I suppose I am a little bit famous.”

Should we get your autograph now?

Oh heavens let’s not go that far!

Guffaws

Oh my, oh my…

HUMPLAY MMXV will take place this year on Friday, April 17th at 7 p.m., in Vollum Lecture Hall. The CSOs are deeply concerned that there is only one ass for every seat in Vollum, so line up early (beginning at 12 p.m.) outside of Vollum to ensure you get a seat! There will additionally be a substance-free performance on Thursday, April 16th at 7 p.m., also in Vollum Lecture Hall, for those who would like to avoid the rowdy crowd and/or actually understand what is happening. Humplay does reference what some may consider to be sensitive topics, and has the following content warnings: explicit language, blasphemy, drug use, alcohol use, nudity, bestiality, incest, explicit sexual content, intense violence, death, and suicide. Take care of yourselves and each other.

In what follows, Topher ‘ben lund’ Dorion, Cecelia ‘Ballz’ Erwin, August ‘Phallic Symbol’ Staubus, Lee ‘Cool Tapes’ Belcher, and Mikaela ‘$$$$$$ (it’s pronounced ca$h money)’ Lieb offer insight into Humplay MMXV in a short, very abrupt question and answer session.

Mikaela Lieb: What is different about this year’s Humplay than in years past?

ben lund: Literally nothing. Exactly the same. Verbatim. Copy paste. Life-size replica.

Mikaela Lieb: More nipples.

Lee Belcher: Some of them are pierced. ;^) ;^) ;^o

August Staubus: Due to budgets cuts, the entire play will be in CGI, rather than animatronics as in previous years.

ML: What are you particularly excited about in this year’s Humplay?

LB: I’m very excited about the highly-anticipated cameo by the dog from Full House, who agreed to perform under the sole condition that we replace all references to the Judeo-Christian God with the word “Dog.” He will, of course, be playing the role of Dionysus.

AS: We have a séance planned during the intermission during which we hope to contact Steve Jobs. He’s been pretty responsive so far. Let’s hope he doesn’t get stage fright.

ML: What was it like working with all the other direktors?

The direktors shuffle uncomfortably in response to this question. “Can we skip this one?” Lee asks.

ML: How hot is your Chorus this year?

ML: Everyone in Humplay has at some point or another actually cum in anticipation of seeing the Chorus on stage, including the Chorus themselves.

AS: After rehearsal, my erection lasts pretty much until rehearsal the next night. Which means yes, I have had an erection 24/7 the past three months.

ML: Favorite part of directing Humplay?

Cecelia Erwin: :B :b . . ; ’ ” ” b a l l z “ “ : . .

AS: Convincing the Quest board that it was cancelled. [editors’ note: fk u]

ML: What is the funniest part of Humplay this year?

CE: My GPA.

ML: So how gross is Humplay this year?

ML: Really gross

AS: Grosser than J-Krog’s b-hole.

ML: Is there anything particularly surprising about this year’s Humplay? Can you tell me what it is?

ben lund: Yes. It is J-Krog’s b-hole.

ML: Do you have anything else to add?

AS: [math]

CE: No August, go away.

LB: Can we start over?

We would also just like to stress that it is very important that you come to Humplay. Very, VERY important. Good luck.

Many colleges have famous figures on campus, from Emma Watson at Brown to Stephen Hawking at Cambridge. Here at Reed College, we have the Canyon Cats.

These allusive celebrities intrigue many with their stalking steps and wandering eyes. As one of these many admirers, I approached a member of the clan with an interview request, but received only “meow” as a reply. I interpreted this to mean, “Talk to my people.”

Their people turned out to be Brittney Corrigan-McElroy ’94, the Academic Special Events Manager at Reed. Corrigan-McElroy has been instrumental in the care of the Canyon Cats since the discovery of the first cat in the summer of 2011. This cat, now passed, was known as Mrs. Tuxedo Patches or “fun Nancy” due to her tendency to “get it on with [other] cats in the quad,” according to Corrigan-McElroy.

Mrs. Tuxedo Patches went on to be the mother of several litters, including the four cats currently living under the gas shed near the amphitheater. The oldest litter, born in April of 2012, is a male named Pretty Kitty. The rest of Pretty Kitty’s littermates were adopted away, including his brother, who is currently owned by Corrigan-McElroy herself. The other three canyon cats were born in August of 2012 and consist of two males named Screech and Tweak, and a female named Spitfire.

“They were all names based on their personalities” Corrigan-McElroy explains. “Screech wouldn’t shut up… Spitfire hissed and spit the whole time and Tweak was sort of just [Corrigan-McElroy proceeds to imitate a distressed cat noise].”

All four Canyon Cats were spayed or neutered in the winter of 2012/13 in order to prevent them from following in their mother’s promiscuous footsteps. This was done with the help of the Feral Cat Coalition of Oregon, who also vaccinated them and provided them with treatment for fleas and parasites. They were then returned to the canyon with clipped ears as a mark of their interaction with our alien species.

This work was done at the urging of Physical Plant, Canyon Grounds Specialist Zac Perry, and others who worried about the effect the cats were having on the canyon wildlife, particularly the birds.

“Either you let the colony go and you’re going to have… tons more cats, or you fix and release the colony… and minimize that impact,” Corrigan-McElroy says.

However, despite all the steps that have been taken to safely manage the Canyon Cats, these critters still have their critics. Though bowls of water sit behind Commons near the back of the mailroom, Mailroom Manager Jon Edgington denies that Mail Service employees support the cats.

“…Mail Service does not feed the cats nor approve of their depredations to the canyon bird life,” Jon Edgington said in an email to The Quest. “I think the poor things should be adopted and cleared out of campus. It’s a hard life for them wintering outdoors.”

A life of cushy adoption, however, is never meant to be for Pretty Kitty and his younger siblings. After three months kittens become extremely difficult to tame, though this did not stop Corrigan-McElroy from trying with Pretty Kitty.

“I really wanted to keep him because he was the littermate of my cat, but… he was a wild cat,” Corrigan-McElroy says.

Fortunately, the Canyon Cats still live a relatively luxurious life. They are regularly fed by offerings from Commons and Reed Bookstore employees, as well as abandoned French fries and stripadillas left by students. For this reason Corrigan-McElroy is skeptical of the risk they pose to the birds of the canyon, since they have no need to hunt for survival.

The Canyon Cats may have both their supporters and their haters, but the one thing anyone who has seen these felines — myself included — can agree upon is how goddamn adorable they are. For further proof of their adorableness, check between the back entrance to the bookstore and the amphitheater on any sunny day. You will not be disappointed.

Dear Reed community,

Many, if not most, of you are aware that one of our students prompted a heated debate on campus before spring break, and that the situation also precipitated public attention from social media as well as some mainstream media.

In accordance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), Reed cannot comment on disciplinary actions regarding students. We respect and support the goals of FERPA; it is especially important that we seek to preserve the privacy of students in such situations.

I will, however, take this opportunity to reflect upon Reed’s commitments both to academic freedom and to creating and maintaining a productive learning community. This subject obviously speaks to the core of what it means to be an institution of higher learning, but the reflection is particularly fitting right now, given that we are enjoying a wonderful production of Ionesco’s The Lesson on campus over this two-week period.

Reed’s mission statement commits us to being “an institution of higher education in the liberal arts devoted to the intrinsic value of intellectual pursuit and governed by the highest standards of scholarly practice, critical thought, and creativity,” and the College’s stated operating principles rightly note that Reed’s educational mission “requires the freest exchange and most open discussion of ideas.” A motion approved by the community senate, faculty and board of trustees in 1969, and reaffirmed by the faculty in 1986, states that dissent is “fundamental” to Reed’s “life as an academic community,” and pledges that “the exercise of the right of dissent is not something to be grudgingly tolerated, but actively encouraged.” Such principles continue and must continue to be central to our practice.

At the same time, dissent and the exchange of ideas must adhere to certain standards of conduct. Immediately after noting that our educational mission “requires the freest exchange and most open discussion of ideas,” the operating principles note that “the use of censorship or intimidation is intolerable” in a community dedicated to such exchange. The same 1969 motion declares that dissent is encouraged “as long as neither force nor the credible threat of force is used, and so long as the orderly processes of the College are not deliberately obstructed.” But, perhaps most pertinently, the Honor Principle demands that members of the community treat each other with respect and honor the right of others to hold, express and defend their ideas even as one holds, expresses and defends one’s own; it enjoins upon us all a respect for, and a responsibility to maintain and generate, a productive learning environment for all members of the community.

It is, then, incumbent on us all to recognize that the free exchange of ideas is indeed an exchange. One can express one’s own ideas in such a way that one prevents others from expressing their ideas, and such expression undermines the free exchange upon which education depends. We bear the responsibility, and must learn to bear the responsibility, to listen as well as to speak, to foster dialogue as well as to express our own opinions.

Equally, we bear the responsibility to listen respectfully to and engage with ideas that we may dislike or find offensive. Reed seeks to make its campus safe from physical violence and threats of physical violence. That said, while it may seek to support students as they address ideas, it does not seek to protect them from those ideas, even if they are upsetting or discomforting. What makes us uncomfortable does not automatically render us unsafe, and there is a tremendous onus upon us to labor to distinguish between what makes us uncomfortable and what makes us unsafe.

Finally, we all bear the responsibility of helping each other find ways to create a productive dialogue. The Honor Principle enjoins us to engage with those of us who may seem to us to be violating its spirit, and to find a way forward that is appropriate for such a community before resorting to judicial processes. We are a learning community and have the responsibility to help each other learn.
Nigel Nicholson

Dean of the Faculty

Walter Mintz Professor of Classics

In the wake of the faculty’s recent rejection of the new Discriminatory Harassment and Sexual Misconduct (DHSM) policy, a former Reed student has filed a lawsuit against Reed College alleging gender discrimination on April 14.

In an email sent to the entire student body Wednesday afternoon, Vice President and Dean of Students Services Mike Brody announced the lawsuit. (A separate but similar message was sent to the faculty and staff by Executive Director of Communications and Public Affairs Mandy Heaton.) It alleges that Reed College violated Title IX by discriminating against the plaintiff in the events leading up to and during the course of a Sexual Misconduct Board case. Furthermore, the suit (filed in the U.S. District Court in Portland, Oregon) alleges that Reed did not honor its policies outlined in the Guidebook and has defamed the former student by its alleged mishandling of the case.

The plaintiff has filed the lawsuit under the pseudonym of John Doe but is identified as a male student who entered in the fall of 2010, according to a copy of the 58 page lawsuit acquired through Public Access to Court Electronic Records. The lawsuit states that he was expelled in April of 2014 after the Sexual Misconduct Board found that he had violated the Sexual Harassment Policy, the Discriminatory Sexual Harassment Policy, and the Honor Principle. The student is represented by four lawyers from two Portland boutique law firms which specialize in employment law and high-stakes cases.

The suit alleges institutional gender discrimination, questions the legitimacy and propriety of the Sexual Misconduct Board (SMB), and accuses the college of putting its reputation ahead of a fair investigation.

In the suit, John claims that he and a Jane Roe (a pseudonym used in the suit for a current Reed student) were dating and engaged in a group sexual encounter with a recent alumna (named in the suit as AM) at an off-campus party in July of 2013. The suit also claims that the three participants were under the influence of alcohol and MDMA. However, John alleges that later that year in October, Jane physically assaulted him by punching him in the mouth, resulting in Community Safety intervention and the implementation of a no-contact order. It is then that the suit first alleges gender discrimination; it states that “because Jane is female and John is male, Reed did not take any disciplinary action against Jane.”

After John started dating a mutual friend of theirs, the suit alleges that Jane retaliated by claiming that John sexually assaulted her during the threesome in July.

The suit goes on to allege that Reed’s use of the word “survivor” in policy “inescapably presupposes guilt of the accused from the outset,” that the use “demonstrates an institutional climate of bias against the accused.” The suit alleges many more gender biases in the SMB case and questions Reed’s standard of consent, maintaining: “If Reed concluded that Jane was incapable of consenting to sexual activity because she had ingested intoxicants, it should have concluded that John and AM were similarly incapable of consenting to sexual activity. Reed initiated disciplinary proceedings only against John because he is male, and not against Jane or AM because they are female.”

The suit claims that the College did not properly investigate the allegations posed by Jane and that the SMB panel was not properly able to evaluate the evidence due to its inexperience, lack of time, and lack of training. It also alleges that the SMB held a careless attitude — as evidenced by the five misspellings of John’s surname in its findings that he violated the Sexual Harassment Policy, DHSM, and Honor Principle.

John submitted an appeal to the Appeals Board due to excessively severe sanctions, procedural errors, and new evidence, which the Board then denied. Subsequently, he appealed to President John Kroger who allowed a 60 day response period for Jane to submit new evidence without allowing John to do so as well. President Kroger did not overturn the decision and is accused of basing his decision partially on “John’s alleged drug activity, namely that he distributed drugs on campus.”

“Reed and President Kroger needed to appear to the public, as well as to Reed’s students and their parents, that Reed was ‘tough’ on sexual assault allegations brought by female students against male students,” says the suit. John, it alleges, was too a victim of sexual assault.

Ultimately, the suit alleges that “John’s reputation has been irreparably damaged, his academic career has been destroyed, and his economic future has been severely compromised,” as he cannot easily transfer to another school. Additionally, it claims that he has been “deprived of the value of the substantial financial resources invested in his Reed education.”

Reed has not commented on the allegations made in the lawsuit. In his initial email to the student body, Vice President Brody stated that the administration would not comment on details of the suit. When contacted, Vice President Brody declined to comment to the Quest.

Less than an hour after Vice President Brody’s message, The Willamette Week broke the story at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, April 15.

This is part of an ongoing investigation. The Quest will publish more information as it becomes available.

Student Body Elections are will be up on sin.reed.edu starting 9:30 p.m. on Thursday April 23 and will close at midnight on Wednesday April 29. You can hear from the candidates and ask them questions at Elections assembly, Thursday April 23 at 8:00 p.m. in the Student Union.

There are four open seats on the Student Senate, as well as several vanity positions that are being run for.

Candidates for Senator

Alexandra Boyd

Hi! I’m Alex Boyd and I’m a freshman MacNaughton-inhabitant! The core of my campaign is that I stand for marginalized students, and believe that Senate should transparently serve the student body. I dislike that senate elections can be seem like a popularity contest at times, and running for senate is something I take very seriously. If elected, I intend to affect real change regarding inclusivity at Reed.

In my short time at Reed, I have prioritized involvement with student affinity and activist groups. I co-led Hum 110 Takeover in the fall semester.  I also theme coordinate the social justice dorm. I have been involved with Diversify, BASU, and PMP.

As a queer black woman, I know that funding is not always ensured for the Reed student organizations that make me feel safe here. If elected, I will prioritize making funding information centralized and accessible, so that students will know when money is being wasted and when it is being put towards our needs.

I have a blog on which I detail many of my positions on issues, past and present, relevant to the Reed community. There, you can find that I oppose funding poll joke groups, affirm senate’s revision of the DHSM policy, and am skeptical about the student body fee raise. I am critical of CSO conduct and plan to conduct data analysis on the race and gender of AOD recipients. These are just a few of my views and plans regarding Reed policymaking.

Take a look at Boyd4Senate.tumblr.com if you want a more in-depth description of my campaign and my intentions as a candidate. Feel free to messages me if you have any questions or comments regarding my campaign!

Josie Baker

do whatever you want if you believe you have free will

Alex Freitag

Hey! My name’s Alex Freitag and I’m a Political Science sophomore. Let me get right down to it and explain why I’m running for Senate.

I think Reed is a great community full of great people. We face issues pretty regularly and we’re not perfect but we have a community that doesn’t shy away from problems and ultimately is willing to do what it takes to ensure that Reed is a place where people can learn, challenge ideas and be happy. In short, we have people that are passionate about where they live and such a community deserves a system of representation that will not only listen to their concerns but respond to them and work to achieve effective solutions whenever those problems arise.

Unfortunately, we have an administration that has been increasingly willing to disregard student autonomy. We saw this last year when Fossil Free Reed was treated with disrespect and ultimately ignored, the administration choosing to hide behind a veil of ‘political neutrality’. Most recently, the faculty voted down Reed’s sorely needed DHSM policy, the implications of which have yet to be felt. This is a trend we cannot allow to continue. My goal as Senator is to ensure that the DHSM policy is voted in and to expand autonomy for student groups on campus, giving them more access to the resources they need to achieve their goals. My hope is that you’ll join me in this endeavour; we can’t allow ourselves to be sidelined. It’s time to stand up.

Eliotte Garling

Hi I’m Eliotte and I’m a rising sophomore and a ~prospective~ chemistry major. I want to improve the safety and autonomy of the Reed College community through awareness and education of issues including substance use. Many people today take SSRI and MAOI (anti-anxiety/ anti-depressant) medications, but there is very little awareness that mixing these medications with other substances, can lead to a distorted mental status/ serotonin syndrome, which can be fatal. This is only one example of the kind of information that students should actively receive!!

How? Regardless of your own experience with substances (alcohol, drugs, etc.). there’s no question that they are present, and that they influence the safety of our community. Although the SSDP has done a great job of maintaining access to supplements and supplying a testing kit, there’s still more that can be done to improve the safety of the Reed College community. As student body senator I would like to remove the stigma from substance use education, and maintain anonymity to those who want to learn more. In addition, I would like to increase access to testing kits.

Why? Reed has had a long-standing association with substances but this reputation shouldn’t diminish Reedies’ access to harm prevention and educational resources. By improving the safety of Reedies and our community and de stigmatizing issues surrounding substance use, I believe that it will be a catalyst to allow more Reedies to feel safe to develop their voice and make Reed a safer community for everyone.

Pedro Henriques da Silva

Hey. It’s probably been a while since you even thought about the College Apps that led you to the predicament you are in on this fine April Day. Between the confetti, the reactor, the pamphlets — whatever they told you, somehow, they won. You’re here. And as you’re sitting there, reading this, I’ll bet you’ve considered, at least once, whether you made the right decision.

And, I’ll bet you’ve been thankful, at least once, that you made this decision. And, I bet you’ve wondered, at least twice, what the hell is going on. Here’s the thing; whether you love it here, or hate it here, or really don’t care, you have a say in what goes down. That’s one of the things that sets Reed apart from anywhere else. Theoretically. But recently, that hasn’t always turned out to be the case. That changes as soon as you decide it does. Because in running for Senate what I think matters is that our community is living up to its potential. Potential to be a place where student initiatives aren’t ignored, but championed. A place where you feel free to do the shit that matters to you, without feeling excluded or limited.

What we should be working on is making sure the pamphlets or slogans or promises or coincidences that brought us all here are the reality—not the ideal. And as Senator, that’s what

I’m promising; that a “Vote for Pedro” is a vote for you.

Yours truly,

Pedro Henriques da Silva

Kate Hilts

Hey y’all, I’m Kate, she/her/hers, and I’ve been one of yr loyal senators for two semesters now. I’ve been through two funding circuses/funding hells, about twenty five public senate meetings, and almost thirty finance committees. I’m also a big SB gov nerd who reads old minutes for fun and has institutional memory ~for miles~.

I’ve served as Conference and Event Planning liaison, physical plant liaison, member of sustainability committee, social media liaison, and DHSM liaison to the CAC. I’ve also helped write and pass: the firearms policy, the animal policy, changes to the elections bylaws, the unappointment bylaw, the Honor Council code changes, the JBoard code changes, and that goddamn DHSM. I’ve seen the implementation of the smoking policy and SOS grants, and voted to raise the SB fee. I’ve also been the one posting “Senate in 5 Bullet Points or Less” all over FB, somewhat running the Senate FB, Twitter, and Instagram, so if the constant posting annoys the hell out of you I’m sorry! But I’m just *that* committed to transparency. (It is, after all, part of the platform I ran on last time.) Also got several more cigarette butt holders placed around campus, and ~much more~ but I got limited space. So.

If you *re-elect* me as your Senator, this year I plan to:

1. raise SB wages
2. implement need-aware grants through SOS
3. make sustainability committee a more lean/mean/green machine
4. wade through the second rewrite of the DHSM that may indeed be coming our way
5. play more Drake in the exec office

I’m committed to preserving student body autonomy, fighting that admin ratchet, and being a fierce queer feminist advocate for students. Plz email me or FB message me with any questions/comments/insults/puns on my name* <3

*bonus points for doing two at once.

Thomas Hoang

My name is Thomas Hoang and I am wrapping up my freshman year at Reed. Portland, Oregon is my hometown but I grew up in Saigon, Vietnam and immigrated to America in 2007.

I would like to run for Senator.

Seeing students take charge and create clubs, organize events, and lead discussion amazes me and I want to ensure that they get the money they need to do something awesome for themselves and the Reed community. However, I would also like to work on better accountability for the use of student body fund so that the waste of money is limited.

Thank you very much for your considerations!

Please Vote!

Dylan Holmes

Sup Reed, I’m Dylan Holmes. You might have seen me serving coffee or sleeping in the library every now and then, and now here I am asking YOU to vote for ME to be one of your Student Body Senators.

Here’s a bullet point list of what I stand for and what I want to help facilitate (even if only a little bitty bit) to keep this place chill:

• Making Reed more accommodating to high-need, low-SES students. The low-income student population is too often ignored or only used as part of a political argument by the administration and faculty, and in my own experience Reed is a very difficult place to plunge head-first into without the specialized education and experience that many other Reed students had already received prior to coming here.
• Pushing back against the increased policing power of Community Safety. In recent years the administration has caved into federal pressure and ramped up dorm walkthroughs, CSO presence at Reed events, and CSO directives, which erodes the trust Reed students place in the college to not act frivolously or out of unfounded fear. I like to think that the Honor Principle is more dynamic than, “It is dishonorable to break the law,” and I want to see that reflected in how Reed engages its students. We should be striving for a model of restorative justice. We should be asking who we are protecting. (i.e. NO NARCS)
• Making way for areas of study that have been historically denied academic legitimacy (i.e. critical race theory, gender and sexuality studies). In 2015 it’s impossible to ignore the cries for a shift in what we consider to be a liberal arts education, especially given the events that have transpired this school year, and I would like to do my part to make sure that Reed is making way for new voices in its curriculum.
• Accommodating the needs of the Division of the Arts. The Performing Arts Building is wonderful and we’re on track for a new dance major, but integrating the arts into such a classically-minded school is a constant challenge that will always need new voices.
• Supporting and expanding the work of groups like Students for Sensible Drug Policy and Safer Sex Society in providing education and resources to students about health in a non-patronizing manner, in addition to examining how our school handles mental health problems and assuring that an adequate institutional support network is in place for students in need.
• In general, supporting and facilitating the implementation of the recommendations made in the working groups of the Ad-Hoc Strategic Priorities Committee, including but not limited to GETTING A GOD DAMN FILM STUDIES PROGRAM.

These are just a few of my pet issues, but if you have any questions at all, or you just want to tell me about your crushes and heartbreaks, feel free to e-mail me at dylholmes@reed.edu or catch me at the Paradox on a slow shift. I love you, I wanna treat you right, I wanna make your heart go (MIAMI) BOOM BOOM

Miranda Mishan

Dear Student Body,

My name is Miranda Mishan and I’m a sophomore Political Science major from Dallas, Texas. I’m running for student body senate and I would love to be your senator. Since being at Reed it has become clear to me that in order to effectively make change and maintain this mysterious thing we call student body autonomy, the student body needs leaders who are determined, ambitious, and willing to fight hard for what they love. I believe that I embody these characteristics, and as senator would successfully serve you and our community.

I care deeply about honor, inclusivity, and having a good time. I would work hard to make your voice heard, and I am prepared to take on the laborious and not-so-sexy process of policy writing in order to translate your opinions into actions.

Come talk to me. Stop me on the way to class, in commons, or shoot me an email. We can share our opinions on recent goings-on, you can tell me all of your hopes and dreams, and I’ll listen.

Vote for me. I’ll make you proud.

<3 <3 <3

Miranda

Diego Sosa-Coba

Waddup, so this is Diego, sophomore doin’ Math-Econ. Still not totally sure what a blurb is but hey, I’m just here telling my thoughts about the student body. I don’t claim to have expert knowledge on everything that goes on at Reed, most of the time I’m caught unaware that we have so many cool things going.

From Renn Fayre to those funky Saturday night dances, we all know how to have a good time. Yet there’s always people in the background setting up and allocating these funds so that we can enjoy the ideas of other people. I get that we all don’t have the time to commit to these things, what with studying and working, working out, whatevs. We should all at least be aware of what’s going on in our community, which is largely part of the reason why

I want to be a senator. While I admit that I have little experience in these types of organizations, I believe that the best way to learn something is to just sky-dive your way into it. Metaphorically of course, unless I can get on that Gray Fund trip.

Yup, that’s me I guess. I’m looking to get involved in this awesome machinery that is our student body, so peace~

Diego Sosa-Coba

Minister of Propaganda

Will Jones

Having controlled the media (as a Quest editor) for about a year and controlled elections (as a SIN webmaster) for almost a year, it seems like about time I run for this position and consolidate all my roles into my one fancy fun title: the Minister of Propaganda. If you are familiar with my recent work (“destroy capitalism, practice witchcraft, become lesbians!”), and want to see more of it, vote for me!

Sorcerer Supreme

Saul Chasin

Please won’t you be my neighbor? Faithfully protecting Reed College from extra-dimensional invasion (and peacefully assimilating extra-dimensional immigrants) since Fall 2014.

Ze-Who-Must-Not-Be-Names

Veda Kreth (Ze/Zem/Zirs)

Ze/zem/zirs pronouns and Harry Potter puns make a very happy genderqueer student.

The Wage Review Board, consisting of Mitchell Linegar and Kieran Hanrahan, recently released their report with recommendations about how to adjust the wages of appointed student body positions. The WRB recommended two options, both of which include doubling the amount of money the Senate currently spends on wages, according to their report.

In their report, the WRB writes, “The first [recommended option] is a need-based grant system that would raise the amount of money Senate spends on base stipends from $30,000 to $40,000 a semester and also add an additional $15,000 in need-based grant awards… Our second option simply raises Senate’s total spending on stipends to $55,000 a semester while focusing on making those positions that are grant-eligible under the grant system (i.e. important student governance roles) financially accessible.”

At last week’s Senate meetings, students voiced concerns about the logistical difficulties of implementing a need-based grant program, gave support for higher wages, and raised questions about how fluctuations in enrollment and the student body fee would affect raising wages.

On March 12, the Senate voted 7-1 to approve a motion to increase the annual student body fee by $40. This raise was in anticipation of the WRB’s recommendations to increase wage spending.

President Ashlin Hatch ‘17 said that Senate, “thinks that we would like to implement a grant system, but it is a really hard thing to do. We would like to make the commitment to create a grant system, but for now we may just raise wages across the board.”

The WRB emphasized in their report, “the recommendations of this report are just that: recommendations… Wage Review Board is a technocratic institution while Senate is a democratic one, and that the wage adjustments Senate ultimately enacts will be the result of debate and collaboration between Senate, the Wage Review Board, and the broader student body.”

These debates and collaboration will continue at the regularly scheduled Senate meetings, Thursday at 4:15 pm in the Student Union.

Reed Investment Club debated last week what their ethical responsibilities are when buying stocks. The previous week, the club voted to invest in Marathon Oil Corporation, a company that refines, transports and sells petroleum products. This investment was pitched by investment club Vice President Ben Scott.

Club member Maggie Davis called for the discussion, wanting to be more clear on what kind of thetical responsibilities the club has.

Davis noted that there were two different views expressed when the club was discussing investing in Marathon: first, the fact that Marathon doesn’t have any carbon reserves but rather just processes and transports them meant the investment was not directly contributing to climate change; and second, that even if investing in an oil company was ethically wrong, that doesn’t matter.

“The approach I was trying to present is that us purchasing a small fraction of these shares does not in any way contribute to climate change, regardless of what the company is or isn’t doing,” Scott said. “So even though they do contribute to global warming with their oil refineries that have terrible emissions, presumably, whether or not we own those shares … is of no difference to the company and of no difference to the atmosphere.”

The group first discussed whether the primary goal of the club is to profit, or learning, and whether considering ethical considerations would undermine those goals. They discussed potentially adding to the charter language about ethical responsibilities.

Some members did not like this idea, suggesting that it would not be good for ethical choices to be forced on the members of the group.

“I strongly recommend against including coercive elements or injecting coercive elements into the charter,” club member Aristo Spanos said.

Some also suggested that this was already covered in ways by the Honor Principle and the fact that decisions are made democratically.

The group also discussed making ethical considerations of investments part of the expectations of a pitch, and to edit the pitch template accordingly. Most members felt much safer with this idea.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the group decided to have a couple of the members form an ad-hoc committee lead by Davis to draft changes to the charter and the pitch template.

Investment Club was founded about two years ago, when Trustee George James ‘77 gave the club $50,000 for the purpose of giving Reedies an opportunity to learn how to invest. Investment club uses fund to invest up to $2,500 in any company in the Russell 1000 index (a restriction set out in the charter), in an attempt to have their portfolio perform better than the index.

The pitches are approved by a majority vote of the members of the club, and must also get final approval from Professor of Economics Kimberly Clausing.

The club has a Moodle page that is open to all students, and contains their charter, list of current holdings, resources on learning about investments, and even a humor section with a link to the blog brokershandsontheirfacesblog.tumblr.com.

During their recent meeting, Spanos pitched Tesla Motors, a recently founded electric car company headed by Elon Musk.

On April 13, the Faculty voted to not approve the Senate Initiative changes to the Discriminatory Harassment and Sexual Misconduct (DHSM) Policy, leaving the College out of compliance with the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and without newly written sections that protect against relationship abuse and stalking. Forty-three faculty members voted to not approve, twenty-five voted to approve, and seven abstained.

As the meeting concluded, President John Kroger reminded the faculty of his “emergency executive powers” to enforce compliance. After the meeting, Chair of the Community Affairs Committee Irena Swanson resigned from her position.

Since the beginning of the fall 2014 semester, the Student Senate has worked with faculty members on the Community Affairs Committee (CAC) to craft a new draft of the DHSM policy (outlined in an earlier investigation by The Quest) to make definitions of discriminatory harassment more comprehensive and to include new sections on stalking and relationship abuse. According to Student Body President Ashlin Hatch, the Senate had originally planned to have the DHSM policy voted on “at the March faculty meeting, following the informal discussion and space for feedback we had at the February faculty meeting.”

At the faculty meeting, Associate Professor of Chinese and Humanities Jing Jiang, a member of the Community Affairs Committee, expressed concern that the document was “overzealous in self-policing.” Additionally, she remarked that the document’s encouragement to report was reminiscent of her time in Communist China.

Professor of Philosophy Mark Hinchliff likened the DHSM definition of sexual harassment of students to the delineation of a speed limit, when he said, “It was at seventy miles an hour, and now it’s at thirty-five miles an hour.” While a police officer has discretion when pulling someone over, he continued, the “police officer” now “doesn’t have discretion” and is forced to “hit ‘em with a hammer.”

Assistant Professor of Theatre Kate Bredeson spoke in favor of passing the policy.

“I share some concerns about the exact wording of the policy,” she said. “[As a theatre professor] I have students on stage who I have to direct to kiss and touch each other. We work in challenging and provocative situations and discuss and stage difficult material, so of course I’m worried about how this policy could affect my work. But the intent behind [the policy] is so urgent and so important that I’m inclined to pass it… I trust the Honor Process and the Dean to help interpret the policy.”

Bredeson later added: “This is not a policy about attacking professors or denying academic freedom. The intent is to protect students… and students are sexually assaulted and harassed on this campus every year.”

Later in the meeting, Associate Professor of History & Humanities Ben Lazier spoke at length against the policy while standing at the podium, unlike other faculty members who spoke from their seats in Vollum Lounge. He expressed a dissatisfaction with what he believed to be weak protections for academic freedom. He had previously brought this suggested edit to the Student Senate, who acknowledged but rejected it, which Lazier found to be “hostile” and “extremely troubling.”

After over an hour of discussion, a motion was made to approve the DHSM policy. General confusion about voting procedures ensued, but were eventually resolved by parliamentarian Michael Breen. Professor of English & Humanities Jay Dickson called for a secret ballot, and the DHSM was voted down.

After voting to disapprove the policy, the faculty voted a second time to defer further discussion of the DHSM to the next faculty meeting, in hope of incorporating more of their preferred edits. Senator Kate Hilts informed the room that she is the Senate’s DHSM liaison to the faculty, and she would welcome any comments or discussion, either in person or via email.

Though faculty customarily do not discuss policy at their May meeting, the policy discussion’s deferral means the a vote on the DHSM would likely take place in the first few minutes of the final meeting of the academic year. Now, the Senate and CAC must conduct further conversations about next steps between now and the May faculty meeting.

After months of continuous negotiations between the Senate, CAC, and faculty, President John Kroger stated that if the faculty and student senate do not come to agreement, he will use the president’s unilateral emergency powers to enforce VAWA-compliant rules for Reed through the summer and into fall semester until regular community governance processes can resume.

Additional Reporting by Alison Fortune

It’s that time of year again: the scents of panic and stress drift through the air, speeding up the heart rates of anyone who dares take a breath. The housing lottery — and its infamously long waitlist — is back again, but this time it’s even worse than previous years.

As the old adage goes, “The Housing Lottery giveth, and the Housing Lottery taketh away.” Reed College guarantees housing for all incoming students, including transfer and exchange students. This, combined with the fact that 80 more returning students signed up for the Housing Lottery than the 2013-14 Lottery, meant that many returning students were faced with the prospect of finding off-campus housing when they had not originally planned to.

Director of Housing Clea Taylor says Resident Life is doing their best to work with students.

“Residence Life recognizes that these changing numbers have made some students and their families anxious,” she says. “We are doing our best to proactively communicate and give students information so they can make informed decisions about their housing.”

In the housing lottery, returning students are assigned randomly to cohorts, which are then taken in numerical order and assigned housing according to the students’ preferences until there are no rooms left. This year, on-campus housing filled up at cohort 7, which left a large chunk of the student body without the option of guaranteed housing on-campus, relinquishing their dreams of walking idly to Commons in the mornings to the whims of the waitlist. Returning students can cancel their on-campus housing contracts until May 1, and students on the waitlist will be offered housing as soon as it becomes available.

Students higher up on the waitlist can be optimistic, according to Taylor.

“Residence Life is, and will continue to be, in close contact with Admissions to confirm incoming student numbers and,” says Taylor, “if this number ends up being any lower than anticipated, we may be able to release some rooms reserved for incoming students after the June 15 incoming student housing deadline.”

Res Life promises to work closely with students on the waitlist, emailing them as soon as an open room pops up. They’ll be given a timeline in which they can accept the room and sign their contract. If the student declines the room or doesn’t respond, they’ll be moved to the bottom of the waitlist, and the next student in line will be given the opportunity to take the room. Res Life stressed the importance of students being constantly vigilant about checking their emails, and communicating swiftly with Res Life if Res Life contacts them.

“This will help keep the waitlist moving more efficiently and accurately and will help other students on the list get rooms more quickly,” elaborates Taylor.

“Because Reed guarantees housing to incoming students, the number of rooms we have to set aside for them can change from year to year,” she continues. “Because we have a set number of rooms on campus, changing the incoming class numbers has a direct impact on the number of rooms available to returning students.”

It is also expected to get worse.

“It does appear that housing lottery and waitlist numbers have been slowly but steadily rising over the last few years and that it is likely we will continue to have more students sign up for the lottery than we initially have spaces for,” Taylor confirms.

On a bright note, new dorms may be built soon, Taylor says.

“The College is currently in the discussion phase about the future of the Cross Canyon residence halls,” she says. “This could potentially mean renovation of the Cross Canyons or the building of a new residence hall.”

So hopefully, if this trend of increasing incoming students continues, Reed will be prepared to provide better assurance of housing for incoming students, as well as more room for its current students. Who knows, maybe we’ll even be able to live in dorms that aren’t literally sinking further into the ground each year (here’s looking at you, Naito).

The strangeness of time is a concept that almost all Reed students are familiar with. Sunny days out on the lawn make it seem like we’ve collectively blinked and it’s two weeks from Renn Fayre, but long conferences where there’s more silence than talking can make fifty minutes feel like a lifetime.

It’s no surprise, then, that the Reed College Theatre Department has chosen to put on two works that deal greatly with the strangeness of time for their spring offering: The Bald Soprano, directed by Assistant Professor Kate Bredeson, and The Lesson, directed by thesis candidate Gracie Rittenberg. Both works were written by Eugène Ionesco, considered by many to be one of the founders of the French Avant-Garde movement in the mid-twentieth century.

“On the page there is a rhythm to the language, an orchestral rise and fall to scenes, and a beautiful circular structure — but these lines are meant to be spoken by real people moving around in space, and Ionesco’s artistry soars when embodied on stage,” says Bredeson, on The Bald Soprano. “The Absurdist sense of time is felt even more acutely in real time, particularly in a play where the clock chimes out of sync.”

It’s true that the clock — designed by Associate Professor Peter Ksander in his role as Set, Sound, and Lighting Designer — plays a central role in both The Bald Soprano and The Lesson. An old grandfather clock, it provides a central focus for both the stage and the play, and is one of the first things the eye is drawn to as The Bald Soprano begins. Its arrows have fallen down, but it chimes repeatedly, drawing attention immediately to the dissolution of time in Ionesco’s works.

The Bald Soprano offers a surrealist look at 1950s London suburbia, taking place over the course of a dinner party between two couples, the Smiths and the Martins. Mr. and Mrs. Smith (played by Sean Key-Ketter and Helene Wierzbicki, respectively) host Mr. and Mrs. Martin (played by Jake Gonnella and Kate Cassidy Hilts) at their home, attended by their maid, Mary (Alex McCracken). Additionally, Mary and the two couples are unexpectedly joined by their local Fire Captain, played by Colin Trevor, whose work in both productions comprises part of his thesis in acting.

However, these stereotypical dinner party pleasantries are more than would be presumed, with the addition of Ionesco’s absurdism and idiosyncratic sense of humor. “Are you depressed?” asks one character. “No, he’s bored shitless,” replies another bitingly, striking a nerve in the suburban stereotype the play engages with.

McCracken, though, absolutely steals the show as Mary: their turn as a brazen maid is hilarious, and well worth the $3 entry price alone. Their black velvet choker with a flower-shaped diamante charm — a product of Visiting Assistant Professor Chloe Chapin’s costume design — is a brilliant touch, too. Speaking about the necklace and the relevance to the character of Mary, McCracken said “I’ve been associating the shape [of the flower] with the idea of the clock as well. I really like the idea of some kind of connection, though not necessarily cooperation, between Mary and the clock — I feel they both serve organizing functions in the strangeness of the Smith’s everyday lives.”

The Lesson, too, deals with similar concepts of time and language, albeit in a very different way. It centers around a visit that a student (played by Abby Watt) pays to her professor (played by Colin Trevor) at his house, and deals with the conflicts that arise when she isn’t learning as fast as he would like her to be.

Rittenberg’s direction of Watt and Trevor in their space is exquisite, and the addition of a spinning stool is particularly clever on the part of Ksander, who also worked on the set design for The Lesson — Watt’s engagement with the stool really adds to the dynamic nature and movement of the play itself.

Initially, the Professor is just communicating to the Student the material she must know for her exams, but their verbal interactions soon expand to an interaction much more intense and dangerous. The Professor’s language has a great effect on the Student, especially after she begins to develop a toothache that only worsens as the play continues.

“This play, lacking objectively valid characters and a plot, reminds us of the harm language can inflict,” says Rittenberg. “This play reminds us that words are violent.”

These production of Ionesco’s works serves as a reminder to be careful with our words and with each other, in and outside of the classroom. The Bald Soprano and The Lesson both allow a space for Ionesco’s manipulation of language to shine through, leading the audience to think about what language is and what it really can do. As Bredeson puts it: “We are in a campus moment where words are thought by some to be daggers, and by others to be harmless — do we think language is the same as physical violence? Where do words and weapons intersect; where do they differ? What does Ionesco offer us as a community who revels in wordplay, and where and when does language cross a line?”

The Bald Soprano and The Lesson will show tonight, April 17, and Saturday, April 18, at 7:30 PM in the Diver Studio Theatre. Tickets are $3 for members of the Reed community, $5 for non-Reed students or senior citizens, or $7 for general admission.

Have you ever thought about how stupid someone looks when they come?

You should read Sex Criminals.

It’s so good. It’s really good. It’s brilliantly good.

The series is about Suzie and John, two people with a kind of a superpower: when they orgasm, time stops. They team up to rob banks.

The premise is silly, and the book is frequently silly — creators Matt Fraction and Chip Zdarsky do not shy away from an opportunity to make a dumb joke and really milk it. There’s a kind of glee to the sex-themed story of cops-and-robbers that they’re telling here. Their joy is infectious: every lovingly rendered o-face and incredibly detailed sex shop (do yourself a favor and really look at those bookcases Zdarsky took so much time to draw) is a wonder to behold. Fraction and Zdarsky are laughing at the madness of sex and the way our culture talks about it. However, what makes the series work is the way Sex Criminals addresses the kind of vacuum of information about sex more adeptly, more honestly, and more seriously than any piece of media I’ve ever consumed.

I mean this honestly. Reading a comic book with a female protagonist with the word “sex” in the title is a kind of roulette, but Suzie is sincerely one of the most real characters in any piece of fiction I’ve ever read. And the thing is, John, her partner in crime, is too. And their realness — their humor, their anxieties, their honesty — makes a series that could read as exploitative into something brutally, hilariously honest instead.

Remember in middle school, when the only reliable source of information about sex was a kid in the grade above you who would tell you things when the teachers weren’t listening? Or the first time you saw a piece of pornography? Or just not knowing what sex is, or how it worked? Somehow it was all everyone talked about, but no one would answer those questions you had? I’d never read anything that spoke so truly to that experience, or that anxiety of becoming one of those girls. I never expected to find this kind of honesty in a comic book. In framing this conversation about sex through such well developed characters, Sex Criminals becomes more than dick jokes. It’s something strangely heartfelt.

It’s a comic book you can probably never talk to your parents about, and it’s one that you have to be careful googling the name of (“Sex Criminals comic book” instead of “Sex Criminals”). But it’s good. It’s so good. It’s probably the best thing I’ve read this year. The MLLL has the first two trade paperbacks. Read them. You’ll laugh. You’ll cry. You’ll think about that face you make when you come. Or when you do kegels.

History of R4R

The History of Reedies for Reedies begins in the fateful year of 2010, when a group of Reed seniors wanted to foster a community of giving amongst current students, with the mission statement: “In recognition of the value of a Reed education, the Class of 2010 Scholarship will provide support to an entering student with financial need by harnessing the power of many to make a difference for one.“

The idea was to raise money for a scholarship for an incoming freshman. This initiative was aimed at graduating seniors, though the opportunity to give was open to all class years, and was named “The Class of 2010 Scholarship.” The appeal to seniors was meant to offer them a way to leave a legacy before they graduated, pretty much like a goodbye card or a final kiss on the cheek to Reed.

Colin Diver, Reed’s president at the time, agreed to sponsor the 2010 scholarship with a $5,000 match from his own checkbook. Pretty tight, and others thought so too. The following year in 2011, the student scholarship received attention from alumni, which is how our alumni sponsorship began.

The 2010 group committed to finding juniors who would carry on this legacy in the future, and thus “Reedies for Reed” was born. A year and a name change later, Reedies for Reedies as we know and love it today came into being.

Why should I give?

Our mission is to get current students engaged in the spirit of giving. Nothing says you are glad you are here (at the end of the day) than helping an incoming freshman be here too. A scholarship that comes from current students is unlike any other scholarship, and we can keep it thriving!

Will my gift really make a difference?

Word, absolutely, and in more ways than just $$$$ ways. Participation, regardless of the amount, is in and of itself a vital index for institutions who are considering giving to places like Reed. Giving by our wonderful students, alumni, and parents shows that people care about Reed. Colleges with more gifts from students, alumni, and parents are seen as highly engaged communities where their money will be most appreciated. The size of each gift is important, of course, but it’s equally as important as the fact that you made the time, effort, and personal sacrifice to give. In fact, that’s how this year’s match donors, Robin Wright and John Pierce, became interested in supporting the scholarship.

What’s this Match Challenge that you guys keep mentioning?

Robin Wright and John Pierce from ‘79 will match $20 for every gift made to the Reedies for Reedies scholarship. That means that your $1 gift can be twenty times that. Seriously, that’s so tight. If you’re thinking “what’s the catch?”, there isn’t one. The way matching gifts work is that Robin and John gave a gift in order to foster more giving, and it will be allotted by the gifts that we give.

In addition to giving, how can I become more involved with Reedies for Reedies?

There’s lots of ways to help and several levels of involvement. Give, encourage your friends to give, spread the word about R4R, and join the student planning committee.

Why join us?

Fundraising is a skill that many employers appreciate. Plus, it’s not canvassing for some random company. Volunteering with R4R will allow you to learn about the administrative aspects of Reed by interacting with staff and alumni, and it’s not a huge time commitment.

How do I make a gift?

Fill out a R4R envelope at one of our tabling sessions in Commons or the Library, or make your gift online at giving.reed.edu. Truly, thank you! We are behind last year in number of donors, so we are especially appreciative of your support.

In accordance with Section 8 Part A of the Judicial Board Code, each semester the Judicial Board publishes “summaries, not violating confidentiality” of the cases it has heard the previous semester, to give the community a sense of what issues have been adjudicated by the Board and how the Board has responded. We encourage everyone to read them with this in mind—they are published as a record of what kinds of cases have been brought, the violations found, and the sanctions imposed. If you have any further questions about how the Board operates or what purpose it serves, you are welcome to contact the chair of the Judicial Board, Evvy Archibald at archibev@reed.edu, or any other member of the Board.

Case 1

The Temporary Hearing Board heard a case alleging that the respondent, a student, violated the Honor Principle by acting aggressively towards a CSO and violated the College’s Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Policy by consuming alcohol in excess, and additionally that the respondent had consumed alcohol at two earlier time while underage. The Board found that the respondent had violated the Honor Principle by verbally harassing a CSO who was attempting to provide assistance to the respondent while the respondent was intoxicated . The respondent was found to have violated the AOD policy on two occasions by drinking while underage. Additionally, the Board found the respondent to have violated the DHSM policy verbally abusing a CSO.. The Board recommended that the respondent be forbidden from consuming alcohol and other substances at any Reed event or on property of Reed College until Fall 2019, excluded from Renn Fayre 2015 and 2016, that information regarding the case not be released outside of the college, and recommended but did not require that the respondent write a letter of apology to the CSO towards whom they had been aggressive . The president’s designee upheld the findings and recommendations of the Board.

Case 2

The Judicial Board adjudicated a complaint brought against a student alleged to have violated the Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Policy five times during the fall semester. The complaint also alleged that the student had violated the Behavioral Expectations Contract they had signed. The Board found that the student had violated the AOD policy on six occasions, five times by using illegal substances and a sixth time by failing to abide by the Behavioral Expectations Contract. Additionally, the board found that both breaking this Behavioral Expectations Contract and damaging college property while under the influence constituted Honor Principle violations. The Board recommended that the student be placed on disciplinary probation, complete 15 hours of community service, and meet with a representative from the Health and Counseling Center. The president’s designee changed the community service requirement to 30 hours per semester for the remainder of the student’s time at Reed, which was ultimately reduced to 30 hours per semester for 2 semesters by the Appeals Board. The president upheld this decision.

Case 3

Sexual Misconduct Board adjudicated a complaint alleging that a student had violated the Sexual Harassment Policy by sexually assaulting multiple students. The Board found the respondent to have violated the Sexual Harassment policy and the Honor Principle by sexually assaulting three students on three separate occasions. The Board furthermore found the respondent to have violated the Alcohol and Other Drug policy and the Honor Principle through irresponsible substance use, and the Housing Contract by sexually assaulting a student in on campus housing. The Board also found the respondent to be in violation of a previously established no-contact order. The Board also found the student to have violated the Honor Principle by failing to understand and practice Reed College’s definition of effective consent, despite having received coaching on consent.The Board recommended that the student be suspended for a full academic year (two semesters), complete 40 hours of community service per semester until graduation, be banned from on campus housing, engage in regular meetings with a staff member to discuss their understanding of consent, complete an additional consent class, and the information of this case be released to outside institutions upon request. The Board further recommended that the student be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of their time at Reed and that any additional AOD violation be immediately sent to the Board as an honor case. The president’s designee amended the length of suspension to 4 semesters and upheld all other recommendations. The president upheld the designee’s amended sanctions.

Case 4

The Judicial Board adjudicated a case alleging that a student had failed to complete sanctions from a previous case. The Board found that the respondent in this case violated school policy by failing to complete their assigned sanctions. The Board additionally found the respondent’s behavior and lack of communication in failing to complete the assigned sanctions to be a violation of the Honor Principle. The Board recommended that the respondent complete the previously assigned sanctions, that the student’s transcript and alumni privileges be withheld until the completion of sanctions, that the student remain on disciplinary probation while at Reed, and that summary information of this case be disclosed upon receiving authorized requests. The President’s designee upheld all recommended sanctions.

Case 5

The Judicial Board adjudicated a complaint brought by Student Services against a student who violated the college Alcohol and Other Drugs policy on several occasions. In addition, the student had failed to fulfill the requirements of some sanctions from a previous AOD-related Honor Case in accordance with the timeline then laid out, and had failed to fulfill other such requirements altogether. The Board found the student to have violated the AOD Policy, and to have further violated college policy by failing to complete some sanctions. Further, the student was found to have violated the Honor Principle by neglecting prior sanctions and missing meetings with Student Services, and by continuing to violate the AOD policy after repeated intervention of community members. The Board recommended that the student be excluded from Renn Fayre. perform 15 hours of community service, develop a behavioral expectations contract; meet with the HCC or off-campus provider regarding AOD use, that the case be included in the student’s disciplinary record, and that the student be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of their time at Reed. The President’s designee accepted these sanctions.

Case 6

The Sexual Misconduct Board adjudicated a complaint of sexual assault brought by one student against another. The respondent was found to have violated the Discriminatory Harassment and Sexual Misconduct Policy, the Reed College Housing Contract, and the Honor Principle by sexually assaulting the complainant in a college dorm room. The respondent was also found to have violated the Alcohol and Other Drugs Policy by consuming an excessive amount of alcohol and amphetamines. The Board recommended that the respondent be expelled from the College and excluded from campus. The President’s designee amended these sanctions to a two-semester suspension and an evaluation of the respondent’s substance use. The Appeals Board and the President upheld the Sexual Misconduct Board’s original recommendations, and the student was expelled.

Case 7

The Judicial Board adjudicated a complaint brought by Student Services against a student who violated the college Alcohol and Other Drugs policy by consuming alcohol underage and driving a vehicle on campus while intoxicated. The Board found the student’s engagement in underage drinking to be a violation of the AOD policy. The Board found the student to have violated the Honor Principle in the following ways: lying to a Community Safety Officer about the events that occurred, endangering other students and community members by driving the vehicle near them, and driving under the influence of alcohol twice, both times over the course of a single night. The Board also found it less than honorable that the student drove on the sports field, potentially damaging Reed College property and inconveniencing Facilities Services workers. The Board recommended: that the student be prohibited from driving any vehicle, including their own, on Reed campus property for the remainder of their time at Reed; that the student be prohibited from transporting other community members in any vehicle during their time at Reed; that the student be required to complete 60 unpaid community safety hours within their next two semesters at Reed, at least 20 of which need to be done with the Reed grounds crew; that the student undergo an AOD assessment with a focus on issues of DUI with a Health and Counseling staff member, and that they follow all subsequent recommendations; and that the student be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the student’s time at Reed. The President’s designee accepted these sanctions.

April 9, 2015. A dark and stormy night, probably. The doomed computers were safely nestled in the SU Book Loft, or so they thought. Their last contact with Reed’s servers occurred just shy of 5 AM. After that, silence. Community Safety was contacted about the missing computers at noon that day, but the computers and one lonely printer were already long gone.

The major question raised by this theft is one of security. The SU is somewhere all students go for a host of reasons, in various mental states, and at all hours. It’s accessible, conveniently located, and has couches. A swipe isn’t necessary to access. It’s all a college student can ask for. Accessibility has its drawbacks. Tony Palomino of Computer User Services says that the computers’ only protection were cables. While cables aren’t exactly the most effective theft-deterrent, Palomino says that “This type of security will prevent the theft of opportunity, but will not stop a determined thief.” The computers in question were located in the SU Book Loft, and were provided for the use of the student body by the Student Union.

Gary Granger says looking to the PAB’s security is one possible way of dealing with future security changes to the SU.

“It is open to all for most of the day and evening, but requires a card to get in for certain hours,” he explains. “This is technically possible with the SU, but it would effectively lock out students on leave, alumni, and thieves for some hours.  I think this sort of decision should be made mostly by students.”

Regardless of whatever form of security is decided, Gary Granger says that he plans “to put electronic ‘screamer’ alarms on any replacement computers to hopefully deter or detect any future attempts.”

As for the cost of any future additions, Gary says: “I have asked for a general estimate on the cost of card readers for the SU, but putting them in is in no way firmly planned at this point.  Once I have a sense of the cost and logistics, there will need to be a discussion with the SU Manager, Senate, and maybe students more generally about how to manage security of the space.  Higher security always comes at the expense of convenience.”

He stresses that as this is a decision that will affect the campus as a whole, from staff to students, the issue requires student input. Options that have been discussed have included GPS tracking, but many are cost-prohibitive. Community Safety, CUS, and Student Activities are in close discussion over security.

New computers and printers will also need to be brought back to replace the gaping hole in students’ hearts. Palomino assures that the stolen devices will be replaced, but not without reexamining the security measures for any new computers.

“It would not be wise to redeploy computers before changes to current building security measures are considered,” he explains. “Additionally, the SU lab has historically been dismantled over the summer to make room for conference guests utilizing the space. As this summer comes to a conclusion, we’ll reassess the security situation in the SU, and decide at that time how to proceed.”

Rest assured, the rapscallions who pulled off this heist don’t get the last laugh. “The rub” as Gary puts it, is that it’ll be difficult for the thieves to make any notable amount of money off the machines.

“All Reed computers are permanently etched with the college’s name,” he explains. “Additionally, these machines all had firmware passwords installed, meaning that they are all but unusable to anyone without a password that is quite difficult to defeat. Two factors make them relatively unattractive to people who might otherwise buy them, and selling them openly on Craigslist or similar has risks and is unlikely to fetch much money since no legitimate buyer on the secondary market would touch them with the etching — plus, they won’t work.”

Sometimes things have a funny way of working out. Sometimes you get improved discussion of security measures, increases in collaboration between staff and students, screaming alarm things, new electronic devices, and sometimes no-good-dirty-rotten-electronic-device-stealing thieves pull the rug out from under their own two feet.