Higher Ed
Reed College is exceptional for more than academics. It’s one of America’s most permissive colleges for experimenting with drugs.
July 16th, 2008
Lean, Mean Meat-Free Machine | Portlander Robert Cheeke is the face of vegan bodybuilding.81 comments
July 9th, 2008
The Sopranokovs | The Russian mob comes to town with a new scam—medical identity theft.17 comments
July 2nd, 2008
Manhunter | Almost every state lets bounty hunters chase down its most wanted. Why doesn’t Oregon?102 comments
June 25th, 2008
Get Wet: WW’s Summer Guide 2008 | The rain is finally over. Now let’s get wet!1 comment
June 18th, 2008
New Kids In The Flock | Gresham’s twin teenage sensations go about their Father’s business. And it’s making them superstars.49 comments
June 11th, 2008
The Price is WHAT? | Second-guessing City Hall—it’s more fun than Monopoly! 17 comments
June 4th, 2008
Welcome to Googleville | America’s newest information superhighway begins On Oregon’s Silicon Prairie.18 comments
May 28th, 2008
Fleeced | While students across Oregon celebrate graduation, many are facing a gnawing problem—they’re getting sheared by huge debt.57 comments
May 21st, 2008
A Bridge Over The River Why? | Local pols say global warming is a dire threat. But they want to spend $4.2 billion on a project that makes driving easier.74 comments
May 7th, 2008
Best New Band 2008 | Portland music insiders take our local scene to the chopping block—and come out with 10 new faves. 0 comments
 |
[May 14th, 2008]
ON A RECENT SATURDAY AFTERNOON in Southeast Portland, a mass of two dozen nudists, painted blue, were gathered at Reed College.
They call themselves “Picters,” after an ancient Scottish tribe, and they carried turkeys and other assorted meats for the feast that was about to ensue as hundreds of hungry students lined up.
The breasts and genitals on display attracted no stares. Neither did the student nearby who took a hit off a footlong glass bong as gray-bearded alums walked by with their toddlers and teenagers in tow.
For that matter, students took little notice later that evening when a student, under the influence of psychedelics, was escorted through campus by two emergency workers, his screams echoing off the brick walls of the library:
“I’m white! You’re black! Oh, for the love of God, you fools! Death! Oh, for the love of God! Sex! Death!”
Workers took him to a large white tent on campus specially designed with plush beds, soft lighting and deep-blue tapestries to comfort people having bad trips.
This is Renn Fayre, a party held at Reed each spring. Begun as a Renaissance fair in 1968, it has since morphed into a three-day festival of music, performance art and chemical enhancement that students see as a well-earned release.
Two days before the start of this year’s festival, Reed’s student newspaper, the Quest, printed advice on which drugs to take.
“Renn Fayre is extremely intense, and even experienced psychonauts can (and will) flip out,” the paper wrote. “Most of you won’t be doing a single drug, will you? Nope, you’re going for double or nothing and betting on drug cocktails.”
Less than a month earlier, Alejandro “Alex” Lluch, an 18-year-old freshman from Malibu, Calif., died alone in his dorm of a heroin overdose.
If there was any remorse, or sense that Reed’s extraordinarily
tolerant attitude toward drug use had changed, it was nowhere in evidence at Renn Fayre.
In fact, Reed College—a private school with one of the most prestigious academic programs in the U.S.—is one of the last schools in the country where students enjoy almost unlimited freedom to experiment openly with drugs, with little or no hassles from authorities.
Reed, whose alums include Pulitzer Prize-winning poet Gary Snyder and Apple boss Steve Jobs (a dropout), has built its reputation on two foundations—as the college president, Colin Diver, knows very well.
“When you say Reed,” Diver says, “two words often come to mind. One is brains. One is drugs.”
IN THE HYPER-COMPETITIVE WORLD of American higher education, the most successful schools have managed to stand out by identifying and cultivating a niche. Purdue produces engineers. Georgetown, federal officials. USC cranks out filmmakers; the University of Chicago, neocons.
One hundred years after its founding, Reed College has managed a double play. It’s known simultaneously as one of the most rigorous undergraduate schools in the nation, as well as one of the most permissive.
“It’s like this is the only place left in America where we still have rights,” says Matt Milton, a 19-year-old freshman from Chicago who chose Reed specifically for its openness to drugs.
Since arriving last year he’s tried LSD, mushrooms, DMT and 2-CB, a rare mescaline analogue that’s found few places outside of Reed. He was introduced to all those drugs his freshman year.
As the 2007 Insider’s Guide to the Colleges says of Reed: “Students can’t get busted for alcohol or drug use unless they harm or embarrass another student.”
It’s a social contract most students welcome.
“There’s things people do on campus that in the real world would get one arrested,” says senior Alise Scheeler. “I think it’s a good thing that Reed allows you to figure that sort of thing out for yourself without fear of getting thrown in jail for life.”
Reed’s dual reputations for hard studying and drug use may seem mutually exclusive, and at times perhaps they are.
Reed’s graduation rate is 71 percent—below average compared with other private schools. Diver says about 30 percent of students with academic problems have issues with alcohol or other drugs.
But for those who think drugs a strange fit with high-caliber academics, generations of Reed alums argue there’s no paradox. That, in fact, drugs have the potential to open hidden doors and lead to intellectual and spiritual revelations. And that pushing boundaries, challenging convention and questioning moral dogma are the core of a liberal-arts education.
And the occasional casualty like Alex Lluch? While no one this reporter interviewed would say so on the record, it was hard not to get the sense that many felt it’s simply the price to be paid for that freedom—not a reason to make changes. Not a single student we interviewed believes Reed has any problem with drugs.
 GONE: Alejandro “Alex” Lluch died April 5. |
As senior Mark Jones put it, the only drug problem Reed has is in the public eye.
“It doesn’t feel at all like a problem to me,” Jones says. “I don’t think it’s a problem until someone dies.”
WHILE IT’S NO SURPRISE DRUGS EXIST on many college campuses, there’s little question Reed is unique.
The student handbook, distributed each year to incoming freshmen, has a lengthy chapter on “the recreational drugs that you will most commonly encounter at Reed.”
The handbook, written by students, provides a user’s guide to pot and alcohol, cocaine, amphetamines, “benzos,” LSD, DMT, mescaline, MDMA, PCP, ketamine, nitrous oxide, opiates, depressants and psilocybin.
“If one of the things that brought you here was the possibility of mixing every psychoactive substance known to man in a cereal bowl and watching the Muppets until you hear Jim Henson tell you that you are his last and greatest puppet creation, then go for it,” the student handbook reads.
Ironically, that quote comes from a chapter on how it’s possible to live drug-free at Reed. But for those who don’t, there are few consequences.
Students told WW that, at a memorial party for Lluch in Reed’s student union a week after his death, one classmate was caught doing lines of cocaine. Security confiscated the coke and let her go.
After the party, but in the same building, another student was caught snorting MDMA. She was called in for questioning after the powder also tested positive for heroin, but in the end she was let go with no punishment.
Two weeks after Lluch (pronounced “yook”) died, Reed held another party, the yearly “Nitrogen Day” event, where students inhale from balloons filled with nitrous oxide in the quad.
According to Reed alums and the student handbook, past parties in the school’s student union have included baby pools filled with Humboldt County gold and giant ladles hanging from the ceiling filled with MDA.
A “bong couch” with a 40-gallon built-in water tank stood in the student union for years until security finally removed it in 2006. On rainy days, when the college’s sprawling front lawn is soaked, the student union still serves as the backup spot for students to get stoned.
Campus security apparently understands the rules of engagement.
“I’ve called the safety officers four or five times when my friends have just drugged their brains out,” says freshman Andrew Wilder, a close friend of Lluch’s.
Wilder says that one time a friend mixed painkillers with booze and passed out. Wilder called security, who woke the friend up, fed him bagels and ignored the drug paraphernalia scattered around the room. “They just closed their eyes to it,” he says.
The current and former students we spoke with said heroin is rarely seen or heard of on campus. But recent events show it may be flourishing to an extent they don’t fully realize.
Administrators now acknowledge a sophomore woman suffered a near-fatal heroin overdose on campus in December, when a security guard saved her life with CPR. The overdose was not revealed to students and faculty until after Lluch died, when the Quest broke the news.
Lluch’s death also prompted one student to write an essay for the Quest about her former “raging heroin problem” and the administration’s efforts to keep it quiet.
In February, before Lluch died, a former security guard sued Reed, alleging he had cleaned out a campus apartment filled with needles, scales and other signs of heroin use and was fired after he refused to destroy the evidence. Ex-guard Josh Chambers’ lawsuit charged that school officials insisted on handling it “the Reed way” by disposing of it quietly without notifying police.
Reed settled the lawsuit in March for an undisclosed sum.
Diver called the case a “nuisance lawsuit” filed by a “disgruntled” former employee. Administrators declined to discuss specific incidents, citing medical confidentiality. But Diver says Reed takes disciplinary action when necessary, citing the fact that one student was expelled and two suspended as a result of the raid on the Reed campus apartment.
Outside authorities, however, rarely hear of problems on campus.
Cmdr. Derrick Foxworth, head of the Portland Police Bureau’s Southeast Precinct, says officers rarely get called out to Reed by campus security. “We don’t have any problems reported to us that would indicate there is a drug issue over there,” Foxworth says.
Story continues below
advertisement
 TORN: Reed President Colin Diver is uncertain how to change the school's drug culture. |
The Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office says the same. “We find it very curious that we get few if any referrals from Reed,” says Mark McDonnell, head drug prosecutor for the DA. “At Lewis & Clark [College], they’re fairly aggressive.”
The comparison between these two private colleges in Portland couldn’t be more striking.
Both campuses are required by federal law to report crime stats. Reed reported 15 liquor violations and 18 drug violations in 2006, the most recent data available. Lewis & Clark, with 600 more students than Reed’s 1,400, reported 288 liquor violations and 85 drug violations that same year.
Security at Lewis & Clark has a written agreement with Portland police to report any evidence a felony has been committed. That includes suspected drug dealing and even possession of hashish, for which one sophomore was arrested in March.
Reed, all the while, lives in a world apart.
IT DOESN’T TAKE LONG walking around Reed’s campus to feel as if you’ve been transported into a parallel dimension where “Promethean” is an everyday word, students go to class wearing fairy wings, and the fire-twirling team is the coolest club around.
Reed has cultivated a reputation for subversion. In the 1950s it was a suspected hotbed of communist sympathy. The school refused to adopt a drug and alcohol policy during President Reagan’s drug wars. Reed thumbs its nose at U.S. News and World Report, refusing to participate in its college rankings.
At the same time, Reed produces one of the highest ratios of Ph.D. students in the country, drawing privileged kids with almost unlimited intellectual potential.
“Word on the street about Reed College: It’s known for its rigorous academic programs and for the independent students it attracts,” says Tony Pals, spokesman for the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. “These are very gifted and serious students.”
Reed’s mascot is a burgundy griffin, but the school is best personified by its president, Colin Diver. Few could better represent the intellectual achievement and social conscience Reedies aspire to—or their detached ambivalence to drugs.
Diver is a graduate of Amherst College and Harvard Law, and his family’s experiences living in a historically black neighborhood in 1960s Boston were chronicled in J. Anthony Lukas’ 1985 Pulitzer Prize-winning book Common Ground.
Dressed in tweed and a tie, Diver, 64, looks the part of the Ivy League elder. But he’s as comfortable sharing beers with seniors at Renn Fayre—earning the affectionate nickname “C-Divvy” among students—as he is in his wood-paneled office in Eliot Hall.
Diver brings a cerebral sensibility to the question of drugs. He knows students are going to experiment. He’s aware a number of them come to Reed specifically for its tolerance on the issue. The question, he says, is how best to discourage more dangerous drugs like heroin.
“Not for moral reasons, because moral arguments don’t work,” Diver says. “The most important thing we can do is protect the health and safety of the students, which in most cases means you address the medical and therapeutic dimensions of the problem first.”
Like an uncertain parent, he peppers such acknowledgements with threats of drastic change if students don’t take more responsibility for their actions, including the possibility of killing Renn Fayre.
“There are some people who say what Reed needs is shock therapy: a five-year police state or a 10-year police state,” Diver says. “There are extreme versions of this from some of our alumni and members of the community volunteering their advice. But I don’t hear that as a serious proposal from too many people.”
After the near-fatal overdose in December, the college began reviewing its drug and alcohol policy, including how it’s enforced. But even after Lluch’s death, Diver says he’s uncertain if there will be any changes made when the new school year starts in September.
Diver is clearly conflicted. On one side are students, alums and even some faculty members who insist Reed needs to stay out of the failed war on drugs. They’re proud that Reed resisted forming a drug and alcohol policy at all until 1993, after the federal government threatened to pull the school’s funding.
On the other side is the publicity nightmare that’s come with Lluch’s death—as well as the possibility of more lawsuits. “If they’ve covered up heroin overdoses and heroin distribution in the dorms, they have exposed themselves to enormous liability,” says Portland attorney Greg Kafoury.
 GRIEVING: Josh Oppenchild (L) and Andrew Wilder (R) were still mourning their friend Lluch's death from a heroin overdose while they studied last week for finals. |
Students say they’re likely to oppose any effort to crack down after Lluch’s death. “All of us were concerned that they were gonna use this as a vehicle to change the policy, and that would be unfair to Alex,” says Milton, who was also close with Lluch.
LLUCH’S DEATH DID HAVE ONE EFFECT : It brought out Reed’s reclusive instincts. The school has a reputation among Portlanders as a closed environment that neither engages in nor invites much interaction with the rest of the city.
Neighbors in wealthy Eastmoreland are free to walk their dogs among Reed’s red-bricked Collegiate Gothic halls. And the college is home to the Chamber Music Northwest festival. But Portlanders have long complained of Reed as an enclave of self-absorbed arrogance.
“They treat us like, ‘We know better than you, we’re Reed College,’” says Mike Fisher, vice chairman of the Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association. “Their style of negotiating is basically telling us what they’re gonna do, and we can take it or leave it.” WW was escorted off campus by Reed security four times while trying to report this story. We were barred from attending Renn Fayre but went anyway as the guest of an alum, until security removed us.
And there has been enormous reluctance on the part of the faculty to talk about Reed’s drug lifestyle. Of 13 current and former professors we contacted, only two would talk on the record. And they had little to say.
While there seems to be little momentum for change, some Reedies do feel the college needs to rethink its policies. They include Steve McCarthy, a 20-year member of the board of trustees who sees an “entrenched drug culture” at the school.
McCarthy, an alumnus and owner of Portland’s Clear Creek Distillery, entered Reed in 1961, when it was still a bucolic community of 600 students. “Wine was our drug of choice,” McCarthy recalls.
He took a year off to travel and returned to Reed in 1964, the start of a time when McCarthy says events on and off campus “whipsawed” the tiny school.
“The drug culture was kind of washing up the coast like a tsunami, and drugs became a big thing at Reed,” McCarthy recalls. “You had this pleasant little college that just got completely torn to pieces and had no idea what to do with itself.”
TO BE FAIR TO REED , abstinent students say they feel no pressure to do drugs. And, importantly, Alex Lluch had a heroin problem well before he came to Portland.
After what one friend described as a lonely childhood—a brainy kid stranded in the swanky beach suburbs of Malibu—Lluch had finally found a home at Reed College in Southeast Portland.
Six feet tall and rail-thin, Lluch distinguished himself as gregarious and outgoing at a school with more than its share of socially awkward intellectuals. He was known to regale his dorm mates with history lectures at 2 am, then wake up and blast hip-hop first thing in the morning.
But Lluch also brought to Reed a habit he’d picked up in high school: a predilection for heroin. During his first semester, friends say, he found a downtown dealer to supply his needs. He was trying to quit—a struggle he was open about with his close friends, who pushed him to stop and even forced him to break his needle on one occasion.
On the morning of April 5, Lluch ran into his roommate, Josh Oppenchild, outside their room in Naito Hall. They made plans to meet for lunch at the college cafeteria, and Lluch went alone to his room to get ready.
A half hour later Oppenchild tapped on the door and peeked inside. Lluch was lying naked, face down, on the bed. Thinking he was asleep, Oppenchild went to lunch without him. He checked on Lluch again at around 1:30 and 4 pm, but Lluch hadn’t woken up.
It wasn’t until 11:30 that night that Lluch’s friends tried to rouse him, failed, and finally called campus security. Police, a fire crew and an ambulance arrived at quarter to midnight and pronounced Lluch dead of a heroin overdose at age 18. There was a fresh injection mark in his right arm and a syringe nearby.
Now Portland police are working with the U.S. Attorney’s Office to find the dealer, with the possibility of prosecuting under the federal Len Bias law, which provides lengthy prison sentences for dealers who sell lethal doses.
Alex’s father, Carlos, says Reed needs to change the way it handles drugs. But like Diver and others at the school, he struggles to define what exactly that means.
“They have to change something,” he says. “I don’t know what, but they have to change something.”
Newsweek magazine ranked Reed last year as one of 25 “New Ivies.”
Tuition at Reed runs $38,000 a year, making it the most expensive school in Oregon.
In a 2007 survey, 25 percent of Reed students said they’d used an illegal drug other than marijuana in the past 30 days.
Campus life at Reed is ruled by an “honor principle” where students and staff agree not to harm one another or the school.
In last year’s Princeton Review, Reed ranked highest nationally in three categories: Best Classroom Experience, Students Never Stop Studying, and Students Ignore God on a Regular Basis.
Reed’s endowment is $450 million, and the school received $1.4 million in federal money in the past fiscal year.
Fifty-eight percent of Reed students live on campus.
I love it when we over simplify serious matter.It sure does get old, villanizing Reed; but it is an Portland tradition, unfortunately. I wonder that I feel the need to justify the credibility of the college. Sometimes I wonder how any of us were able to complete highly demanding and rigorous courses at Reed, engage in the thesis process, and graduate from one of the most academically demanding colleges in the country, what with all of our wanton ways... But I suppose our wanton use of drugs was what gave us the final push. Perhaps if I had snorted, shot up, and smoked frequently, my thesis would have been published. How else can one be so engaged in a process, particularly one that you must be fairly lucid to weather through...?
And it is regrettable that the author would even suggest that a student's devastating, drug related death, could be forgotten within days. How little you know. How little you have tried to know. Shame on you.
By-the-by you need to do some fact checking. Picters do not carry meat to the feast, they merely are playing tag with everyone who does not wish to be covered with blue paint. If people are ignoring them, please look for the blue marks upon their clothing.
Also, if you feel strongly about your article I think many people at Reed would be happy to hold a forum to discuss your article, and the amount of misinformation that appears within it.
In addition to the misinformation someone has unkindly given you, it might be a good time to review what exactly "irony" is. This is because it seems that for a variety of reasons, possibly again the misinformation or incomplete information you were given, the true meaning of the material you quote has been missed because of a lack of context taking the irony out of it.
I think it would be interesting to see the information that you diligently gathered in a more objective setting, rather than one where you take a lack of evidence as evidence. A lack of evidence proves neither existence nor non-existence of what people think, or how people feel.
Lluch's death was tragic and I feel deeply for his parents and friends. Drugs such as heroin and meth, and combinations of any drugs are dangerous, their effects unpredictable and often irreparably destructive. As a former meth addict who spent 18 months in continuous treatment before finally getting clean, these realities are only too familiar.
Yet this article is deliberately inflammatory and one-sided. The Reed student body, as well as president Diver are depicted as callously indifferent to the loss of a student's life. This could not be further from the truth: hearing conversations among students campus wide, reading the letters and editorials in the Quest and discussions between students and the administration, it immediately becomes clear that this is being taken very seriously. While we may not see harsh punitive measures or a zero-tolerance policy as a constructive way to address dangerous drug use, to imply that the safety of our community is regarded with "detached ambivalence" is both wrong and deeply insulting. With this factually inaccurate article, paired with the tasteless cover illustration, the WW is overlooking and disparaging the continuous effort and commitment of the Reed community to provide the best possible environment for students.
I note that the author has left out the fact that the traditional student handbook articles on drugs are in the way of advice to those who might encounter and experiment with them. These articles frequently provide detailed information about how the drug works on the body and what other drugs it might interact with adversely. They are not simply invitations to take as many drugs as possible, but instead display an attitude toward drugs that is responsible in its openness.
Young people experiment with drugs. Allowing them to speak about it openly to one another results in a community where they can make informed choices - including the choice not to use drugs at all, which is also supported by the community.
Ignoring this simple truth, or attempting to drive the talk (and the use) underground will result in fewer people being helped to the special tent at Renn Fair and more people experimenting alone - and perhaps dying alone - in their dorm rooms.
Your article is unabashedly biased and stunningly unprofessional. How much did you pay your graphic designer for that kitschy Deathshead logo? I don't even understand why you would bother feigning objectivity ("to be fair to Reed...") when, in the very title of your article, you marginalize Reed College and give it little chance to redeem itself.
Let me ask you this - how often does Lewis and Clark send their students to the emergency room for alcohol poisoning? Reed? And are you so naive to think that Lewis and Clark has not been touched by heroin or hard drugs? Have you ever stopped to consider the enormous and grossly important distinction between marijuana, hallucinogens, heroin, and the other drugs you indict in your article? and finally, do you think that expelling Alex Lluch would have encouraged him to seek help?
You leave all of these relevant questions unanswered because perhaps drugs are a much more nebulous and difficult problem to deal with. You accuse Reed of arrogance, but who are you to cast the first stone when you traipse onto campus, stick your nose into a community in grieving, and act astonished when you are removed from a celebration that is CLEARLY only meant for members of the community? I am appalled at your transparent effort to capitalize on another's tragedy for your own benefit.
"how often does Lewis and Clark send their students to the emergency room for alcohol poisoning?"
A few times a year, when I was there. And those students were put into a counseling program. If you drink so much you get hospitalized, you have a problem. Never once in four years did I hear about LC students using heroin, crack cocaine or mescaline. During my tenure, students were caught dealing cocaine and shrooms. Both were expelled. The school ignored discreet marijuana use. Indiscreet smokers were mostly referred to the student judicial system. It was a very, very safe place to go to school, for the most part, and very few students felt that the College's ban on dangerous drugs curtailed their academic freedom.
Well then Reedie, you learned it too late. If you can't meet the sarcasm and you can't beat the sarcasm; don't front. It's as easy as that.
Ben-
I did not mean to imply that Reed had a better or worse grip on alcohol consumption than LC, but rather to offer a comparison. We probably send just as many students to OHSU for alcohol poisoning (from personal experience, I would say about 4-5 a year). I would like to think that this illustrates a lack of correlation between policy and usage.
and kevin, I hope you did not think that I was attempting to 'meet' your sarcasm. To do so would mean that I would have to take you at least somewhat seriously. I would never do such a thing.
The woman who overdosed on heroin in December was injected by a Lewis and Clark student.
The Lewis and Clark student was an addict. As a way to support the habit the LCer was attempting expand their customer base on Reed's campus. A plan not well executed since someone almost died. Rehab was in that addict's near future.
If you think that 'hard street drugs' aren't apart of Lewis and Clark's subculture... look again.
Correction he *was* a Lewis and Clark student. He lied, cheated and stole from our student body, and obviously did far greater damage to our friends at Reed. I would hate for him to become associated with our school and hope that others understand that upon arriving here he distanced himself from our community and culture here at LC, and did not last very long as an LC student.
As an LC student that was hospitalized for alcohol poisoning I understand why my school acted in this way and why we have a more stringent drug policy, although I don't endorse it. While I do think we need a more open discussion about drugs and alcohol on our campus we will, for better or worse, never be able to adopt the Reed drug policy. LC accepts federal money and grants while Reed does not, alas we've decided to play the man's game.
There's a great kinship and rivalry between LC and Reed, but I would hate for this article to incite any unnecessary animosity. Let's make sure we don't blindly accept the stereotyped student bodies presented by the author.
Andrew--
Actually, we do receive federal aid. That's precisely why we have a drug & alcohol policy -- otherwise we would've lost our federal support.
As a recent alumnus of Reed, Alex's death shocked me and was sobering. I believe the above commenter (Megan) speaks well to the community outpouring that was experienced. I do disagree with the heavy lean of this article, however. Reed is far more than its drug use, and the drug use is over-stated, perhaps for shock value. Although it is fair to say a heroin overdose is shocking. But it's not the full story of Reed. Not by any measure.
In my four years at Reed, I never felt one ounce of pressure to become involved in any drug community. As the Student Body President during 2005, I worked to the best of my ability with the administration and my fellow students to ensure that the community was safe, fun, and what we all wanted it to be. Was it perfect? No. Have there been mistakes made? Absolutely. But it was my experience that the student body at-large felt the community was doing a decent job obeying federal law while not becoming big brother. There is a drug and alcohol policy, after all. But there's also the honor principle,
The lack of mention of Reed's honor principle, beyond the end-note, does a disservice to the community. Beyond the academics, I chose to attend Reed because of its honor principle. While the document is not cast in perfect stone, it permeates our community's heart and soul. It's not a replacement for state and federal law, but rather an expectation of honorable conduct amongst all community members. That at its core is what it means to be a Reedie: to accept the responsibility for your actions within the larger community. It's not freedom from ethical behavior, but rather added responsibility to judge your behavior against the potential consequence to the community.
That isn't to callously say that Alex alone is responsible for what happened. Instead, everyone involved needs to look within themselves and ask how can this situation help us move forward, as individuals and a community.
Although I do agree that heroin is insidious. There needs to be a thorough dialog about how the community moves forward from this, and I know it has already begun, both internally and externally.
And one caveat: the yearly Renn Fayre is not a celebration of drugs. It is the culmination of four years of hard, grueling academic progress when the seniors turn in their thesis projects. This is the aspect that binds the celebration after a year of constant academic pressure.
Where is the honor in rich college kids with a privileged lives putting themselves on Oregon’s food stamp program and shopping at Trader Joe's.
Jess, if they're privileged, they wouldn't be getting food stamps. You can't get food stamps unless you're pretty poor. And if I'm mistaken and that isn't the case, then that's the state's fault, not Reed's fault.
In order for a student to qualify for food stamps, they must also have qualified for the Federal Work Study program -- i.e. they're not one of the "rich college kids with privileged lives" that people seem so keen on reducing all Reed students to. They're most likely an upperclassman on financial aid who has chosen to save money by living off campus and being off Reed's board program.
Anna and Amber I don’t think it really matters weather they are rich or poor…… If you are going to a high end school that is not public you should not be allowed to use public money at all. Ask someone at Trader Joe’s sometime about how many kids they see from Reed using the Oregon Trail Card. Lots of people go to lesser schools and are in debt up to their asses and don’t use food stamps.
Jess--
So if someone goes to a fancy school on need-based aid and can't afford food, they should be denied public assistance as some sort of punishment for being privately educated? That seems rather harsh and discriminatory.
JessJ,
I think that Amber and Anna were responding to your assertion that "rich college kids with a privileged lives" are acting dishonorably by using food stamps at Trader Joe's. They disagreed because the kids who use food stamps at Trader Joe's are likely on some sort of financial aid and are probably lacking the resources to afford food or a college education. Fortunately, Reed (in the case of the education) and the Oregon government (in the case of food) will step in to help out.
Your second response, however, is an entirely different qualm with these students. It appears as though you don't care whether students are rich or poor in the case of food stamps--you just care about where they go to school.
Really? It doesn't matter if poor students from Reed get food stamps or not because they are receiving a good education (also for free)?
Please rethink your prejudices about these students. They are not trying to "pull one over" on the government. They are simply trying to eat while putting themselves in the best position for a worthwhile education.
Thanks for the eloquent response, Ben. I am one of these students on food stamps. I frequently shop at TJs because it is convenient. I also have two jobs, am on full financial aid, and from very modest means. Any college student on the Federal Work-Study program can qualify for food stamps - Reedie or not.
I would like to add that the honor principle is something that extends far beyond our drug and alcohol policy. I have never heard of another academic institution where you can have a closed book closed note exam that you can take unproctored (i.e. take it to the library and return it to the exam room when you are done) without any concerns of cheating.
I see that Mark Zusman has gotten bored with journalism once again and steered Willamette Week back to its comfort zone as a hypertrophic gossip column. Yawn.
I am frankly appalled at the sophomoric, defensive response of Reed students, faculty and administration to this article and any attempt to promote change in Reed's policies and attitudes toward hard drug use. I have been following this story since April 9 when I got word that my oldest friend's son, Alejandro, had died of a heroin overdose.I watched that child emerge from his mother's womb. To hear students defend their "rights" is deeply offensive to me on so many levels. The right to ...what? Die alone in a dorm room from a lethal dose of heroin. Reed needs to do some serious soul searching. Alex's parents do want change. They are not suggesting draconian changes involving criminal prosecution of students who get caught using drugs and alcohol. Rather they are hoping for a significant cultural shift: recognition of addiction and its prevalence; recognition of the deadly nature of today's hard drugs and where they come from (your friendly neighborhood dealer no longer exists); and an increase in education and support for students who abuse drugs. Alex's death has shattered many lives; his parents and his 14 year old brother will never get over this. Friends and family will never be the same. But Alex's tragedy is just one family's story. The Reed community needs to take a long hard look around. Is the prevailing druggie culture really what you want?
I just want to point out that the quotes labeling Reed as the only place where we have "rights," or that express worries about a change to the drug and alcohol policy are not necessarily the views of everyone on Reed campus. Those quotes were specifically chosen and included by the author because they are inflammatory, fit the slanted nature of this article against Reed, and allow people to draw exactly the conclusion that you have drawn. They are all from the same individual, who apparently decided to attend Reed because he could do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted. He does not speak for me, nor does he speak for anyone I know at Reed. Having worked in the admissions office, I know for a fact that Reed is aware of its reputation, and works very hard to keep out students whose reason for attending Reed is that they can do whatever they want. The fact that, and this is important here: STUDENT PUBLICATIONS, offer information on drug interactions and drug use to incoming students does not mean that drugs are a requirement for attending Reed. It allows people to make educated decisions, fosters an open dialogue in the community, and ensures that if someone does do something stupid, they aren't so afraid to ask for help that they end up hurting themselves or someone else.
I do agree that change needs to be made. Students and alum are reacting against the idea that the drug and alcohol enforcement on campus should include stiffer punishments that might send people who need help or who simply experiment and risk things going wrong into hiding. Honesty is key. Being able to be honest without fear is key, but Reed, and colleges in general, need the most is a comprehensive program to treat drug addiction. Right now the current plan (in almost all colleges) is to send kids home where they may or may not have access to any kind of treatment or support.
"I am frankly appalled at the sophomoric, defensive response of Reed students, faculty and administration to this article and any attempt to promote change in Reed's policies and attitudes toward hard drug use."
I'm sad that you seem to have wasted your time wading through reams of student responses in this and other forums, without reading them for the well-thought-out and well-expressed pieces they generally are. Your comment does nothing to display an attempt to understand the thoughts and emotions regarding Alex's death, as well as the drug policy and environment at Reed. Instead, you come across as having a very rigid view of acceptable response to the events, and anything not filling this mold is therefore sophomoric and defensive.
Since your concern is central to Alex, and not necessarily the ongoing welfare of other Reedies, let me encourage you to reread the comments that discuss Alex's friends' active supportive involvement in Alex's struggle with his drug. Had his friends gone a step further and asked the administration for help, Reed would have given Alex a leave of absence, gotten him counseling, and involved his parents. At almost any other institution, Alex would have been expelled and probably referred to the police or other agencies. Which of these outcomes would have helped Alex more? Not a single Reedie is taking Alex's death lightly, as you and other commenters seem to accuse. We are arguing that to conform to existing policies in place at other institutions are certain to exacerbate rather than improve such cases, and to date an intelligent counterargument has not been presented.
"The Reed community needs to take a long hard look around. Is the prevailing druggie culture really what you want?"
Again, I think you're seeing what you want to see without bothering to process contrary evidence. To say that Reed has a 'druggie culture' is completely inappropriate. Barring the inflammatory term, however, my answer is yes, I do find value in the prevailing culture. To echo a sentiment from above, drugs are a health issue, and not a moral one. In my experience, the measures taken at Reed toward dangerous drug use, which certainly do not fall under the heading of 'turning a blind eye', are consistent with this attitude, while being trapped by the fact that government policy is very much based on the other, moral judgment.
I am so sorry for your loss. It is impossible to comprehend how much you must hurt right now. But to blame Reed or Reed society for the drug overdose of Alex misses the bigger questions that should be asked. Regardless of Reeds general tolerance towards drug experimentation, Alex was an addict and would have been an addict at any college he had chosen to attend. What should Reed have done that Alex's family was unable to do? Guess that he was an addict? It is a tragedy that Alex died because of his addiction, but he was at Reed for roughly 8 months. He didn't do drugs because he was a Reedie. He did them because he was an addict, and it appears he hid that from his family as well as the Reed admin.
I am young and single and I likes to mingle. If I do a little tootski and shootski on the side, what biznake is it of yours? I'm learning and growing as an individual. Don't blame me just because American adolescence has now come to include ones early thirties. I come from wealth and it'll continue to follow me as long as I commit to a daily regimen of severe-wale corduroy and an obsessive compulsion toward ironic facial hair.
Back home, in another Blue-State, where I was raised, I learned early on that I had a calling and that calling was to shine a penetrating light on social injustice anywhere it rears its ugly head. Sure, I understand that tipping wait staff and other service personnel is typically customary, but man you are harshin' my buzz if you think I'm gonna tip all those cracker-ass white people just because they bring me what I already planned on buying. Anyway, they're just taking jobs from 'real' Americans like the Americans who come here to work hard and be Americans. And that's real Un-American!
So don't worry about me. I'll be all around on campus. I'll be everywhere, wherever you can look. Wherever there's a bong so packed that people can toke three revolutions deep, I'll be there. Wherever there's a campus cop butterin' a bagel for a guy, I'll be there. I'll be in the way guys yell when they're mad as hatters and descending a righteous K-Hole. I'll be in the way kids laugh when they're plowing through the first 100K in tuition and they know it's still just an undergraduate, liberal arts degree. And when the people are snortin' the stuff they cook, and livin' in the houses they trash, I'll be there, too.
I think I learned that sarcasm and mockery is an inappropriate form of debate when I was, oh, twelve.
Nice!
Thanks Kevin for once again proving that sarcasm is in fact the poor man's wit. But if we are going to reduce ourselves to speaking about a diverse population in terms of one overarching stereotype, why don't we use one that's more pervasive e.g., the Rhodes Scholar that was a physics undergrad at Reed and is now making 6 figures trying to find alternative energy sources to make lives better for all sorts of people, including petulant half wits such as yourself. You mock us Reedies behind our back on anonymous sites such as this, because the fact is you have to say "yes, Sir" to our faces because we are your bosses. Why? Because we worked hard and created opportunities for ourselves. If all we did was "grow ironic facial hair" (to misuse the word as you and Alanis did) and smoke weed, then we wouldn't be in the elite positions we find ourselves in, would we?
Mike R., I'll note that your thanks for my sarcasm is again sarcasm. So, if sarcasm is indeed the poor man's wit, than what pray tell do we use as a metric for measuring the wit of the rich? Mike, you're wealthy, angry, and insufferably pretentious. Though good-humored you may be, you and the Rhodes scholar are still peevishly annoying.
How is it that you're a college student while simultaneously anyone's boss? I think your misunderstanding stems from the typical class war that Reedies in their, dare I say, ironic second-hand clothes struggle with daily. That is; what to do with all the insipidly White, working-class, dregs that obstruct their dreams of Utopian Socialism.
Do us all a favor and don the togs of your Brahmin peers and do it sooner rather than later. Then Sir, I'd feel more confident in addressing you face to face. And that would be with or without your little baby mustache.
Wow, Kevin, you got it wrong. There was no sarcasm at all in what I said. I am sincerely grateful that your use of sarcasm pointed out its inherent rhetorical failings.
Now for a bit of a rhetorical lesson, since you seem to be sorely lacking there. Kevin, in order to make a "good" ad hominem argument, you actually have to have some sort of grasp on who you are trying to insult. Otherwise, your "daggers" are blunt and they miss their target. You accuse me of being wealthy, angry and insuffably pretentious, in addition to being under the mistaken impression that I am a current student with some facial hair. 1 for 5 would make you a below average baseball player, but an even worse speculator of character. Yes, I am in fact wealthy now, although it wasn't always that way. I grew up in a Latino family (in a red state) living under the povery line, but I took my education seriously, went to Reed and an esteemed grad school in Connecticut, and am now making six figures. I don't feel bad about becoming successful, but you think I should. Why?
Reed College took a chance on me, and I thank Reed for being an instrumental stepping stone to my success. As a result of my success, I can now afford to be charitable with my income, in addition to having the ability to hire people to work for me. I know that if I see Reed College on a resume, I'm getting an inteligent, hard worker although someone whom society may see as being a bit odd.
While I may be to the left politically, I think you've misrepresented my politics in addition to outright accusing me of misanthropy. Why is that? I'm seeing a real pattern of mistakes from you.
To get back to the larger point here, people like yourself pride yourself on making unrealistic assumptions that ultimatly have the ability to alter other people's opinion. It bothers me that people have mistaken assumptions about Reed College. It bothers me that someone else in a hiring position might hear your words in their ear instead of my own. Why? Because your words are catagorically wrong, whereas I am speaking from experience. To mislead someone while speaking about a topic you know nothing about: that is in fact insufferably pretentious. So you don't have to worry about calling me Sir; I won't be hiring anyone named Kevin Fitzroy.
Mike, your sarcasm blooms again in your feigned gratitude. I must ask what sort of deficiency am I wont to grasp of your nature? It presents an obvious pathology in your character to volley about with one you deem intellectually inferior. Does it not? Is there any greater clarity in your grasp of my character? If so, how do you explain your presumptions? It is true that I used sarcasm to better adorn what I see as long-standing, albeit at times, oversimplified images held by many Portlanders about the general character of Reedies. That, I illustrated in a general sense. Was it not you who veered from reason and logic, to stoke reader's emotions, leveling the first ad hominem attack? I'll always defend myself when faced with an opponent, equally cognizant, of her role in relation to noblesse oblige. Shall we bandy onward, proud Latino.
Hmm...so your point is?
You sound like you've read too much Grapes of Wrath and don't understand any of it.
Kevin, there is a lot of anger in your comments and it makes me feel bad for you.
How open to dialog is Reed College if the reporter was removed from campus numerous times.
Talk all you want now, but at the time the college put up the walls and blocked the reporter. So based on that treatment you get a one sided story. Don't cry foul after the fact.
And don't talk about how much the students and staff care. Lluch was left facedown on his bed for 10 hours. His problem was known and no one did more than provide lip service. What about an intervention? That shows you care.
You got a one sided story because the college pulled its usual crap about we know better than you do. You got a one sided story because no one wants to talk about a school policy that might just be costing peoples lives.
I hope the attorney general starts an investigation. The security staff, and school staff should be very scared because they are obstructing justice by destroying evidence and turning a blind eye to felonies.
There is much I'd like to respond to about this article, and likely will after I finish up this paper I happen to be working on.
I would like to just comment now and explain that Reed is an open campus 363 days out of the year. During Renn Fayre the campus is closed and there are signs *all over the border* informing people of this fact. The student volunteers who patrol generally inform people very nicely and are not scary security by any means. The reporter likely knew this (as I said, posted) and still tried to make it look sensational.
Renn Fayre has concerts, art projects, a softball tournament, etc. which are all reasons to close the campus so that our celebration of the senior's completing their theses does not become a public event. It's not a matter of hiding from the reporter, but of a well-publicized private festival.
The reporter attempted to go to Renn Fayre, a three day celebration which is EXPLICITLY for Reed students and community members only. I do not understand how you can say that the college "blocked" the reporter when he was given an interview with its president. This may come as a shock to you, but Reed does not like reporters to waltz onto campus and harass students for interviews.
I'm also disgusted that you suggest that nobody cared for Alex. Nobody knew Alex was in trouble when he passed out on his bed. I don't see how this even remotely indicates that "his problem was known." His parents had tried an intervention in the past, and Alex even stayed clean for a while. Do you think that his friends, who are all of 18 and 19 years old, were any more qualified or any more likely to be successful in rescuing Alex? Drug rehabilitation professionals themselves fail to save their clients on a regular basis (just take a quick look at Lindsay Lohan), and yet you blame his friends for their callousness.
I also find it funny that you accuse the college of "usual crap about we know better than you." I'd like you to cite even ONE instance of Reed doing something similar. Reed's school policy is costing nobody their lives - drug abuse and alcoholism is. When a student died of alcohol poisoning at OSU in 2005, why were there no cries out outrage at the school? clearly, their permissive drug and alcohol policy was to blame.
This comment is disgusting.
How dare you imply a lack of care on the part of Alex's friends and community with such selective presentation of the facts. Might I say, however, that you would make a fine 'journalist' a la Susan Nielsen and the WW Editorial staff!
Additionally, the WW was not 'allowed' on campus, because its 'reporters' did not feel the need to gain clearance or access to a grieving community through any of the usual means. They chose to skulk around and try to harass students during two events which were for the Reed community - one, a celebration of Alex's life held in the Student Union, and two, Renn Fayre, which is (oh! the elitism of it all! how awful!), an explicitly private celebration for Reedies. Neither of these situations were at all appropriate for these 'reporters' to try and infiltrate, despite the claims of one to be "a Reedie."
And personally, I'm all for not compromising your claim as an alumna to any sort of Reed timé by trading on your connections for a chance to see your name in print in the fine little journalistic institution that we know as the Willamette Week, but that's just me...
Journalists are not allowed, and they know this, to run willy-nilly all over the place, which is why they try to do it anyway in as sneaky a manner as possible. I know - I did my turn as one and saw how frequently I had opportunities to do underhanded things if I ignored my obligation to the truth.
Reed has a very straight-forward policy, which is that reporters on campus MUST speak with public relations. This is for the safety of the community as much as it is for anything else. Students have a right to privacy just like anyone else. Of course, the Willy Week reporters were probably afraid that if they played by the rules, they wouldn't get any good material for their story, which is clearly pushing their agenda. And there's nothing sadder than a reporter going to extreme lengths to find SOMETHING to support their agenda.
This article is just all kinds of wrong. I can't even go into it - and I shouldn't, because like every other Reed student right now, I'm in the middle of finals week working my butt off trying not to flunk out of college.
BUT SERIOUSLY: It's RICHMOND ROSE, NOT BURGUNDY! HOW COULD YOU?!?!?!
"How open to dialog is Reed College if the reporter was removed from campus numerous times?"
The reporter was removed because he was an off-campus individual trying to attend a private event on private property. He was removed according to the same rules that are used to make sure that drug dealers aren't on campus, and he was trespassing. Reed is perfectly willing to have an open dialogue with the community, just not with individuals who attempt to do so in such a disrespectful manner that they have to be removed from campus.
The reporter probably did not contact college relations, a fact that he was probably informed of when he was escorted off campus. Colin Diver readily talked to the Oregonian reporter, so I don't think this is an issue of an insular "we know better than you" attitude.
Read the article
"During his first semester, friends say, he found a downtown dealer to supply his needs. He was trying to quit�a struggle he was open about with his close friends, who pushed him to stop and even forced him to break his needle on one occasion."
They knew of his addiction and didn't do enough.
Again, it is simply disgusting that would continue to try and assert some sort of moral authority over Alex's friends, who, if they knew about his struggle, were probably just as troubled and confused about how to approach him and the situation as any 18-year-old (or even 'real adult') confronted by the problem of a friend's drug addiction would be. Above all, they were certainly, certainly not lacking in care for their friend.
You are not a part of this community, you were not a friend to Alejandro, and as such, I would advise you to not continue to make such hurtful and unfounded judgments as "they didn't do enough." This slanderous piece of trash article has been hurtful enough to our community. Thank you.
Some of us at Reed don't want to be harassed by a reporter on the way to class. This is especially true if the reporter is asking loaded questions shortly after inflammatory, one-sided articles about our community have hit the pages.
As an alumnus of one of the schools mentioned in this article, I'd like to take issue with your assertions, particularly that the University of Chicago is a breeding ground for neocons.
I graduated (AB '92) from the University of Chicago, and there was no pressure on me to be a neocon, or any other kind of con, for that matter.
Students didn't show me copies of "Atlas Shrugged" or Daniel Pipes books and say "Here, kid, try some...it's free, and it will expand your mind!"
And for each Antonin Scalia, there's a Barack Obama to counter him.
Reedies work hard and play hard; it isn't unusual to see students at a school like this have fun in creative ways, whether by starting arcane campus events or using drugs not usually found on other campuses.
Memo to the suburbanites and Pearlies who are reading this article: your college-age kids are going to do illegal drugs, whether it's tripping with Reedies or binge-drinking at a large state university. It's partly because teens are sheltered, and once they get a taste of freedom, it's like they're released from a cage. (And it's only going to get worse with the prevalence of helicopter parents...)
Thanks, Aaron. The combination of this story's main content and the offhand remarks about other schools are troubling, to say the least.
My mother and sister attended University of Chicago and my daughter, who caucused for Obama in Colorado earlier this year, will start there in the fall. Neocons? Maybe in the econ department, but not anywhere in my family.
For the record, U of C is opening a Milton Friedman Institute and is at the oxymoronical forefront of the Neo-Classical Economic movement. So if we are going be to crass enough to reduce ourselves to employing stereotypes, the notion of a U of C neo-con is not unfair, despite the fact that everyone I know who goes to U of C (my kid sister included) is liberal...shit, I should specify: liberal in the conventional US sense, not the continental. That's an economics joke for those of you scoring at home...or scoring in the backseat of a '72 Cadillac.
Totally misrepresentative. Here are a couple of things left out: (1) fully 10% of the student body serves at least one turn on Karma Patrol, watching out for others; this doesn't count Border Patrol and other safety features. (2) The affair is entirely internal to Reed, which makes the reporter a trespasser unless invited by somebody. (3) The health services are well-prepared. (4) Almost all of the students needing assistance have used an excessive amount of alcohol--something that is almost obligatory in fraternities at large schools. (5) The entire event is consistent with Colin Diver's very reasonable line that drug use is a health and safety issue, not a moral one--that is, there are is a lot of support for health and safety, but no moral forces out there.
WW's writer should get a life.
It was with sadness but not surprise that I read of the heroin overdose death at Reed College.
My older son was accepted and attended Reed for two years in the late nineties. I was absolutely shocked by their complete lack of a drug and alcohol policy. When I went to visit my son in the dorms, the empty booze bottles littered the floor and the marijuana smoke in the hallways was so thick I was ripped by the time I reached his door. They actually had a communal bong in the student union.
One of their spring rituals was to take LSD, get naked, paint themselves blue and run around the campus.
It was no surprise that the attrition rate of the freshman class was, at that time, way over fifty percent.
My son made it halfway through his second year and then flunked out, drug dependent and in need of rehab. And my bank account was about fifty thousand lighter for this excellent "education".
A year or so later I got a call from Reed's alumni association, seeking donations. I gave them a piece of my mind about their lack of a drug and alcohol policy. They assured me that they were working on it.
Without much success it would seem.
These kids enter Reed at the tender age of eighteen. Reed's attitude seems to be they are old enough to make their own decisions. The fact is, they are not.
Dave, I'm sorry that you and your son had such a negative experience with Reed. But I must say that it isn't representative of the Reed I know or experienced from 2002 through to 2006. am proud of my Reed education, as it has prepared me to think critically, write analytically, and be a pretty productive member of society.
As I said before. Have there been mistakes in the past? Absolutely. Is it perfect? No. But let me reiterate that the Reed you and your son experienced was not the Reed I (or most of my peers, I would wager) experienced.
Oh. So you would have preferred having your son, prosecuted and thrown in jail for a felony instead of having the college and family help a student who may be trying an illegal drug for the first time? As a parent of college kids, I appreciate that Reed deals with illegal drug use through the student services channel instead of calling the police to arrest them. It is a fine line, but I admire the Reed community and the administration's approach to the almost inevitable use of alcohol or drugs during the college experience. I think your bank account would have been "a lot lighter" if you would have had to fight his court battle, instead of seeking medical treatment for him.
BTW Dave - I see that your article online states that you think Sho Dozono as a mayoral candidate for Portland will "will bring us fiscal accountability." If you had done a background check you would have found that he "the restaurant—in which he has a majority ownership—owes more than $18,000 in back taxes, rent and fees to the city"
JG:
In the first place, the restaurant in which Dozono has an interest had a legitimate dispute with the city, just as any other renter might.
Secondly, no I would not have wanted my son charged with a felony. My expectation when I dropped him on that campus was that he was in a safe environment. He wasn't. The school's policies (or more precisely, lack of policies) made his environment patently unsafe.
Maybe you can explain to the parents of the kid who died with a needle in his arm just how safe the Reed environment was.
Dave, again, while these stories are tragic and preventable, and we must learn from them and incorporate it into our community dialog, they're also atypical from my experience.
I never felt unsafe on campus. There's a robust support structure in place, and people take advantage of it. Have there been people who slipped through the cracks? Sure. But, as others have pointed out, tell me of a situation where that isn't the case.
I'm still disappointed that you have had negative experiences at Reed, but it's not correct to say the environment is "patently unsafe."
Dave- No one made your son drink or do drugs. He chose to engage in those behaviors on his own. You cannot blame the school for the "foolish" decisions he made.
I'd like to point out one small double standard that I've seen throughout the responses to this article, but especially in this thread right here.
Alex's death was a tragedy, period. No one disagrees with that. By all accounts, he was a great person who made some very poor decisions. As far as I can tell through the comments here (which, Reedies, you have to keep in mind is the only view that us outsiders have into your culture), the prevailing attitude is overwhelmingly defensive and supportive towards Alex. He made some mistakes, but damnit, he was a good guy and he is missed.
Meanwhile, wherever someone points out that their student made poor decisions and flunked out, drug dependent and in debt, they are met with derision and scorn. Obviously, losing some money and spending some time in rehab is nowhere near as serious as death by overdose. Those two things are on a completely different plane. However, where is the line between tragedy and a stupid mistake that should be derided? Why is Alex spoken of reverently, but the kid who couldn't handle the self-control inherent in the Honor Principle and became an attrition statistic is a "fool"?
Interesting thought. I think that the response from the Reedies here is more of a defensive reaction to an accusation made categorically against Reed and its community members. There's no reason to believe that Mr. Lister's son was any more deficient than Alex or anyone else who has had a drug or alcohol problem. However, when Mr. Lister places the blame on the institution, I think students strike back quickly to attempt to demonstrate that the fault does not rest squarely on the shoulders of the college.
To follow, Alex was not a perfect person. He had some problems and unfortunately those problems resulted in his tragic death. His parents, in stark contrast to Mr. Lister, do not blame Reed for this tragedy. Instead, they recognize all of the factors in play and understand how they all--together--contributed to his death.
The sympathy from Reed students is recognizable in their view that the Lluch family treated the tragedy with sadness, regret, and some degree of understanding. Mr Lister, on the other hand, passes all the blame off on the students and the college itself. Whether the response of the Reedies in this case is correct or not is still up for debate. But I think it sheds some light on the emotional nature of their reaction.
Dave,
I attended Reed with your son, and I witnessed him abusing drugs and alcohol from the first week. During my four years there, I never met a single person who pressured me to use drugs, EXCEPT your son, who was caught putting his self-made methamphetamine into my visiting 13 year-old brother's glass of juice.
Before you blame Reed's policies for your son's substance abuse problems, you may want to consider that it was likely pre-existing.
"One of their spring rituals was to take LSD, get naked, paint themselves blue and run around the campus."
I was a "picter" (naked blue person) during the Renn Fayres of 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996. None of my fellow naked blue folk during those years was on LSD-- we were just doing something silly and fun, on a closed campus where we would not be harassed. I have never done drugs, and was never pressured by fellow Reedies to experiment, nor was I shunned for choosing not to partake. People who delight in doing the kinds of silly, off-the-wall things that seem to be unique to Reed are often assumed to be on drugs. Maybe one of the reasons Reed can be so insular is that it is one of the few places where offbeat behavior of any kind is not condemned, or assumed to be the result of drugs or mental illness. Did I know people at Reed who did drugs? Of course. Was there a prevailing "druggie culture"? That was certainly not my experience. I'm sorry to hear that your son did not have a positive experience at Reed, and I know that the economic cost (followed by the alumni solicitation) would have similarly infuriated me as a parent. But Reed is hardly alone in having students with drug problems. I have worked for 2 similarly prestigious, equally expensive east coast colleges at which administrators struggled to deal with students who used cocaine, engaged in prostitution, and took drugs as a matter of course to make it through finals. It saddens me that the writer of this article distorted so many of the goofy, nerdy and fun rituals of Reed (picting and Nitrogen Day, for example) so as to portray them as being fueled by, inspired by, or created as an excuse to take drugs. Nothing could be further from the truth.
This article is extremely reductive of the Reed experience. If you wanted to go for shocking and overblown, you've gotten somewhere.