As a somewhat recent graduate from Reed College, and a student who took much advantage of the drug policy at the school, I feel qualified to give an opinion on the recent discussion of drug use at Reed. Of my group of friends at Reed, three later attended rehab, one died of an overdose, and one attempted suicide. Unlike many of the Reedies who responded to the WW article, I think that the freedom endowed to Reed students regarding overt substance misuse is an extension of their class-based privilege. I would never support the tactics of the federal government's War on Drugs, but I also disagree that the college handles on-campus substance use appropriately. At Reed, students seem to embody either arrogance or inadequacy--the academic demands are ridiculous and student have to give up most other aspects of their identities to complete the program. Because of this, I am not surprised by the overall lack of health of the student body. Students do not sleep, over use stimulants, and fail to focus on physical health. I am inclined to support Eastern Oregon University's approach to alcohol and drugs relying on therapy and education over punitive action. But let's not pretend that the current system is not a result of privilege, feelings of entitlement, and disillusionment about reality. We would not be having this discussion if Reed's students were not primarily upper class White kids.

Elsewhere online individuals completely unconnected with the college have surfaced and written posts trashing Reed students and the institution. Statements like, "let's not pretend that the current system is not a result of privilege, feelings of entitlement, and disillusionment about reality," in addition to being completely bogus, conveys a level of antipathy towards Reed that in my experience is shared by only a very small group of ex-students and graduates. Given the response to WW's hit piece, I think there's a good chance "disturb the comfortable" has never set foot on campus.

If this person's unfortunate story is genuine, then based on my experience I find it hard to believe that the college's policies were a contributing factor if during her tenure they bore any resemblance to those currently in place. Other than in the imagination of James Pitkin, "the freedom endowed to Reed students regarding overt substance misuse" does not exist. The administration and campus security deal swiftly and fairly with individuals found to be abusing substances, and any student will tell you that the vast majority of students do not even come close to falling into this category. Pitkin's smear against Reed has already been exposed as undersourced, cynical, and vindictive nonjournalism. While Portland waits for WW's retraction and public apology, talk to current Reed students to get the truth about the college.

Take what you want from my statements--I spent four years at Reed and these are my opinions. To deny that Reed is enmeshed with privilege is unfortunate.

What is most surprising about your comments---that you got accepted to Reed in the first place. Someone with your subjectivity and poor thinking skills---clearly didn't get much of an education.

Your broad attack on privilege is so cliched, and well---cheesy, it makes your attitude as egregious as the people you describe.

You're thinking waaay too hard about this. This has to do with the question of whether to criminalize or medicalize drug use. No high-end college or university, charging $40k or $45k/yr, is going to turn their students in to the police if they can avoid it -- the parents paying all that money would never stand for it. Reed is not distinct in this. Look at Swarthmore, Grinnell, Haverford, and a dozen other elite colleges and you'll find the same.

That's weird... in my two years as a house adviser at Reed, I was personally involved in getting two students sent home for drug abuse (privileged or not, didn't matter), and heard of a few more. One of the most glaring oversights of Mr. Pitkin's article, apart from the stuff he just got dead wrong, is that he seems to be completely unaware of the house adviser system, the counseling staff, and basically the entire Res. Life Dept. in general. I think the privilege argument is weak and flimsy. Try again.

gomi, thank you for your comment. I think it gets to one of the main aspects of the privilege issue as it relates to drugs at Reed and similar campuses. First, there is the institutional interest in being permissive and less interested in bringing in the police (as pointed to in gomi's comments).
The students have more freedom because of their class and economic privileged as well. Yes, half of Reed's students are on financial aid, but that means the other half are not. Cocaine and heroin are expensive drugs. Many of the popular pills might not be easily available to the average low-income kid. Half of the students at Reed have no reason to be concerned about their federal financial aid being cut off because of involvement in drugs. Half of the students have the financial means to obtain drugs and alcohol. Basically, half of the students will have a different set of consequences from substance use and abuse from the other half.
Reed students on the whole are very privileged, but its more nuanced than that. Some students are getting their first tastes of (educational) privileged and won't do anything that could but that in jeopardy. Other students are coming from economic and social privileged to educational privileged only to go back to economic and social privilege when they are done, so the stakes of drugs and alcohol are not that high for them. It's a spectrum. I've made a lot of generalizations, but even the less privileged Reedies I've known who got involved in drugs and alcohol couldn't even afford to stay at Reed because their grades dropped and couldn't maintain the GPA to receive financial aid from Reed (not even talking about federal aid). So there is privileged at play even among using Reedies.

I am a current student at Western Oregon University. Up until a few years ago, the City of Monmouth was a dry town (couldn't sell alcohol), which pretty much made this a dry university, and a strict enforcer of alcohol on campus. Things have changed recently as far as allowing alcohol sales in Monmouth, but the campus security is still very active in enforcing alcohol consumption on campus. It is easier for them to do so because it is a smaller school (compared to OSU or UO).

As far as drugs go, I have not seen too much on campus. I'm not ignorant, I have to assume that it is going on, but it's not overt or blatant around campus. It seems to me that there is a lot to do around campus (tons of activities and recreation for students almost everyday), and that keeps kids busy and away from drugs and alcohol, at least more so than other universities. I think that it has to do a lot with where we are located as well. We are close enough to Salem and Corvallis that kids are not bored out of their minds with nothing to do but consume drugs, yet far enough that drugs are not as readily available as they would be in say Eugene or Portland.

I went to Chemeketa Community College in Salem, and drug and alcohol use was much more prevelant. This may be due to the fact that there's more students there, that it's a Community College and kids are less focused, or that it's in an area that drugs are readily available.

As far as what is the best approach to curbing alcohol and drug use amongst college students, I think that is extremely hard to determine. I know students that have had great success after finishing rehab, while I also know about the same amount of students that it had little to know effect on. Education works for some students by basically scaring them into not participating, yet I see a lot of those students coming to college, getting a small taste of it, then going off the deep end into addiction because that were never really exposed to it earlier in life (I'm talking about real life exposure as opposed to only educational exposure).

I experienced alcohol and drug use early in my life, and although that could have sent me into certain destruction, I felt that it gave me a heads up later in life. I knew that it was bad, first hand, and to stay away from it if I wanted to succeed in life. Other 'sheltered' students, who were so scared by the education they recieved about drug use, tried it for the first time in college and went crazy, almost all of which never pulled out of it and are now drop outs with no future.

Pitkin's article is riddled with falsehoods and misrepresentations. This is plain to anyone who has the slightest familiarity with the college. What gets me is that WW is on the attack despite the fact that it has employed several Reed students in the recent years. A Reedie is working for them now as a web developer. I know some of them and despite what Pitkin would have you believe, like 99% of Reedies, they are about as far from being uncaring, coke-addled trust fund holders as one can imagine. If WW had thought about their own past employees, and also held some legitimate concern for people like Alex Lluch (something that does not come through in the article - or the tasteless graphic art accompanying it), common sense may have prevailed and this article would not have been published.

Dead on!!! Thank you.

I am really hoping that this public discussion will be able to elicit an honest answer from Mr. Pitkin about the purpose of his article and what he hoped he would achieve by publishing it in the WW. If there is a constructive message hidden in the article, what is it? At present, it comes off as an embellished titillating tale of debauchery, and nothing more. If we use the tabloids as a comparison (and from the horrifying cover of the WW, I don’t think this is an unjust comparison), the main purpose of such a highly suggestive expose is to increase readership (and revenue from advertising). Or in Mr. Pitkin’s case it may also be a cheap bid to increase his own personal readership, at the expense of the Reed community. I hope this radio show will give Mr. Pitkin an opportunity to redeem his own journalistic integrity and a venue to explain and defend his intentions.

I graduated from Reed yesterday with my second master's degree. Prior to my time at Reed I taught at two different community colleges, a state school, and attended a large state school. The difference between these places and Reed is: 1. The quality of the students. Reed has some of the most driven, most intelligent, most engaging students I have ever met and 2. A policy of honesty and openness rarely found in any institution. While I agree that drug and alcohol use among all college students is frightening, the reason Reed is in the spotlight is because they allowed people on and off campus to interview and comment on this boy's death rather than hushing it up or ignoring it like so many other schools (that have strict, legal rules about these problems) I have seen. It is a shame, however, that Reed is in the news for this and not for the outstanding education it gives. As a school of roughly 1000 students it has one of the highest PhD matriculation rates, students receive Fulbrights and Rhodes awards every year. Before you condemn the "hippies" at Reed, think about what your undergrdauate expeince was like.

Pitkin's article focuses too much on the salacious details of substance use and abuse issues and misses a grand opportunity to discuss and investigate the issues of loco parentis as it applies to private institutions and college age students. Had he done so, he would have found that issues of reporting drug use and abuse are not so simple. Once again WW proves that outrage is easier than critical thinking.

Reed class of 87

pardon-- should read "in loco parentis"

I graduated from Oregon in '86 and my oldest is 12 years away from college so I'm not in the middle of this issue.

I am, however, a chemical dependency professional and participated in a great deal of drug use in college.

Concerning WWs article, I feel that WW made a conscience decision many years ago to forgo good journalism in favor of the sensational. Yes they have the occasional good story but for the most part they lean heavily towards the tabloids. I read all their headline stories with this opinion in mind. The Reed story was absolutely designed to incite rather than to inform.

Concerning campus drug use, abuse and chemical dependency, these issues have always and always will exist. I feel the punitive approach is counterproductive. If you are dealing with an addict, medical attention and counseling is what's needed and if you are dealing with experimentation, education is what's needed. Both paths protect the safety of the student. Dismissal does nothing to help the student or the community.

I feel that the recent push by some college presidents to lower the drinking age is a step in the right direction because it will bring alcohol use out of the shadows and allow the schools to educate their students.

As for driving under the influence, I feel the current rules are not strict enough be they campus policy or state laws.

Hi There -

I have coached against Reed, played against Reed, gone to Reed parties, am currently friends with Reed alums since 2001. Although Reed alums I know have enjoyed a wide array of success and (failure), the one thing they do have in common is the inability to relate to non-Reedies. Whether this is caused by their (lack of) drug policy or whatever, I have found that they have hard time adjusting to the normal world as well. This is frustrating to me as a coach and young college graduate myself. Reedies have more to offer cerebrally than your average person, yet choose (a lot) to waste it on drugs/alcohol. Most of them are provided for through college and this could be why. The don't need to be sober. They don't have to work. I don't really understand this.

concerned valbian

I really hope people will start learning the truth before accusing others of being spoiled or arrogant.

Here's the truth: half, HALF of Reed students are on full financial aid. I dropped out of high school, then found the right track in life, and took some courses at a local university, and got good grades and SAT scores. Reed accepted me, gave me a full need-based scholarship (like HALF of the students there) and then paid for me to attend Oxford for my junior year. Thanks to Reed's generosity, I was able to attend Oxford, and was accepted to graduate school at Harvard. And I was a high school dropout from a broken home.

What's more, I, like so many of my classmates, never touches drugs, and never wanted to. I didn't even have a beer until I was 23.

Stop, please, please stop pretending that you are an expert on our college, and our backgrounds, when you are not. Can't you all see that you are clearly off-base, and offending good, hardworking young people? I'm told time and again we don't fit in, we're arrogant, we're all rich, etc. Well, I'm none of those things, but it seems people in Portland already know me once they know where my degree is from. I can't believe how arrogantly WE are treated, in that it doesn't seem we are granted the dignity to earn our own identities if we went to Reed. Instead, we are lumped into one homogeneous mass, all with the same background, the same income, the same social failings, and the same attitudes and personalities.

We don't do that to anyone else at Reed, and no such behavior would ever be tolerated there. Don't do it to us.

I am a current Reed students and I am straightedge - no drugs, no alcohol. I've made this decision not for religious or even practical reasons, but because I am morally opposed to drug use. That being said, I believe that Reed College's Drug and Alcohol policy is wise and does an excellent job of making sure that its students are educated and safe in their drug use without the administration condoning such behavior or allowing it to go unmonitored. I believe that Mr. Pitkin's article was under researched and he seemed happy to make logical leaps in order to find a story. Furthermore, the fact that he made no effort to include anyone from Reed's rather large straightedge population in his article is troubling. Mr. Pitkin chose to focus on a certain subculture of Reed, and made no attempt to put that subculture in its larger context at the school. The Reed that he describes is not the school that I currently attend.

Despite Steinberger's impassioned defense of Reed, and other statements about high academic standards, those arguments are countered by RenFair, when the campus is closed to all outside visitors because of nudity and drug use. There is no equivalent on other campuses.

The campus is not closed because of drug use (the nudity is a factor). The campus is closed to provide a safe environment for the students to enjoy their end-of-year celebration. Please get your facts straight.

I attended RenFair in the mid 80s and I believe it was an open event then. I know that I was not an invited guest nor were the people i came with. It was just a big party.

LSD ruled the day. It was everywhere just like it would have been any Dead show or the Country Fair in the 80s.

We went to RenFair because it was a acid trip party. I lived up to it's rep. I have no idea if it is still that way.

No offense to you (and I know things have changed a lot since the 80s) but people coming to Renn Fayre "because it [is] a acid trip party." is precisely one of the reasons that the campus is closed during it. The public perception of Renn Fayre, true or not, would tend to bring a lot of rather sketchy types to campus if we left it open.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Ever heard of the naked mile at Michigan? Just one example. Do a google search before you make claims of exceptionalism.

That's first. Second, as you may or may not realize, Renn Fayre (proper spelling) cannot "counter" claims, or realities, about academic standards. I am a Reed graduate, and I've taught at an Ivy League school, and I can assure you, Reed was more rigorous, and more difficult, not only than undergrad at an Ivy, but more difficult and rigorous than graduate school there as well. Moreover, campus is actually closed to the public at all times, as it is private property. The college just restricts ALLOWED visitors during Renn Fayre. And we restrict the campus to protect our students. No college, not just Reed, wants lots of off-campus folks attending a college party, as when they get rowdy or cause damage, they are harder to find, and hold accountable.

I really wish people would actually try to learn about the school before being so judgmental, and then if they do, offer a fair assessment. I can't tell you how dismaying it is as a Reedie who loves his school to constantly feel such condescension and emnity from the people of the city I call home.

Are we surprised this article came from the Willamette Week? Why? It is a bitter lopsided publication, that knows how to be passionate without being smart. I stopped reading it because of the loud-mouthed Queer Window by Byron Beck that makes you wish you weren't gay. Portland should stop this problem at the source; WW advertisers need to stop advertising and the readers/lookers need to stop picking it up.

PS I've never attended Reed, nor done a drug---I just can't stand shoddy journalism!