<p>After reading the attached, I can only hope that the Reed students responsible for this article spend some time in a history classroom - and then making some serious amends to both Lewis and Clark as well as the larger Jewish community. Simply disgusting.</p>
<p>Reed was on my son’s long list.</p>
<p>I will now not be paying for any app fees to Reed if it makes it to a short list.</p>
<p>More on the incident at Reed from yesterday’s Inside Higher Ed. An excerpt:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The publication’s editor was less disturbed by the offensive nature of the piece than by the fact that it was distributed outside the Reed campus. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t believe that this piece reflects a broad culture of anti-semitism at Reed. Still very, very disturbing, on several levels.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/15/reed[/url]”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/15/reed</a></p>
<p>Just . . . wow.</p>
<p>From the article:
“Others have noted that The Pamphlette is an equal opportunity offender, and that the same issue with the article about gassing Jews also featured an article making fun of Black History Month.”</p>
<p>That isn’t “equal opportunity” offending, that is a symptom of a big problem for Reed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Our outrage is understandable, but let’s not paint with too broad a brush. Reed College didn’t publish this article - a small group of immature students did. The College as a whole should be judged on its collective response to this incident, not the fact that the incident occurred. The arrogant jerks who write for the Pamphlette shouldn’t have the power to determine whether any of our sons or daughters get to consider Reed.</p>
<p>I have never heard of the Pamphlette is this a new thing ( my daughter is '06)
I have heard of cases where Reed students have done really offensive things ( like made a hanging tree for Halloween)- I think that was a case of them really being very sheltered geeks who have no social skills and are too narrow in focus ( which isn’t true for most- but it doesn’t take many), but I don’t think it is a mean spirited community- quite the opposite.</p>
<p>OMG…</p>
<p>I thought Reed studentw were liberal, so called “open minded” and accepting kind of people. </p>
<p>OMG…</p>
<p>I’m willing to wait and see what the Reed administration does before making any judgements - but I do think that significant action is warranted. </p>
<p>Lacking any response stronger than what I have seen this far, I’m with Longhaul and won’t be writing any application checks to Reed (which had recently slid back onto my DD list). </p>
<p>I’m sure that this is a small group of students that are uncontrolled - but compare the Reed administration reaction to this to the Harvard response to the Holocaust Denial advertisement in the Crimson.</p>
<p>Yes, Reed admitted some kids who exercised inexcusably bad judgement.</p>
<p>Note that college leaders have no plans to censor the paper because it is against Reed’s principles to do so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I found that part of Reed’s statement a bit troubling. I am opposed to censorship, but let’s not forget that the right of free speech comes with responsibilities. You can scream “Fire” in a crowded theater, but there are certainly legal consequences to doing so. </p>
<p>The “editors”, and I use the term very loosely, published copy that was insensitive and offensive to Jews and then “defended” their position by saying, “Oh well, we offended blacks too.”, (I guess the use of the word “faggoty” didn’t warrant mention), as if that somehow excused their actions.</p>
<p>As scualum points out, it’s now up to the Reed Administration to act and use this event as a “teaching opportunity”. The students need to see that words, while free to publish, do have repercussions. If the administration does not in some way censure these students they will become part of the problem.</p>
<p>I think the students are seeing that freedom to publish is having repercussions without administration needing to become paternalistic.</p>
<p>I still have never heard of this- I would be interested to hear where the Pamphlette gets its funding- is it from the Grey fund? a club?</p>
<p>I would like to see that if it is funded through campus based money for the students to form a petition to make those responsible pay the money to a Jewish cause/back to the fund.
I also think these students should go before the honor board- but that is still not administration taking charge.</p>
<p>I think it is analgous- although not in intensity to when Evergreen state college students chose a controversial speaker for commencement, Mumia Abu-Jamal who was in prison for killing a police officer.</p>
<p>I think the responsibilities rest with the students; it’s their problem if they can’t find jobs or won’t be admitted to grad schools. I’d guess that a school like Reed would rather lose a few apps due to lack of disciplinary action than lose more (or lose students due to transferring out) because of such action showing lack of principles.</p>
<p>
I was thinking of the infamous Christmas carol at Tufts, another bad editorial decision.</p>
<p>Even putting offensiveness aside, it’s hardly a good piece of satire. Who in their right mind would print it? 
</p>
<p>some people are so dumb they think anything offensive is funny.</p>
<p>When I used to watch SNL decades ago, it was pushing the envelope, offensive but still funny now it would seem tame- now we have people like Sacha Baron Cohen who apparently has quite a following- although I don’t think he is funny at all.</p>
<p>I believe that anything can be funny, but the more serious and disturbing the reality, the more clever and careful the satire has to be in order to be appropriate.</p>
<p>Monty Python did a sketch about Hitler and his cronies hiding out in a small English town, plotting another invasion of Poland and insinuating their way into local politics, covering up their true intentions by changing their names to “Hilter” and “Bimmler,” and proposing to build “boncentration bamps”. It appropriately made the Nazis look like buffoons, which made the humor palatable.</p>
<p>The Reed piece, in contrast, was juvenile and base. That a school of Reed’s caliber would even admit students who find this sort of thing funny makes me question their admissions process. Not to blame the school for the actions of a few students, but this is just so bad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bad behavior tends to be its own punishment. It’s good when stupid and offensive speech goes uncensored, because it exposes the speaker for what he is. These idiots are going to lose friends and potential jobs over this incident, and Reed is going to lose qualified applicants and donor support. Everyone will get what they deserve in the end.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but this is pure, unadulterated bull.</p>
<p>You’re right, responsibility does come with the freedom of speech. They must now defend their writing of the piece to their friends and peers, and if enough people feel strongly enough about it they may well be ostracized by their peers, or professors may choose not to give them letters of recommendation, or any of several other avenues of consequence. The point of “freedom of speech” is that the government, or in this case the school, will not punish you for saying offensive things. If the school takes action against them they are now NOT free to publish. And if they’re not free to publish this then where is the line drawn? No person or group of people should ever be allowed to decide where the line is drawn on what words we can and cannot say, or what we can and cannot publish, so there must be no line.</p>
<p>Your “fire in theatre” example is the exact opposite of what you’re talking about. You’re NOT free to yell “fire” in a theatre any more than you’re free to walk outside and kill someone. You can be arrested and charged by the government either way. But what you are free to do, and what you should be free to do, and what I pray you are never not free to do, is say offensive things. Even if those things are wrong, or evil, or terribly offensive (and in this case unfunny,) the right to say them should never be infringed upon.</p>
<p>The paper as a whole doesn’t look very funny and I doubt more than a couple hundred people ever would have seen the thing if everyone hadn’t done exactly what the paper wanted and acted as their advertising machine. If you want to say the kids are stupid and made a really horrible decision then I’m all for that; I agree. If you want to say that, assuming the university does fund this paper which judging from the fact that it is published on wordpress I’m not sure of, they should stop funding the paper then that is ok as well. There is only so much money and it shouldn’t be spent on crude unfunny papers. But if you want to say that Reed should somehow punish them for what they published in a satire paper? No. Never. Not in America.</p>
<p>The Reed piece, in contrast, was juvenile and base. That a school of Reed’s caliber would even admit students who find this sort of thing funny makes me question their admissions process. Not to blame the school for the actions of a few students, but this is just so bad.</p>
<p>I agree- unfortunately- because it is such a small school, this sort of thing sticks out even more- and I have noticed that with need aware admissions & increased positive publicity USNews et all, their admission process has admitted some students recently who didn’t really “get” Reed.</p>
<p>In any case, it will be a topic of conversation when the donor campaign calls back.</p>
<p>Chuy, grow up. If it’s Reed funded, if it says Reed anywhere on the Pamphlette it’s Reed’s problem. If Reed loses applications it’s Reed’s problem. If Reed loses donations it’s Reed’s problems. If Reed gets bashed on this or any other board it’s Reed’s problem. If these “kids” who happened to be of the age of majority worked for me they would have been fired before lunch.</p>
<p>In America you are free to walk up to anyone of any ethnicity, political persuasion or religion and spew any sort of vile crap you want, just don’t act surprised when someone punches you in the mouth (or worse) for doing so. You ARE free to say anything, but it comes with a price legal, social and occasionally financial. </p>
<p>The fact is that Reed College is answerable. If it weren’t why is the President apologizing to Lewis & Clark? If it’s not Reed’s problem why is the administration responding at all? Those idiots are free to publish whatever garbage they like but they aren’t free to drag Reed through the mud with them. Failure to censure implies tolerance of the position. If they want to be jerks let them spend their own money publishing and distributing their “humor”.</p>