SHARE THIS SHOW:

OTHER SEGMENTS THIS HOUR:

• Primary Night Expectations

RELATED CONVERSATIONS:

RECENTLY ON TOL:

TOL Our Town

TAGS:

School Trips

AIR DATE: Tuesday, May 20th 2008

Download the mp3 for this show.

None

What is the most effective way to curb alcohol and drug abuse among students on college campuses?

It's no secret that drugs exist on college campuses and each institution has policies to discourage drug and alcohol abuse. Universities and colleges have different ways of enforcing these policies, however, and some are more lenient than others. At Oregon State University, the campus police are known for their strict enforcement of the law, particularly when it comes to drinking and driving. Eastern Oregon University takes a more educational approach, rarely involving law enforcement, but instead requiring students caught violating the school's drug and alcohol policy to meet with a counselor and take an online drug-awareness class.

Following the recent death of a Reed College student from a heroin overdose, the Willamette Week delved into Reed College's allegedly relaxed attitude about drugs on campus in an article published last week. The article sparked an intense discussion -- 444 comments and counting -- on the newspaper's web site. We'll sift through some of those arguments tomorrow with our guests and broaden our conversation to include colleges and universities around the state.

Are you a college student or a recent graduate? What's your experience with drugs and alcohol on campus? Are you a parent or a professor? What is the most effective way to curb alcohol and drug abuse among students? How big is this problem, really?

GUESTS:

• Ben DuPree: Reed College graduate ('06) and former student body president ('05)
• James Pitkin: Staff reporter for Willamette Week
• Peter Steinberger: Dean of the Faculty and professor of political science and humanities at Reed College
• Ashley Slocki: Senior at Oregon State University and news editor of the Daily Barometer
• Other guests TBA

Photo credit: adronicusmax / Flickr / Creative Commons

Tagged as: alcohol · college · drugs · reed college

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.

disturb the comfortable — Mon May 19th 5:29p.m.

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.

music making — Mon May 19th 11:10p.m.

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.

disturb the comfortable — Mon May 19th 11:25p.m.

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.

scottmil — Tue May 20th 11:50a.m.

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.

gomi-no-sensei — Tue May 20th 12:51p.m.

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.

generation13 — Tue May 20th 1:10p.m.

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.

lowesgirl — Tue May 20th 2:04p.m.

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.

textchampion — Mon May 19th 6:03p.m.

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.

music making — Mon May 19th 11:33p.m.

Dead on!!! Thank you.

Anton Chigurh — Tue May 20th 12:14p.m.

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.

LaurenH — Tue May 20th 12:30a.m.

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.

ukmega — Tue May 20th 12:02p.m.

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

thinredcollie — Tue May 20th 12:03p.m.

pardon-- should read "in loco parentis"

thinredcollie — Tue May 20th 12:07p.m.

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.

Anton Chigurh — Tue May 20th 12:07p.m.

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

valbian — Tue May 20th 12:20p.m.

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.

reedieben — Tue May 20th 7:07p.m.

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.

TheManTheyCallKC — Tue May 20th 12:22p.m.

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.

listener2 — Tue May 20th 12:26p.m.

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.

TheManTheyCallKC — Tue May 20th 12:37p.m.

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.

Anton Chigurh — Tue May 20th 12:46p.m.

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.

TheManTheyCallKC — Tue May 20th 1:07p.m.

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.

reedieben — Tue May 20th 7:12p.m.

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!

scottmil — Tue May 20th 12:29p.m.

To think that Reed College's policy statement has anything to do with the drug use on that campus is naive. I went to a small private college with a strong anti drug policy in the late 70's and two boys died of drug overdoses then. I have a child at a local large public university and my daughter has told me that her sorority sister is addicted to cocaine and is stealing from her sorority sisters. I have heard of a a sorority girl cocaine dealer in another state. Sororities have clear anti drug policies and this still happens. Drug problems are much larger than we want to think. Encouraging young people to get help should be the school's number one goal. My son went to an out of state large private school and told me that fellow students dealt in any kind of prescription drug you could name from vicadin to ritalin- the latter is used for a "study aid." Restricting access to campus from outsiders would make no difference.

The larger question is why are kids using? I think we adults need to take a good hard look in the mirror to answer that question.

threekidsmom — Tue May 20th 12:30p.m.

I graduated from Reed College 10 years ago and now work as a surgeon. During my time at Reed, I knew many people who experimented with drugs and alcohol, and there were some who developed addictions, some who went to rehab and some who overdosed. I take serious issue with the opinion that the academic rigors of the institution causes students to ignore their physical health and hygeine and encourages the use of stimulants and other drugs to improve their academic performance. College students are adults. They must decide to care for themselves and their health. If they choose not to do that, it is not the fault of the institution. I thank Reed for the rigorous education that I received, because it prepared me for the real rigors of med school, residency and now a surgical practice. People use drugs and alcohol in all levels of society. This is not a problem of the elite. The tragic death of this Reed student happens every day. It is a sad societal reality.

merbaker — Tue May 20th 12:31p.m.

A couple of disconnected points:

1) There has been (thus far) no discussion of the death of a Portland *High School* student from heroin a couple of years ago. Portland has a heroin problem, not only Reed. This doesn't excuse what's going on / gone on there, but helps to put it on context;

2) Reed President Colin Diver told the college's Trustees at the most recent meeting that he "wouldn't have taken the job" if he had known of the extent of Reed's drug problem(s). Diver, a former Penn Law School dean, is perhaps the worst person to be in charge of this problem. Contrary to the gist of the WW article, Diver has presided over a substantial increase in the enforcement of the drug policy at Reed, which it can be argued has driven the most serious drugs underground. The painting of (e.g.) marijuana and non-binge alchohol with the same brush used for heroin, crack, or meth is a big part of the problem, and the blame for that lies in our society, but is applied at Reed by Diver.

3) While medicalizing drug use is probably a good idea, the interaction of HIPPA and other medical privacy laws and the drug problem is a negative one, preventing the college from discussing (e.g. with parents) some aspects of a student's medical life.

gomi-no-sensei — Tue May 20th 12:38p.m.

I second this comment. Moreover, it isn't just Reed or Portland. Check opiate use over history in Europe and the US, and you find that it is highly connected to the presence of war in the countries that produce or can produce those drugs. The 1980s, late sixties, early 70's, now. Vietnam, first Afghan war, second Afghan war.

It's NOT a comment against these actions, don't read it as that if you're tempted to. It is just a comment that heroin problems are as much a matter of availability in a society not really well-versed in how to deal with it that causes this, more than a college culture, or a high school culture (where the problem in this case, started).

reedieben — Tue May 20th 7:17p.m.

Like many on this thread, I am a recent graduate of Reed College (Dec '05) yet I feel like I may have attended a different college than disturb_the_comfortable. I lived in the substance free housing for the first two years I was at Reed then proceeded to live off campus. I participated in a wide range of activities, including student government for 2 semesters as the student body treasurer. During my entire tenure at Reed, none of my peers offered me drugs. They knew I lived on sub-free and respected my decision to live a drug-free life.

All of the students who have been accepted to Reed are very smart people who have chosen to attend a college that places a great deal of personal responsibility on their shoulders. That is part of the Reed experience. Each of us is endowed with free will - Reed has institutional services to support students who realize they need help. As adults, Reed students have the responsibility to make good decisions regarding their personal health. Unlike many colleges who pretend to act in loco parentis (something that is legally shaky for students over the age of 18) to soothe parental fears, Reed allows students to fly on their own. Unlike the real world, I was surrounded by adults who were happy to help, counseling and health services, and peers trained by Reed to offer a first-line of assistance. By the age of 18, we are all old enough and mature enough to have the responsibility to seek help when we need it.

Bristow1941 — Tue May 20th 12:39p.m.

Mr. Pitkin emphasized the fact that he talked to a number of students including close friends of Mr. Lluch's. You should ask him why those students felt that they were so unfairly represented in the article. In the comments on Willamette Week's site, they expressed outrage at how Mr. Pitkin took their comments out-of-context to make a pre-determined point. They also accused him of having misled them as to his intentions in order to get them to agree to be interviewed -- that he said he was writing a personal profile of Mr. Lluch that would stand in contrast to the controversy-seeking reportage going on elsewhere. What is his response to those accusations?

Greg B. — Tue May 20th 12:39p.m.

As an aside, I've spoken with several classmates who were interviewed by Mr. Pitkin, and only spoke glowingly of their experiences at Reed. I guess that's not news.

That is a dangerous, dangerous slippery slope. That's why this is terrible, awful journalism. Reed should not be on the defensive on this. Everyone in Portland, and reedies in particular, should go on the offensive to hold their local media to task, Blatant lying, distortion through omission, and intentional deception should be beneath a widely read publication. It shouldn't even be on a blog.

Great example: Mr. Pitkin made up a fantastical holiday called "Nitrous Day", where students use nitrous oxide as their celebration. Reality: we hold a nerdy spring party called nitrogen day, celebrating the world's most abundant element, but really celebrating the sunny days. We even have t-shirts with puns on chemical symbols for nitrogen.

When confronted with this distortion, reedies were told that they'd correct "nitrous" to "nitrogen". Well, what about the clear goddamn lie that went with it, that was obviously inextricably linked to the other fabrication. Oh, sorry, silent on that one. Liars.

reedieben — Tue May 20th 7:30p.m.

Although there is a strict policy on drinking and illegal use of drugs what is the college's approach to those students using medically prescribed substances? Students needing medical pain killers, marijuana, and similar substances. These students are prescribed these substances and I would hope are not discriminated against by the staff, faculty, or students.

bowerman61028 — Tue May 20th 12:40p.m.

Not a Reedy but an Evergreener I ... I heard many of these useless arguments when Oregon was the first state to decriminalize Marajuana. Reed's open and frank dealing with the drug and alcohol problem on the campus should be applauded. If the Reed Campus was in Amsterdam I am sure there would be a much more mature response to this.

bobsas — Tue May 20th 12:41p.m.

worked on the Reed campus almost 20 years ago. At that time students began ordering "exotics" (unusual drugs) during spring semester in preparation for Renn Faire. There was a very well trained group of students who served on "Karma Patrol" who stayed with students who had had bad trips. They would set up a large quiet room for students to come to who were having a hard time. One would see faculty and staff on campus the first night of the celebration but seldom after that. Many of the student services staff stayed away from campus for fear of liability issues. It was a time of little adult non-student involvement. It was a wonderful spring bacchanalia that was also very scary if you knew what could happen with the level of drinking and drugging that went on. It also would be a difficult place and time to be for the student in recovery. There was a heroin death of a Reed student back then to--but it did not happen on campus.

Mandadawg — Tue May 20th 12:43p.m.

My husband worked at Reed College in the kitchen for two consecutive Ren Faires and saw rampant drug use. There was a bus parked by the kitchen with the words "drug bus" painted on the side and personally saw many many students in the bus and around the bus getting high. In the kitchen he and other staff were instructed to let students cook their own food and not interefere with anything they made, including multiple batches of pot brownies and other type of food. It was obvious from his experience there that there was no attempt to curb drug use during this faire as university staff were all over campus along with these high students.

nagrom — Tue May 20th 12:44p.m.

I attended Reed and signed up for a drug-free dorm, "No White Elelphants". I think that they offered options for different students.

mediaoffline — Tue May 20th 12:48p.m.

What years did your husband work in the kitchens? It is ridiculous to assume that the students made pot brownies using school equipment.
Every year during Renn Fayre, there is something called the Feast. It's meant as a chance for students and guests to sit together and share a meal during the busy celebration schedule. The Feast cooked in the cafeteria kitchens by students without any help from the regular kitchen staff, but with the supervision of the main chefs.
I organized the Feast in 2004. We baked a LOT of brownies, enough to feed around 4,000 people. But I assure you that none of them contained marijuana or any other drugs. Neither did any of the other food. And I have not heard of the school kitchens ever being used to make drug contaminated food at any other time.

LaurenH — Tue May 20th 1:24p.m.

I don't think that the problems of Reed and drub use among other actions that would be classified as criminal are unique in any way to the college.

In general I think that University's tend to be breeding grounds for an endemic level of crime. Vandalism, theft, violent assault, sexual assault, drug and alcohol facilitate rape, and a host of other crimes are treated with a much more gentle hand than if those crimes are committed outside of the campuses. I don't think that it is merely a coincidence that colleges also happen to be overwhelmingly full of middle- and upper-class people, most of whom are white. Should students of Reed and other university campuses be treated with the same vigorous level of criminal prosecution as those who are situated outside those institutions, I would be less inclined to agree that class and racial privilege does have an influence in the general subject of how crime is treated on campuses.

Andrew Chase — Tue May 20th 12:45p.m.

Good Morning. I would like to hear a TOTL segment focusing on illicit drug use by public radio employees. jp

Jean-Paul — Tue May 20th 12:47p.m.

I'm a Reedie from the mid-80's. I have two comments: College is a time of rigorous intellectual and personal exploration. Drugs were definitely available at Reed (as they are at most colleges), but not in the rampant, dangerous way depicted by Mr. Pitkin. I tried illegal drugs, hallucinogens, all of 3 times in my time there, and smoked marijuana approximately every couple of months. While there were certainly students who pursued drug experimentation much more actively, I would guess I was a fairly typical Reedie. I support Reed as an unparalleled educational and personal experience, based in freedom, integrity, community, and hard work.

Second point: It's important to bear in mind that the Willamette Week only occasionally produces high calibre investigative journalism. It is first and foremost an entertainment weekly, and consistently offers inflammatory, titillating stories. It is a commercial venture, based on selling advertisements for restaurants, clothes, concerts, home decoration, etc. The zeal of one reporter to write a scandalous story for this entertainment weekly should not be mistaken for ethical, truth-seeking journalism.

I enjoy the Willamette Week as entertainment, and support Reed College as an institution and community of the highest integrity and care.

Juliet Wyers, MAT
Portland, Oregon

Juliet Wyers — Tue May 20th 12:53p.m.

As an abstainer and a current Reed student, one of the most significant and underrepresented points regarding drug use at Reed is the lack of pressure to participate in it. Despite the fact that drugs are indeed prevalent on Reed's campus (as they are nationwide) I have never had the feeling that I was wrongly "different" for my sobriety. This is in stark contrast to my experience at other schools at which I felt immediately classified by my reluctance to drink or smoke dope.

misterturtle — Tue May 20th 12:56p.m.

I graduated from reed in 2003. Dr. Steinberger's points about the pervasiveness of drug and alcohol abuse in our culture should be considered here. By way of an example, I was an enlisted man in the US Navy before my time at Reed- I observed at least as significant a problem with substance abuse in the military (including both alcohol and hard drugs) as I did at Reed. Lets be honest here; substance abuse is a HUMAN problem, not a problem of class, race, or institution.

daniel meyers — Tue May 20th 12:57p.m.

How's this for an over simplification / stereotype of "Reedies" that also speaks to privilege and drug culture on campus: the most common nickname I've heard for Reed students is "Trustafarians," as in dreadlocked rich kids doing the ganja.

RTzFRTz — Tue May 20th 12:57p.m.

Easy there, dude. I went to reed on the GI Bill. There are a lot of over-privileged fake rastas at Reed, it's true (like nearly everywhere else on the planet these days)- but no more than in the general population. Your comment makes it sound like the first time you heard the term "trustafarian" was in reference to Reedies- that term has been floating around since at least the late eighties. I'd heard it long before I knew Reed existed. What rock have you been hiding under?

daniel meyers — Tue May 20th 1:46p.m.

Reedies are not all from privileged backgrounds. Many, including myself, receive plenty of financial aid that make it possible for us to attend college. Many of us do not do drugs, or do them quite sparingly.

Many Reedies are also quite engaged with the community. I work for SEEDS, the student volunteer organization, and we had over two hundred students working in the Portland community this past year.

The WW article does not help Reed's reputation and does not help any students at Reed who may have a drug problem. Reed doesn't have a drug problem - some students at Reed may have drug problems. This is a clear distinction that does not appear anywhere in the article.

Charli K — Tue May 20th 12:57p.m.

As a Reedie who graduated in 2002 after a normal four years, anecdotally, the main reasons for students taking more than four years are: the desire to take a year abroad which the school's rigorous junior qualifying exam and thesis system makes extremely difficult, and the intense academic environment and attendant pressures (probably paired with the small size of the community which can be claustrophobic) can be quite exhausting for some students.

Greg B. — Tue May 20th 12:57p.m.

my family right now is struggling with heroin addiction with my college age brother who is really struggling to get clean. He wants to get off heroin but finds that every time he goes to a university he starts using again. As a college grad myself (2005) I never experienced such addictions but wonder if it really has anything to do with college or just who young people choose hang out with.

shannacat — Tue May 20th 12:58p.m.

Renn Fayre is repeatedly mentioned on this blog, as some useful anecdote in explaining rampant willy-nillied drug use at Reed. Isn't Renn Fayre an annual three-day event?

scottmil — Tue May 20th 12:58p.m.

Not only from reading the various email blogs today re Reed and drugs, but also from my own experience as a local educator, I must say that I too have found Reed faculty and students to be surprisingly arrogant. Many of us have prestigious degrees from top schools--in my case, degrees from Yale, Harvard, and Berkeley. But the degree of arrogance at Reed has always struck me as surprising--the idea of elitism is taken to new heights at Reed, unlike anything I've seen at the top Ivy League schools on the East coast, which usually have the reputation for supreme snootiness. Reed tops all of them, in my experience!

My point is that it is this arrogance which is in fact the source of a sense of entitlement--particularly a sense of being above a law that applies to other citizens outside of Reed but seemingly not to Reedies. Because Enlightenment understandings of rationality reign above all other considerations at Reed, experimentation with drugs is taken out of any context (moral, etc.) other than that of objective scientific enquiry. At least, that is my assessment after hearing on air the drug policy at Reed. No wonder these kids and faculty have their heads in the clouds--they are so smart that they are different and better than anyone outside of Reed. I don't doubt that the school does excellent teaching, but why be arrogant and distiniguish yourself in such a way that the school as a whole has a terrible reputation in the city? In short, I'm not surprised at the permissive culture of drug use at the college. Friends of mine who took their young children to Ren Fayre this year said they were disgusted by the lack of consideration shown by students--young adults, afterall, not children still home and in the care of their parents. Doesn't Reed also have an obligation to nurture students into becoming responsible citizens? And why is 18 too soon to start this? The negative attention Reed is getting is well deserved--it's about time the shit hit the fan about a reclusive, elitist school that likes to pretend that it has no connection to and therefore no obligation to the wider community around it. Add to this the insensitive act of students hanging nooses on campus this past year (suggestive of lynchings) and the defensive response to that act by administration. Is Reed so isolated that it also condones historical insensitivity to minority peoples in this city? Shame on Reed.

liachan — Tue May 20th 12:59p.m.

Quoting... Friends of mine who took their young children to Ren Fayre this year said they were disgusted by the lack of consideration shown by students--young adults, afterall, not children still home and in the care of their parents.

What sort of idiot takes their children to Renn Fayre and expects civility. It is not a day care.

thinredcollie — Tue May 20th 1:06p.m.

You call us arrogant, and yet you are the one trumpeting your Ivy League degrees in this open forum. The Reed community does think it's special, however I would say that the majority of it doesn't think it's better than anybody else, just different. As for our obligation to "nurture students into becoming responsible citizens", we certainly do have and adhere to that obligation. However, we also choose to question whether being a responsible citizen necessarily means falling in line with preconceived notions of proper behavior, or whether it means continuing to question and examine the world around us. Finally, your conception of Reed as "reclusive, elitist" and "likes to pretend that it has no connection to and therefore no obligation to the wider community around it" is narrow-minded, unfounded, and has been debunked numerous times within these comments, the comments on the WW article, and during the broadcast itself. Please do try to actually participate in the discussion, rather than covering your ears and shouting your opinions at others.

TheManTheyCallKC — Tue May 20th 1:16p.m.

"Because Enlightenment understandings of rationality reign above all other considerations at Reed, experimentation with drugs is taken out of any context (moral, etc.) other than that of objective scientific enquiry."

I'm not really sure what you mean by this, but I'm a current Reed student and this doesn't sound like an attitude that I've ever heard at Reed. I've heard Reedies discuss drug use in moral terms on plenty of occasions, and I've never heard a Reedie express the view that "objective scientific enquiry" is the only "context" in which life should be viewed. Where do you get this impression from?

"Friends of mine who took their young children to Ren Fayre this year said they were disgusted by the lack of consideration shown by students--young adults, afterall, not children still home and in the care of their parents."

There are places that are just not set up to handle children, and Renn Fayre is one of them. Another example is the workplace: if you brought your kids to work, and they went around asking questions and bothering people (as kids tend to do), your co-workers would be understandably reluctant to drop everything and attend to them. Similarly, although it's the responsibility of Reedies to be considerate of children if they're there, Renn Fayre is planned without children in mind, and it shows in its structure and content. I don't mean any offense to your friends, since I don't know their motivation, but why would a parent bring their children into an environment that cannot, and was not intended to, accommodate their needs?

Robert Friel — Tue May 20th 1:28p.m.

OOOh! Yale, Harvard, AND Berkeley! I value your opinion!

daniel meyers — Tue May 20th 1:57p.m.

Too bad you missed the point, daniel meyers.

liachan — Wed May 21st 12:41a.m.

Well, one of you did.

TheManTheyCallKC — Wed May 21st 1:22a.m.

Actually, the administrative response to the hanging nooses on campus was quite refreshing in that it was vigorously critical. Some students (a vocal group, including the creators) however, chose to participate in the same sort arrogant entitlement you point to...

lowesgirl — Tue May 20th 2:17p.m.

Liachan -- That is a very offensive accusation, and one I take seriously as the parent of a Reed student. You should examine the evidence before spreading what appears to now be a Portland urban myth. The Halloween decoration incident of paper bag figures in trees was described in detail on the Willamette Week website by several Reed students explaining that this was a painful mistake made by a student who did not at that time understand the cultural implications of the symbolism. Please note -- decorations put up by one, or a few, students, not by a large group or as an official policy. I found this explanation entirely plausible, as even smart students beginning college don't know everything. That is why they go to college, to learn. A college student should be regarded as a work in progress. It is possible to be clever and talented in some areas and naive or insensitive or ignorant in others. The students commenting on WW went to great lengths to describe the discussion and education and awareness campaign that followed this incident, thus proving to my satisfaction that they and the administration take racism seriously. Members of the student body and the faculty and staff are in fact minority ethnic. You can verify this by reading a few pages of the Reed College website. The general tone of your comment is so dumb I have trouble believing you are a triple degree holder from prestigious schools as you claim. For the record, I attended a state university where I learned to read between the lines and examine evidence. It's not really all that hard to do. My experience of being on the Reed campus six times this year was that I saw serious academic work going on, and an atmosphere of politeness and respect for others. If there is one word I would favor to describe the students I saw and meet there it would be 'sweet', in the old fashioned sense, meaning notably gentle and thoughtful. These kids are for the most part the types who spent a lot of time in high school studying, reading and writing and doing their math homework. That's how they got to Reed in the first place. If you are, as you claim, a 'local educator', I would hope that you would have a more responsible and nurturing attitude toward young people than you have demonstrated in this comment. The 'Thinking Out Loud' program was about drug use and drug policy, it was not about a witch hunt against Reed students. But the sensationalism of the Willamette Week article has encouraged prejudice and unreason and the desire of angry, bitter and unbalanced people to pop out of the woodwork to focus their psychological problems on a hate orgy against Reed students. It is possible for journalists to be very critical of an institution in a manner that is still socially responsible. Your comment lacks maturity, and is yet more proof that Willamette Week has actually obscured important issues that should be discussed sensibly. In so doing, it has also stereotyped and victimized a community which most students enter at age 18 or 19. Shame on you and Shame on Willamette Week.

scriblious — Thu May 22nd 11:09a.m.

Ilachan
One has only to read your post to question the value of an Ivy League education. Maybe the particular ax you have to grind has something to do with your own obvious shortcomings as a thinker and a writer. Who knows? Maybe a Reedie pointed them out to you and injured your pride. "Because Enlightenment understandings of rationality reign above all other considerations at Reed..." Good lord--I can't even begin to figure out what that means!

marthadcraig — Thu May 22nd 4:27p.m.

i have did not go to reed but i did go to a comparably privileged east coast university. i have always heard that reed was a school that was willing to let its students experiment with drugs (not officially, of course). there is a reason that reed has this reputation, there is no other way around that fact. if you make it 'safer' for students to do drugs you are going to have more problems like overdoses. if reed wants to protect its students it needs to make drastic measures to change the way its community officially and/or unofficially thinks and deals with drug use.

tigerlily — Tue May 20th 12:59p.m.

As a recent Reed Graduate (Class of 2006) I found the WWeek Article to be offensive because its utter lack of journalistic integrity. It is replete with factual errors to the point that I think it is basically about value. WWeek's editors were reckless to have published such a sensational tabloid quality story. This isn't news-this is a mix of fabrication and recklessness that does no one a service.

Reed is a school of great rigor where students are asked to think for themselves and strive to understand the world around them. A vast majority of students take responsibility for their actions and act with a reasonable level of caution and care. Throughout our society a small slice of all groups use drugs, people in every profession and every socio-economic status fall prey to addiction. If Pitkin was a journalist with any shred of integrity he would have checked his facts and wrote a far different story. To take one tragedy and us it as a chance to assault Reed is a sad commentary of Mr. Pitkin's character and skill as a reporter.

In my time at Reed I was NEVER pressured to use drugs and was supported both by my peers and the institution. Lets not forget the the student who died was addicted when he came to Reed and was fighting difficult battle before he was touched by Reed.

If you want to encourage safety Reed is doing a great job. Enforcement will only drive drug usage underground where it will become more dangerous. Remember, in this article there were wild claims about Renn Fayre and a public party culture, yet this death happened in the students residence when he was alone. Mr. Pitkin and WWeek have done a disservice to Reed, Portland and to the debate about drugs with there sensational reporting.

t in pdx — Tue May 20th 1:07p.m.

I need to comment on the overly- simplistic characterization of WhiteBird earlier on the air.

The Willamette Week writer described WhiteBird as a "tent set up for people having bad trips" which misses entirely the broad range of services provided to fair/concert goers for many years now. As a security crew member at the Oregon Country Fair, and a former firefighter/paramedic, I know from first hand experience the quality of care and professionalism demonstrated by White Bird in caring for a small city's worth of medical problems OF ALL KINDS - injuries, heat/hydration issues, pre-existing medical condiitions, and, yes, occasional substance abuse excesses. At the Country Fair, we strive to enforce a policy of zero tolerance for drugs and drug paraphenalia, and an alcohol-free experience for our visitors. Since the history of such evens seems to attract those who have different expectations, the efforts of White BIrd in dealing with the occasional unfortunate incident is invaluable.

This mis-characterization is consistent, I'm afraid, with his observation of an individual whose behavior seemed bizarre leading to his immediate conclusion that it was a "bad trip" rather than any number of other causes which can lead to such behavior. Prejudice and a clear agenda come to mind . . .

Paul in Eugene — Tue May 20th 1:09p.m.

Good point, well stated!

generation13 — Tue May 20th 1:19p.m.

Perhaps the only grievance I had with Peter Steinberger from the interview was the fact that he didn't go further to explain that Whitebird is on campus to deal with all medical issues during Renn Fayre, not simply the results of drug and alcohol use. I believe the issues they deal with most frequently are sunburn and injuries from our softball tournament, picting, and other strenuous physical activities.

TheManTheyCallKC — Tue May 20th 1:21p.m.

I just listened to the entire program. As a Reed student, to graduate next year, I would just like to give my heartfelt thanks to Peter Steinberger. With people like him in charge, Reed is in good hands.

sautedman — Tue May 20th 1:23p.m.

Seconded.

TheManTheyCallKC — Tue May 20th 1:28p.m.

Another sensationalistic piece of garbage by OPB's hyped host.

I'd suggest you apply at FOX News, because you are incapable to resist any and every temptation that comes your way to reduce a topic to dirt, filth and controversy, even when everyone around you- guests and callers, uses brains to deal with a subject and does so forthrightly.

TOL's host is the on-air equivalent of Willamette Week's gutter journalism that was the subject on display today.
OPB: Get another, wiser, calmer, less caffeinated host, and soon!

capitanfrugales — Tue May 20th 1:29p.m.

I have often admired the skill of TOL's host in bringing out all sides of the issue, keeping the conversation moving, and questioning guests with perspicacity. I find her to be quite calm and balanced.

Many thanks also to Peter Steinberger for representing Reed so well.

Juliet Wyers — Tue May 20th 1:46p.m.

Emily Harris needs to work harder on her craft. She seems content to ask snappy questions like to one she asked today about Reed's reputation "Brains and drugs." The person answering didn't react to the emotional stinger in the question but was confused because they did not know what she was asking. As a listener I did not know what she was asking except to trot out a phrase that carries alot of emotional sterotyping baggage. She asked the same poorly thought out question twice more before asking a clearer question. I am still not sure that one was the question she intended. The host's job is to think through exactly what they want to know and develop clear questions that bring responses that help the conversation move forward. The second job of a good host is to listen well. In situations where the response is not to the point or vague to help the person who is speaking clarify what they are saying by paraphrasing back to them what you heard. This also helps the listeners be clear about the point under discussion. Terry Gross is an excellent example of a host that does this and in the process wins the respect of the person she interviews and the audience. This show needs much more thought put into helping the discussions succeed. If you replay this show you will se many places where the host was trying to jump the conversation forward without clarifying what just happened.
Today's show generated a lot of heat, but too little clarity, As the Reed College student president put it, "the answers here are nuanced." But the issues were not carefully picked open, the host used a sledge hammer approach that left only dust in the wind.
The Fifty-First State show had the same problems. It might have been interesting but it drifted with too much repetition and too few clear points. It is a problem in how the show is planned.
I really don't like talk shows like this one and especially "World have Your Say" precisely because we spend a lot of time with little pay back in terms of insight and information.

Jim Philipson — Tue May 20th 1:35p.m.

I'll preface this by saying that I generally enjoy TOL and appreciate the depth of local topics the show covers. But every time I listen, I am jarred at least once by an abrasive question or comment from the host.

I have read that Emily Harris started at KBOO public access radio in Portland, which has an important place in local media. But a lot of the tactics of indy journalists stray far from balance and objectivity in order to prove a point. Sometimes those points need to be proven, but I do not think TOL is the place for that.

It seems that the TOL host should be a balanced discussion facilitator, not a fire stoker-- especially under a highly respected news organization like OPB.

Jim Philipson's comments above describe exactly what is missing from Emily Harris' approach. She has a great opportunity with TOL to rise to greater heights in journalism, but such interviewing techniques are not going to take her there.

Caridad — Tue May 20th 3:56p.m.

I graduated from Reed in '72 after studying there for 4 years. I'm often on campus for various activities. I think this discussion is being framed poorly (spectacularly).

If you asked most Reedies about their time at Reed, I think you'd get some comment about the intense intellectual experience. Growing up bright, challenge and stimulation are the elements that are generally missing in your school experience. Things are easy and you don't really need to work very hard. At Reed you finally are challenged and learn how to think. Really exciting and hard work.

Drugs are prevalent culture-wide. Kids of college age have access and experiment, in college and not. Drugs are available on all college and university campuses. The 'high point' of the Reed experience isn't drugs, however, it's learning how to think and being pushed to do it.

Rfredine — Tue May 20th 1:49p.m.

I just finished listening to the program. Mr. Pitkin does nothing to recant any of the allegations made in his article, but perhaps he has achieved all he wanted in the first place - recognition and publicity. Scandalmongering. That is the problem I have always had with WW, scraping the bottom to mudrake and focus on the negative. I jut wonder if he had a personal ax to grind and what that could be. Did he apply to Reed, rejected, or know someone who was? In the future, all I will think is that man with the trashy article about Reed, where my daughter received one of the best educational experiences available in an undergraduate college in the country. I will never worry about her decisions, because I know she is able to think concisely and independently. She graduated two years ago, and as she stated, there may be drugs on campus, but there is no pressure to participate and more importantly, no time because of the rigors of the academics. I will make one other observation as a parent: Reed's program for drug abuse is to suspend on medical leave and not to report to the police. As a parent, what would you want? Reed's policy or to pick up your child from jail? This is a wise policy, where lives are in the balance as well as future reputations.

lindar — Tue May 20th 1:49p.m.

Mr. Pitkin has repeatedly emphasized the fact that he was removed from campus four times, including during Renn Fayre despite possessing a guest pass. As a Reed grad, I have a hard time imagining anyone being removed from campus without having conducted themselves in a truly outrageous, publicly visible manner -- for example, during Renn Fayre, the only people removed are the ones from off campus acting like the screaming irrational man Mr. Pitkin described in his story and on air. Mr. Pitkin claims that he didn't so much as speak to any students while he was on campus during Renn Fayre. Then why was he removed? Unless he was wearing some visible sign of his identity as a reporter (maybe a fedora with a "press pass" like Cary Grant in His Girl Friday?) the only reasons that seem plausible involve his own behavior and public intoxication or the harassment of students, something of which Mr. Pitkin stands directly accused by people quoted in his story. I'd like some further explanation as to the circumstances of those removals and was disappointed to see them mentioned on air without due skepticism from Think Out Loud staff.

Greg B. — Tue May 20th 2:08p.m.

Some of the points stated in comments by CAPITANFRUGALES and JIM PHILIPSON seem valid, but these comments are also overstating the obvious and inherent nature of what a show like TOL or WHYS is. The names alone, of these shows, let the listener know that the discussion is not as well vetted or scripted as other programs; and that the discussion is, well, thinking out loud or the world having its say. How can you include diverse views and ensure intellectual coherence, when much of the source is anecdotal and subjective? It is an impossible task! Given the inherent difficulty, we could ask how good of a job are they doing?

We also must include Mr. Miller (Co-Host?) in any grievances, because he often furthers or steers the discussion with provocative comments from this blog. Sometimes the provocativeness is simple absurdity rather than an opposing substantive perspective; but TOL occurs in realtime and it is probably to be expected.

Considering the new-ness and local-ness of the show---Think Out Loud is off to a good start.

scottmil — Tue May 20th 2:30p.m.

I was listening to your show today and the topic was B.S. As a black man that grew up in a so call black neighborhood (NE Portland) and hung out with mostly white people around Portland, I have been checked by law enforcement for drug countless times. This has always been irritating; considering the fact I?ve never used drugs. Many times this has occurred while standing next to a white person that was holding and not checked. I watch white people walk down Alberta smoking pot or drinking, without a care while group?s of young black men get followed by cops when there?s more than four in a group. So excuse me if I don?t care about flaky Reedies.

iranjohn — Wed May 21st 1:38a.m.

I was hoping to listen to this program but didn't catch it in the morning (and the night slot was taken up by the election special). Are you going to put it online?

sascha — Wed May 21st 2:22a.m.

http://stream1.opb.org:9000/tol/episodes/2008/0520.mp3

rorybowman — Thu May 22nd 10:42p.m.

Comments are now closed.