2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

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.

posted 4 years, 12 months ago
view in context