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

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.

posted 4 years, 12 months ago
view in context