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 language 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 television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

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.

posted 4 years, 12 months ago
view in context

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.

posted 4 years, 12 months ago
view in context