Opinion: Senators Quinn Capper and Sam Kuo on Poster Removal and Reed’s Neutrality

As a part of research into the recent events regarding the removal of pro-Palestinian posters, and responses from Admin and the community, the Quest reached out to Senate for commentary. Quinn Capper ‘28, writing from their own experiences, but in official capacity as a senator, said the following: 

“I want to start by saying that as this is the main issue that I ran on to be a senator, I have a very strong take on the administration's procedural conduct when it comes to these posters. As some people might know, what prompted me to run for Senate was the fact that posters containing political messaging were being taken down, and when I directly asked one of the custodial staff why they were taking the posters down, his response was that 'those things couldn't be broadcasted on campus,' even when they were following guidelines that are now informally enshrined by administration's notorious 'antisemitic posters' email (but this happened before the settlement, and as such, this was free of any legal obligation to it). As such, my campaign hinged on establishing rights to physical mediums on campus, something that has been in administrative arbitration FOR YEARS. Henceforth, it doesn't surprise me that when the administration released a legal document—in response to legal suits—it would be conforming to a narrative that directly perpetuates stereotypes that Israel reinforces throughout the world. This wasn't a change that they made, this was a precedent that ended up being reinforced with legal backing, even if the suit did not go in their favor and it seems like this is not what the school wanted. 

Second, the administration has not provided a clear answer as to what they are actually using for working definitions of antisemitism and Zionism, which I find deeply troubling, as the effects of this settlement are already reaching the classroom and student life. I know students and professors alike who are scared- scared to teach issues relating to Palestine in class, scared to voice their opinions without being targeted and harassed by Zionists, scared of how this is all going to play out for communities who have been historically marginalized, both in the country and specifically at Reed. However, this is not the only group being affected by the administration's miscommunication. To think that posters talking about war crimes that israel has committed—I'm referencing Israel stealing organs from child martyrs, which is backed by studies and investigations that many human rights organizations and the UN have done—are being intentionally conflated with antisemitic tropes about Jewish blood libel and the like. It is a DISGUSTING miscategorization of the facts and is deeply offensive to Jewish people, telling them how to feel about something that is not directed towards them. 

Third, Reed isn't even following their own informally enshrined poster regulations. Let's start with a little bit of context: the posters that the administration responded to in their email were not the first round of posters that were put up. This is an issue that I have a distinct interest in, and as such, I pay attention when things in this matter happen on campus. A couple days before the posters on campus that prompted the email, there was a smaller first round of posters put up at Reed that were seemingly identical to ones that were put up in the second round. However, while Reed made it abundantly clear that this 'conflict' is an open dialogue in their email, there was an indiscriminate removal of posters of all content (some containing content they would later informally approved) in this first round. Judging by what the administration released about things that were written on the posters, "Some [posters]... including statements indicating that the posters will continue to be placed around campus when they are removed," I would say there's an argument to be made that the administration never intended for even political messaging to be allowed, and only capitulated out of fear of retribution by people putting up posters. Now, this was before their informal enshrinement went into action, and so you could also argue that admin was fully in the right to be able to take these posters down. But what if I told you that they did it after they outlined protections? I know for a fact that there were a huge number of posters put up on the night of September 23rd, the day before the PCC's community dialogue, and almost all were taken down by the morning. I take long walks in the late nights to early mornings throughout each week, and I saw the posters, each and every one of them following the guidelines outlined by administration: 'Political' claims backed by sources that were free of any graphic imagery or "handwritten messages directed at individual Zionists." Now, you could argue that it might not have been administration that ordered the takedown of these posters, but I have another compelling argument to make in this regard: Is a Zionist organization realistically capable of taking down what I estimate to be around 100 posters plastered all around campus, all within the time frame of less than 6 hours (I didn't see anyone taking them down when my walk ended at 3:00) when they would've had no prior notification of these posters being put up? Maybe, but the evidence I have presented shows this as being highly unlikely. Again, I am led to the conclusion that the administration ordered the takedown of these posters, directly contradicting their previous messaging and commitment to an open dialogue. 

I am frankly ashamed that Reed College seems to have done something that is irrefutably against their own honor principle, behaving in a way that directly impacts learning goals and content covered in class, harms students, elevates racist and despotic behaviors, and even acts in disregard to rules that they have outlined themselves. This is also not just a nauseating infringement of our freedom of speech, but a statement that the lives of anyone standing in the way of israel are reduced to a 'conflict,' one in which Reed College maintains "neutrality" in. To quote a particularly inspiring poster that a friend found on campus, I end with this: 

"History has taught us that neutrality means complicity. This is not just one of many "other political issues", this is a humanitarian crisis. They refer to October 7th with sensitivity, but will not acknowledge Genocide. We at Reed are highly critical of nationalism in America, what makes nationalism in Israel so protected? To deny the Genocide in Gaza is to reject the evidence of our eyes and our ears. We are calling for the administration of Reed College to drop this charade and discuss the world we are set to inherit with truth and conviction. I will not stand complicit. Will you?"

Senator Sam Kuo ‘28 added their own additional ideation on the topic of Reed’s neutrality. 

“This college has always told us that their official stance on political issues must be rooted in neutrality, which was reiterated by Neela two weeks ago at the free speech dialogue. Not only is this complicity in the genocide as mentioned above, it also is a policy Reed selectively chooses to enforce. Four years ago, when Russia invaded Ukraine, pro Ukrainian sentiment was expressed by faculty and students around campus without any issues. That was because when it came to the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine, it was agreed on by liberal western media that the invasion should be condemned (and rightfully so)! However when it comes to Israel's genocide of the palestinian people, the college has taken a very specific stance under the guise of neutrality. These posters were not attacking Jewish people. These posters did not attack specific individuals. These posters only pointed out the facts of Israel's genocide which many continue to willfully ignore. Notice how we got an email a few days ago about "supporting one another" during October 7th. In that email, there was not a single mention of the 70,000 Palestinians killed by the IDF, instead telling us "there isn't a single right way to feel." The evidence is overwhelming, and continuing to focus on a singular day which killed less than 1/50th of the number of Palestinians is shameful and wrong. There is no October 7th for the 20,000+ dead children and there never will be.

To be clear, this is not saying that I support October 7th as this type of sentiment is sometimes construed. I am merely saying that condemning one instance of violence while ignoring all other instances of violence is not neutrality and is in fact the opposite.

From talking with staff and students against the posting of these posters on campus and in favor of the administration taking them down, I continue to get a similar sentiment expressed time and time again. "These posters made me feel uncomfortable/unsafe because I have x identity or x belief. As Quinn Capper mentioned, Reed places a big emphasis on treating everything with sensitivity, not wanting to offend/anger certain individuals. However, people feeling hurt or upset should not be grounds to take down a poster on campus. A decade ago, people were uncomfortable and offended by trans people using the assigned bathroom of their choosing. Pro-Palestine sentiment is always going to make certain individuals uncomfortable which cannot be a barrier for expression.”