Reed Union Deliberates on PCCC Developments
This piece will detail the recent events involving the removal of pro-Palestinian posters, the actions of the Presidential Committee on Campus Climate (PCCC) and the administration in general, and the discussion which occurred at the Reed Unions on October 9 (on the posters) and 14 (on the ADL settlement). For the sake of brevity, the different conversations which occurred at the Reed Unions will be treated as a contiguous dialogue. If a reader is interested in context on the details of the posters and PCCC dialogue, see the Quest’s previous October 2 coverage “Community Dialogue Sparks Frustration Among Student Body” by Poppy Baxter ‘27. For background of Reed’s recent settlement with the ADL, see “Reed Reaches Agreement on Discrimination” by Maya Gutierrez ‘27 and Jesse Mitchell-Reiss ‘27 from September 11, available online at www.reedquest.org.
A new clarification in the story of the pro-Palestinian posters was brought to light at the Reed Union. The Reed Union is a tradition of community dialogue dating back to the 1940s, which seeks to bring together students, staff, faculty, and all members of the Reed community to open discussion on important subjects.
In order to establish a common understanding of the subject at hand, the pro-Palestinian posters which were the subject of the meeting were described by a few members of the group. In brief, two kinds of posters were posted around campus in mid-September: one which featured members of the Israeli Knesset (legislature) and direct quotes outlining their genocidal intentions towards Palestine, and another style which featured images of mutilated adults and children, with phrases such as “Gaza 2026 ‘Ceasefire,’” and “Israel is stealing Organs from Child Martyrs.” To the Reed population as a whole, these are the posters to which the September 17 PCCC email referred to when it said “Some include graphic images of dead infants; others make claims about Israelis stealing organs or contain handwritten messages directed at individual Zionists, including statements indicating that the posters will continue to be placed around campus when they are removed.”
However, members of the Reed Union clarified that there was another poster left outside of a Jewish faculty member’s office with handwritten messaging targeting them for Zionist beliefs, and stating that the targeted posters would be replaced should they be taken down. It seems likely that this was the posters which “contain[ed] handwritten messages directed at individual Zionists” and “includ[ed] statements indicating that the posters will continue to be placed around campus when they are removed” and not the posters featuring the likenesses of members of the Knesset as was widely assumed. However, this distinction was not noted in the email. Many students and community members present at the Reed Union expressed how this was new information to them, which significantly reframed much of the language used in email regarding “targeted harassment.” In this case of specifically targeted and threatening messages, it seemed more reasonable that a poster would be taken down. However, many expressed that it was not (and still isn’t) at all clear in PCCC’s email exactly which posters were considered “targeted,” and hence, which were liable to be taken down, considering the piecemeal implementation of the policy.
In addition to this single poster, which was unknown to the student body at large, there were also “a huge number of posters put up on the night of September 23, the day before the PCCC's community dialogue, and almost all were taken down by the morning,” as described by Quinn Capper ‘28, whose opinion piece can be found on page 3 for more information. This fact also seems to be broadly unbeknownst among students, and was not commented on by admin in their emails.
Aside from this new information, Quest reporter Mitchell-Reiss also spoke with several sources familiar with the matter, and discovered that PCCC was not aware of the documented history of Israeli military organ harvesting. For context, in September 2009, Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet (and later various major news outlets) confirmed that in the 1990s, Israeli doctors had been harvesting “skin, corneas, heart valves and bones from the bodies of Israeli soldiers, Israeli citizens, Palestinians and foreign workers, often without permission from relatives. [In 2009] The Israeli military confirmed… that the practice took place, but added: ‘This activity ended [in 2000] and does not happen any longer.’” The reports note that both Israelis and Palestinians were affected, and that no one was killed with the express intention of harvesting organs. Instead, dead bodies were taken (without consent from families) for transplants to civilians. These admissions have been under-publicized in Western news, and so it seems likely that PCCC was simply unaware of this context, and had instead connected the messaging to the antisemitic trope of blood libel.
Although it is important context, this information regarding the validity of claims made by the posters was not the primary subject of discussion of the Reed Union. Instead, the dialogues—attended by 15 people on October 9 and 25 people on October 14, with a fairly even split between students and staff, with a few faculty at each—revolved around a few core topics.
The first prompting of the conversation came from organizer Gregory MacNaughton, who highlighted the failure of the Reed community to condemn acts of harassment and intimidation perpetrated by its own members (such as in response to the violence committed against Jewish students in 2023-24: see previous Quest coverage). MacNaughton noted how the Reed community has not been particularly punctual or effective about self-mediating disputes or finding reconciliation when harm has been done. Is it the responsibility of members of the community to stand up against harassment, even if it means protecting those they disagree with? In our current system, both admin and the community frequently delegate this task exclusively to admin. This manner of handling tense situations does conveniently give admin more authority, and the office of the president seems happy to regain control of disputes which might cause it to face external legal liability. However, if the community is displeased with how intra-group dialogue is occurring, it needs to take ownership and generate means of official resolution independent of admin.
Part of the motivation to create a process of reconciliation independent of Reed administration is that students are largely displeased by admin’s vague and non-supportive responses. Much of this stems from Reed’s hesitancy to discuss its recent settlement with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) with students. Little has been heard from admin since the email on July 22, other than the President’s Office’s website on the Resolution Agreement. In the FAQ section, Reed states they will use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism and its examples. This has been problematized, as although the initial definition of antisemitism is more uncontroversial, some given examples of antisemitism claim that “[d]enying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” and “[d]rawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” are both inherently antisemitic acts.
Title IX, Title VI, & Section 504 Coordinator Christy Martin began the conversation at the Reed Union on October 14 with some clarifying remarks about the settlement after noting that other institutions such as Haverford and Yale have also come to similar agreements in recent months. Primarily (as has been reiterated in previous PCCC and admin communication), all of the language in the settlement states that Reed will consider the IRHA’s definitions, but will not necessarily be the final word on the matter. It is of paramount importance to understand that Reed College has no official definition of antisemitism, Zionism, or anti-Zionism. According to the ADL settlement however, Zionism is a protected class under Freedom of Belief.
Additionally, Martin emphasized that all harassment and discrimination are prohibited by Reed College, regardless of what it is based on. Despite this repeated language, to many students the contradiction with the IHRA’s examples, the recent removal of seemingly permissible protest posters, admin’s lack of open discussions with the student body about the ADL settlement, and especially opaque changes in protest policy all compound to make students wary of ‘where the line is’ and how admin would go about punishing those who they deem have crossed it. To many students, the public-facing posters which were taken down were not examples of harassment nor discrimination, and so even though they make some community members uncomfortable and may be perceived as antisemitic, it is unclear as to what action admin will call antisemitic, and what will be protected under freedom of expression. Martin acknowledged that these grey areas exist within the current framework, and that she and others are trying to rectify the situation through a process of clarification. Ultimately, students at the Reed Union strongly stated that Reed must adopt a definition of antisemitism and Zionism, not merely say what definitions they might consider. The work of selecting a definition must inherently take time, but while the boundaries remain undefined, students will feel anxious expressing their opinions.
In the meantime however, several students additionally expressed their anxieties about the process through which these grey areas will be resolved. Martin emphasized her admin’s commitment to increased transparency but admitted that, at the moment, it is not expressly clear (even to those actively working on the matter) through what channels decisions will be made, whose input will be taken into account, and what weight will be placed on it. Part of student’s frustration with the ADL settlement process is that it was carried out almost entirely unilaterally by admin, without feedback from the general student population or faculty. For example, students pointed out that anti-Zionism is just as much a part of their Jewish identity as Zionism is for others. To these students, it would be irresponsible for Reed, as we move forward, to continue the settlement’s precedent where Zionism is held as a core part of Jewish identity for some members of the community, without acknowledging that anti-Zionism also holds this meaning for many.
The settlement also states that mandatory training be presented to incoming freshmen, Student Orientation leaders, signators, and HAs. These trainings must cover present day examples of discrimination and harassment against Jewish students based on religion, national origin, and shared ancestry. The faculty’s mandatory training must include “the IRHA’s working definition of antisemitism including its examples.” Martin clarified that the ADL and Brandeis Center provided materials for Reed to consider in constructing their training, but doesn’t necessarily have any more input than that. Many students again had serious concerns about how these trainings would be constructed, and whose input would be considered. Jewish students stated that when previous discussions between admin and organizations like the Jewish Student Union (JSU) in the wake of previous antisemitic incidents, they felt that admin neglected the perspectives of anti-Zionist Jewish students.
Another section of the resolution was brought up at the very end of the Union was Section 16.b. It reads: “Reed faculty will not cancel classes, excuse attendance, or apply incentives or disincentives for students to attend campus protests during class time.” This seems to walk back the previous de facto understanding, as during the 2023 protests many professors showed their support for student protest by making it clear to their classes that there would be no punishment for missing class for a protest, so long as the material was made up later. Although there is certainly room in the language for a professor to ‘get a cold’ on the day of a protest, or suggest that the lecture’s material will be somewhat superfluous, students expressed that this is a dangerous precedent to set where professors have to mask their true beliefs in order to comply with policy. There is worry that this new language will cause tension between students who want to express their political beliefs and professors who want to support them but are not allowed to.
One major point of contention in these discussions and how they are framed is that admin refuses to use the word ‘genocide’ when refering to the invasion of Palestine. For many community members, this dispute over basic facts makes it feel impossible to have productive conversation. In light of this, one of the questions that pervaded discussion in the Reed Union was whether or not students feel safe putting their names behind protest posters, and the extent to which anonymity is condoned when making provocative statements. On the one hand, it seems reasonable that one should own up to one’s statements as a part of the Honor Principle. Anonymity allows for more inflammatory claims to be made and even for outsiders to provoke the community. It seems plausible that this lack of accountability is detrimental to the community. On the other hand, as outlined above, there is real uncertainty from students around how admin will react to future protests, particularly if external forces (such as the federal government) start applying pressure on the college to punish offenders. Beyond that, some students fear they may be persecuted for their political views, by both members of the Reed community and outside threats. For these reasons, many students, particularly those minority students who feel like their perspectives are not seen, but who still wish their voice to be heard, anonymity may provide their only feasible means of expression.
In response to this, a member of Honor Council present at the Union urged students to come to their office hours if they wished to discuss their thoughts/opinions/feelings in a safe space. They highlighted how Honor Council’s frequent open-door office hours (located in the GCC basement) offer one-on-one, confidential conversations for students who might otherwise feel afraid to express their opinions.
Another large part of the conversation of the Reed Union was framed around how more people can be brought into the conversation who might otherwise be hesitant to join. Generally, questions were asked about how individuals might reframe inflammatory speech into positive calls for action. It was mentioned that in 2025 Lewis & Clark students successfully demonstrated and pushed their administration into divesting from weapons manufacturing (although this was a moral win, it did only account for 0.07% of their budget).
There was some discussion on how the current admin-centric means of disseminating information have seemed unfit for informing the community of current events. The Clery Act requires all colleges and universities that participate in federal financial aid programs to keep and disclose information about crime on and near their campuses in a timely manner (this is why you get ‘timely warning’ emails from the CSOs). Some students expressed displeasure with the fact that all conversations in regards to these events are prompted by emails from admin rather than as a natural dialogue generated by the community. The current system for the dissemination and discussion of information pertaining to sensitive events is either channeled through admin, or it is complete gossip and hearsay spread through the student body. While some public forums exist (the Quest and Reed Union are trying their best!), it seems clear that if the administration and the PCCC are unable to host conversations that the community finds productive, the student body needs to find an alternative solution.
Finally, it is worthwhile to note that PCCC certainly seems to be trying to take all of this feedback into account. Jennifer Whetham from the Office of Institutional Diversity (OID) attended the Reed Union on behalf of PCCC on October 9, and per an email from October 12, they seek student feedback as to what kind of conversations students would like to be having. Check your email and fill out that survey if you have things to tell them.