On October 28, Interim Vice President for the Office of Institutional Diversity Neela Rajendra met with faculty, staff, and students for a follow-up community dialogue centered on the work of the Presidential Council for Campus Climate (P3C). She thanked everyone for their attendance and commended the Reed Union for their work over the past few weeks, stating that opportunities for dialogue like the ones presented by the Reed Union are what make Reed feel special.
After addressing the room, Rajendra established expectations for the evening. Firstly, she clarified that this was not a debate or a lecture, but was simply a dinner and a chance for the community to have a conversation and learn from each other. The goal of this dialogue was to remove some of the ambiguity around what the P3C is, who is on it, why it was started, and who is behind the emails sent to the Reed community.
To answer some of these questions, she invited Kathy Oleson to the front of the room. Oleson is the co-chair of the P3C (along with Vice President for Student Life Karnell McConnell-Black) as well as the Dean of the Faculty and Professor of Psychology. She began by noting an email sent by President Audrey Bilger announcing the formation of the committee on August 21, 2024. In this email, Bilger stated, “One of my top priorities for this academic year is to attend to our campus climate. To this end, I have established the Presidential Council on Campus Climate, a cross-divisional team that will make recommendations and take action to support an inclusive and affirming campus environment and to ensure that all individuals are free from discrimination and harassment.”
Oleson then answered the question of why she chose to co-chair this committee. She said that she believed the work of the P3C was the most important for the college and contributed to what really matters at Reed. She hoped to see everyone thriving on campus, and wanted to help support the academic mission, free from discrimination. Next, she answered the question of why the council sends so many emails, answering that it is a way of responding when hatred or discrimination occurs on campus.
Rajendra then took the floor and moved on to the next segment of the dialogue, a conversation with three council members, in which she asked them questions regarding the council. The first question was why they said yes to joining the P3C.
The first to answer was Valerie Moreno, Chief Information & Security Officer, and a member of the P3C’s subcommittee on Data Policy and Awareness. She said that she hoped to lend her data analysis skills and help her subcommittee reach its goal of using data to identify and address systemic issues impacting campus climate. She explained that she was concerned about Reed’s methods regarding surveys, and noted that they often failed to reach the whole community. She stated that because of all the atrocities in the world, she hopes to serve on a council that helps inform and help the community. The ultimate goal, she noted, was to help students graduate and professors teach.
Next to speak was Kelly Chacón, Associate Professor of Chemistry. She noted that, as an institution that places high value on critical thinking, the Reed community has a propensity to question any authority that exists just for the sake of authority. A fault of the community, however, is that we tend to understand our relationship with administration as an “us versus them” situation. This includes accusing them of hiding information or not having the best interest of the community in mind. When these thoughts occur, she stressed the importance of remembering that we as a community (students, staff, and faculty) selected these individuals based on their experience and dedication to carrying on the college's mission. In a follow-up email, Chacón stated, “I, as a rule, choose to 'call in' the administration instead of 'calling them out.’ I want to make sure the faculty and student voice is represented in the P3C, but also - we have things to learn from each other, and we can be stronger for the way we run our college and community.”
Finally, Chief Communications Officer Sheena McFarland spoke. McFarland is the individual responsible for the emails, and she noted that she was happy to contribute her writing skills to the council. She said that she had always been passionate about DEI work and wanted everyone at Reed to have a sense of belonging. One of her goals is to create a space at Reed where everyone can find their people while they pursue their academics; she noted stories from the community that Reed is the first place where they felt like they belonged and said that she wants everyone on campus to have that feeling.
Next, Rajendra asked the members what grade they would assign to the council. In true Reed fashion, each member centred their response on extensive feedback rather than a definitive grade. Moreno stated that there was a lack of transparency in the beginning, specifically around background research. Chacón emphasized how carefully and respectfully those issues and problems are addressed, and she wants that to be felt in how the council communicates to the public. McFarland said that the first year was chaotic, and it was difficult to transfer the face-to-face communication that occurs during the council meetings into the emails sent out. However, she noted that the outward communication is incredibly important; unless every instance of hatred is addressed, it can leave community members feeling that their grievances were ignored.
Next, the council members answered two questions from the audience. The first question concerned the protocol for the emails: who decides what the contents are, and how are discrepancies between members addressed? McFarland noted that this was the role of the Immediate Response and Engagement subcommittee of the P3C, which, according to Bilger's email, “will establish formal protocols and mechanisms for responding swiftly and effectively to incidents of discrimination.” McFarland explained that, after an incident is reported, she makes an initial draft which is sent first to this subcommittee, and then later to the entire council. After feedback is received from everyone, she creates the final draft that is sent to the community.
The second question asked for clarification on the work of the P3C. The community member stated that even after the conversation, they still wondered what happened during the P3C’s meetings, and asked if there were notes that could be shared. The council responded that much of the work revolves around planning community events and talks around campus issues such as Islamophobia and antisemitism. They also discussed new policies and provided the example of the graffiti ban last fall. The community member expressed frustration that no one knows what occurs during these meetings; if there are notes taken, none of them are released, which leads the community to feel that there is a lack of transparency. This conversation ended with the council acknowledging the issue and accepting the feedback, and noting that this suggestion will be considered moving forward.