OSE and Risk Management Push Back on Reed Sponsored Performances Involving Nudity
Senate Public on February 9 was especially lively. Unlike most Publics, this one went almost all the way from 4:10pm to 5pm, being adjourned at 4:57pm. The reason for this was a discussion put forth by Weapons of Mass Distraction (WMD) Signator, Maggie Feinberg ’28, concerning nudity at a past Spring/Fall performance. The event, which took place over the 2025 Spring/Fall weekend, was initially planned to include partial nudity from performers. This was met with pushback from the Office of Student Engagement (OSE) and Risk Management. The discussion in Public took place after Feinberg sent an email to the Student Body Senate on February 2, claiming that the guideline set forth by Director of Risk Management, April Sams was “in violation of the Community Constitution,” and asking Senate to advocate for the student body. The email thread between WMD, OSE, and Risk Management accompanied this email sent to Senate. Senator Sofie Braunstein ’28 wrote back with a timeline of how Senate would address the issue. Both Sams and Director of Student Engagement Janice Yang were present at the public meeting in which Feinberg again brought up this concern. The discussion surrounded Portland and Oregon regulations, as well as Title IX concerns. The meeting was concluded with the promise of future ongoing conversations about the issue.
The discussions between WMD and OSE began on Wednesday, December 26 when Yang emailed WMD signators to inquire about what “partial nudity” in their show entitled Burnlesque would entail. Signators stopped by Yang’s office to inform her that the nudity in the performance meant toplessness. This was confirmed in writing by an email sent by Yang the next day on December 2 thanking WMD signators for stopping by to inform her. In her email, she also wrote “The college does have some formal protocols for public, organized performances. This is a different category than the level of flexibility historically afforded for other Renn Fayre happenings that are not formal performances. I will follow up with some staff with an update on what your performance plans are… then get back to you.” WMD followed up on this email with a series of questions for OSE and Risk Management, including asking for the institution’s definitions of “nudity” and “public.” They also inquired about other Reed performances and events, asking, “Do other Renn Fayre events like Picting and Copting or HVM Play—which both are famously nude, organized, and public performances—not apply to this rule for any reason?” WMD cited articles 3 § 4a and 5, 7 § 1 of the Community Constitution in this email as the articles that they believed were in jeopardy. Article 3 § 4a and 5 are concerning legislation. 4a indicates that new legislation must obtain two votes of approval, one from the student body Senate and one from the Faculty. 5 indicates that all policies should be published onto the Reed website for public access. Article 7 § 1, in contrast, concerns censorship in student publications and performances. It ensures that performances and publications by the student body are not subject to institutional censorship.
In response to the claim by WMD concerning the Community Constitution, Sams sent an email on Friday, December 5, just hours before the performers were to take the stage. Sams wrote, “To clarify, this is not related to the Community Constitution. The guideline we’re applying is part of the college’s risk-management requirements for public, open-access, college-sponsored events, particularly those where minors could be present.” She explained that the attire that performers wore must “have chest, groin, and buttocks covered at a level equivalent to standard swimwear.” Sams clarifies that each performer can interpret what that means at their own discretion, so as to not inflict distinctions based on gender identity and autonomy.
The Quest reached out to Yang, Sams, Senate, and WMD for comment following the Public meeting on February 9. An email was sent to Yang and Sams that same day with a request for inquiry, and questions were formally sent on February 10. Sams responded on February 16. She stated that, “as discussed at Senate Public 2/9/26, when we host college events it is the standard practice for Risk Management in partnership with OSE and [Conference and Events Planning (CEP)] to evaluate the potential risk… nudity within a college approved event introduces additional considerations such as the potential for minors to be present, bystander consent, making sure the event is inclusive to everyone, and city and state laws.” Sams was asked to cite published college regulations concerning nudity, but cited none. However, Sams did elaborate on the laws and regulations she put forth during Senate Public. Concerning obscene performances, “Oregon law (ORS 167.075, 167.080, and related definitions in ORS 167.060) regulates when minors can be present where performances involve nudity or sexual content. Even if something is artistic, the presence of minors changes the legal analysis and can create criminal exposure depending on how the event is structured.” She continued to cite a Portland city code (14A.40.030) which states that performances visible from public or community spaces might be subject to restrictions on genitalia exposure may apply, regardless of intent. Sams also brought forth the Title IX concerns she initially mentioned in Public stating that it “requires the school to prevent students from being subjected to unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that is sufficiently severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it could interfere with a student’s access to education.” In Sams’ analysis of the situation, she worried that depending on the circumstance, students could feel that the bodily exposure in performances like these are unwarranted and unavoidable, and therefore eligible to be considered a Title IX violation which could lead to a complaint or investigation independent of the artistic intent of the performance.
Sams was not, in her email response to the Quest, able to come to a definitive policy or conclusion in regards to nudity in all campus events. She says that “each event is unique, so it is difficult to define all the parameters and determine in advance which controls will be sufficient.” Sams stated that due to the assessments conducted by Risk Management being highly event specific, they do not have a list of universal “non-negotiables.” She agrees with WMD, who proposed warnings. However, Sams says that this is one measure. She believes that while in some cases, a simple warning might be enough, others might require more robust measures such as ticketing and entry management. Sams says that in the conversations concerning these measures, student organizers will be directly involved, along with Risk Management and OSE to reduce “institutional and participant risk.”
After the Public, Senate reached out to OSE and Risk Management for a follow up on this conversation held in Public. The goal of the conversation was to come to a resolution to the issues put forth by WMD, OSE, and Risk Management. Braunstein invited a journalist from the Quest to sit in on this meeting said to take place on February 19.
The meeting attendees were Braunstein, Sams, and Yang, along with Senators Sima Fasihi ’28 and Stella Greer ’29, and WMD signators Kael Shenasi ’28, Lin Gaston ’27, and Aris Hughes ’28. The meeting began by establishing an intent to create a written guideline surrounding student performances involving nudity. Sams and Yang both emphasized that the most significant concern on the part of OSE and Risk Management was the potential for minors’ exposure to nudity. They outlined some potential solutions, including limiting minor access, stationing bouncers at entry and exit points to check both Reed IDs and state-issued IDs, or providing bouncers with a list of eligible students, similar to the one used by Beer Nation during beer garden events. Yang went on to explain that there would need to be a restriction on intoxicated audience members and that audience participation would be prohibited in performances involving nudity. In addition, Yang alluded to previous conversations involving signage and content warnings in event descriptions leading up to the performance. In the absence of these restrictions, performers would only be able to undress at a level equivalent to standard swimwear, as outlined in Sams’ December 5 email. “The college is not dictating what you need to wear and what your anatomy coverage should be,” Yang concluded.
WMD signators expressed concern at the requirements around restricting minors, noting that they are only permitted to perform in areas like the amphitheatre and outside of the Student Union, restrictions which pose additional challenges when attempting to control access to events. “That’s where we would ask you to partner with us and come and come up with some potential solutions,” Yang responded.
Gaston questioned again why nudity was permitted on campus during other events including Picting, Copting, and HVM Play but had to be restricted for WMD. In response, Sams explained that those events were not officially sanctioned by the college, whereas WMD performances go through formal approval processes and are subject to institutional oversight. “You have to get permits, we have to get insurance,” Yang added, “it’s probably one of the more formalized performances and events we have at Reed run by a student organization.”
Yang and Sams continuously referenced concerns surrounding legal liability throughout the conversation. When Braunstein asked Sams to specify where the concerns for legal liability came from, Sams did not provide a concrete answer but rather explained that her office considers “a variety of scenarios, but legal codes come into play.” After a back and forth with Braunstein, Sams conceded that the specific concerns risk management had in this case were primarily surrounding the City and State codes, and Title IX concerns.
Braunstein also asked Yang and Sams to specify the swimwear restriction they imposed on the WMD Spring/Fall performance, to which they clarified that performers would cover up to a level that would be "appropriate for a standard public pool.” The specific interpretation of this restriction appeared to be the biggest cause of the disconnect between WMD and Risk Management. Historically, nudity at WMD shows meant performers being topless, which could meet the standard of a “level equivalent to standard swimwear.” After hearing this, Sams said that she “didn’t have any clue exactly what the level of performances were,” despite the email sent by Yang clarifying that the nudity only involved toplessness. If performers are in compliance with this standard, the additional restrictions like minor restricted access may not be necessary. However, Yang emphasized that some nuance still remains because what audience members may interpret as appropriate can differ from the interpretation of the performer. She again raised the idea of signage or a disclaimer warning audience members of potential nudity. WMD already typically provides disclaimers at the beginning and intermission of every show with topless performances.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Yang and Sams committed to writing and publishing some general guidance for college sponsored events involving nudity but also explained that each specific event contained unique nuances that will still have to be addressed on a case by case basis. The conversation is, however, still ongoing. These issues have even given rise to a new Senate committee in collaboration with OSE and Risk Management, called the Board on Undertaking Student Hazards (BUSH).