The Reed Union Missed You
On February 27 (a heartbreakingly sunny afternoon), the Spring ’26 Reed Union was hosted in Kaul Auditorium. The Reed Union is a tradition dating back to 1947 (check out the history on Reed’s website), but which hasn’t occurred with any regular frequency since the COVID pandemic. As Gregory MacNaughton ’89 outlined at the start, it seeks to “exercise the muscle of community discussion” by considering pertinent issues in a collective forum. This particular Union, the second since 2020, was guided towards discussions of free speech and its relation to the Honor Principle.
The event was kicked off by two speeches meant to spark the conversation and outline some key discussion frameworks. The first was given by Tess Buchannan ’21, the Assistant Director of Alumni Relations. Buchannan outlined how the spirit of free speech is to give room for truth to be spoken to power, whether that be against the government or peer to peer. Buchannan also noted that the Honor Principle was formerly the paramount foundation of free speech culture at Reed, and believes that a decrease in active emphasis on the Honor Principle at Reed has eroded community norms on free speech. She brought forward her understanding that the Honor Principle is both a personal code and a call to community action. On both the part of those in power and those not, free speech is best delivered as honorable speech which respects others, and takes accountability for harmful things said.
GLAM professor Nigel Nicholson followed this up by bringing up the idea of ‘Civility Rules.’ These are rules (legally or socially enforced) we put in place in order to make our interactions more fruitful (ie, don’t shout ‘fire’ in a theater). Unfortunately, these regulations, by their very nature, must restrict speech. It is the unavoidable means by which they make collective free speech more productive. The balance to strike, then, is what speech should be restricted, whose speech should be restricted, and how we should go about monitoring speech. Nicholson emphasized the added complexity that the enactment and enforcement of these rules have historically been asymmetrical with regards to minority groups, and any complete set of ‘Civility Rules’ today must take this into account.
From there, the room broke up into about nine tables of 5-7 people each, who were free to move the discussion in whichever way they chose. Each table was also given a set of guided questions making particular reference to current applications in Reed spaces, such as graffiti, the MCs, and Fizz. At the end of the meeting, a speaker from each group read out a summary of their discussion to the whole.
As a reporter for the Quest, I moved from table to table during the discussion to try and capture a wide array of the conversations taking place. I elected to not use direct quotations or names of the people so that my presence would interfere in the conversations to a minimal degree. Within the discussions, many themes emerged. From my notes, the three most prevalent were:
How can ‘speaking truth to power’ be enshrined without relying on ‘power’ to arbitrate?
How do we facilitate difficult conversations between individuals and across siloed groups?
How do we differentiate between artistic expression, disrespectful language/art, and hate speech?
Perhaps the most fundamental and difficult question relating to this discussion is how we can formulate structures of power that fairly arbitrate all speech, taking into account that this speech may be critical of said power structure. A top down solution (that is, admin making the policies and enforcing them) was widely recognized as highly flawed (including by a member of Admin present). Generally, it seemed the hope was that the blanket ban would be a temporary measure while other community-centric options would be assessed.
It was noted that it takes a lot of work monitoring all of the forms of expression around campus, deciding what should be taken down, trying to figure out who is behind violations of the Honor Principle, engaging with those who produce hate speech, and so on. This work needs to be formalized in some manner (as Nigel Nicholson suggested with ‘Civility Rules’). The opinion of the students in the room seemed to be that the student body should actively ask for and take on this work; responsibility for student’s actions needs to be back in the hands of the student body. In particular, the non-minority members of the student body need to consider how affected groups are integrated into the process, and get a chance to speak back against the aggression, without having the burden of combatting hate speech lie solely on them. Even if we did have this ideal system where all students willing to engage in discussion cooperated and put in the effort, it seems highly doubtful that admin would allow this level of autonomy and self-regulation to the student body. This brings us to the second issue prevalent in discussions.
Buchannan’s speech noted that Reed’s community has, over the past years, been shattered into distinctive silos (both intentionally and unintentionally). That is, trustees never engage with students, staff, and faculty anymore, and Admin is very insulated from the voices of students, staff, and faculty. All too often, students feel they have no means to actually have their voices heard by Admin without resorting to mild harassment. The mere fact that Admin’s first serious solution to the problem was a blanket ban (vehemently scribbled against by Reedies) rather than a community wide call for dialogue, is telling that these channels of communication have broken down. Buchannan and other alumni in the room thought that we must recognize that this has not always been the case, and, in fact, should not be the case. Restoring trust and open communication between these silos after this breakdown of trust was understood to be a vital part of restoring systems strong and diverse enough to handle current issues.
The alumni in the room noted that, in the ever elusive and deified ‘Olde Reed,’ the Honor Principle played a much more active role in structuring the community and in making decisions on issues such as these. Having hard conversations as to how someone has acted is a duty, an obligatory responsibility, under the Honor Principle, and the alumni in the room believe the ability to have hard conversations within and between these silos has degenerated in recent years. As discourse drifted online and was anonymized over COVID, productive dialogue seems to have been greatly diminished. Normalizing conversations like the ones that took place at this Reed Union were understood to be an integral part of reestablishing community thought on the matter. As an example of how people aspired to bring back the Honor Principle and discussions regarding it, a professor shared that she wished all HUM classes should take time to make these show how these conversations happen, and to emphasize that students should enact this skill outside of academics. The phrase, “I think you’re wrong, but…” should be used not only in conferences, but respectfully and productively in everyday conversations.
The third theme was how lines could be drawn which allow artistry to flourish, but which do not condone hateful expression. Of course, there is an important distinction to make between feeling uncomfortable as a result of expression compared to feeling targeted as a minority by hate speech. Statements made with the intention of causing mental harm to someone, or that carry implicit physical threat, were clearly universally unacceptable. On the other hand, art which may only cause discomfort to some people is more difficult to resolve. Nudity, expletives, and other expressions which counter Western cultural norms are often valuably utilized as artistic expression in order to question the norms they violate. However, it is also important to recognize that these images and phrases are used exactly because they have an effect on someone. Under the Honor Principle, it is the responsibility of the artist to consider how their art may impact other people, and treat other people (and the spaces they use) with respect.
For example, the context of writing expletives in the pool hall is a very different case than writing them in a dorm hallway. In the latter, there is a lack of consideration given in the invasion of a more private space.
Within discussions on targeted speech, a distinction was drawn between the removal of expression which targets groups of students vs. individual students vs. admin. It seemed fairly universally accepted that expression intentionally demeaning groups of students (particularly minority groups) should be removed. The case of targeting individuals was more complex, as people wondered whether ‘revenge graffiti’ was justified or acceptable as an emotional expression, particularly if other channels of recourse were unable to deliver results. Finally, discussion came up regarding graffiti targeting admin. Under Nicholson’s ‘Civility Rules’ framework, any systemetized solution to the problem of targeted graffiti (particularly if student led) must decide what balance to strike between allowing admin the respect they deserve as humans while also recognizing their position of power. Graffiti and posters have historically been (and still are) strong and necessary tools to critique those in power by the marginalized who do not have other means of voice amplification.
The Reed Union identified that we need to normalize conversations on how we engage with people who don’t want to engage in good conversation. Moving forward, the Reed Union Committee hopes to make Unions a much more frequent occurrence, but they can’t do it alone! A truly monumental number of cookies were left uneaten, and lemonade undrunk at the end of the event. So if you couldn’t make it this time, consider that nearly everyone who attended the Reed Union raised their hands when asked ‘Did you find this conversation productive?’ As a member of the Reed community guided by the Honor Principle, it is your duty to engage with difficult conversation to make Reed work for you and everyone else. Do this by showing up and telling people what’s on your mind!
There will be a small, informal Reed Union on April 7 discussing Federal Presence.
The Reed Union Committee would love to see you there for lunch!