The Myth of Peaceful Protest and a Call for Clarity: a Response to the Presidential Council

In its email to the community on September 22, the Presidential Council writes: “Peaceful protest, dissent, and vigorous debate have a long and important history at Reed.” 

The Council puts forward the myth of “peaceful protest” vs. what it positions as its opposite, which the Council describes as protest which “interrupts”, “blocks”, or “refuses.” This is in line with the policy outlined in Reed’s “Dissent Policy” and our “Guidelines and Considerations for Dissent”, in which actions which “disrupt”, “restrict”, “block”, among others, are specifically forbidden.

The Council states, “Our aim is not to diminish the role of dissent at Reed, but to preserve space for it.” The email goes on to “offer clarity” about what is and is not allowed during protest work on campus, and the Council articulates its new response:

If a protest interrupts a class or blocks access to a campus building and protesters refuse to make a safe clearing for access, Community Safety and/or Student Life will document the names of the individuals involved and refer the matter to the appropriate adjudication group. This is a change in how Reed will respond in these circumstances, and we want everyone to understand it in advance. Community Safety’s role is to document and refer; questions of responsibility and any resulting consequences will be addressed through the adjudication processes.

There are three major things missing from the Council’s statement: 1. An understanding of the function of protest, 2. An acknowledgement of the deep history of spectacular protest at Reed, and, most concerning, 3. Clarity on the specifics of the new “change” in how Reed will respond to what they are calling interrupting or blocking protest. 

Protest, as theatre scholars know, is a form of performance, which itself is an art and practice designed to invite people who witness it to do, think, or feel something. Further, protest gains its power as a tool for activism precisely from the disruption of daily action. Occupations, marches, disruptions, die-ins, sit-ins, rallies, direct actions—all forms of protest are strategies employed to draw attention, bring people together, and to disrupt in order to make change in policies and practices. That is the whole point of protest. There is a tendency among those trying to squelch protest to position “peaceful” protests as good and disruptive protest as bad. 

The Council states that “peaceful” protest is part of Reed’s history. It neglects to acknowledge the long and important history of protest of all kinds at Reed, much of which did interrupt classes, block access to campus buildings, and involve protestors who refused to move:

*In October 1985, twenty-five students occupied the president’s office in protest of a deferral of a Board meeting about divestment from companies doing business in South Africa.

*In January 1986, approximately one hundred students occupied Eliot Hall in support of full divestment; this occupation ended the following month after the Administration agreed to create a new committee of students and trustees to discuss issues of divestment.

*In December 1968, students in the Black Student Union occupied Eliot Hall to demand a Black Studies program. 

*In September 2016, Reed students staged a sit-in followed by a larger gathering on the Quad; the following year the group, now named Reedies Against Racism (RAR), occupied Eliot to protest racism at Reed. 

*In April and May 2024, Reed students set up an encampment in Eliot Hall in solidarity with Palestine.

In all of these instances, these protests resulted in at least some gains on the part of the protestors in terms of getting what they sought from the Administration.

Protest of all kinds is part of the history of Reed College and this lineage should be celebrated. It is as much a part of our identity as our “Communism, Atheism, Free Love” t-shirts—which themselves boast a message of disruption. In each of the cases of Reedie building occupations, students came together to collectively say no to the status quo and to envision a community at Reed and beyond which might be a bit more just. This is an important part of who we are.

The Reed community deserves clarity on the Council’s “change” in how we respond to, document, and adjudicate what the Administration perceives to be violations of Reed’s dissent policy. What exactly are they planning to do? It is impossible to read what the Council writes without thinking of what happened when former CSO director Gary Granger referred recent grad Jacob Hoopes to federal officers who then invaded his home, seized him, and now he is serving a federal prison sentence—for throwing a rock at a protest against ICE. The Council’s goal may not be to “diminish” protests, but it is to control, contain, and cease. This is policing.

To protest at Reed is to love Reed. Our community members believe strongly in a better world and seek to an end to genocide, mass killing, racism, transphobia, and violent nationalism. They seek to make Reed better too. Protest is core to the identity of our community. Protest is going to happen, whether we legislate it or not. How we greet the inevitable disruption reflects who we are and our values. Policing is not the answer. We deserve a recognition of the function of protest as opposed to the false peaceful protest narrative, an acknowledgement and celebration of Reed’s own history of mass dissent and building occupations, and transparency about what this new “change” is in how we handle perceived violations. We should encourage our students to engage in trying to build a new world on and off campus. That cannot be done quietly and without disrupting the status quo.