The Reed College Situation

Talking about free speech on college campuses got me thinking, so I decided to read a couple articles on the situation at Reed College. Students in Portland have been protesting the mandatory freshman Humanities 110 class. Some of these students are in opposition to the class because of it’s white-centric take on literature and history. This lack of diversity is not a reflection of the student body or obviously of world history or literature.  In addition, the curriculum has barely changed for decades, and most of the readings and ideas presented in this class were created by white men from the past. Another issue with the course is that it is required, while other cultural literary and historical classes are not.  I decided to read two articles surrounding this topic; “Taking a Fresh Look at Hum 110” by Chris Lydgate and “The Surprising Revolt at the Most Liberal College in the Country” by Chris Bodenner. They both have different ways of looking at this problem. The former has a hopeful approach, while the latter involves more of the argument against the class.

              The first article begins with a first-person impression of the class by Chris Lydgate, a former Reed student. It was a nostalgic experience for him, and he thoroughly enjoyed sitting in on the class. He admits many students today are against the philosophy of the class. In his work, he discusses the problems with having a curriculum made up of almost all male, European authors. But doesn’t really go into detail about how the students protesting the class, who were using their right to free speech. Lydgate argues that there have been some improvements to the topics. A larger focus has been set on women’s rights issues, ethnicity, and gender in recent years. Though, an aspect both articles address is that since the year the course was created (in 1943) it has changed very little. Supposedly every 10 years the humanities teachers meet to discuss changes in the curriculum to better match the changing society and environment of the school. He tells the reader that this change is important, but will take time because of the professors and their differing opinions on the subject matter. Lydgate believes that because there are so many humanities professors, any drastic change in the curriculum would be very difficult, though he remains hopeful. The author downplays the reasons for the student outrage. He goes on to explain that there are many courses offered at Reed with focuses non-European cultures. Next, he does admit that these classes are not mandatory, even though the Humanities 110 is a required subject for first years. He seems to make the situation less tense than it is, or at least than it is portrayed in the second article.

The next article by Chris Bodenner focuses much more on the protest aspect versus the “hope for change” viewpoint of the last article. It begins with a reference to an SNL skit that has been critiqued by many for racist portrayals of people. This sets the scene for how the rest of the article goes. The author references a student’s Facebook post that says, “Reed’s culture can be stifling/suffocating and narrow minded.” His article discusses more of the personal side of the student’s argument. Unlike the other article, he mentions the Reedies Against Racism (RAR) group, which is a very important part of the situation taking place. He describes their beliefs about the lack of representation in the class, and how they went about their protests. To me, this seems like something that was bound to happen. As the title of the article states, Reed is the most liberal college in the U.S… So why would one be surprised if students choose not to accept this course? As I kept reading though, I found many flaws in RAR’s techniques. Many professors reported feeling scared or threatened by these students. They targeted anyone who attended the lectures, regardless of race. This article was on the extreme “other side” of the argument. These people took the problem of having a curriculum that didn’t represent other races to the extreme when they argued it. These students were exercising their right to free speech, but it put others in a compromised situation. They intimidated people who weren’t even involved in creating or teaching the curriculum. Students were scared to come to class.

In total, maybe another article would’ve been more useful, or unbiased if it had been in-between these two extremes. On one hand, we have the article portrays the opposition as unnecessary, and that the situation will be fixed over time. On the other hand, the protesters may have gone overboard when it comes to getting the curriculum changed.