OPB4%

Reed College settles antisemitism complaints, updates discrimination policies 28%

By Troy Brynelson90%

7/24/2026, 12:25:54 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Authority, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 16.6% saturation with 85 hits. Analysis detected 737 faulty-reasoning hits from 513 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.9% and a BS Rank of 28% (15,294 of 21,172 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 72.20% of the article peer group.

Reed College has agreed to update discrimination policies on campus as part of a settlement with a pair of students who complained they were harassed for being Jewish. 
College officials issued a statement Wednesday afternoon and published a lengthy page on its website detailing the legal agreement, which will be in effect for at least three years. 
According to the publicly posted settlement, college officials agreed to make policy changes in exchange for the students dropping their claims. 
The settlement underscores that the college continues to deny any wrongdoing. 
“We remain committed to maintaining a campus environment where every student can learn, live, and participate in college life free from discrimination, harassment, and intimidation,” Sheena McFarland, a college spokesperson, said Thursday. 
“We take concerns about antisemitism, and all forms of unlawful discrimination, seriously, and we will continue to support the well-being, safety, and success of every member of our community,” McFarland said. 
McFarland declined to answer further questions, noting the college’s practice to not comment on legal matters. 
The students who filed complaints  both of whom are Jewish  were represented by a pair of organizations nationally known for combating antisemitism: the Anti-Defamation League and the Louis D. 
Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. 
In May 2024, one of the students said her dorm was targeted by pro-Palestine students who were demonstrating on Holocaust Remembrance Day. 
The student said her subsequent complaints to college leaders went largely ignored. 
The student had a traditional mezuzah affixed to her doorframe, signifying a Jewish residence. 
The student found the next morning it had been ripped off and destroyed. 
The student also reported that someone threw a rock through an open window and struck her in the head. 
The student later transferred. 
A second Jewish student had also complained that he was targeted and harassed to the point that he, too, left the campus. 
Under the agreement, signed by Reed officials on July 16, the college agreed to multiple changes over the next three years. 
College officials agreed to make updates to their existing policy to more explicitly protect “both Jewish and Israeli identity,” and to issue a public statement every year for the next three years that the college condemns antisemitism. 
The college will also appoint some staff who have personally dealt with discrimination “based on Jewish or Israeli Protected Categories,” according to the settlement. 
That includes hiring an independent consultant that will be vetted by the Brandeis Center and the ADL. 
Andrew Happy, student president at the college, told OPB that he has concerns if the decision to hire a consultant is made without looping in the student body  including current Jewish students. 
The agreement “has instead led the college to have to consult with an outside group with whom there will certainly be less trust with among the student body,” Happy wrote. 
“I would like clarity on what this collaboration and appended policy will look like and how speech and protest particularly related to Palestinian rights/and or aid by students will be protected.” 
Confirmation Bias
2.1%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
4.3%
Representativeness Heuristic
4.3%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
7.2%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
6.2%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
16.6%
Self-Serving Bias
6.4%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
6.4%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
6%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
15%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
12.5%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
16%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0.8%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
10.5%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
14.8%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
2.1%
Indoctrination
12.3%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

513 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.