Reed College Fired Its Safety Director After He Helped the FBI Identify a Violent Suspect
Colleges Ranking Index by Rebellion Research
Why Critics Say Donor Pressure Trumped Justice and Campus Safety
In late June 2025, a senior campus safety official at Reed College took an action most Americans would consider routine. He cooperated with the FBI during a violent felony investigation. Within weeks, he was placed on leave. By October, he was fired. According to his brother, retired U.S. Army Major Montgomery J. Granger, the reason was not a violation of law or policy, but reputational backlash and donor pressure.
The case centers on Gary Granger, the longtime Director of Community Safety at Reed College in Portland, Oregon. On June 30, 2025, an FBI agent contacted Granger seeking help identifying a suspect accused of violently assaulting a federal immigration officer during a riot outside a Portland ICE facility. The agent provided a name and photograph. Granger checked Reed’s alumni directory and confirmed identifying details, including a photo and contact information. He forwarded that directory information to the FBI.
The alleged crime was serious. On June 14, 2025, Robert Jacob Hoopes, a twenty four year old Reed College graduate, allegedly threw a rock into the face of a federal officer, causing a deep head wound. Court filings also allege Hoopes attempted to force entry into the ICE facility using a stop sign as a battering ram. Federal prosecutors charged him with aggravated assault on a federal officer and destruction of government property, both felonies.
Weeks later, Hoopes was arrested. A federal affidavit noted that investigators had received alumni information from Reed College’s Director of Community Safety. That description matched Granger’s role exactly.
What followed sparked controversy. On July 29, Reed College placed Granger on paid administrative leave and sent a campus wide email stating that the Director of Community Safety had disclosed information to law enforcement and that the matter was under formal review. Media outlets received the message directly. Students, alumni, and donors voiced outrage. Granger’s access to college systems was cut. An outside investigator was hired.
On October 1, Reed terminated Granger’s employment. Public reporting indicates the separation letter did not allege he broke the law, violated FERPA, or ignored a subpoena requirement. Instead, it stated that his actions caused harm to the college’s reputation and angered members of the broader Reed community upon whom the institution relies for funding.
According to Major Granger, this admission is the core issue. He argues the decision shows Reed prioritized political optics and donor sentiment over campus safety, written policy, and cooperation with law enforcement in a violent felony case.
Reed’s own published data policies complicate the college’s position. Those policies allow disclosure of personal data to investigate or prevent illegal activity and to respond to threats to safety. Routine directory information is classified as low sensitivity and shareable unless an individual opts out. A violent assault on a federal officer clearly meets both criteria. Over more than fifteen years, Gary Granger regularly worked with federal, state, and local law enforcement, including the FBI and Secret Service, often sharing information in threat assessment situations without subpoenas.
Critics argue that punishing a safety director for following written policy sends a dangerous message nationwide. It risks chilling cooperation with law enforcement and undermines the purpose of campus safety offices. If safety professionals believe they will be sacrificed when public pressure rises, hesitation replaces judgment.
The controversy also raises federal oversight questions. Reed College receives substantial federal funding through student aid and research programs. With those funds come obligations related to campus safety, policy consistency, and non retaliation for lawful cooperation with criminal investigations. Observers argue this is no longer a private employment dispute, but a public accountability issue.
Major Granger has called on the U.S. Department of Education to review Reed’s compliance with federal funding obligations and campus safety standards. He has urged Oregon higher education authorities to examine whether the college applied its policies consistently and transparently. He has also called on the Reed College Board of Trustees to disclose what specific policy was violated, what due process was afforded, and whether donor pressure influenced the outcome. Finally, he has asked Congress to investigate whether taxpayer dollars are supporting institutions that retaliate against employees for assisting law enforcement in violent felony cases.
At the heart of the dispute lies a broader question. Can colleges condemn violence, respect privacy, and cooperate with lawful investigations at the same time. Critics argue Reed’s leadership failed to do so, choosing silence on the assault itself while publicly implicating its own safety director.
For campus safety professionals across the country, the message resonates. The case stands as a warning that institutional politics may outweigh written policy, public safety, and the rule of law. If federal money is involved, many argue, the public deserves clear answers.
