<p>
</p>
<p>But actual research and reporting might not make for a scandalous sounding headline. If you were repeatedly caught going into employee areas of a Walmart, you’d make it onto their “secret no trespass list” too, but that doesn’t sound as ominous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>CptoftheHouse, as I stated above, this “list” is composed of the names of individuals who have had run-ins with Oberlin College’s Safety and Security (often numerous) and are specifically told in writing to stop trespassing. At their next run-in, the fact that they were told to stay away comes up and trespassing charges might be pressed. It is targeting “specific trouble makers” and they are told in writing that they are not permitted.</p>
<p>Part of the problem comes from the fact that these databases don’t forget, but the people sometimes do. For example, if someone was told to not trespass at age 11-13 for repeatedly sneaking into the College’s gym and then at age 20 is drunk at a party which Safety and Security breaks up. They might have forgotten the notice (or maybe not really understood) because at the time, because they stopped sneaking into the gym and stopped thinking about it. I don’t know if the S&S officer gets any of that context or just is told over the radio that this person has already been told to stay off of campus property and then calls Oberlin Police Department. So there is some talk of having the warning “expire” after a set time.</p>
<p>But if this person had gotten in trouble at age 13 with their friends for assaulting a student and stealing their backpack (rare, but has happened) should that be handled the same? What if instead, they were caught rifling through student dorm rooms? So instead we’ve got the current system where S&S periodically might review the list and individuals can request to be taken off of the list.</p>