On Sept. 27, Student Senate sent out a survey to gauge student opinion on a proposal to limit tap access to residential buildings to only their residents between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. As of Tuesday, the survey has received more than 900 responses, more than 80 percent voicing concern and only about 13 percent in agreement with the proposal.

Assistant Vice President and Dean of Residence Life Mark Zeno first met with College third-year Lluvia Munoz, the housing and dining committee chair for Student Senate, to discuss the measure.
“[Zeno explained that] in the past, we’ve received reports of harassment and disorderly conduct in spaces that are caused by people who don’t live there,” Munoz said. “I myself have experienced some of that harassment, disorderly conduct. … I heard him out and said, ‘I think you should hear what everyone has to say.’”

Zeno wrote in an email to the Review that the policy was proposed for students’ safety and security.

“Knowing that only community members have access to their hall creates another layer of security that avoids installing more cameras or other protection devices within the building,” he wrote. “However, if adding additional cameras does help create a sense of security for community members, we are open to moving toward those items as well. Another benefit to implementing such protocols [is that it] helps decrease potential for non-residents from being in community spaces where residents are accountable for.”

Some students said in their survey responses that they believed the change could make campus as a whole more unsafe, particularly in emergencies like the recent tornado alert or individually dangerous situations.

Other concerns came from some Resident Assistants, who worry the proposal could extend their responsibilities to include keeping non-residents out of buildings.

“Some RAs were worried that Campus Safety would have them do more than their job entails and put more pressure on them to try to subside the issues that the students are experiencing, which are all valid concerns,” Munoz said

College second-year Natasha Dracobly, the RA for Allencroft House, was not specifically concerned for RAs since the survey explained that they would still have the dorm access necessary for their responsibilities. However, she noted that the measure could exacerbate a problem RAs are taught about.

“Something that’s brought up with people concerned with the safety of residents is tailgating, and I think that this would increase this problem a great deal,” Dracobly said. “If the school is concerned with the possibility that people who don’t have legitimate reason to access dormitories will get in by acting like they should have access, this will become a very normalized phenomenon. If students don’t have legitimate access to a dorm, but do have a legitimate reason to go into that dorm, then obviously people will just be following each other into dorms all the time.”

Oberlin Student Cooperative Association leadership also worried about what the change in policy would mean for food access for students who dine at a co-op but do not live in that building. The OSCA Accessibility Committee Coordinators emailed all OSCA members to suggest they fill out the survey.

“This change would impact the ability of co-opers who don’t live in the co-ops they eat in to access food at night ([Third World Co-op], Pyle, [Brown Bag Co-op], [and] dining-only members),” the email reads.
Munoz herself was concerned about how limiting access to previously open spaces could affect the community, especially in the case of Language, Identity, and Thematic Experience Communities.

“If I identify with certain parts of the community — for example, I’m a woman, so I know I should be able to find my sanctuary space in Baldwin Cottage, that being the Women and Trans* Collective — I would feel some type of way if I’m not able to access that building,” Munoz said.

Still other students simply believe that the change would cause undue inconvenience while negatively impacting the campus environment.

“Oberlin is a very small, tightly-knit community,” College second-year Delphine McGee said. “[ResLife] wants to impose it because they think it’s for safety, but I feel like doing this would make things more inconvenient for students and make them feel more unsafe.”

Student Senate will meet this Sunday to discuss the responses. With all of these concerns in mind — and knowing that only about 13 percent of students said they believed the proposal should be implemented — Munoz does not believe the measure will go into effect, but isn’t certain what will happen next as the Student Senate interacts with ResLife.

Munoz said she appreciates the time students took to respond to the survey and make their voices heard.