I’ve recently been wondering about how both the U of R in particular and other universities in general address the problem of homelessness whenever it spills into their domains for the following reasons: a) questions about increasing “security” because of the threat of “transients” have emerged in my GeoDesign Studio class, a course in which my peers and I are helping design the proposed North Star 2020 train development on the south side of campus, b) the way in which campus security responded to the man that wandered into the Armacost Library a couple weeks ago (which seemed like a reaction to the same vein of fear), and c) the fact that I saw a Public Safety officer yesterday who appeared to scold a homeless man that was collecting cans from the dumpster behind Bekins Hall.

Is our campus security especially concerned about the problem of homelessness in comparison to those of other universities/colleges? If so, does the U of R have a reason to have a heightened concern, given the way in which homelessness in perhaps more pervasive here? (That is not to say that I actually think homelessness is more pervasive here than any other place in the US—this is a nationwide/worldwide problem—I just think that the University could employ such an argument to justify their treatment of the unhoused when they come on campus.

In a way, one could argue that the condition of the unhoused in Redlands is quite serious in comparison to those of similar populations nationwide, given the closures of both the Blessing Center and the Salvation Army shelter…but to what end? Of course, rather than addressing the root of the problem (the need for shelter among the unhoused), entities that provide “security” in town seem to use said argument to justify keeping the U of R campus a sanctuary with a force field around its perimeter that zaps the unhoused whenever they penetrate its border.

To provide some context, my GeoDesign professor said that the UC Berkeley campus was full of unhoused people when he taught there…