A force-fed meal plan

In an e-mail to Barnard students on Wednesday, Dorothy Denburg, dean of Barnard College, announced a new dining policy that will require all its students to purchase a meal plan. Barnard’s administration claims that the policy, which will take effect next fall, is designed to coincide with the opening of the Diana Center and foster a greater sense of community. However, it is an unfortunate imposition on a student’s right to choose where to eat and represents a disconnect between students and administrators.

Currently, all Barnard first-years and Barnard Quad residents must purchase an unlimited meal plan. Under the expanded policy, first-years still must get unlimited plans, but sophomores, juniors, and seniors will be forced into limited ones: Sophomores living in the Quad will have to buy 150 meals and 300 points; non-Quad sophomores 40 meals and 800 points; and juniors and seniors 450 and 400 points, respectively. While the new plan is less restrictive for junior and senior Quad residents, it regrettably requires meal plans for everyone else.

The problems with a mandatory meal plan are manifold. It is almost always more cost-efficient for students to cook their own meals or eat off campus, especially for students on a tight budget. Students with dietary restrictions or allergies may find the plan especially burdensome. Although Barnard promises to accommodate all dining needs, including halal, kosher, gluten-free, and vegan diets, Barnard has been unable to meet the dietary restrictions of all its students, as an editorial highlighted earlier this year. And while Barnard’s efforts to forge a sense of community are commendable, enforcing an unpopular policy hardly seems like an effective way to bring students together. Students should ultimately have the right to choose where they would like to eat, whether that be on campus or off.

Another troubling aspect of the decision is the role money played in it. The decision arose after Barnard’s negotiations with Aramark, Barnard’s dining provider. While it is unclear where the numbers for meals and points came from, if they resulted from business calculations, students—the customers—have a right to be informed. If Aramark requires a certain quota to meet its bottom line, Barnard may want to consider other options. Granted, Barnard claims that it has been in ongoing discussions with students for over a year about the new dining policy. But in reality, only two members of Barnard’s Student Government Association were included in detailed discussions, and SGA was presented with the plan when the decision was nearly final. Additionally, most students seem surprised by the announcement, which has inspired a Facebook group in opposition. Barnard’s use of community-building as a justification for the expanded meal plan is insufficient, and Barnard must seek to allay concerns of students who suspect that the policy change has financial motivations.

Just months after the unpopular decision to hold Barnard’s Commencement in Levien Gymnasium, it has once again neglected the opinion of the student body. Although the Commencement decision was reversed after commendable dialogue with students, it seems that Barnard has not learned from its mistake. As was made clear by the reversal, changes can and do happen when students and administrators work together to find a solution. The Barnard administration must actively heed the legitimate concerns of students surrounding this surprising and disappointing policy change and consider revoking its decision.