[822] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Statement Against Mandatory Dining - Draft 1
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vikash K. Mansinghka)
Sat Sep 22 09:22:30 2001
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-ID: <20010922081152.A19502@all-night-tool.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 08:11:52 -0400
Reply-To: "Documentation at http://web.mit.edu/beland/talk/talk.html"
<MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU>, "Vikash K. Mansinghka" <vkm@MIT.EDU>
From: "Vikash K. Mansinghka" <vkm@MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
Hi,
Below is a first draft for the statement against mandatory dining. I expect
to have the final version done sometime this afternoon; it should begin to
appear in printed form at all undergrad dorm desks this afternoon/early
evening.
If you think electronic signing would also be useful, send me mail. If enough
do, I'll try to set up a rudimentary (but hopefully mostly secure) electronic
signature system sometime tomorrow. Please let me know if you know the
canonical way to do this on MITnet; failing that, I'll hack one together..
Please feel free to forward the statement draft to anyone/any list you think
should get it, and even more importantly, send me your comments. I know it
will be impossible to incorporate them all, and that not everybody will agree
on the statement I produce, but I will take your suggestions seriously. I
also encourage everyone to forward correspondence about this issue to your
parents (if appropriate) and to alums you know; their support is critical.
-Vikash
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
We, the undersigned members of the MIT community, are against the
creation of a mandatory dining program at MIT. Although we would like
to see an improvement in the quality of the campus dining services, we
believe a mandatory dining program would be extremely harmful to many
undergraduates at MIT.
The dining taskforce proposal (http://pj.mit.edu/DormCon/Dining)
states that the MIT dining system "should be run with the goal of
bringing people together for informal social interaction", and
proceeds to justify the most radical elements of the new program
primarily on these grounds.
We, however, believe that:
1. The purpose of campus dining should be to provide healthy,
affordable and readily available food.
2. The proposed changes would significantly weaken aspects of the
campus community which are treasured by many students.
3. The proposed changes would unfairly penalize large subsections of
the undergraduate population, especially those with lower incomes.
4. Mandatory participation removes much of the feedback needed to
maintain food quality, variety and affordability.
5. Voluntary, inexpensive and accessible alternatives exist.
DINING IS ABOUT FOOD
Students are concerned about the healthiness, palatability,
affordability and convenience of eating at campus dining
locations. None of these complaints involve the social or "community"
aspects of life at MIT. As such, potential issues surrounding
community and social interaction should not be approached through a
dining plan overhall.
It is also worth noting that MIT undergraduates have incredibly
diverse eating requirements, habits and preferences, and no central
dining system could economically accommodate all of them, even
assuming individuals with strong allergic reactions are exempt.
Students with "nonstandard" eating habits - including vegetarians,
vegans and dieters, as well as many others - would by necessity be
faced with narrower choices from campus dining, and would be forced
to make an unfortunate and unfair sacrifice under a mandatory dining
plan.
WE ALREADY HAVE COMMUNITY
The proposal mentioned that certain houses might be exempted from the
mandatory plan on the grounds that community cooking is an integral
part of their culture. We believe that, in general, dorm kitchens
provide excellent environments for "informal social interaction", and
that communal cooking and group trips to restaurants are a valuable
part of dorm life.
If a mandatory dining plan was implemented, such activities would
carry the extra cost of the nonrefundable plan money, discouraging
participation in real community activities.
It is also worth noting that cross-campus community will not be aided
by this plan; in fact, it will encourage people to self-segregate by
dorm. In addition, many students at MIT are part of social groups
with recent graduates, local alums and other individuals who generally
are not inclined to eat campus food for many reasons; these communities
would suffer greatly if a mandatory meal plan were enforced.
We do not believe that social community can or should be enforced by
the Institute, especially not at such a clear cost to all students.
We specifically take issue with the classification of the comments
regarding meal plan option 3 - that it "provides the least support for
the residential program" and that it allows students to "[circumvent]
use of residential dining and consequently intended community
interaction" - as "problem[s]".
WE CAN'T AFFORD THE WASTE
All of the meal plans listed in the proposal would cost undergraduates
at least $1400 per term, and none offer refunds for unused meals or
funds below the initial enrollment.
Many students spend far less than $1400 on food per term, some out of
financial necessity and others out of choice. Cooking is far cheaper
than campus dining could possibly be, with grocery costs of
approximately $50 per week (or $650 per term). Most local restaurants
charge from $4-$8 for lunch or dinner, often including delivery,
easily rivaling the price and convenience while surpassing the
quality and variety of campus dining.
Additionally, it would be difficult for campus dining to compete with
cooking and eating out/delivery in accommodation of the schedules and
lifestyles MIT students maintain.
CHOICE IS A GOOD THING
The Institute should not deprive students of choice when such choices
don't conflict with its educational mission. We believe that MIT
undergraduates should have the right to choose how to feed themselves,
and that it is unreasonable for students to be forced into a meal
plan, even as freshmen.
We understand that a "board"-style meal plan may be appropriate for
some, and that food quality could improve given greater plan
membership, but we do not believe that it is morally acceptable to
require students to "support the residential program" through
mandatory participation.
Competition and incentives are essential if quality of food is to be
ensured, and a mandatory dining plan will decrease incentives for
food retailers to keep prices low and quality high. Although we
understand that a review process will be in place, we think it will be
neither sufficient nor as effective as direct, free competition.
As written, the proposed program would require undergraduates to place
their trust - in the form of $1400 up front - in untested dining
service providers without any assurances or hope of refund.
WE CAN DO IT RIGHT
MIT can provide quality campus dining services without mandatory
participation. We see two major options:
1. Consider and expand upon the Institute Dining Review report
(http://web.mit.edu/committees/fswg) and begin following its
recommendations.
2. Rent on-campus dining hall space directly to local food vendors
in a "food court" arrangement.
We are interested in exploring both these options at length on
October 3rd.
It is worth noting that local restaurants manage to provide good
food to the MIT community at a comparatively low cost, suggesting
an average level of efficiency campus dining should be able to
achieve.
Many of us came to MIT because it allowed us to make informed
decisions about our own lives. We value this freedom, and hope you
decide to preserve it.
MIT currently identifies itself with the phrase "MIT: We do things a
little differently." This proposal eliminates a significant facet of
MIT's appeal, and suggests the new slogan: "MIT: We don't do things
quite so differently anymore."
