[827] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
How to defeat the Mandatory Meal Plan
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard J. Barbalace)
Tue Sep 25 13:51:35 2001
Message-ID: <200109251748.NAA23268@starbase.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 13:48:25 -0400
Reply-To: "Documentation at http://web.mit.edu/beland/talk/talk.html"
<MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU>, "Richard J. Barbalace" <rjbarbal@MIT.EDU>
From: "Richard J. Barbalace" <rjbarbal@MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
Hello.
I've only been half-heartedly following the discussions on the MMP.
This idea gets brought up by those idiots in the Administration every
few years, and when you've been around MIT as long as I have, the
debate gets to be almost boring. The Adm brings it up when it figures
enough old fogey alums have disappeared that the current student
population won't know how to argue against it. Well, here are a few
ways to defeat the MMP, yet again.
First, it is essential to realize that given Student Life vs
Economics, Economics will always win. (The same is true of Student
Life vs Public Relations, for anyone who hasn't figured that out.)
The key to winning is not to make this a battle of Student Life vs
Economics, but Taboo vs Economics. What's a taboo? Something so
reprehesible that just the mention of it will kill the idea with no
further debate. This is played by declaring "A Mandatory Meal Plan is
[taboo]." Give a few very brief reasons, and the Adm will cower in
terror.
Sometimes it's not clear what the taboo should be. The best ones are
those that would be least expected and most controversial. A few years
ago, I heard a priceless example which was used to kill the MMP. It's
the first of a couple listed below.
"A Mandatory Meal Plan is SEXIST. The average student would have to
spend $N per meal on food to use up his or her balance. While a male
student can certainly eat $N of food, female students are concerned
about their weight and body image. Forcing women to eat more is
destructive both physically and emotional, and is inherently SEXIST.
Forcing women to pay the same amount of money for a lesser amount of
food, if they can choose to buy less, is economic SEXISM. Women at
MIT already encounter enough challenges without having to deal with
the additional health, emotional, and economic DISCRIMINATION of a
Mandatory Meal Plan."
That's it. The Adm will run screaming. You need to play this angle
up well, say, by having women's organizations hang a banner with 4'
letters crying "MIT Food Service is SEXIST!" right outside W20.
Always use capital letters for taboos. They're not supposed to be
subtle.
Let's try another:
"A Mandatory Meal Plan DISCRIMINATES AGAINST RELIGION. The average
student would have to spend $N per meal on food to use up his or her
balance. To spend this much on a typical meal, given the dining halls'
limited selections, the student would have to purchase dairy or animal
products. Those who are vegetarian or vegan for religious reasons
would be forced to VIOLATE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Otherwise, they
would be forced to eat unbalanced meals, thereby threatening their
HEALTH, or pay the same amount for less food, thereby incurring
economic HARASSMENT of their religion. And do we even need
mention what DISCRIMINATION Muslims will face during the fast of
Ramadan?"
You probably see the pattern now. Bonus points awarded to those who
can create models for DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CULTURAL OR NATIONAL
HERTIAGE, ANTI-DIVERSITY, or RACISM.
Do this, and you will triumph.
+ Richard J. Barbalace
Old fogey alum
