Assistant Vice President of Auxiliary Business Services Joelle Wiese revealed yesterday to the Voice that Georgetown is considering implementing a third-year meal plan requirement. Georgetown University Student Association President Trevor Tezel (SFS ‘15) and Vice President Omika Jikaria (SFS ‘15) wisely decried the possible requirement in a press release distributed late last night, calling it “a tuition increase that would be burdensome to students.” Regardless of whether or not they will be directly subjected to the new requirements, Hoyas should stand in solidarity with their campus representatives and third-year peers in preemptive opposition to this proposed policy.
The proposal represents only the latest instance of the university making decisions without placing its students’ wishes and well-being as its top priority. This mentality accompanied the university’s announcement of a third-year housing requirement last spring against the wishes of the student body—a precedent that clearly paved the way for Auxiliary Business Service’s push for a new dining requirement. The same disregard influenced the university’s campaign for a satellite campus first semester last year—a proposal only shelved after massive student pushback and an organized campaign in opposition from GUSA. Once again, this behavior has been deployed despite inevitable student backlash—and Hoyas must organize to combat it.
Wiese stated on Wednesday that a proposed Flex-only meal plan would satisfy the potential requirement and would, in fact, represent a cost-saving measure for students. This line of argument relies on the fact that Flex Dollars spent at campus eateries are not subject to sales tax. Nevertheless, juniors wishing to save money have numerous other options that a third-year required meal plan would skirt, such as buying groceries in bulk for less cost from nearby grocery stores.
Requiring third-year Hoyas to purchase an expensive meal plan places a disproportionate burden on juniors who may be struggling with loans, work-study jobs, and the stress associated with attending Georgetown on financial aid. As Tezel put it, “this [proposal] is purely so that the university can gather more for its revenue stream.” A third-year meal plan requirement will simply engorge the university’s bottom line at the expense of its neediest students.
Such a policy will also overstretch the already overburdened Leo O’Donovan dining hall—along with its employees. Requiring more juniors to wade through the battleground that is the lower level of Leo’s on Monday nights is fair neither to them nor to the hordes of underclassmen who already confront long lines and full tables on a daily basis.
If Georgetown moves toward implementing this policy, it will have, once again, disappointed a student body long jaded by the administration’s ill-considered and revenue-driven behavior. GUSA executives have taken the right steps in condemning the third-year requirement—but it will be left to students to prevent it from becoming reality.
