Dining dollars forced down students' throats
Brigid DeCoursey, Guest writer
Applications to live in the University Apartments opened up last week, and many students were stunned to find a new clause added to the contract. “For 2005-06, all NEW residents to apartments will be assessed $300 in Dining Dollars per semes-ter.” For some, this article will be the first notice.
Sorority Row Senator, Esther Nakagawara, was “very surprised to discover the addition of $300 Dining Dollars every semester. I feel that changes in rates or new fees should be announced earlier and with better publicity. Instead, the assessment was mentioned as the last sentence, in regular print, in the ‘Apartment Selection ‘05-’06’ packet on the Rates page that was only recent-ly distributed to my on-campus residence.”
Others reacted with disbelief. Graduate student Dustin Devore, posted on the Freely Speaking Forums. “So let’s get this straight... You move into an apartment with a kitchen, fridge, etc. and they expect you to pay to eat at the University? That’s just plain dumb. They’re trying to make a quick buck. Chances are that if you are forced to get the $300 then you won’t use a good part of it. It’s free money for them.”
“I am really disappointed that they made the choice to implement this policy. It removes student’s choices, as they are forced to eat at university dining facilities whether they want to or not. It takes our money for things we do not necessarily want to buy, then insults our personal decision-making skills by telling us it is for our own good. It treats college students like children,” says student Katherine Parks.
Not everyone has reacted negatively, “My initial take on this, as a parent, is quite positive. I would prefer knowing that my child has some ‘food allowance’ money that will insure that they can get groceries, or have access to a variety of restaurants. I would be curious to ask the administration, if they are contracting with various ‘ven-dors’ are they discounted? In other words, $50 with their contracted grocer will buy MORE products than say Albertson’s,” says Leah Eller, mother of student Anna Eller. “It gives parents some peace of mind that there is a bit of a ‘safety net’ and their child won’t starve! However, TU would be remiss not to address this new policy to students and parents in advance.”
Mrs. Eller was disappointed to find out that the dining dollars are only good on campus, and that the grocery selection currently available consists of prepackaged, mostly non-perishable items at a consider-ably higher price than Albertson’s. “If you want to attract students, make this some-thing of value. Parents will not be happy with this plan because it is their money, too.” Dining Services may be looking into contracting a grocery service, but grocery delivery service seems to oppose the goal of more student interaction.
“I’m angered not only at the attempt to place this required fee on supposedly ‘independent’ students, but also the attempt to hide it, or cover it up,” said Commuter Senator Daniel Jeffries.
“The administration took this proposal to the Residence Hall Association because the constituency of RHA are the ones who ‘will be most affected by this change’ (i.e. the students in the dorms are the ones who theoretically will be moving into the apart-ments) and again, correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve heard that RHA approved this!!! Or at least, didn’t fight it. The administration bypassed the Senate, probably because they knew the senators would fight for the students’ rights,” says Andrea Grabow, Lottie Jane Mabee Hall Senator.
An RHA representative who was at the meeting said that people seemed to be distracted from this policy by their focus on complaining about the cafeteria food.
Katie Reed, RHA President, when asked to comment, had this to say, “The decision to mandate Dining Dollars for Apartment residents had nothing to do with RHA.
They simply told us it was going to happen. Although the increase was unexpected, we thought it was a one-time fee. If we had realized that it was a continual expense, we would have inquired further about the issue. We do not feel like we were “tricked” by the University—we simply feel like we didn’t fully understand the assessment. If we had understood, we could have addressed this in December.”
There were only three students present at that particular meeting who were con-sidering Apartment Residence for next Fall, according to Reed.
“Communication has been early and forthright,” says Charles Colby, Assistant Vice President of Enrollment and Student Services. RHA executives and officers were not the only students who had heard about this policy before it came into effect. Student Association President Matt Eber and Vice President Eric Griffin were present at the December meeting of the Board of Trustees when this program was adopted. Eber is investigating where the breakdown in communication took place.
“One of the major issues I see at The University is the lack of com-munication between administration and students on a daily basis. While administration has made an effort to work with student leaders, that doesn’t always mean information is spread to the entire campus. The recent raising of apartment rates and the dinning dollars is a perfect example. Had Associate Vice President Colby and his staff reached out to students before implementing this plan, the current dissatisfaction with the hous-ing department would be less than the peak which we are currently sitting act. Sadly housing is one of the ailing departments at the University of Tulsa. I hope the leadership of President Upham will greatly impact that cur-rent status of this department,” stated Calvin Moniz, Chief of Staff.
When asked about this change in policy, Clint Alexander, Apartment Residence Director, cited “multiple benefits”. “Residents will be able to use their Dining Dollars at this new dining establishment (the N-R-G bar) [and] snack/vending machines all across cam-pus. No more searching for change when you buy a drink before class,” said Alexander. He also stressed the effort to involve upperclass students in campus life: “The interaction of upperclass residents within the campus culture is extremely desirable and profitable to the overall educational experience.” Students are questioning who or what the beneficiary of these profits will be.
“Please understand that this really represents less than $20 per week and reflects an amount that many are exceeding at present. Records show that most students already spend several hundred dollars at ACAC or on vending during the course of the semester,” wrote Alexander via email.
These figures may not take into account that many students are spend-ing Dining Dollars received from summer research programs, athletics programs, or mandatory meal plans. Twenty dollars per week buys a sig-nificant amount of groceries, a higher-value buy for students on a tight budget.
Some students would be willing to compromise. “If I had to have money to eat at ACAC and the Caf, then I would much rather have the money on my gold card,” says Nicky McDonald, Lottie Jane Mabee Hall Senator.
Others are outraged. “I don’t want a meal plan. I’ve already been ripped off for two years. Why do I need to get tortured for another year?” fumed student Nicholas Farley, another Freely Speaking poster.
The desperate are trying to find loopholes. “Prior residence in apartments does not count as an exemption to the policy. Only current apartment residents at the beginning of the process (as of today - 1/31/05) are grandfathered,” says Alexander. However, the contract only specifies NEW residents as subject to this policy.
Some Student Association Senators are encouraging their constit-uencies to not sign the contract until a solution is reached. Once a student signs the contract, there might be little incentive to change the policy.
“The students are the University’s customers. This new policy is obviously not something that any student would want. So don’t buy the product... boycott the apartments! They’ll have to get rid of [the policy] if they can’t come close to filling up. There are plenty of apartments off campus,” posted student Dustin Trinkle on the Freely Speaking forums. However, this strategy might prove ineffective, as the University Apartments are usually in high demand. They are expected to be filled.
Former students are also weigh-ing in on the issue. Britney Grayson, Class of 2004, said, “I was treated very well during my time at TU, and the school will always have my support because of that. The administration might want to reconsider this policy, if they don’t want students to write their resentment into their alumni donation checks years later.”
In response to the complaints of several students, Vice President of Enrollment and Student Services, Roger Sorochty has submitted a letter to students who are affected by this new policy to The Collegian and Student Association President Matt Eber.
“A positive sense of community is not formed because people are forced to eat in a specific place - if that were the case then prisons would be model communities. RHA is a great organiza-tion, but SA provides the diversity of opinion that I’m afraid the University simply did not care to hear. I’m more angered after reading Dr. Sorochty’s letter than I was before. This is ridicu-lous,” countered Twin Towers Hall Senator Micah Kordsmeier.
According to the Student Association’s “Pounding the Pavement” survey, nearly a quarter of students surveyed indicated that they did not feel ACAC was a suit-able Student Union. Several responses included requests for a Starbucks or other coffee shop. Currently, students commune at the Starbucks in Utica Square, Saffron, and other off-campus locations. Ritazza vending machines on campus are clearly not meeting students’ demands for coffee and community.
Eber and Griffin met with President Upham and other administration officials on Tuesday morning for a regularly scheduled appoint-ment and brought up the new Dining Dollars policy. In the Senate Meeting that evening, Griffin reported, “We [Griffin and Eber] are grandfathered in as current tenants, and they were confused why we cared about it…we expended pretty much all political capital we had at that meeting.” Eber mentioned that “Apartment rates are going up as well.”
Housing Director Chuck Colby and other administration officials will attend the Senate meeting on Tuesday, February 8th at 9:00 p.m. to explain the new policy and answer questions. These meetings are held in John Rogers Hall Room 101 and are open to all University students, faculty, and staff.
“I do not advocate for a specific individual, group or outcome but rath-er the fair application of policies and procedures,” wrote Dean of Students Yolanda Taylor. “If students have a concern regarding the $600 dining dollars requirement, it is my responsi-bility to ensure that the complaint is shared with the individual or individu-als charged with making or reviewing the decision. The complaint may be filed in the Office of Student Affairs, Holmes Student Center #51.”
Do Some Talkin’ Back
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in all Talkback Forums are those of individual writers and not of The Collegian or its staff. The Collegian reserves the right to remove posts as it sees fit.
^ Top of Page