With changes to student meal plans on the way for the coming 2025/26 school year, The Equinox feels students will not be receiving the best value for their money.
While we can appreciate that the costs associated with the meal plans will be remaining the same, we are concerned about the decreases in meal plan dollars across all four plans offered. If students are paying the same amount, it stands to reason they should not see a reduction in the resources afforded to them for the most commonly used aspect of their dining experience.
Chartwells is within its right to try and incentivize students to use the product its offering; however, reducing meal plan dollars across the board indicates a refusal to acknowledge the simple facts of students’ dining preferences. Anyone who walks into the student center between classes will see the flood of customers at Lloyd’s Marketplace, eager to spend their meal plan dollars on quick and easy meals. No amount of planning and restructuring can evade the fact that the student body’s interest lies largely outside of the Zorn Dining Commons.
In a case like the Hootie’s Choice meal plan, intended for sophomores, there is the added flaw of reducing meal plan dollars while keeping the same number of meal swipes. It does not seem equitable to reduce students of certain years to lesser overall dining value, especially with no specific justification given. While the White 60 (soon to be 100) and Red 10 (soon to be 40) are seeing increases in meal swipes, those plans are exclusively for upperclassmen who are more likely to leave their meal plans behind altogether.
Instead of rolling out these sweeping changes all at once, Chartwells could introduce these altered plans as an alternative that could be made available in addition to the existing plans. Even if the prices on the existing plans were to then increase to adjust for inflation, students would have the freedom to choose what they feel best serves their dining needs.
Alternatively, Chartwells could look at issues that persist internally to seek answers on how the dining commons could be made more appealing. Instead of forcing students to increasingly rely on one specific facility, the company could focus on providing more steady and appealing employment to those who work at the dining commons or making strategic systematic hires, such as for the position of dietitian, a role that has been vacant since last year. These changes could make the facility a more inviting place to eat and even to work in the case of students looking for on-campus employment.
The unfortunate reality is Chartwells has to be willing to fight a difficult uphill battle to truly redeem the dining commons’ reputation among students. With consistent issues of lacking cleanliness, insufficient options for those with dietary restrictions and the recent failing health inspection score that stood in contrast to the other dining spaces’ performances, students may be reluctant to invest in the dining experience at all, let alone the dining commons.
We believe sufficiently feeding our Owls should be priority number one for the college and its partners. No amount of smart marketing can provide a loophole for that. Now is the time to invest in that purpose in a way that is mutually beneficial for the student body, the college and Chartwells alike.
