Nutrition fact of the matter

Following Monday’s Student Government Association meeting—at which the council and members of the Facebook group “Protect Your Right to Be off the Meal Plan” debated the Barnard administration’s proposal to make meal plans mandatory—today’s open forum with Barnard President Debora Spar drove home both the practicality and the inevitability of the policy.

Spar began the forum by offering a fiscal explanation for the changes. The economic climate is difficult for all colleges, and Barnard is no exception. The Diana student center just opened, along with more dining facilities, and Barnard is currently losing money every year on meal plans: It takes in about $4.3 million but pays $4.4 million. The exact savings the new plan would bring are not yet clear, but if it is not implemented, the financial burden will fall entirely on first-years and students who live in the Quad. The mandatory meal plan policy would distribute that burden.

Spar deserves commendation for being forthright about the economic situation—it was refreshing to hear her focus on finances rather than “community-building.” Listening to individual testimonials showed that, while some students may be upset for personal reasons, it is unreasonable to expect Barnard to shape its fiscal policy around such needs. Instead, it must form sound fiscal policies and then manage special cases with diligence and care.

Two hours of dialogue with President Spar, however, do not excuse the mistakes made in this process. The economic explanation should have been part of a conversation that started long ago, and the administration’s initial e-mail to students should have reflected tonight’s opening statement. Spar explained that administrators had intended to finalize all details before announcing the mandate along with housing specifications in March or April, but this was not possible, she said, because Spectator leaked the proposed changes. That Barnard had intended to wait even longer to inform students of the plan was the most disheartening component of the presentation. Had it done so, the chance for real dialogue would have been null. Spar repeatedly urged students to come forward with suggested improvements, but we are left to wonder how she would have handled an uproar that came after the policy was final.
If this policy is truly to bring the Barnard community together in a positive way, the administration needs to make good on its promises to listen. Moving forward, it should understand the pressing need for transparency and collaboration.