After reading not one, but two e-mails explaining the changes to Bon Appétit’s meal plans, I cannot help but question some of the reasons cited by the company.
The first problem is the statement: “We've determined that this policy is not sustainable in the long-term.” Why would buying gift cards alter the long-term spending of those gift cards? True, there is no time crunch in spending the gift cards, but that does not mean they will not be used in the future (or long-term).
Another problem is the claim that “None of these schools [other universities] permit funds to be carried over beyond the academic year.” In philosophical terms, this is a bandwagon fallacy; just because other schools are doing it does not mean that it is appropriate for this institution.
These are just two of the many problems with the changes to the meal plans.
As a Seattle University student, I feel the pressure of finances everywhere I look. That is a reality of being a modernized college student; demanding finances are inevitable. But there is a problem with an institution taking money that was paid for a specific purpose, in this case food, and is then relocated into the circulation of the university. I understand that we are all feeling the economic struggle, but it is hard to feel compassion for a company that puts in a plasma screen television to present the menu of Bon Appétit; this is not a criticism, but merely an observation. To be blunt, the money I paid for was for meals—my meals, and not for other purposes that are beyond my knowledge.
Devon Bell
Philosophy Major
Class of 2012
1 comments