Last spring, ASU students voted with a resounding "no" to additional fees for an expansion of the Memorial Union and Student Recreation Complex, rejecting unnecessary increases in the cost of attendance. In the weeks before the vote, the Get Out the Vote committee plastered signs and flyers all over campus walls, and promotional speakers made their way into residential hall meetings. Accusations arose about bias in the committee's promotion.
Yet amid the unmistakable feeling of propaganda, there was a hint of honesty in the incident. After all, something absolutely amazing happened: In the end, students' voices were heard.
This year, the possible rise in the cost of attendance for the expansion of certain facilities isn't as obvious. It masquerades itself well, hiding behind an insulated layer of policy. And because of that facade, a portion of our student body may not have that same freedom to weigh the values of campus life.
This spring, a proposal mandating that all students living on campus must purchase school meal plans may go in front of the Arizona Board of Regents for 2006. On the surface, it seems very logical: By requiring meal plans, they obtain a better estimation of facility usage and can tailor and expand the facilities to that number.
But the question of whether students want it isn't coming into play. Nor is the more important question of whether meal plans equate to students eating in the facilities.
As it is, many students with meal plans don't use them regularly. Preferring to make alternative eating plans for health, social or scheduling reasons, lunch or dinner in a hall might not fit into their lifestyles.
Most dormitories come equipped with kitchens, while others have a stove, refrigerator and oven accessible on their floor or elsewhere in the building, making cooking easy as well.
And many students with meal plans often delay using them, which can build up over the course of a semester.
As music education freshman and Ocotillo resident Steve Brazier explained, "With three weeks left in the semester I had 100 meals ... so I ended up just having to take random people to dinner."
According to Brazier, it wasn't uncommon to see others taking random groups of people from their halls out to dinner just to "waste meals." And these are students who chose the meal plan option -- intending to eat in the dining facilities. Imagine the others.
Though there would be a range of options for different plans, making it mandatory manipulates students who might otherwise not use a meal plan into paying thousands of dollars for what are (in many cases) unwanted and uneaten meals.
While ensuring that all students pay for a meal plan might help expand the facilities, such improvements make little difference to those not using them. Allowing students to choose their own plans lets them "vote with their dollars."
If they choose to purchase a meal plan, their money could go to these improvements. Opting out of it, we hear voices of students saying on-campus dining is not something they need or want expanded.
Last year, students had the opportunity to decide against paying a few hundred dollars for facilities only a portion of the student body might use. If the proposal's approved, on-campus residents won't even get the chance to say "no" or "yes" to thousands of dollars added to the cost of attendance benefiting a portion of those living on campus.
Giving students the responsibility and opportunity to choose their own dining experiences while at the University isn't asking for much. Yet when it comes to putting the wants and needs of students first, the freedom to eat as you wish means so much more than pasta at Manzanita or fries at Burger King.
Rosie Cisneros is a political science and journalism junior. You can reach her at rosie.cisneros@asu.edu.
