At noon on Monday, I took a stroll down Witherspoon St. to grab a simple lunch from Olives, a popular local takeout market (one that University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 is known to frequent for lunch). I ate a delicious sandwich for $9.95, much cheaper than a $16.75 swipe in a dining hall. Yet in the eyes of University administrators, my quotidian Monday lunch was emblematic of “challenges … related to food access and isolation concerns” — a “problem” they are now stamping out.
In an email on Monday, administrators announced significant changes to Princeton’s dining and housing policies, effectively making it impossible to be an “independent student” for those living in University housing.
But rather than a genuine commitment to improving student well-being, the memo and policy behind it show a continued ignorance of and disinterest in real student concerns, and a continued trend of counterproductive and paternalistic policy decisions aimed at protecting undergraduates from themselves.
Juniors and seniors have spoken about being “independent,” meaning that they do not join an eating club or purchase a University meal plan, since at least the 1960s. One student’s defense in The Daily Princetonian of opting to be independent in 1964 rings true today — the option can be convenient, economical, and more satisfying than other choices. Yet in a blunt decision that will satisfy no one, the University has decided to make going independent impossible by forcing the purchase of a 10-meals-per-week plan if one does not have another fixed dining contract with an eating club or co-op.
The reasoning behind the change starts in the right place. Campus administrators cited a study completed by Huron Consulting Group during the 2023–24 academic year, which showed that independent students “experience a lesser sense of inclusion and belonging” than those in a co-op or eating club. The University is right to address this problem, but the “solution” it has come up with completely fails to help the students who are actually in need.
The Huron report noted that students asked for expanded options for independent dining, not for the entire option to be shut down. Responses also indicated that independent students chose the option because of cost concerns, a greater sense of choice, and a better way to address dietary restrictions — all issues left unaddressed by a dining hall plan.
Instead, University decision-makers seem to have cherry-picked the results of the report, and simply discarded any conclusions and concerns not amenable to their ultimate decision. In the memo, absolutely no mention was made of how students impacted by cost concerns or dietary restrictions would be supported after the change. Since the new 10-meals-per-week plan will likely cost more than $5,000 per year based on current rates, this move will leave students with much less to work with. Moreover, the University has not indicated any systematic changes coming to Campus Dining that would help support those with significant dietary restrictions.
Some students in the study indicated that their choice to go independent was in response to eating club culture — either they wanted to avoid the “negative social and mental health impacts of clubs” or they were not accepted into a bicker club. It is therefore unsurprising that some may be “involuntarily independent,” and the University should seriously investigate approaches that can resolve isolation resulting from these choices.
Whatever the answer to these questions may be, it should absolutely not be to eliminate the independent option. A moment’s thought and a modicum of common sense would result in the obvious conclusion that limiting the options of already marginalized students while imposing upon them a forced purchase would only make them worse off. I would hope that the University administrators would have recognized this; perhaps that did not matter.
The decision reveals a foolish approach to finding the root causes of the problem, and a dangerous mindset that eliminating the symptom can cure the disease. It should hopefully be clear that the social concerns or isolation that some independent students face will not go away when they are forced onto a meal plan they did not want to elect.
As an independent, I feel much more satisfied now than when I was on the Unlimited meal plan, and I am spending less money too. A campus meal plan is not the magical panacea that administrators seem to think it is. Ultimately, the imposition of this mandate will do the exact opposite of what administrators are claiming they are concerned about — “improv[ing] your residential experience.”
I’m sure that when the responsible University administrators see Eisgruber walking from Nassau Hall to Olives, they do not think, “what a pitiable, isolated person who is struggling with food access.” If only they would apply the same respect to our decisions and ability to care for ourselves, too.
Jerry Zhu is a junior in Economics who thanks his microeconomic theory professors for teaching him that limiting the options an individual can choose from will not make them better off. He serves as the guest Opinion editor of The Daily Princetonian, and encourages you to submit a response to this piece or write an op-ed for the ‘Prince.’ You can reach him at jfz[at]princeton.edu.
Read More
Princeton must practice the democracy that it preaches
Siyeon Lee“If the University is truly committed to the aim of resisting anti-democratic efforts nationally, it must begin by ensuring that an institutional, non-performative democracy exists at the University in the first place: it must make CPUC a decision-making body that votes on student referenda.”
“If the University is truly committed to the aim of resisting anti-democratic efforts nationally, it must begin by ensuring that an institutional, non-performative democracy exists at the University in the first place: it must make CPUC a decision-making body that votes on student referenda.”
If violence is never the answer, Princeton should not be complicit in genocide
Raf BasasOur opposition to violence can’t be conditional: the stakes are nothing less than human life.
Our opposition to violence can’t be conditional: the stakes are nothing less than human life.
Referendum sponsors, poll the University before you poll us
Davis HobleyIn the best form of student government, USG members should be our trusted delegates to negotiate with the University, coming out with a proposal that both the administration and students might agree on.