The following piece represents the views of the undersigned Editorial Board members alone.
The University’s elimination of the “independent” dining option has been met with overwhelming condemnation. Campus voices have criticized the new dining policy and the opacity of its announcement. The situation begs the question: Where was the Undergraduate Student Government (USG)?
The dining edict was first announced in an email sent to only the Classes of 2027 and 2028. The policy requires that all on-campus juniors and seniors purchase a University meal plan starting in Fall 2026 and removes the “independent” status option in room draw. The University claimed that the change will “promote community in the residential dining halls” and “strengthen a sense of belonging” for independent students.
But many of those independent students disagree, citing legitimate logistical, financial, and personal concerns: restricted dining hours, increased costs, the disruption of existing independent student communities and the flexibility to cook one’s own meals, and a disregard for students who rely on independent dining to accommodate religious and medical dietary restrictions.
These are concerns that the University would have known about if they had more directly consulted students about the proposed policy change via their elected representatives: the Undergraduate Student Government.
USG should have drawn on its substantial standing in University politics to stand up for student interests in this process. Instead, it acquiesced to its own disempowerment.
This is a stupendous ball-drop by USG, because the University’s intention to change dining was not a secret.
In the summer of 2024, Huron Consulting Group, an external consulting firm, released a 25-page report that recommended, among other things, a review of “independent status” and a “Campus Dining meal plan for all students who reside on campus.” The report was featured in a widely shared article in The Daily Princetonian and publicly available to the campus community, although the administration didn’t disseminate its findings.
The University has studied this issue for years; before the Huron report, a dining pilot that experimented with giving students swipes to any eating club to co-op. Before that, a task force on the University-eating club relationship. The University’s study goes back nearly 10 years to a student task force on the residential college model.
Of course, every undergraduate involved in those pre-Huron efforts has since graduated. No wonder students feel out of the loop. But as undergraduates’ designated advocates, it was USG’s responsibility to contextualize the report as part of a larger trend in University dining policy, proactively solicit student opinions, and effectively communicate them to the University. If they had done that, the University would have had two choices: Invite them to the table, or deny the existence of a conversation.
But the extent to which USG was involved with the development of the policy is unclear — and our inference is pessimistic. Vice President for University Services Chad Klaus cited “conversations with the Student Life Committee of the Undergraduate Student Government” as one example of student input the University collected. That is where transparent traces of USG involvement end.
Nor is it clear why USG was so uninvolved. Was it willful ignorance? USG should be tuned in and responsive to situations like these, especially when a population of students — here, independents — need its advocacy. It’s hard to imagine why a decision which so profoundly reshapes the contours of student life at Princeton would ever fly past USG.
Does the University not see USG as suitable representatives of the undergraduate population? That reflects poorly on USG and the University both. If the student government can be excluded from the deliberations it was designed to help influence, then the authority of the strongest channel for student voices is fundamentally compromised. In response, USG must demand a seat at the table.
Had they been in the room, maybe the rollout would not have been so haphazard. The University should have issued a comprehensive statement to the entire campus community, not just the two class years most directly affected, and stakeholders like eating clubs and co-ops should have received advance notice. The two info sessions should not have been scheduled during both midterms — a difficult time for nearly all students — and the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, making it exceptionally difficult for observant Jewish students.
If we are wrong, and USG was in the room, the situation is even worse: Our elected representatives protected the University’s ability to make secret decisions behind closed doors over their constituents’ knowledge of and input on decisions that affect us.
USG should always demand answers. When the University fails to give it a straight answer, it should push back. But to do any of that, they must have to be at the table in the first place. If USG isn’t at the table on student life decisions as big as this one, they are no longer effective representatives of the student body.
149th Editorial Board
Isaac Barsoum ’28
Raf Basas ’28
Frances Brogan ’27
Eleanor Clemans-Cope ’26
Preston Ferraiuolo ’26
Anna Ferris ’26
Ava Johnson ’27
Christofer Robles ’26
Bryan Zhang ’26
The Editorial Board is the institutional voice of The Daily Princetonian and consists of nine members: two managing editors, the Head Opinion Editor, and a group of six Opinion section editors, columnists, and contributing writers. It convenes to discuss issues and current events of interest to the Princeton University community, as well as collectively write signed editorials addressing them, which reflect the consensus of a majority of the Board’s membership. The Editorial Board operates independently of the newsroom of the ‘Prince.’
Read More
Reactions: What first years care (and don’t care) about at Princeton
Charlie Yale, Siyeon Lee, Lily Halbert-Alexander, Frances Brogan, and Shane McCauleyThe ‘Prince’ recently published its Class of 2029 Frosh Survey, featuring data on everything from the incoming class’s familiarity with AI Models to its knowledge of prominent Princeton alumni to its past sexual experiences. Here, five of our Opinion editors identify and tackle key takeaways about Princeton’s newest class.
The ‘Prince’ recently published its Class of 2029 Frosh Survey, featuring data on everything from the incoming class’s familiarity with AI Models to its knowledge of prominent Princeton alumni to its past sexual experiences. Here, five of our Opinion editors identify and tackle key takeaways about Princeton’s newest class.
Independent dining brought me community, not isolation
Otis B. JenningsNostalgia has its place, yet adulthood means accepting that our experiences don’t have to be replicated. The world moves on. But I will pause. For the budding chefs, the quirky palates, the ones who find peace and meaning in preparing food alone or in small gatherings, I mourn the loss of home-cooked meals by the people who appreciate them most.
Nostalgia has its place, yet adulthood means accepting that our experiences don’t have to be replicated. The world moves on. But I will pause. For the budding chefs, the quirky palates, the ones who find peace and meaning in preparing food alone or in small gatherings, I mourn the loss of home-cooked meals by the people who appreciate them most.
