In an unexpected move Sunday, University administrators announced at a USG Senate meeting that all students would now receive the required Block 32 plan for free. This occurred after the Graduate Interclub Council (GICC), an alumni organization that advocates for the long-term interests of the eating clubs, organized a campaign against the newly required meal plan that included flying a plane with a banner over the Harvard-Princeton football game. But while this means that non-aid students can pay $900 less to the University than they would have under the initial plan, those who were most impacted by the new dining regime — independent students on aid — were left no better off.
The Block 32 plan, which will provide 32 meals per semester, is replacing the two free dining hall meals per week that the University offers currently. Technically, with this new change, the University is making it free for all, and reducing the Block 160 plan requirement for independents to a new “Block 128.”
But in the original announcement of Block 32 in September, the University stated that all students on financial aid, regardless of the amount, would have the $900 covered. Therefore, making Block 32 “free” has changed nothing for students on any amount of financial aid. Getting $900 extra in aid and paying $900 back for the mandatory Block 32 is equivalent to receiving no extra money and getting the Block 32 for free. Students not on aid, meanwhile, now get 32 meals for free instead of being required to pay for it.
The University is selling these changes as a win for students — all students. But let’s call it like we see it: University administrators are effectively giving a $900 handout to rich students.
You don’t need to take our word for it. During the USG meeting, Vice President for University Services Chad Klaus agreed that a student on financial aid would see no benefit from this revised proposal. Only students not on aid benefit.
“Importantly, we want to note that USG was very critical in making this change,” said Klaus, citing a proposal brought up in the spring by University Student Life Committee Undergraduate Chair Anuj Krishnan ’27. But why would the University suddenly reconsider a spring term USG proposal? Princeton is attempting to portray this as a response to student input, but it’s clear that this is the University caving to pressure from the GICC, which also handed out shirts at homecoming and organized AI-generated emails to be sent to top administrators.
In an interview with The Daily Princetonian, USG leaders expressed a sense of hope towards the changes. As USG president Enzo Kho ’26 said, “the win here is not making this a static policy.” After weeks of advocacy, the University had finally modified its policies. Perhaps to USG, this is a light at the end of the tunnel, and an indication of willingness for further change.
But if the University cared about the USG’s or students’ input, it would’ve addressed their greatest priority: the abolition of independent dining. It could’ve reduced the amount of required meals, or restored independent room draw for halls other than Spelman. But for the 75 percent of independent students on financial aid, according to the ‘Prince’ survey data, nothing has changed. While the GICC has succeeded in convincing the University to completely ameliorate its effects on eating club members, the University has not budged on the issue of independent dining.
The revision serves as a distraction from the concerns of independents. Worse, it demonstrates that the University is content to ignore student voices.
We are not as optimistic as USG. This is not a tangible step in the right direction because it has zero bearing on the material conditions of the 69 percent of Princeton students on financial aid. In fact, it is a step in the wrong direction. It allows Princeton to claim that it has made compromises on dining, and assuages alumni and donors enough for them to stop applying pressure.
The GICC has declared victory. We, the students, should not. This may be a “victory for Princeton,” as the GICC says, but it’s not a victory for the entire student body. It’s a victory for the GICC and eating club alumni donors, who have demonstrated that they can tell the University what to do, while we are ignored.
It’s possible that Princeton was motivated by fears that alumni would limit their donations, or from a genuine change of heart about not wanting to harm the eating clubs. Eating clubs have alumni backing, while independent students do not. Princeton’s main source of funding, its endowment, originates from alumni donations, and it is therefore extremely important for Princeton to please its base of donors.
Of course, we may end up footing the bill anyway. It would be trivially easy for the University to just increase tuition next year by $900, a change that would not invite such protest.
To be fair, we cannot be sure about the University’s motivations: it’s entirely possible that alumni donations played zero role in their decision. Regardless, this demonstrates a discrepancy in how the University prioritizes students and alumni. When the GICC’s concerns are addressed, and independent students’ concerns are ignored, it sends a dangerous message.
“We heard you,” administrators claimed in its slide announcing the change. This is not true. They only seem to have heard the sound of cold, hard cash and power. Unfortunately, most students have neither. Mad at the University’s actions? You’ll need to buy a plane to change their minds.
Raf Basas (he/him/his) is a sophomore Opinion columnist from Elk Grove, Calif. who will withhold his future donations to the University unless they restore independent dining. Unfortunately, it won’t matter, because he intends to major in English. You can reach him at raf.basas[at]princeton.edu or @raf.basas on Instagram.
Jerry Zhu is a junior in Economics who recognizes this change as a Pareto improvement, but is concerned about the broader real-world consequences that cannot be captured by welfare economics. 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
Reactions: First impressions on the Princeton University Art Museum
Ian Rosenzweig, Ava Johnson, Ana Boiangiu, and Audrey TanOn Oct. 31, the Princeton University Art Museum will be open to the public after nearly half a decade of remodeling. Our columnists who attended the Museum Student Preview event on Oct. 25 give us their first impressions.
On Oct. 31, the Princeton University Art Museum will be open to the public after nearly half a decade of remodeling. Our columnists who attended the Museum Student Preview event on Oct. 25 give us their first impressions.
Guilty about your ChatGPT environmental impact? Eat one less burger instead.
Jack L. ThompsonPersuading a single friend to eat one fewer hamburger will do orders of magnitude more good than eliminating all their college AI use. The fact of the matter is that ChatGPT isn’t nearly the environmental catastrophe that some make it out to be.
Persuading a single friend to eat one fewer hamburger will do orders of magnitude more good than eliminating all their college AI use. The fact of the matter is that ChatGPT isn’t nearly the environmental catastrophe that some make it out to be.
Dr. Bill Frist ’74, environmentalist?
Alex FosterWhile the HMEI website notes that “sponsorship of any event does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers, or views presented”, we should note and discuss Frist’s voting record and the whole of his legacy on human and planetary health.
While the HMEI website notes that “sponsorship of any event does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers, or views presented”, we should note and discuss Frist’s voting record and the whole of his legacy on human and planetary health.