When it comes to on-campus dining, Duke students have it made. The Loop, The Refectory and Blue Express are a far cry from the dining halls found on most college campuses.

But a dining system driven by choice and quality comes at a high price. As a result of the University’s two-year-old contract with Bon Appetit Management Company and other losses associated with contracted vendors and the Merchants on Points program, Dining Services operates with an annual deficit of approximately $2.2 million.

The current dining model is financially unsustainable and needs to change. In addressing this issue, however, administrators should seek long-term, fair solutions—not quick fixes like “directed choice.”

In discussions with Duke Student Government leaders and the Duke University Student Dining Advisory Committee, administrators have adamantly pushed for a “directed choice” dining plan in which students would be required to spend a certain number of food points at Bon Appetit-operated dining venues.

“Directed choice” is a short-sighted non-solution to a complicated problem. Such a proposal rewards poorly performing vendors with greater student spending, reduces any incentive for non-contracted eateries to improve or innovate, and places the brunt of the deficit solely on the backs of students.

More importantly, “directed choice” amounts to little more than a band-aid: it fails to address the underlying causes of Duke Dining’s deficit, including the preponderance of campus eateries, Merchants on Points vendors and excessive contracts. Thankfully, this idea has lost traction due to vocal opposition from both DSG President Awa Nur and members of DUSDAC.

But with “directed choice” essentially dead, the University still has a dining deficit to erase, and realistically, students will have to make some sort of concession. If administrators hope to successfully solve this dining dilemma, they must be frank and honest about the problem they are facing.

So far in this process, student leaders have been excluded from meetings, and dining officials have been anything but transparent. This is not reasonable, nor is it productive.

Students are Duke Dining’s largest constituency and possess the greatest on-the-ground knowledge of how the dining system functions from a consumer perspective. By incorporating more of their input into the process, administrators have a better chance at arriving at a workable solution that addresses the financial issues that plague the University’s dining system.

In the short-term, the University would be wise to consider a variety of strategies—not one cure-all policy—to close the deficit in the next year or two. A reduction in contracted vendors’ hours along with a limit on how many food points students can spend on Merchants on Points might help.

Looking to the long-term, more creative, systemic changes are possible. A restructuring of employee contracts could help bring down costs and improve service. Additionally, eliminating Bon Appetit from the Great Hall and replacing it with contracted vendors is another option, as is scaling back the number of campus eateries.

Changing the dining system won’t be easy, but with collaboration and transparency, it might yield an outcome that both administrators’ pocketbooks and students’ palates can live with.