You’d think Duke Student Government President Awa Nur, a senior, was expressing common sense when she told me that “students know the difference between choice and non-choice” in their dining options.
Duke administrators, though, are betting on the off chance that she’s wrong.
In one of the most egregious cases of this administration trying to hoodwink its students, University officials have proposed a plan to streamline Duke Dining’s budget—by forcing students to eat at their least profitable, and unsurprisingly, least appetizing venues. To add insult to injury, these officials have the gall to dub their oxymoronic proposal “directed choice.”
Yes, it is true that hard economic times call for hard decisions. Students owe administrators some degree of understanding as they undertake the no doubt difficult task of across-the-board fiscal belt-tightening. But the recent proposals by administrators to require students to spend a predetermined subset of their food points at specific unprofitable venues are not “hard decisions.” They are a cop out—a refusal to do the obvious in confronting the union contract responsible in significant part for Duke Dining’s budget problems, while instead loading costs on to students.
First, a recap: Duke, like many other universities, is facing serious fiscal strain resulting from the economic crisis of the last year and a half. Aiming to cut $125 million from its operating budget, and coping with a $2 million deficit in Dining Services, the University has been forced to develop strategies to cut expenses and increase revenue inflows.
Under the design of the Duke Dining system, some venues are privately operated, while others (such as the Great Hall and Marketplace) rely heavily on University subsidies. Given that some of these venues are profitable while others run enormous financial losses, University officials have concocted “directed choice” as a way to forcibly direct student food points to the locations that are least effective in attracting them voluntarily. The proposed plans would require students spend 500 to 700 of their food points at non-contracted (read: union-operated) eateries, such as the Great Hall, the Marketplace and Subway.
“It’s a very easy solution that puts the cost on students to bear,” Nur told me. “The University has very little action to take. No one needs to be fired, [and] no changes in personnel [are necessary]. It’s a cost that can easily be transferred over to students.”
It’s arguable whether directed choice is a “solution” at all. If anything, it is little more than a Band-Aid to the long-term problem of a bloated union contract that drags the Great Hall and Marketplace into unprofitability by loading them with an unmanageable set of financial responsibilities.
Duke Student Government Chief of Staff Mike Lefevre, a junior, explained that the University is in the position of having to over-hire employees in anticipation of rampant tardiness issues. Employees often do not show up to work, or show up so late (union workers are allowed to be up to three hours and 59 minutes “tardy” 20 times under the contract, Lefevre said), creating a scheduling nightmare for managers. At the end of the day, union venues on campus struggle with being variously both over- and under-staffed because of the hurdles imposed by union contract rules, Lefevre added.
“When we have to find work for people to do because we have to pay them, that’s a problem,” Nur said.
No kidding. Because it seems rather obvious that the union contract presents a more than small predicament for the University, administrators’ support for directed choice is unlikely a mere oversight. A more convincing explanation is that the University is afraid of the political fallout from taking a tougher line towards the unions given the historically testy state of town-gown relations. Vice President for Campus Services Kemel Dawkins could not be reached for comment.
In fairness, this is an understandably delicate situation. But the University cannot continue to put its students on the hook for the increasingly ridiculous concessions that it is apparently expected to tolerate. One has to wonder what the University’s tipping point is—and if it does not occur now, under severe fiscal stress, will it ever? Are the political ramifications of arguing more forcefully for changes to the union contract so much worse than the absurdity that students would be forced to endure under the directed choice plan?
Tough choices will need to be made, and perhaps some venues will need to be closed to balance the books, Nur conceded. But “directed choice” is no choice at all.
Enough is enough. At some point, this University needs to stick up for its students—and better late than never.
Vikram Srinivasan is a Trinity senior. His column runs every other Thursday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.