IF THERE is one similarity between Cheney's Quail-Gate episode and the dining hall's response to Green Dining's "No Tray Tuesdays" initiative, it is the rank smell of scandal and Dining's initial unwillingness to assume responsibility for its actions. The difference is that Cheney injured his hunting partner, while University Dining has more or less killed off the momentum for green dining. "No Tray Tuesdays" has seen discontent because of the reluctance of University Dining to live up to corporate responsibility, which would otherwise alleviate some of the burden from the student-run Green Dining initiative.
For instance, University dining has failed to complement the efforts of Green Dining by refusing to even commit to a coherent compost policy.It not only doesn't have a compost policy which would eliminate food waste altogether, but it is not even willing to commit to looking at this alternative in the future. Due to this fact, students are perplexed as to why their tray privileges, which are embedded in the prices of meal plans that they pay for, are being taken away just because they are wasting a quarter pound of waste per person -- which could all be recycled should Dining invest in a viable compost plan. If the dining halls are truly as interested in preserving the environment, as they say, why not put recycling ahead of profit maximization?
Another obvious succession in a comedy of errors is Dining's failure to communicate their search for better material other than styrofoam for take out boxes. "No Tray Tuesdays" resulted in an unintended secondary effect of encouraging more students to use takeout containers since they felt unnecessarily inconvenienced by the lack of trays. This has critics rightly questioning -- why preserve water used for washing trays, which is a renewable resource, when producing more non-biodegradable styrofoam boxes is a more hazardous problem to our environment? Had University Dining communicated the difficulty in acquiring alternative materials, or even their attempts to search for them, students would have been more appeased.
Thirdly, Dining failed to coordinate with Green Dining and communicate to students where exactly the money saved from the reduced costs of washing trays was going. With water saved from about 35,000 trays, which is about 30percent of Dining's water bill -- inconvenienced students have the right to know where the money they are saving on behalf of Dining is being sent. Is it used for better service, for better quality food (which would further reduce wastage), or for reduced meal plan prices (which would compensate for the inconvenience)? Or is it eaten up by increased profit margins for the Aramark Corporation? Unfortunately, Dining was not interested in fulfilling their end of the bargain when they could reap profits off student inconvenience, all the while hiding behind the "student-run initiative" that is Green Dining.
Representatives from Observatory Hill's Marketing and Management staff argue about the absence of a compost program by the University, and the infeasibility due to the numerous permits required. However, no member of the O-Hill staff was willing to even commit to looking into an independent compost program to preserve the environment, beyond suggesting that "Green Dining should look into it." Location Manager Mora B. Sims insists that the communication and awareness aspects of environmental programs should be the responsibility of Green Dining. But that is just the problem -- Dining is unwilling to assume any responsibility for its actions, and merely redirects initiatives and blame to Green Dining.
The head of Green Dining, Kendall Singleton, complains that while many alternatives have been considered, the organization has a lot on its plate. To compound this problem of irresponsibility, ever since the negative response to "No Tray Tuesdays," Dining has created a bureaucracy simply for students to ask questions about the recent initiatives.Unfortunately, this appears to be in pace only to shield themselves from responsibility as appointment procedures are unclear, to say the least, and there is barely any information sharing with students.
University Dining must step up its efforts to preserve the environment, live up to corporate responsibility and improve communication and awareness among students. Distancing itself from Green Dining, and displaying a stubborn unwillingness to share details as to how a student run initiative will benefit students, is downright irresponsible and will result in a continued lack of support from the student population. Otherwise, with Dining in hot water and with Green Dining having too much on its plate, the dream of environmental preservation will continue to be far from a reality.
Prashanth Parameswaran is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint writer.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
