U.Va. must end its dining contract with Aramark

Recently, I visited some high school friends at the University of Georgia. As fellow first-years, my friends also had meal plans and ate the majority of their meals in dining halls. But I was shocked to find that I actually enjoyed the food, something I cannot say about the University. Surely, I thought, there is a good explanation — and there is — the University’s decision to choose the Aramark Corporation has negatively impacted the student dining experience, and may even be unethical.

Last fall, I wrote a column detailing why the University’s dining experience is of poor nutritional value, and the continued partnership with Aramark makes future improvements seem unlikely. As part of its contract with Aramark, the University has made some investments in healthy options for students that also come at a low cost — but only some. The Castle — a University restaurant that promises sustainable practices and plant-based options — was revamped and earned Green Restaurant certification, a major step forward for nutritional options. The plan still lacks affordability, as an All-Access Meal Plan, required for first-years, runs from $2,890$3,130 per semester. A $3,000 meal plan should come with higher stand- ards than one restaurant dedicated to healthy eating.

A company that puts profits ahead of food quality and employee safety has no place on our Grounds.

A comparable meal plan at the University of Georgia runs at about $2,297, around $700 cheaper than meal plans here. And here, the $3,000 is a required purchase on top of tuition, while at Georgia, students have a choice of several meal plans to figure out what best suits them. U.Ga., who does not contract with Aramark, is able to offer more expansive hours at their five din- move did not go without criticism, with a 2015 editorial in The Cavalier Daily citing extremely unethical practices in prisons — serving garbage, dog food and worms to inmates — and paying workers only the minimum wage despite continued fiscal success. This poor conduct does not come as a surprise. In one Michigan prison and two Ohio prisons, maggots were repeatedly found near food — to the point where the states fined the corpo-

$13 million in 2014 by offering the ability to outsource dining services at a lower cost — partly through paying workers low wages and lowering costsper-meal for prisoners. These cost cutting measures proved a valuable investment for the state, as it likely prevented one correctional facility from closure. Here at the University, Aramark invested $20 million to build the Pavilion XI food court and the Fresh Food Company in Newcomb Hall as

Students at the aspiring number one public university should arrive on Grounds and feel supported by the dining choices they make”

ing halls, effectively allowing students to pay less for more. But our Aramark contract offers comparatively limited hours across all dining halls — a relationship where students are charged more money for fewer benefits.

Even as concerns continue over the partnership, in 2014, the University and Aramark agreed to a 20-year contract that accompanies a promised multi-million dollar investment in dining facilities across Grounds. That ration $200,000 and $130,200 respectively for the incidents, a mere slap on the wrist for a multi-billion dollar corporation like Aramark. The University’s continued partnership with the company is effectively condoning Aramark’s unethical actions, sending students a clear message that ethics and health are not a major concern.

It is not hard to recognize the appeal of Aramark’s services for its clients. Aramark saved the State of Ohio part of the 2014 contract renewal. But we see time and time again that these tactics of allowing Aramark to invest for a company to cut costs reduces the quality of the product received. Florida cut ties with Aramark in 2008 after an audit showed the corporation had skimped on meals as a way to cut costs and increase its profit margin, while still overcharging the state.

Jim Ryan’s 2030 ‘Great and Good’ Plan aspires to have the University be the number one public school in the country. Progress is being made as new facilities are constructed and the number of undergraduate applicants continues to increase. But students at the aspiring number one public university should feel supported by the dining choices they make, not concerned about the ethics. Unless the banner on the University’s dining website wants to read “number one in education, number 1,248 in food,” something needs to change. Much like inmates at correctional facilities, students are people that deserve quality food. The University has an opportunity to improve in an area where it is lacking, but it must do the work in order to be truly great and good.

FORD MCCRACKEN is a Senior Associate Opinion Editor for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.

Professors should reconsider no-technology policies

For a generation of college students raised in the digital age, it often comes as a surprise when professors establish no-technology policies on the first day of class. Professors support these policies by claiming that banning technology reduces distractions and encourages handwritten notes, overall leading to better retention of information. These bans extend to laptops, which some students with disabilities depend on for success in class. While no-technology policies have good intentions behind them, they negatively impact students with disabilities by isolating them and adding to disability stigmas.

While some professors may argue that no-technology policies aren’t necessarily harmful to students with disabilities because they can receive permission to use technology by filing an application with the Student Disability Access Center, we should avoid isolating students with special needs whenever possible. SDAC can provide accommodations for typing notes and recording lectures, they cannot change the stigmas surrounding disability that may make a student feel alienated in the classroom. For example, if a student is using a laptop to take notes in a room of students not allowed to touch their laptops, that student may

No-technology policies are harmful to students with disabilities feel singled out. The student may then feel the need to justify their laptop use to others, which they should not have to do unless they want to. Disability is a sensitive topic, and students should not feel pressured to justify their needs to their peers for the sake of a technology ban.

Students with SDAC accommodations might not only feel singled out

— creating a negative learning environment.

It is also essential to consider that there are students who have disabilities but do not have accommodations. A student’s lack of accommodations could be because they find the SDAC process challenging, they have a currently undiagnosed disability or they thought they would have more free- typed notes for both students with and without disabilities. Having access to a laptop in class can help students copy down information faster and have more legible notes. While bad handwriting likely does not qualify for SDAC accommodations, these note-taking needs further show that technology in the classroom has benefits. Professors may argue that the ben- tion of the study could not generate the same results. The replicated study demonstrates that the conclusion that handwritten notes are better than typed notes is “premature.” This study reflects that no-technology policies are not as useful as professors claim them to be. For a generation of students raised on laptops, it is essential that more studies on handwritten notes are done before professors jump to technology bans. amongst their peers in no-technology classes, but also may have uncomfortable interactions with professors. By supporting their no-technology policies with claims that laptops lead to more distractions and less effective notes, professors imply that students who need laptops do not perform to their standards. When a professor expresses explicit distaste for laptops, it can be uncomfortable for a student to ask for their accommodation. Students should not have to feel like their needs are a burden, and implementing no-technology policies does just that dom to use technology in college. It is wrong that a student who has never needed technology-related accommodations can sign up for a class that interests them just to find out that they actually do need an accommodation to perform well. Now, they must fill out paperwork, get forms signed by a treating provider and meet with an SDAC advisor to succeed in class. By the time they secure their accommodation, they may have already fallen behind.

Professors with no-technology policies also overlook the benefits of efits of typed notes do not outweigh the cost of potential online districations, but that should be a choice students get to make. In general, college should be a time to grow and develop independence. Students should be allowed to exercise that independence by choosing if handwritten or typed notes work better for them.

While there are many ways no-technology policies harm students,it is also important to investigate the benefits professors claim exist. An initial study showed handwriting to be the best method for notetaking, but a replica-

No-technology policies cause more harm than they do good. Professors paternalistically banning technology causes an array of unnecessary problems. I do not stand to say professors are intentionally engaging in discriminatory practices. Instead, I beg professors to reconsider the effect banning technology from their classrooms has on students.