Garvism: Are You Hungry for More? -

By Tommy Sukiennik

This is an independently submitted op-ed for our Quill section. Views and statements made in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Tower.

Dining services recently started a new to-go container program under their sustainability initiative to allow “flexibility for students, faculty, and staff who are on the go but still looking to take in the benefits of our dining halls while being green”. Dining services website also claims that the new initiative is “reducing waste”. This new policy makes students uncomfortable, is not totally sustainable, and may violate the dining contracts signed by students at the start of the term.

This new ‘environmental’ policy prevents students from taking leftover food out of Garvey Hall. Dining services has stopped using compostable utensils and plates and has brought back washable plates and silverware. Students must purchase Dining Services’ reusable container if they want to take food to-go. They are unable to use their own. According to dining services’ website, OZZI to-go containers are available for a one time purchase of “$7”. The website outlines how CUA students are now presented with the option of dining-in at Garvey Hall or paying a one-time fee for the new to-go system. The website explains “when you swipe in, you must decide to use your to-go box or eat your meal with us in the dining hall, but per our policy, you may not do both”.

How will this new system be enforced? Students have identified a bouncer at the exit of Garvey Hall, who prevents students from leaving with food. Third-year student Lilly French said “the bouncer creates an awkward and sometimes intimidating situation for students. It’s pointless. Why are we paying for a meal plan and unable to bring stuff home?”

Dining services maintains that their new policies are more sustainable than before. According to CUA dining services’ website, reduction of waste is the primary focus surrounding environmental impact. Dining services also claims that OZZI to go containers “reduce our carbon footprint”.

Fourth-year student, Lawrence Merritt, explained his frustrations with this argument. “If Garv actually wanted to be sustainable they would go back to compostable plates and utensils, and let students take food to go. Instead, they waste both water and food.” Although Lawrence is no expert on environmental science, he maintains his position. Lawrence has eaten at Garv since it opened, and is now considering making his own food.

You know what else would be sustainable? Allowing students to use their own reusable containers. However, this new policy requires any take-out which occurs to exist after the additional $7 fee. At the start of the year, students sign a financial contract with the university for an amount of “swipes”into Garvey Hall. At the time of signing, these swipes could be utilized for dining-in or take-out. There is a legitimate concern that the university has violated its contract with its students by adding this additional fee to utilize take-out swipes in Garvey Hall because students must pay an additional charge for a service for which they already signed a contract for at a set price at the start of the semester.

To be clear, the issue is not that there is an additional service with a cost. The issue is the removal of one of two options (dine-in or take-out) which was included under swipes without an additional fee in the contracts signed by students at the start of the year. If this is indeed a contract violation by the university, it could expose CUA to legal liability.

Whether the University violated its contracts or not, students have historically had frustrations with CUA’s dining services. Emmett Dowdal-Osborn, a 4th year student, explained in an interview what he called “Garvism”: a growing heat between students and dining services. Emmett concluded, “Sometimes I question dining services’ decisions.”

Many students disagree with dining services’ new ‘no-takeout’ rule, question the sustainability CUA’s to-go initiative claims to uphold, and wonder if their dining contracts have been violated.