Jonathan Reeves is one of many Americans who has to live with a gluten-free diet.
As an incoming freshman, Reeves would have been required to purchase one of Auburn's meal plan options, even though the number of gluten-free choices available are not as plentiful as they should be.
The weaknesses inherent in the meal plan's mandatory nature show when dealing with students who have different dietary needs, and that's just one crack in the facade.
When students have legitimate, documented medical dietary issues, the University must make accommodations.
We would hope they would act in such fashion out of the goodness of their hearts, but we're certain there is a legal obligation here as well.
We understand why the meal plan exists.
The campus restaurants would have difficulty staying financially viable without the money from those mandatory plans.
However, shouldn't that tell us something?
If it takes mandatory meal plans to help these restaurants make ends meet, then it seems obvious to us those restaurants are obviously not meeting the needs and demands of their customer base.
It's capitalism in its purest and simplest form. The customers have demands that aren't being met, so they go elsewhere.
Forced meal plans only ensure the quality of goods provided will continue to suffer.
Offer smaller, less expensive meal plans to students.
If the on-campus venues are forced out of their comfortable thrones of meal plan money, they'll be forced to better adapt their products to their built-in customers.
Increased competition will surely bring better options.
Thankfully, the University capitulated after Reeves produced a note from his doctor, and he will not be forced to buy into the culinary support scheme.
We're happy Reeves won his battle, but the meal plan melee is far from over.
Get ready; there's a food fight coming.
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
