While the recent changes to Dartmouth Dining Services have been conducted in a clandestine fashion, one thing is transparent these changes reflect ulterior motives that are not in students' best interests. On one hand, the College maintains that the new SmartChoice dining plans provide better value and nutrition for students. But students who are required to purchase a dining plan by College policy have collectively opposed the new system, criticizing the staggeringly inflated costs and limited functionality of the new meal swipes. At the same time, DDS has consistently been touted as a "break-even," non-profit business. But students have pointed out that DDS Director David Newlove published on his LinkedIn profile that DDS has pulled in over $2 million in profits over a two-year span.
Rather than treating students with the respect we deserve, DDS and Dartmouth representatives have repeatedly given inadequate and inconsistent responses to these complaints. If the College has any intention of dispelling concerns that it is misappropriating student revenues, it must reduce the amount that students are being charged for dining and match its stated goal of breaking even or publicly announce the use of DDS as a means of exploiting students for profit through a monopoly that contractually obligates students to purchase its services.
At a recent forum about the changes to DDS, Newlove did not deny charges that he published the claim of $2 million in profits over the last two years. Instead, he switched topics by launching into an ad hominem attack on Joseph Asch '79, who continues to host the information on his website ("Newlove responds to SmartChoice criticism," Oct. 11). In fact, Director of Media Relations for the College Justin Anderson recently confirmed that DDS pulled in over $1 million in profits this past year, citing "unusual circumstances" where renovations had yet to be completed and certain broken ovens had yet to be replaced ("Upperclassmen pick smaller meal option," Oct. 24).
Since the year in question, the College has aggressively restructured the meal plans in order to ensure greater revenues. While students each previously spent $4,200/year on the default Green plan, they now spend $4,725/year on the default SmartChoice14 plan, or $4,974/year for freshmen who are forced to purchase the SmartChoice20 plan. Those differences don't include the $600/year that used to be allocated to Topside purchases the Topside component of on-campus meal plans has been revoked, meaning that DDS will generate additional revenue through selling groceries, toiletries and school supplies at Topside. If the College isn't translating these changes into a profit that's significantly larger than its previous million-dollar surplus, it's clearly misallocating the increased income it's receiving from students.
Despite student outrage over these price increases, Newlove maintained at the DDS forum that the new plans ensured that all students would eat well, regardless of their financial backgrounds. But even still, students with and without financial aid have consistently denounced the new changes. When pressed for further details as to how Newlove determined that the new system would be more beneficial for financial aid students, Newlove admitted at the forum, "I truly don't know how the financial aid system works on campus." Perhaps Newlove can relate to students' utter confusion and frustration at truly not knowing how DDS' clandestine operations work on campus.
The College is also unable to validate its claims about other factors contributing to DDS' high prices. The DDS website claims that DDS suffers $40,000/year in losses through the "disappearance" of dining ware, including an annual loss of 18,000 pieces of silverware. Though the website does not expressly state that this loss is due to student theft, it suggests this by asking students to return items to dining facilities.
Tickled by the idea that Dartmouth students consistently steal 18,000 pieces of silverware year after year, I emailed Newlove asking him to provide documented evidence of the $40,000/year loss to The Dartmouth. While Newlove did not respond to requests to substantiate the published figures, those figures remain on the DDS website.
At an institution where students can be ejected for the most minor infractions of integrity, it's shocking for the College to get away with such a fraudulent abuse of its alleged non-profit status. Perhaps this would not have been such an issue if the College had announced DDS as a for-profit monopoly from the beginning. But given the circumstances, DDS must now reduce prices and live up to its standard as a break-even, non-profit business if it wishes to reaffirm its commitment to students.
