When I was younger I used to spend long hours playing the classic board game of Monopoly. At 10 years old, the word meant little more to me than passing “Go”, small plastic houses, paper money and small iron game pieces. When I got to college, however, the word ‘monopoly’ deepened itself in my level of consciousness with frustration over why I’m forced to spend far too much money on a meal plan when I would prefer to shop for food myself that I actually do want.
One need not venture far from the Google homepage to find food-provider Sodexo's assertion that it "improves the quality of daily life of millions of consumers worldwide." The company's website claims that consumers "entrust Sodexo to create an outstanding experience for the people we serve." Really? "Entrusted?" Or forced? The last I checked, on-campus students are coerced into purchasing a meal plan, not 'entrusting' their dietary needs to this food service giant. There is no option, with the exception for the choice between different levels of meal plan dining, and even then only a difference of $100 dollars. If Sodexo truly believed in its stated commitment to "making every day better for us all", one would think it would trust in the appeal and quality of its services to do just that, not force a clientele through a binding contract.
While recent attention surrounding Sodexo has focused on workers' rights - or lack thereof - there has been little focus on the food provider's prohibitive agreement with the university. Sodexo's contract with the university restricts any university-subsidized food service, stifling healthy competition and allowing its services to be mediocre at best rather than allowing market forces to entice the corporate giant to step up to the game. As students of the University of Denver, we forego huge sums of money to – imagine that – learn; but the agreement with Sodexo has compromised the ability of many of this university’s most ambitious to gain the most complete education experience possible. For an institution with a hospitality school as high ranking as ours, wouldn’t you find it odd that the university would have such a restrictive agreement with the provider for its dining halls? DU’s School of Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Management (HRTM) lacks any substantive real-life application for its curriculum beyond occasional banquets or a morning coffee stand. Institutions with comparable hospitality programs (such as Cornell) have at least some sort of dining venues open to the public, allowing students to gain practical experience beyond the classroom while providing the institution the opportunity to showcase the rigor and expertise of its programs. The University of Denver, however, has made a conscious decision to close itself off in a binding agreement with its dining hall provider, robbing not only hospitality students of their opportunity to gain valuable experiences, but all first- and second-year students who are forced into purchasing an overpriced meal plan with no alternative, save for the decision between the Gold and Copper meal plan.
But don’t take my word for it. One HRTM professor (a long-time business owner himself) was quick to point to the many hurdles the school had to jump when it decided to open its state-of-the-art banquet facilities to provide students with valuable out-of-class experience. Sodexo at first tried to nose its way in as the managing company (which in theory would defeat the purpose of the entire program itself – not allowing students the opportunity to run and manage the facility), but has since stepped back as long as the school does not “take their students.” That is, the HRTM program is primarily allowed to attract visitors and those who wouldn’t otherwise know of the school’s existence, but it is limited in its ability to attract students away from the “nursing home hours” of the dining halls (so bluntly put by one disgruntled Sodexo ‘client’). What’s more, the recently opened Beans café, opened as a class project of one of the HRTM classes to give students experience in opening and running a business, is prohibited by agreement with Sodexo from advertising or serving food – because, of course, that would be competing.
Am I championing an end to the university’s agreement with Sodexo? No, that’s not feasible, nor is it necessary. What I am calling for is a little healthy competition that will benefit all parties, and the lifting of the requirement established by the university and provider that all first- and second-year students purchase a $3,780 meal plan. The company would instead have to attract and appeal to its business, leading to better quality for students and a better business model for Sodexo. This would drive down the cost while simultaneously improving the quality of the campus dining experience. Only then will Sodexo truly be able to make “every day a better day” and students have a “higher overall satisfaction with their college experience.” So let us once again return this institution to be a marketplace of free competition and ideas, not of unscrupulous profiteering.
Thank you! This is a sweet blog, title, content, everything. I really like your targeting of Sodexho's slogans and incorporating it into your blog to make the slogans look ridiculous. You're underlying humor is great.
ReplyDeleteI was totally unaware of the "Beans" situation. Thats ridiculous! A student initiated coffee shop is restricted because of Sodexho's dictatorship? Ludicrous! How can students get a full understanding of the HRTM world if Sodexho, a school hired contractor, won't even allow them to get their hands wet?! We hired them, we probably should fire them.
Your argument is strong and anyone who is unaware of the situation prior to reading this blog should come away with a general, albeit somewhat-biased, understanding of the situation.
Great blog and blog post. You definitely put a heavy voice into your writing and spoke your mind on the issue. You had told me of your various issues with the contract briefly before I read this post and in your writing you articulated them well.
ReplyDeleteAs Phil didn't know about the "Beans" issue, neither did I. It was informative and now I wonder and will look into what Sodexo really means for our campus.
The incredible costs of both school and residence at DU are a timely issue for myself. I am concerned about the high costs and would like to find a way out of some sort of costs. Thanks for bringing this issue to the class.
I would agree with both Phillipe and Charlie that your post is very persuasive. You frame the issue in a very compelling manner, drawing on one of the more powerful commonplaces in American rhetoric--that is, the value of healthy competition and a free market sense of opportunity.
ReplyDeleteTo enhance your persuasiveness further, you might consider spending just a bit more time on your transition from the workers' issue. That is, to respect the kairos of this issue (which you're right to emphasize) you might need to explain how the two issues might relate. You might even consider gesturing to the possiblity that healthy competition might also enhance the reality for the workers, too. (Especially for readers of this blog, who might be drawn more the question of social justice these connections could be very persuasive.)
Last, as you conclude, I think I need to know more how your solution would work. Is it in feasible? How so? What reasons would make it a palatable option to the univeristy? What prevents it from being so? I don't think you need to answer all these questions, but you might attend to some version of them to show your readers (and implicitly the university) that this idea could actually work from their point of view, too.
I would like to start off by quoting you so I could point out just how right you are. You open your second paragraph by saying “One need not venture far from the Google homepage to find food-provider Sodexo's assertion that it "improves the quality of daily life of millions of consumers worldwide." The company's website claims that consumers "entrust Sodexo to create an outstanding experience for the people we serve." Really? "Entrusted?" Or forced?” One night I was talking to Ashley, the nice lady that stands at the grill and makes conversation and we were talking about her employer. She told me that the only clients of sodexo other than schools are prisons, so I’d say that forced is the best way to put it. Your appeal was great, and I think it was because I also had an issue with this company in my piece. The way they work the meal plans couldn’t be more unfair. You showed great ethos with all the research you did into the agreement between sodexo and the school. I had no idea that they had this much control. I see anything that I can comment on in your post in a negative way. The only thing you could do is perhaps propose a way that we can change the system ourselves. It is clear to me now that the school needs to change their policy and agreements with sodexo, but what could we do? Who do we have to campaign to? It is clear that amendments to the system need to be made, but how do you suggest we do it?
ReplyDeleteThis project allowed me the opportunity to enhance my more persuasive and informal style of writing, but to improve on skills that will translate into all forms and styles of writing; and provided me with an opportunity to effectively craft my ideas and complaints with a certain system into a persuasive argument, rather than rant. I was able to see the ins and outs of what makes an effective argument, and the different tools employed, rather than just angrily listing off my grievances. Going into the revision process, I have spoken with administrators who oversee the program and uphold the university's required meal plan, and hope to include some of this information in my final argument, as well as add to the piece about workers' rights. Rather than so quickly dismiss the issue as I did the first time around, I hope to build the connection between this issue and the lack of competition. Finally, I will demonstrate the effectiveness of my proposed solution, rather than so easily dropping it at the end of my argument.
ReplyDelete