
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.