THE DINING HALL CHARGE

In another column of this issue of the CRIMSON a former Cambridge student outlines what he considers to be the chief difficulties with the proposal to have $8.50 as a flate rate for board which will entitle House members to fourteen meals per, week. Analysis of the possible combinations of meals by which money may be saved or lost by individuals under this system affords an absorbing pastime for a free afternoon but is too complicated for treatment here. At any rate the whole situation boils down to the fact that men will in effect be required to take a large majority of their meals in the Houses or lose money. This unavoidable element of compulsion is in itself contrary to an ancient Harvard policy and is bound to arouse opposition from all those who prize this tradition of individualism and non-interference as something almost unique in American education.

It is particularly unfortunate that this restriction on freedom works more hardship upon some men financially less comfortable than others. This is not only out of line with the Harvard custom which deprecates distinction by wealth, but is wholly antagonistic to the spirit of democracy which is presumed to be the essence of the House Plan.

Still another argument against a virtual requirement of this sort is the admirable one brought up in the article above referred to to the effect that men are likely to look with favor upon food, the eating of which is optional and scorn that which they are in any sense forced to eat. It may be absurd, but it is undeniably true as the case of Emmanuel College concretely shows.

If the food in the houses was better then any other food in Cambridge, other things being equal, men would eat there of their own volition. If the food were not so good, or if other conditions such as convenience of location were not equal, it is entirely wrong that force should be exerted to get them to eat there. It would seem to be advisable to make the food as good as it is possible to do so and let the success of the project depend upon the excellence of the board without resort to financial persuasion.

It is understood that the present proposal of the required minimum is due to the dictation of the Bursar's office. This organization finds it impossible to operate the dining halls in any other fashion without losing money: Its decision must be taken as final since it has had thorough experience in this field.

This situation coupled with the considerations outlined above indicates that permission should be granted the steward to lose a certain amount on the dining halls for the first few years, at least. After all, if the dining Halls cannot compete on a free basis with the other restaurants in Cambridge, there does not seem to be much point in giving them the protective tariff of a flat charge per week. While they are still in the infant industry class protection in the form of University subsidy seems much more advisable in that it will not antagonize any potential users of the Halls by the noxious element of compulsion. If after several years experiment on this basis, men still do not want to eat often enough in the halls to make them self supporting on a per meal basis, the whole idea of University dining halls should be done away with, unless the University is willing to continue the practice of subsidy on the ground that House Dining Halls are a good thing. In any case the subsidy should not come from those who do not think University dining Halls are a good thing as is the case with the twenty-five percent of absentees at the Freshman dormitories or the hypothetical group of House residents who will not eat their entire allotment of fourteen meals.