New meal plan is completely bogus

To the Editor: I don't know if anyone noticed this, but the new meal plan is bogus. All three options cost the same, but if you look at what you get, all but the 21 meal per week plan is a rip off: Start off with the logical assumption that since all three plans cost the same, you should be able to buy the same number of meals in a year with each plan. But, take for example the 14 meal per week plus $400 "flex dollars" plan; a meal on campus costs roughly between five and seven dollars, depending on which meal you buy, so take an average meal to be six dollars. 400 divided by six equals 66 and 2/3 meals. It is not possible to buy 2/3 a meal, so divide 66 by seven (for the number of meals in a week), and the answer is roughly 9.5 weeks, which means that someone on the 14 meal per week plus $400 plan will be able to eat 21 meals per week for less than 10 weeks of the entire year. There are roughly 26 weeks in a year (13 per semester), so that means that they get 116 meals per year LESS than someone on the 21 meal per week plan, and THEY PAID THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY! Going through the same process with the seven meal per week plus $800 plan, you will find that a person using this option will receive 231 meals per week LESS than someone on the 21 meal per week plan, and again, they payed the same amount. In other words, a person who chooses the 14 meal per week plan will be spending an extra $696, roughly, and a person who chooses the seven meal per week plan will spend about an extra $1386!

-Leah Lipsky

Dye statement is reckless

To the Editor:

If O.C. President Nancy Dye has any knowledge of rooming house owners who are "totally reckless about safety" (The Oberlin Review, 28 February 1998), or, even partially reckless, then it behooves the President, in her role as chief protector of student life and limb, to specify who and where these menaces are: what names, what addresses. O.C. President Nancy Dye is especially behooved to identify any and all reckless landlords or ladies who are faculty or staff members. The prompt revelation of such knowledge will be welcomed by all those who are truly interested in the safety and welfare of off-campus tenants. In the first rank of welcome will be the landlords who operate their rental properties in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

If the President of Oberlin College lacks well-founded knowledge of landlord recklessness, then her statement is itself reckless, and irresponsible, and damaging.

-David E. Sonner

Back // Commentary Contents \\ Next

T H E O B E R L I N R E V I E W