Trading in trays for a day

Yesterday, Carleton College decided to remove all lunch trays from its dining halls. In an effort to minimize costs and improve sustainability, Carleton declared a weekly “trayless Friday.” This seemingly uncontroversial move was met with a surprising amount of backlash. While I don’t necessarily agree with all of the means associated with “trayless Friday,” the ends are justifiable.

The reasoning behind my support of going “trayless” is purely an economic one. As Stephen Dubner notes, “people buy less food and subsequently eat less and throw away less.” This should be no surprise considering students can’t fill up multiple plates since they can’t hold much more than one. At the same time, there are downfalls. First, it’s inconvenient. Kids want to grab as much food as they can as quickly as possible. While I have no way of knowing how much utility each student gains from eating off a tray each meal, it would be hard to convince me that the extra utility gained from trays outweighs the money saved from getting rid of them. Plus, if kids really want trays, I’m sure they could be sold on a per meal basis at the entrance or rented out for the term. Second, there is plenty of food wasted that doesn't even make it to the trays of students. As a student worker in the dining hall last year, I got to witness this first hand. At the end of the night, I would often find myself dumping trays of cookies or crocks of soup that hadn't yet been served. I was appalled and disgusted by the excessive waste. But instead of providing a reason to oppose trays, this simply shows the need for the dining services to more efficiently allocate resources. Third, kids complain that we’re “stuffing the pockets of large, unethical corporations.” But this doesn’t mean that those corporations shouldn’t be looking for ways to cut their costs, nor does it mean that Carleton students can’t receive some of the money saved back in their pockets.

The latter objection actually hints at a larger, more complicated issue: the make-up of Carleton’s dining contract. I have adamantly opposed the dining structure at Carleton due to the fact that in no way does it resemble a free market. There is little incentive to provide grade-A food at low prices. Bon Appetit essentially has monopoly power over students who live on campus. I do not have the expertise on the structure of Carleton’s contract to make a sound, positive economic analysis, but it is pretty obvious that the Carleton’s dining services are quite flawed.

It is highly possible that, without proper incentives, going "trayless" is a bad idea, particularly if it's limited to once a week. But in the long run, Carleton should seriously consider going trayless for good. Doing so would provide Carleton an opportunity to reduce waste and, more importantly, lower costs.