Column: Trayless dining senseless pursuit

By Sami Hall

Published Dec. 8, 2009

I never liked the idea of trayless dining. Maybe because I like having a tray in order to ensure I make only one trip to get food. Maybe because I like being able to easily carry silverware, my glass of water and my food without hassle. Or maybe it is because I like having an easy way to return my dishes after I am finished eating. No matter the reason, I was clear when I voted in a survey last year in my opposition to trayless dining.

I guess the Residence Halls Association did not hear the other overwhelmingly "nay" voters and me because it decided to ignore our voices and opinions and try trayless anyway. It makes perfect sense because if we were already opposed to the idea, forcing us to deal with trayless dining would definitely change our minds.

Nevertheless, RHA persevered. Now, with trayless week over, Residential Life has issued a survey that intends to again seek out how people feel about trayless dining.

For those of you who have yet to take the survey, allow me to explain. The question reads, "Given preceding data and your personal experience, would you be in favor of Campus Dining Services officially going trayless on a permanent basis?" A chart detailing the amount of food saved during the trial week precedes the question.

What it really should say is, "Given the university's relentless pursuit of trayless dining, is this the point where you finally break and say 'Fine! Take away my trays!' and realize your voice only matters if it agrees with RHA?"

If the university truly wanted to know what respondents think of trayless dining and if the statistics would sway them, then it should have asked the question first with absolutely no statistics, given respondents would already have an opinion after experiencing trayless dining. Then the university should have provided the numbers and asked if knowing the information changed their minds.

I have questions for RHA. Although RHA has attempted to answer some of these questions, none of the answers were satisfactory.

First, what does RHA plan to do about the tray return belts? Many can only accommodate trays and not plates, glasses or silverware. What is RHA going to do to change that and where will they get the money for the change? So far, RHA's best solution is to leave trays by the tray return. But what will keep people from just using the trays to get food in the first place? Does this not defeat the purpose of trayless dining?

Also, what about ADA people? RHA said it will provide trays "upon request" to those who need them or demand them. RHA is asking ADA students to go out of their way to get something they inherently need. And what if everyone demanded a tray?

My problem is not it can't answer these questions to our satisfaction, but despite these obvious problems in its plan, it still insists on blindly moving forward toward trayless dining. The best military generals were the ones who knew when to retreat.

Unfortunately for RHA, the more it pushes trayless dining, the more I hate the idea, no matter the statistics they throw at me. I have made my opinion abundantly clear. Until it provides compelling answers to our questions, including what motivates it to insist on pushing this now inane issue, it would do well to leave this subject alone. Those opposed (and there are a lot of us) will only get more vocal from here.