What began as an initiative to save tax dollars for prisons has become a potentially major headache for UW students. Due to the success of prisons that do not purchase foods together in bulk, Gov. Doyle felt that implementing a similar plan in the UW System would allow for the same control and a decreased budget. However, the Wisconsin Union does not function on state tax dollars and receives no revenue from food and retail operations but instead receives contributions from alumni to maintain its facilities and programs. Therefore, changing vendors at the Union as Doyle has proposed would save absolutely no money for the state.
Perhaps more importantly, the students would no longer have a choice in the food items they consume. One food vendor will be chosen by the state, eliminating some of the foods which are most popular now, including Babcock Ice Cream and Usinger Brats. If the prospect of losing coffee-taste-test abilities at the Union scares you, consider the fact that Camp Randall Stadium, Kohl Center Catering and dorm menus will also be highly affected. The lack of available choices is a real threat as anticipated savings have already been excised from the school budget.
Another problem with the proposed plan is decreased competition. Offers made for contracts associated with purchasing food would become a price for the students to pay. Centralizing these contracts at the state level would mean giving up high-quality food for the lowest price. More products from outside Wisconsin would be consumed, and the food we currently buy locally and directly from producers would become a thing of the past. Why should we pay more when we are being forced to give up all of the advantages of our current program?
Furthermore, if the Union loses its current revenue, the building and its programming will be greatly affected. The Wisconsin Union Directorate, a student-run program, would lose its ability to offer many annual events to students. The Union Theater, musical events, Hoofers, mini-courses and, of course, dining opportunities would be forced to take a back seat while we throw our money away on a plan that is anything but student-friendly. The Directorate's ties with the Memorial Union Building Association would also be affected by the plan.
Doyle intends only to review the pending plan at face value. Without a deeper look, he will ignore the numerous ways in which this one decision will negatively affect the university and its students as a whole. Even sporting events will have an altered atmosphere when families and visitors cannot receive their favorite game-day food at campus arenas. More importantly, without the Union's competitive and consumer-considerate abilities, student participation in leadership and community-driven programs could fall to the wayside.
The bottom line is that this proposal will be punishment for students who do not deserve to be treated in such a manner. Perhaps in prisons, a food plan that is less desirable will continue to teach lessons to a community of people who have wronged society. However, not only does a university have an obviously different population, it is literally impossible for the state to benefit from altering the budget in this way. Maybe if Doyle had done a little more research he might realize the application of this plan would not only generate uproar among students but fail to generate the revenue he blindly hopes to gain.
Jessica Sprang is a sophomore majoring in journalism. Send comments to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
