<p>No one is saying that is unreasonable at all. A few of us think colleges with only one dining hall might not be the best place for someone with severe allergies to go, and that choices for the allergic student should be made within the context of that knowledge. I am surprised no one here has started a list of colleges that are especially friendly/accommodating to people with food allergies or preferences.</p>
<p>Also, remember that the OP’s question was about her son’s college (where there is only one dining hall) and the new dietary restrictions–which apply to everyone–were imposed after the students enrolled and arrived on campus. What I object to in principle is a PA student deciding to attend such a college, and then insisting that the school accommodate his or her needs even if it poses challenges or LEGAL RISKS for everyone else that weren’t spelled out up front. On top of that, after the PA student gets to the college, anyone who does not gladly go along with the changes to policies on behalf of this one student is now cast as “selfish” or “not valuing his/her life” or “not being a good member of a community.”</p>
<p>Here’s the thing about communities: they form around people with shared interests/needs/abilities. I would never attend a super-religious college and then expect my atheistic views to be roundly supported by the campus community. If I wanted a quiet environment with no late-night revelry to disturb me, I wouldn’t apply to live in the “party dorm” and then expect everyone to change on my behalf. What we have here is the insistence by some that their kids’ choices should not be limited by their PA–but that limits are OK for everyone else.</p>
<p>Right. And what about stress? We probably all know people who are at high risk of heart attacks due to their family history, weight, etc. What is our responsibility to not “put them over the edge” through our actions–expecting too much of them at work, accidentally cutting them off while driving, being the person that has to tell them their mortgage application was rejected? What about serving Uncle Al a gin and tonic at a family reunion even though everybody knows Uncle Al has liver disease? What if this is the last drink he has before his liver fails? </p>
<p>The answer seems to be pretty obvious: use common sense and compassion in our response to people who are physically compromised…but also expect them to use good judgment and take responsibility for their own actions.</p>
<p>BB - my daughter has celiac disease and eats a gluten-free diet. We have a separate toaster at home and a separate shelf where she keeps gluten-free products. For “communal” jars in our household (like peanut butter or jelly), she keeps her own, to be safe. Nonetheless, I still am not going to put it in the same category as peanut allergies. Sorry.</p>
<p>I agree that a PA student desiring to go to a college with only one dining hall that is not peanut-free should think about that and perhaps it becomes a deal-breaker, but perhaps a non-PA student desiring to go to a college with only one dining hall that restricts peanuts should also think about whether the accessibility to peanut butter and nut products in the dining hall is a deal-breaker for him, too.</p>
<p>First, a private college choosing to be super-religious is actually Constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. </p>
<p>I don’t think one has the constitutional right to have one’s eating preferences catered to anyplace. Especially when doing so in some contexts like a college dining hall/area may cause a severe medical emergency for those with PA/nut allergies. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If a college…especially a small residential college priding itself on fostering a close-knit campus community through its advertising/PR like LACs or LAC-like universities…then being criticized when those promises aren’t kept is correct. </p>
<p>Moreover, some of the majority’s “right to free association” arguments sounds eerily like the BS arguments I’ve seen justifying racial discrimination by businesses, banking lenders, real estate sellers, social/activities clubs, etc. </p>
<p>Not too long ago, some sporting/activities club in the Philly area which tried having it both ways by operating as a private social club to bar undesirable racial minorities and yet…accept money to rent out their facilities* only to refuse the renters entrance when they were found by the club to be those very minorities they didn’t want among them were rightly sued into closure. </p>
<ul>
<li>My understanding of that case is that private clubs are actually legally allowed to be discriminatory even in ways which are against EEOC protected groups if they operate as an exclusive social club supported exclusively by membership dues. If those dues aren’t enough and they need to enter into business relationships with outsiders as was the case with that Philly club…they can’t maintain those discriminatory policies because now they’re operating a business with the greater public. In that case…the public’s interest in not being subjected to racial or other forms of discrimination as defined under the EEOC and other anti-discriminatory laws is greater than the club’s right to “free association”.</li>
</ul>
<p>I know that, cobrat. I am talking about how <em>I</em> as an atheist would fit into that culture. I wouldn’t expect other students to embrace me as part of their community.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, it is not about promises not being kept–it is about the rules changing midway through a student’s time at the college or between when he accepts admission and starts his first term.</p>
<p>I’m surprised that 23 pages into this thread no one has started a list of colleges that are especially good for people with food allergies, nor have any of the people whose kids have them shared their experience of college search and selection given this additional constraint.</p>
<p>Again, touching peanut butter and being in the same room with peanut butter and inhaling peanut butter does not cause anaphylaxis. I’ve posted a link from the medical literature with regards to this. I say this as a parent of kids who are anaphylactic to peanuts and carry epinephrine. Maybe if dining halls were throwing peanut flour into the air there might be a remote chance of peanut protein being released into the air which might cause anaphylaxis. I don’t think most dining halls are serving shelled peanuts or packaged peanuts which might have the remote possibility of peanut dust being released into the air. I’m more concerned about my kids having a boyfriend girlfriend who eats peanuts or tree nuts and then kisses my kid right after. They know that boyfriends/girlfriends need to be nut free for the most part. Yes, peanut allergy is potentially deadly, but many overstate the risks for certain situations. This allergy can be successfully managed while living a normal life and eating in most situations ( my kids have never done Thai restaurants, for example).</p>
<p>I happen to agree that a small school with only one dining option would probably not be a great choice for someone with a peanut allergy. The risk of someone even accidentally having something in a hall for the entire community would seem intolerably high to me. On the other hand a big school where not everyone eats in every facility could probably be managed better. I would present it as making a small, enclosed area a peanut appreciation zone so people could go wild, the afflicted would know to stay away, and then it would be less upsetting to designate other places as completely peanut free and mean it. It seems to me that more, smaller facilities could be much more easily managed than one big facility that has to meet the needs of possibly thousands of people.</p>
Sure, if we can also can the sanctimonious statements about how people with allergies need to take responsibility for their own lives, toughen up, or go to some other college so you can have your peanut butter sandwich. It was that line of argument that finally got me fed up (so to speak).</p>
<p>Hunt, do you not agree that people should take responsibility for their own lives? Or that they should choose carefully among colleges that are likely to best meet their needs (academically, geographically, financially and in every other way including dietary accommodations)? Isn’t the whole purpose of this website empowering people to make good college choices?</p>
<p>Also, I don’t recall anyone telling anyone else to “toughen up.” You are being dramatic.</p>
Do you not agree that people living in a community should take responsibility for the well-being of everybody in the community?</p>
<p>I confess to being annoyed by the suggestion that these two ideas are incompatible.</p>
<p>
Don’t you think that this would seem like a pretty cavalier question if we were talking about, say, a kid who uses a wheelchair? The issue that seems to be troubling people is whether peanut allergies are common and serious enough that every college ought to take reasonable steps to accommodate people with this issue–as they do for people in wheelchairs.</p>
<p>Yes, I agree with this principle and do not think the two ideas are incompatible. I am just saying that I don’t think every “community” is right for everyone. Why is it asking too much of the PA person to choose from a range of options that either are already equipped to handle his/her needs or that can easily do so without forcing radical change on everyone else?</p>
<p>And for the umpteenth time, no one is saying anything about refusing to take reasonable accommodations…yet it keeps coming up.</p>
<p>I’m not getting the same vibe about this as you are</p>
<p>
I’m getting the sense, at least from Sally, that what she is saying is that some choices are more risky than others and that it’s not necessarily worth fighting for perfect accommodation at every school because you won’t achieve it. I would say that just because you can do something doesn’t necessarily mean that you should or that it is worth doing at all. For example, a kid with mobility issues has the absolute right to attend Lehigh University, but it is completely valid to knock it off the list because it’s uncomfortably hilly and there are other schools that are more comfortable for his specific situation. Or he could decide that Lehigh is the one and it WOULD be worth ensuring that his needs are completely met, but if Lafayette is not the one, then he doesn’t need to do the research and demand the accommodations there.</p>
<p>If for every 500 people, there is one person whose peanut allergy is so severe that having a peanut free section in a cafeteria in which prepared foods are not made with peanut products is not sufficient, what makes more sense: telling that one student that maybe that college isn’t the right fit, and she should instead go to one of the 90 + percent of colleges that could accommodate her allergy without inconveniencing the entire student body, or telling the other 499 students - some of whom will have their own dietary reasons for wanting peanut butter at meals - that they are free to choose another school if they don’t like it? In fact, some of those 499 students might be eating a lot of peanut butter because they don’t trust the cooked meals to be free of THEIR allergens. </p>
<p>Of course the parent of someone with an extreme peanut allergy wants to do everything possible to minimize their risk. That doesn’t mean everything they would like is medically warranted, or if it is, that it is medically warranted in enough cases to justify a sweeping policy change. There is a reason we don’t generally allow policies to be dictated exclusively by the most interested parties, including policies in which the consequences are far more likely to be deadly than in the case of peanut allergies. A person with a fatal illness, for instance, might be willing to try an experimental treatment with an infinitesimal chance of success, but if he isn’t one of the people selected for the clinical trial, he isn’t going to get that treatment. And while there are many , many problems with our health care system, even the ideal system would still come with these kinds of tough choices.</p>
<p>Granted, the “cost” of giving up peanuts is a lot less than the cost of bankrupting our health system by funding every desperate medical treatment. But conversely, the risk of peanut exposure is a lot lower than the risk of a terminal illness, and the severely allergic college student has a lot more options (namely going to a different school or electing not to sign up for the meal plan) than the dying patient does,</p>
<p>I also don’t think the example of a student in a wheelchair is a good one for several reasons:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>making a building wheelchair accessible doesn’t affect any other students. The only cost is the literal cost of construction.</p></li>
<li><p>a student with peanut allergies is running a risk - and a pretty small one - in a dining hall mindful of peanut allergies. A student in a wheelchair is absolutely incapable of entering a building without a ramp. </p></li>
<li><p>Rules requiring that buildings be accessible are burdensome, but they are probably the least restrictive remedy available for allowing students with mobility issues to attend most colleges. There are very, very few campuses that could naturally and easily be made accessible, so the ADA had to step in to mandate costly changes. By contrast, there are other measures available to even further reduce the already small risk of fatal allergic reactions, and in any case, probably 95% of the schools in the nation could very easily become safe for the peanut allergic with almost no fuss by designating one of their dining halls peanut free. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>There is a massive difference betwen “I’m sorry, you can’t go to any of the colleges within a fifty mile radius because you can’t get in the classroom door,” and “You can go to all but one of the colleges in this area and be a full part of campus life. If you would like to go to that one school anyway, and are not comfortable with the level of risk in the dining hall, we will provide you with your own room with a kitchen and exempt you from the meal plan.” </p>
<p>I also wonder if totally banning peanut butter from the dining hall would actually decrease the student’s total risk. As it is, most students probably eat peanut butter in the dining hall and only the dining hall. If it isn’t available in the dining hall, you’ll have a lot more students making their PB & J in their dorms, so the dining hall becomes safer for the peanut-allergic student, and the rest of campus becomes less safe.</p>
<p>I wonder whether this is true. Do students make an effort to choose foods not served in the dining halls to eat in their rooms? Or do they simply choose foods that are convenient and that they happen to like? </p>
<p>We know that peanut products are likely to be found in the dorms. Many such products are non-perishable and cheap, both of which are big pluses, and people like them. But would there be MORE such products present if peanut products were not offered in the dining hall?</p>
<p>Thanks, ZM. That is what I was trying to say.</p>
<p>Marian, that is a good point. People have cravings for things–especially familiar foods they miss from home. My son’s friend had his mom send him an entire box of salted nut rolls (peanuts :() last fall because he couldn’t find them near his campus. If I knew my kid was going to a peanut-free college I would probably try to wean him off them before he left. It would definitely help to come up with some options in advance. For instance, the lunch my daughter took to school today (HS) contained a peanut-butter sandwich, trail mix containing a variety of nuts, and pretzels made in a facility that processes peanuts (there was fruit, too). This is pretty typical fare for her because she doesn’t like meat or cheese very much, doesn’t want to have to bring a bulky refrigerated pack, and needs protein. If we had to transition to peanut-free lunches and snacks I am not sure where we would start.</p>
<p>" But would there be MORE such products present if peanut products were not offered in the dining hall?"</p>
<p>If PB is not available in the dining hall, vegans and even some vegetarians, for whom this is a major protein source, could be eating more of it outside of the dining facility if it is not served there. Theoretically, if I had a vegan kid who told me that he was not getting his protein at the dining hall, I’d be including a jar or two of real PB in every care package, unless there was an announcement from the college about a campus-wide ban on peanut products.</p>
<p>apprenticeprof - you’re assuming that all of the colleges within a 50 mile radius are equivalent. That’s not always the case. This is a private college, which has the right to set its own policy, and to change that policy at will. Yes, a change to a peanut-free environment in the dining hall is inconvenient for some students, but it is a choice being made by the college. </p>
<p>Your argument against comparing to a student in a wheelchair isn’t valid. You’re comparing ALL local colleges being required to make an accomodation vs. one voluntarily accomodating the student. If said college decided not to make their dining hall accessible to wheelchairs, nobody would be defending them on the grounds that the student has other choices. Accommodations would be made. Yes it impacts other students, but so do many other choices made by the administration. Yes, it impacts students who are already there, but if they choose to make a change, do they really have to announce it 4 years ahead of time? Is the lack of peanut butter really that significant? Yes, there may be a small handful of students who rely on PB as a protein source, but what makes their restrictive diet more important than the student with the allergy? I suspect those students do in fact have more options available to them than the student with the allergy.</p>