Can we know the benefits given to the University for our deal with the Devil? How significant is our discount? Why are students and student organisations prevented from establishing more permanent food venues, especially since these orgs are more friendly and responsive and can offer alternatives that are more diverse, genuine, and more culturally rich and artistic?
Why must every satellite food venue be run by ARAMARK? I think it's important to know the nature of this Contract that disempowers every student on Grounds. Would Thomas Jefferson have agreed to such a Pact?
Many students are able to cook, but this monopoly seems intent on preventing students from being able to cook conveniently. Note that while we have many convenience stores, we have no corner grocers.
ARAMARK clearly is performing some sort of class-based marketing when it sells a paltry ounce of grapes for $5.35; the same ounce would cost me $0.15 cents at Kroger. I understand that land on Grounds is a premium and so must be rent and its Opportunity Cost, but surely this is exorbitant if you want to promote Healthy Eating, especially to low-income students.
In Singapore, it is a common practice for schools to set aside parcels of land at lowered rents to encourage cheap food for its students, and there are sometimes up to eight competing vendors in a single location; generally small businesses with a rich abundance of ideas and culinary appreciation of food. In UMass-Amherst at least, students are regularly encouraged to join the dining staff and the result is rolls of tender sushi with the labour of love put into it, not the miniscule triads of dried instant rice that we get.
I am curious to know what Benefits this Monopoly offers us, and whether the administration truly thinks these benefits outweigh its Costs.