No Action on Food

In spite of all the protests last year about the College's food situation, very little has been changed. There have been no major revisions in the dining hall setup. The poorly prepared food remains to plague student stomachs. And although there were a few innovations in equipment this summer, as official sentiment stands now, large-scale reforms are not even being considered.

Students last year said they wanted an investigation by a competent authority. Acknowledging that practical recommendations require expert technical advice, they proposed a survey by a paid investigation agency. The Administration felt that this would be too expensive and instead finally requested Mr. Andrew Seiler, a food expert on the regular visiting committee, to make an informal study of the plant.

Seiler's recommendations were never written down in a formal report but consisted of comments to vice-President Reynolds and Dining Hall Manager Heaman. Some of his minor suggestions, like toasters in Winthrop House, were adopted; proposals for more efficient steam tables were discarded as too costly. Seiler's general opinion, that the food would be greatly improved if the preparation was brought closer to the serving, was discarded as a good but impractical idea.

The Council's food committee has gotten itself snagged in a maze of minor details. It has set up house committees to uncover gripes. But everyone is used to hearing gripes about food, and the Administration feels that the current protests are nothing more than the usual. The Administration poses the questions, "Are we giving you the best possible food for your money and is this best good enough?" It answers yes to both and says that they have not yet been disproved.

Action on the food problem now requires two things. First, it must be proved that a problem actually exists and that complaints are not mere gripes. Last year's Council poll has proved completely useless in doing this. Until the Administration is convinced that the food is not good enough as it is, no major changes in the system will occur.

Second, a permanent solution must be found. The difference between the central kitchen's food and the food from a few independent kitchens indicates that reducing the load on the central kitchen may be one of the answers. This is in accordance with Seiler's main idea of bringing the cooking closer to the serving. Naturally, this would be costly, but there is no reason why such a proposal should not be considered as a long range plan.

The fact remains that the food as it is now will always be a problem, and the student protest will not subside until the Administration goes to work on a permanent solution.