CHUL

DEAN FOX'S decision to reduce the number of House dining halls serving full breakfasts in order to facilitate the opening of the Freshman Union on weekends reveals a disturbing disregard for the overwhelming student and worker opposition to the proposal. By failing to consult the Committee on Houses and Undergraduate Life about the proposed change Fox once more displayed his contempt for the proper democratic channels of University decision-making.

When CHUL considered in February 1976 a similar proposal to limit the number of Houses serving full breakfasts as a potential cost-cutting device, students and workers objected virulently to the inconvenience and loss of jobs the change would have caused. In defeating the measure by a vote of 20-2, the committee requested that the Food Services department "look into the possibility of opening the Freshman Union on weekends," but CHUL in no way indicated that the re-opening of the Union should necessitate any undesirable changes in the breakfast service offered by the Houses.

Last week Fox avoided the pressures of any possible opposition when he did not consult CHUL. Fox has resorted to such dissent-quashing tactics before, with equally undesirable results. His unveiling of a comprehensive housing plan during fall reading period (when most students were busy studying for exams) enabled him to railroad substantial alterations in the housing system through a lame-duck CHUL which had rejected a similar plan in less harried times. Apart from the undemocratic way in which the decision to open the Union and reduce breakfast service was made, the change itself will result in inconveniences for both students and workers. Most upperclassmen will now have to leave the warm confines of their Houses on cold winter mornings to obtain a cooked breakfast, since their dining halls will serve only cereal, rolls and beverages.

Problems of equity also will arise under the new arrangement. Fortunate students in the three Houses continuing to serve full breakfasts will receive more service for the amount they spend on board than students in other Houses. Food services could rectify these inequities by rotating the dining halls where breakfasts are served, or by allowing students the option of buying 14-meal contracts.

While jobs will not disappear as a result of the change, shifting of work schedules will undoubtedly inconvenience those workers forced to surrender early morning hours in order to staff the Union on Saturday and Sunday evenings. And it seems unlikely that the requisite savings from reducing breakfast service will be realized unless some workers' hours are reduced.

While the inconvenience to upperclassmen is counterbalanced by the advantages to freshmen, the workers appear to gain no such countervailing advantage except a lukewarm guarantee from Dean Fox that no jobs will be lost. Union uproar was a significant if not crucial factor in defeating the proposal last year. The Crimson is disappointed at the lack of a similar response this year, but hopes that this unexpected silence is simply the result of the union being taken by surprise by another of Dean Fox's sneak attacks.