By Paige Comeau ’26
Opinion Editor
In my last Mount Holyoke News op-ed of the fall semester, titled “Mount Holyoke College should consider a more inclusive meal plan,” I compared all of the meal plans offered by the Five College Consortium members to see if the College’s meal plan, which all on-campus students are required to enroll in, is on par for other meal plans in the area and worth the cost. Over the course of writing that article, I found that while the College’s dining plan is the second most expensive of the consortium, it offers much less flexibility in dining options.
Priced at $9,808, or $4,904 per semester, the College’s dining plan offers little more than what the other colleges provide for their more limited plans. Every week, students are given 25 meal swipes for the Dining Commons and Blanchard Grab-and-Go, as well as five swipes for the Kendade Grab-and-Go. Along with this, students get $30 per semester to spend at any on-campus dining location and five guest swipes.
In contrast, for a similar price at Smith College, students receive $80 more in Dining Dollars, along with a specified amount per meal swipe that can be used at retail dining locations. Further, while UMass and Hampshire do not provide meal swipes for their retail dining options, they do offer students $500 in Dining Dollars each semester compared to Mount Holyoke's $30. This allows students to easily dine at a café or restaurant without needing to spend additional money beyond their meal plan. Amherst does not offer dining dollars, but costs a full $1,645 less than Mount Holyoke College’s price per semester. Additionally, about 16% less of their student body receives financial aid than Mount Holyoke, making it more likely that they can afford additional costs for dining.
This is disappointing for many low-income students, like myself, who must enroll in the meal plan no matter its cost; all full-time residential students must participate in the meal plan. For my own experience, I will admit my meal plan is covered by scholarships both institutional and otherwise. For many other students, however, this may not be the case, making it difficult for low-income students to thrive.
I review these points because recent personal experience has left me more disappointed in this system than ever. As a low-income student with a Massachusetts state grant, I am eligible in Massachusetts for grocery assistance through EBT. Since our dining options are fairly limited, I like to supplement snacks or foods I miss from home with a few groceries, as do many of my friends. I don’t order many groceries, but since I don’t generally receive an income during the semester, I applied for this program just as a way to take some financial stress off of myself.
After about a month-long application process, during which I had to obtain written letters from my employers, fill out all sorts of paperwork and take several phone calls, I was denied by the Department of Transitional Assistance because of my enrollment in our meal plan, which provides more than two meals a day. I did not choose this meal plan, nor do I generally utilize it more than twice a day, yet I am unable to receive grocery assistance that would genuinely help me with the cost of living on campus. Not to mention that I say this as someone who is able to pay for basic necessities. I imagine there are several students on campus who really, truly need this assistance to be able to afford groceries, and they are unable to get it due to Mount Holyoke’s lack of flexibility. Instead, they are forced to consistently utilize the dining hall, which may not be the best option for them or provide the same taste of home that a snack or self-made meal might.
My experience is specific, but without a doubt repeatable. Every full-time residential student must pay for the full meal plan, no matter how often they use it. With over 75% of our students on Financial Aid and a large low-income, first-generation community, there are many students who may benefit from financial assistance this dining system makes them largely ineligible to receive. I have made this point before with my last article, but due to recent political events, I find it more important than ever. Students deserve to have the comfort of home that food provides, whether or not that food is served at the dining hall. For the College to uphold its promise of diversity and equity, it needs to become more flexible when it comes to the dining system. Otherwise, many low-income, first-generation students like myself are left at a disadvantage we may be unable to repair.
Quill Nishi-Leonard ’27 contributed fact-checking.