The Cavalier daily :: Tuesday, October 20, 1970 :: University of Virginia Library

During the past few years, the
issue of refrigerators has been
brought up time and time again,
by any number of student organizations,
with little success. For every
suggestion made, for every plan
brought forth, the Housing Office
has always repeated the same stock
arguments, and has refused to listen
to constructive ideas. Due to the
large amount of publicity which the
issue has generated, I would like to
review the proposal and point out
some important facts which so far
have been ignored.

Of the various groups which
have worked in the past for the
legalization of refrigerators, the Alderman
Legislative Council has
made a significant contribution,
which I think has been ignored by
both The Cavalier Daily and the
Student Council. As a matter of
fact, the position now taken by the
administration in regards to refrigerators
is remarkably similar to the
proposal adopted last winter by the
Alderman Council.

THE Reasons

Traditionally, the reasons presented
by the Housing Office for
refusing to allow refrigerators have
been 1) threat the electrical systems
in the dorms could not carry the
extra load, 2) that refrigerators and
the accompanying food, would attract
insects, creating a health hazard,
and 3) there were no means of
properly disposing of waste food.
Logical reasons, at first glance, but
they have all been refuted many
times in the past. Modern dormitory
refrigerators use only 50-70
watts (less than the normal desk
lamp); and students already keep
food in their rooms, with or without
refrigerators while food is less
likely to attract insects when sealed
in a refrigerator. Finally, the disposal
problem is solved simply by
providing plastic liners for trash
cans.

Of course these points have all
been proven in the past; at the
present time the Housing Office
accepts this point of view, so it
need not be discussed further.

Last winter the Alderman Legislative
Council, under the presidency
of Richard Lunglhofer, concluded
some two years of research and
effort in the area of refrigerators by
preparing a plan very similar to
what is now about to be adopted.
That proposal would have given the
University Food Service the concession
for renting small, portable
refrigerators to be purchased from
University Products, Inc., at a cost
of four dollars per month. A fee of
$1.50 was to have been assessed by
the Housing Department to cover
additional costs in electricity, maid
service, and plastic garbage bags.

Revenue Loss

At that time, the Council felt
that, since this plan would likely
result in some revenue loss to Food
Service in the vending machines,
the Castle, and the Glass Hat, Food
Service should realize the profit
from refrigerator rentals. It was a
compromise plan, but a reasonable
solution to the problem.

Last spring, the Council decided
not to continue publicizing the
refrigerator issue, in order to give
Food Service time to consider the
proposal on its own merits. This
they have done. Over the summer,
Mr. Fontana, Director of Food Service,
Mr. Main, Director of Housing,
and Mr. Shutts, Business Manager
of the University, decided that refrigerators
should be legalized on a
trial basis, and working with the
Executive Committee of Counselors,
they developed a poll of student
opinion on the subject.

In their research during the summer,
this group contacted several
schools which have recently legalized
refrigerators (including Duke,
North Carolina, Brown, Michigan,
William and Mary, and other). At
almost all of these schools, when
student groups have handled the
refrigerator concession, food services
have suffered heavy losses,
with the result that snack bar hours
have been curtailed and food prices
have risen. In fact, there is no food
service at all in the dormitories at
North Carolina this year.

Protect Investment

With a heavy investment in
snack bar facilities and vending
machines (over $300,000, to be
paid back over a twenty year period),
most of which has been
brought about by student demands
for more and better service. Food
Service wants to protect that investment.
That is, Food Service is
under financial obligation to pay
back the money which it borrowed
to provide what students wanted.

A word about Food Service, if
we can lower the rhetoric for a
moment. This is a non-profit organization
within the University, which
makes little or no profit in the
cafeterias, snack bars, or vending
machines. Profits from catering and
concessions at athletic events are
used to make up losses in the other
areas.

Among the many reasons that
Food Service does not provide the
quality of service and food that
most students seem to desire, is
that it employs a large number of
students in jobs which could easily
be eliminated by automation. Likewise.
Food Service employs a large
number of handicapped and lower-income
persons from Charlottesville,
all of which leads to a decrease
in efficiency. However, for a
student body which professes an
idealistic concern for the disadvantaged
in our society, we can be very
insensitive to one area in which the
University has attempted to perform
some kind of service to the
community.

Jeopardy

For all of these reasons, we feel
that Food Service should not be
denied the concession for renting
refrigerators in the dormitories. A
substantial investment could very
well be jeopardized, and students
who do not want refrigerators may
be forced to pay a large share of
this cost. We do however, feel that
if the plan is adopted, prices should
not be raised or hours curtailed
until the matter of revenues is
studied further. In fact Food Services
should seriously consider lowering
its prices; with an elastic
demand, this might well bring about
an increase in business.

The University should seriously
reconsider the types of food offered
in the snack bars, if it feels that
refrigerators will bring that much
competition. Finally, there needs to
be much more student input in the
interpretation of the poll which the
Office of Institutional Analysis has
prepared for distribution to all dormitory
residents.

A lot has been said about refrigerators,
and this article has attempted
to clear up the misunderstandings
which have arisen over the
issue. I think that we can give the
administration credit for responding
to the needs of the students, if
ever so slowly, and for trying to
avoid the losses suffered by other
schools which have legalized refrigerators.