In the United States alone, more than 40,000 people were killed by a particular product in a single year.’ The product also served as a major contributor to pollution, and damage from this product cost millions of dollars. I ask you:’ Should this product be banned?
Many of you would say ‘yes’ to a ban of this product. What if you found out this product is the motor vehicle, which has provided major benefits to our country, changed our way of life, created millions of jobs and is used by millions of Americans every day as a method of going to work or obtaining necessities? Would you still support banning it?
The Student Government Association (SGA), in its Food Preference Survey put out in April, did the same thing regarding the topic of trayless dining. The question of ‘Do you support Northeastern removing trays from the dining hall?’ was put forward. This question alone, like a question of ‘Do you support banning motor vehicles in the United States?’ is a fair and legitimate question. However, against the advice of many students, myself included, SGA put forth a survey that had an inherent bias by prefacing the question with three bullet points that supported removing trays from the dining hall. SGA President-elect Ryan Fox was offered several opportunities to balance the survey by removing the bias or by creating an evenhanded question with an equal number of points about why trays should not be removed, but declined to do so.’ When the survey came back with a majority of students in favor of removing trays from the dining hall, it was no surprise to anyone. Ignoring the obvious bias, Fox proclaimed that he was ‘confident in the responses’ and that ‘the results were very clear-cut.’
Right now, students have the choice to take a tray or not. Those who do not want to use a tray do not have to. Those who want a tray can use a tray. Removing trays from the dining hall will mean that those who don’t want to use a tray don’t have to use a tray, but it will also mean that those who want a tray would be denied a tray. The Resident Student Association (RSA) discussed this issue two weeks ago. We realized that rather than take away student choice and student options, it made more sense to provide students with the opportunity to take a tray, while educating them about the environmental impact of tray usage. The RSA Advocacy subcommittee that I chair would love to work on this project, but if the trays are removed, it becomes a moot point.
The larger issue at hand, however, is not a simple debate of whether or not to have trays in the dining halls. The larger issue is how representative organizations like the RSA and SGA go about assessing student opinion and conducting their business in the name of the residents or the student body. The objective of these representative organizations is not for small groups of people to develop a conclusion or a direction and then trick the overall student body into providing their support and backing. Rather, the objective of RSA and SGA should be should be to find out what students want, and then provide our support and backing to bringing the voice and will of the students forward to the administration in order to bring about change and improvement to our university.

‘- Matthew Soleyn is a senior marketing and information service major and Resident Student Association vice president for housing services.