If you haven’t already, do yourself a favor and check out Erica Morgan’s column in The Stanford Daily from Wednesday. Criticizing the new trayless pilot in Stanford dining halls, Morgan uses a mix of humor and analogies that hit a little too close to home for the left:
I have a suggestion for water conservation that may seem blatantly ridiculous, but I think a discerning reader will actually appreciate its brilliance. Background: I have recently started running for exercise. On days that I run, I consume about a ½ gallon more water than I would ordinarily. I also burn roughly 600 more calories than I would ordinarily. I also breathe quite heavily, surely expelling a great deal more carbon dioxide than the average tourist strolling the campus. The increased water consumption means (not to be graphic) more trips to the lady’s room. Meaning more toilet flushes. Meaning even more water used! Will the “waste” never end?
Morgan makes an argument that could be considered a conservative one: too much government micromanagement in our daily lives is not good.
The result? Drawing the enmity of the campus left, of course. The comment board to her article may actually be the most revealing. Here’s my favorite comment:
This person completely misses the point. It is not about depriving students from using trays. If making two trips to the dining is too much of an inconvenience for you, than you’ve had an incredible life. Inconvenience for most people facing real water issues include rape, starvation, and death, I think Stanford students can handle a small sacrifice (hey, it’s not like we are using trays at home) and cooperate with the efforts Stanford Dining and students are making to make us all care a little. It is embarrassing that this piece is in our newspaper.
That’s right, water use from washing trays in the dining hall is correlated with rape, starvation, and death elsewhere. But of course, Morgan is the extremist here. And yeah! How could a piece that exposes you to a position you might not hear everyday from campus leaders get printed in a newspaper distributed across campus? A different opinion, how embarrassing!
Thanks for your perspective, Erica. I’m looking forward to seeing it more.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
The largest issue with trayless dining is that the water to be saved there is far less than could be saved if Stanford put some effort into using sprinklers more effectively. The number of sidewalks that I’ve seen get watered here is absurd.
Thank you Otis for pointing out the real problem here. It seems like campus leaders are so eager to push for initiatives that unduly burden students like the issues with the shower heads because sacrifice is sexy.
Unfortunately Mr. Ford, Erica Morgan complaining about not wanting to ASK for a tray doesn’t really get any sympathy for me.
Thanks for your comment, BWs. I found Dining’s decision to withhold trays but allow students to ask for them particularly interesting, and I chose to ignore it completely because it would have distracted from the post I made here. It could have easily been the subject of its own post.
The idea of allowing different preferences but making people actively choose them is an idea recently popularized by UChicago economist Richard Thaler and Harvard legal scholar Cass Sunstein, now one of President Obama’s regulatory “czars,” in their book Nudge. Their book centers on the idea that government can set “defaults” – allowing people choice, but setting a default option that people are likely to stick with in order to influence their behavior. It leads to a “nudge,” if you will, because it only slightly influences behavior instead of mandating a change. They call this philosophy “libertarian paternalism” – libertarian because you have choice and paternalistic because the government still knows what’s best.
Libertarian paternalism is kind of attractive at first glance, but since I tend to be a skeptic of government offering a solution to fit all cases, I still usually think setting defaults in general can exert too much influence. Maybe not in this case (the first example or scenario they offer in their book is actually set in a cafeteria, too), but what I’m more concerned about when it comes to sympathy for Erica Morgan not wanting to ask for a tray is the social stigma attached to it – dirty looks for daring to ask for a tray that used to be available to everyone equally – not to mention the lost time from asking or even finding someone able to give you a tray.
When you and Otis both point out, as does Erica in her column and in some of the comments to her column, that washing trays really doesn’t yield that much of an improvement compared to other water-saving solutions, I don’t really know if it’s worth it in the wash. After all, you said it best, BWs – “sacrifice is sexy” – and I’d sure hate to be unsexy and ask for a tray.
I just saw this, and thought I’d throw in a few comments:
1. Thank you Tim for the positive feedback–much appreciated
2. I am frustrated that some are interpreting the op-ed as a whining vent about how inconvenienced I am in my dining life. Quite frankly, the personal inconvenience has little to do with the issue at hand. As Tim points out, the behavioral manipulation is the upsetting factor here. Clearly the sages at Stanford feel that we aren’t living up to our sacrificial potential, so they will “guide” us to do what is right. I’d prefer to be informed, and then left to make my own decision like the independent thinker that I am. And if that decision isn’t what the environmentalists are aiming for, maybe that’s too bad for them. What about showers? Why don’t they make us “ask permission” for each minute of shower time beyond what is necessary?
I don’t really ask for trays–I just sneak up behind the podium and snatch them.