Palo Alto, California, USA: An opinion essay authored by Elsa Johnson, a junior at Stanford University, has sparked discussion on campus after alleging that some students are misusing institutional accommodation policies to bypass mandatory dining requirements.
In her essay, Johnson states that most undergraduate students residing on campus are required to enroll in a university meal plan, priced at $7,944 for the 2025–26 academic year. Stanford grants exemptions to students who cite religious dietary restrictions that cannot be adequately accommodated by campus dining services.
According to Johnson, some students allegedly exploit this provision by falsely identifying as followers of Jainism, a religion that emphasizes non-violence toward all living beings and restricts the consumption of root vegetables. She claims that students who do not practice Jainism nonetheless cite the faith to avoid the meal plan and instead use their food budgets at off-campus grocery stores such as Whole Foods.
Johnson contrasts this arrangement with the limited dining options available to students who remain enrolled in university meal programs, arguing that the disparity has fostered resentment and perceptions of inequity. She suggests that administrators are hesitant to challenge religious exemption claims due to legal and ethical considerations.
The essay further expands its critique to Stanford’s disability accommodation system. Johnson references published data indicating that nearly 38 percent of undergraduate students are registered with the Office of Accessible Education. While acknowledging that many students require genuine medical support, she argues that some seek accommodations such as single-occupancy housing, extended exam time, or flexible deadlines primarily for personal advantage.
Drawing on her own experience of successfully registering a legitimate medical condition with minimal scrutiny, Johnson contends that the current framework incentivizes students to request accommodations. She notes that discussions among peers about how to obtain such benefits are common, contributing to what she describes as an uneven academic environment.
Johnson concludes that the issue extends beyond individual ethics and reflects broader institutional incentives. When accommodations offer significant financial savings, improved living conditions, or academic flexibility, she argues, students respond accordingly. “The university has created a set of incentives,” she writes, “and students have learned how to use them.”
