Gaming The System: Stanford Students Pose As Jains To Avoid Meal Plan

India-West News Desk

PALO ALTO, CA – An opinion essay by Stanford undergraduate Elsa Johnson, published in The New York Times, has sparked debate after she alleged that some students falsely claim to follow Jainism in order to avoid the university’s mandatory meal plan. Stanford requires most students living on campus to enroll in a university dining plan, which costs close to 8,000 an academic year.

Stanford policy allows exemptions on medical or religious grounds when dining services cannot reasonably meet a student’s needs. Johnson argues that Jain dietary restrictions fall into that category, but says the policy is being exploited by students who do not practice the religion.

Jainism, one of the world’s oldest religions, is defined by strict principles of nonviolence that extend even to food, prohibiting the consumption of root vegetables and anything that may harm living beings, including insects.

In her essay, Johnson writes that she knows students who “claim to be devout members of the Jain faith,” despite not observing it, in order to qualify for an exemption. She describes this as part of a broader pattern of students “gaming” university systems.

“The gaming even extends to our meals,” Johnson writes, asserting that those who opt out then use their dining funds elsewhere.

According to Johnson, students who claim Jain status spend their meal money at upscale grocery stores rather than eating on campus, while others remain dependent on standard university dining options. She contrasts those experiences to highlight what she sees as inequities created by the exemption system.

Johnson also questions the university’s ability to police such claims. Challenging religious or medical accommodations, she argues, exposes administrators to potential discrimination complaints and lawsuits.

“How do you challenge a religious dietary claim without risking a discrimination lawsuit?” she asks.

Placing the issue in a wider context, Johnson writes that students openly discuss how to “optimize” Stanford’s rules, and that the structure of university policies often encourages such behavior.

“The students aren’t exactly cheating,” she concludes, arguing that Stanford has made exploiting loopholes the logical choice.