Most people who hear of Central Student Government do not have the most positive things to say. And you can’t blame them. There are definitely instances of bureaucratic waste, needless and unproductive debate and probably far worse in the annals of University history. However, one thing this current iteration of CSG has is leaders who are committed to the student body’s success.
CSG business has been all over the map this year, with representatives from a broad spread of backgrounds ensuring that both their constituents and students at-large are included in conversations. One of the newest pieces of business CSG passed was the “Laundry Cost Transparency” resolution, which aims to begin tackling the widespread issue of hidden costs on campus.
The Editorial Board of The Michigan Daily recently commented that this proposal is “well-intentioned, but wasteful,” and made numerous claims that inaccurately portray both the text of this resolution and the general functions of CSG. On the whole, the Editorial Board raises valid concerns about the climate effects of usage in a flat-fee system. However, there are a few misconceptions to clear up that would enhance a discussion on the climate impact of a reformed laundry system, show how the CSG proposal is climate conscious and hopefully involve more stakeholders in fixing the obvious failures of the current system.
The editorial claims that the CSG proposal would release laundry from market forces, encouraging students “to use laundry for, say, a single shirt, which would both be extremely wasteful of water while simultaneously blocking other students from using the laundry machines.” However, in the CSG proposal being examined, the flat-fee proposal for laundry is an “Opt-Out” policy for $100 annually, which allows students “the flexibility to choose whichever path aligns with their resources and means.”
Laundry would still be tethered to an optional fee, which is an economic decision students can make based on their needs. Additionally, there is no evidence that any of the other colleges, which already have this policy, have experienced any ridiculous results like a “single shirt” being washed. Perhaps treating our fellow students as if their carbon footprint is as large as Bigfoot’s is not a helpful critique in necessary discourse about an issue that affects thousands.
The editorial continues by mischaracterizing the proposed $100 flat fee as chosen based on one 2014 article in The University Daily Kansan — a claim that was later retracted. However, this $100 figure was not created so arbitrarily, and a variety of sources were used to support it (though there are few definitive sources that report such costs at a massive scale).
Additionally, the editorial failed to mention the 40 schools directly cited in the resolution, which have already implemented a flat fee or subsidized system successfully, including 16 Michigan universities, such as Central Michigan University, and eight Big Ten schools, including Michigan State University. All of these schools have direct citations in the resolution linking to the information available on their laundry policies and costs.
The editorial continues by stating, “the prospect of giving students unlimited laundry swipes raises several concerns,” including that “crowding in laundry rooms would increase as well as the amount of wasted water and detergent.” However, in regards to crowding, there’s no evidence that this would occur if the University supplies enough machines for the size of the student body. As mentioned, dozens of universities already do this and there is little evidence that overcrowding is an issue at any of those institutions. If institutions like MSU can avoid any reports of overcrowding, despite a larger undergraduate population and a smaller endowment than the University of Michigan, it seems quite likely that this issue shouldn’t be a concern for the University.
The editorial also links to a breakdown of Maytag washers that directly contradicts its own waste-based argument, as Maytag states “Water efficient washers are able to determine load size and the amount of water to use.” Maytag also recommends “specially formulated HE detergent,” which eliminates the fear of wasted chemicals and allows “for more concentrated cleaning.” Yes, in the past, a wasteful excess of load cycles in ancient washers was definitely a concern — especially at the scale of a large public university. However, smart washers (as unintentionally cited by the editorial) eliminate any fear of wastefully doing laundry “too frequently,” and combining energy efficient washers with this smart technology (as current U-M washers do) also eliminates potential concerns about energy misuse.
Now, one solution the editorial proposes — raising the Blue Bucks limit to include laundry fees — is superior to the current system. However, it’s incomplete, and it still creates multiple problems for the student body. Firstly, the editorial proposes an arbitrary $50 raise in the Blue Bucks given to students living on campus each semester, without any data on how much laundry students actually do. The only analogous case cited in this solution was the University of Alabama, which did not mention that $50 value in its policy. In contrast, the CSG proposal cites 40 different universities in multiple states that have similar flat-fee policies.
Another flaw in The Daily’s idea is that the issue of unexpected or “hidden” costs as a new college student may only be worsened through a sapping of these Blue Bucks early on in the semester, followed by a scramble to do laundry intermittently by the time finals roll around. This is something they attempt to address through a second idea: Give students a $50 laundry allowance per semester, similar in concept to the print budget.
The editorial also mischaracterizes the subsidization of dryer sheets, detergent, bleach and other items necessary for laundry. Meanwhile, the CSG proposal is modeled directly on plans from the University’s previously cited peer universities to cover those costs, as is detailed on their respective websites.
Lastly, the editorial did not correctly characterize the functions of CSG, saying that if CSG hoped to minimize laundry inequality on campus, they could use some of their $800,000 budget (an outdated figure that was later amended) to subsidize detergent costs. It should be noted that a significant portion of CSG’s budget is committed exclusively to funding student organizations. In fact, CSG’s Student Organization Funding Committee is already set to give out $331,000 of the budget this semester alone.
Although that number may seem to be more than enough, the story is actually much more grim under the surface. The Student Organization Committee expects well over $1.6 million in requests for student organizations, which means funding from that $331,000 will not be available to every organization which needs it — let alone for a mass subsidization of laundry, as the editorial proposes. Unless the student fee rises to cover those costs, a campaign to subsidize detergent via CSG is nowhere near reflective of the practical realities inherent to the thinly-stretched CSG budget.
As a whole, the editorial’s intentions are likely good, and those who wrote it clearly want the best for students. However, as pure as the piece’s motives are, its specific arguments are certainly not beyond reproach. Upon closer examination, the unanimously-passed, data-backed CSG Laundry Cost Transparency proposal addresses their concerns by permitting financial aid to cover laundry costs, recognizing the capacity of smart washers to minimize waste and increasing resource equity in the often stressful lives we lead.
Soon, CSG hopes to meet with U-M administration and the heads of other student groups at universities where this policy already exists — executing the next step to make this proposal a reality. CSG is undoubtedly flawed, and it should always take extra care to avoid fallacious policies. However, this proposal is not an example where such fallacy has occurred, and should be implemented by the University as soon as possible so as to eliminate the hidden cost of laundry.
Jack Handzel is a freshman in the college of Literature, Science, and the Arts and an associate representative in LSA Student Government, and can be reached at jhandzel@umich.edu.
Tyler Fioritto is a senior in the college of Literature, Science, and the Arts and an LSA representative in Central Student Government, and can be reached at tfioritt@umich.edu.