A Stanford University student has alleged that some undergraduates are falsely claiming religious dietary restrictions, including following the Jain faith, to avoid compulsory campus meal plans and gain better food options.
In her essay published in The Times, Elsa Johnson, a 21-year-old junior at Stanford, describes how students use accommodation systems meant to protect genuine needs but are, she argues, increasingly being exploited. While her account also discusses disability accommodations, she highlights food exemptions as one of the most visible and controversial examples.
Stanford requires most students living on campus to buy a mandatory meal plan, which will cost $7,944 (Rs 7,16,425) for the 2025-26 academic year. However, exemptions are allowed if students say they follow a religious diet that the university kitchens cannot reasonably provide.
Johnson claims that some students falsely say they are followers of Jainism to secure these exemptions. Jain dietary rules forbid eating root vegetables and any food that may harm living beings, including insects. According to Johnson, students who are not Jain use this claim to opt out of the meal plan entirely.
She writes that these students then spend their food allowance at supermarkets such as Whole Foods, buying fresh salads and customised meals. Meanwhile, other students must rely on standard university dining, which Johnson describes as limited and often unappealing.
The essay suggests that university administrators are reluctant or unable to challenge such claims. Questioning a student's religious belief, Johnson notes, risks legal action or accusations of discrimination, making enforcement extremely difficult.
Johnson places this issue within a wider campus culture where students openly discuss how to "optimise" the system. She argues that accommodation claims, whether medical or religious, have become so common that honesty now feels like a disadvantage.
According to figures cited in her essay, elite universities report unusually high numbers of students receiving accommodations compared with community colleges. Johnson argues that this imbalance raises questions about fairness and oversight.
While acknowledging that genuine religious and medical needs exist, Johnson warns that misuse undermines trust and puts pressure on systems designed to help those who truly need support.
Her essay has sparked debate about whether universities like Stanford should review how religious dietary exemptions are granted, especially when they allow students to bypass costly requirements and gain access to better-quality food.