By Daniel A. C. McBride
Opinion Editor
A fool is he who lingers in Martha Washington Square, or in the crowded corners and back-rows of Goldstein 101, to chirp on about the ease of maintaining a student club at Washington College. Such claims, albeit so fictitious the hypothetical begs no explanation, show little regard for the dearth of student-life funds afforded to clubs, or for the strained microeconomy under which said organizations operate thereafter. To this end, it is only from the deepest corners of the isolated wood where one might rouse to conceive of a campus environment in which such a heavy air of financial malaise is garnished by such unthinkable requirements to purchase foodstuffs for said clubs at an artificial premium.
Since 2022, AVI Fresh, WC’s in-house catering partner, has held exclusive food service rights on campus, along with something far quieter, though equally so devious: the Right of First Refusal over student catering requests. No club may serve food outside AVI’s own kitchens without asking first, and AVI may grant or deny that request as it sees fit. The precise terms of this arrangement have never been made public, as the contract itself remains unpublished. Students who wish to read the contract governing their own club budgets have no way to do so, for they encounter only its consequences, in the form of fiscal roadblocks unthinkable to those operating organizations outside the bounds of WC.
On Feb. 12, 2026, The Elm published an article titled “Student groups can now receive AVI approval for outside food at low-budget events,” reporting that the arrangement between AVI and the college had “loosened,” though “loosened” is generous. Student Affairs, following a reinterpretation of WC’s contract with AVI, announced that clubs could now request outside food for events under $250 without routing the purchase through AVI; “request” is key here. One club officer, relieved, told the paper his organization could finally bring back events it had abandoned under the old policy, an admission which reveals that the previous rule had not simply inconvenienced clubs, but had gone as far as to dissolve certain student functions.
Nonetheless, AVI’s Right of First Refusal remains fully intact even under the new policy; this is a change in what students may ask for, not in what they are openly permitted to do. The $250 threshold applies per event, not per club, so that two organizations pooling their meager budgets to host something worthwhile gain nothing for the effort. A club may now ask permission with a fair degre of poise, though it may still be told no.
The reinterpretation Student Affairs trumpeted this past spring should be read for what it is: not a loosening of the leash, moreover a slightly longer one, still held by the same restrictive hand which undermined the student organization prior. AVI certainly has not relinquished its right of first refusal, for a club treasurer forced to seek permission at $251 is no freer than one forced to seek it at $160. And we should not so hastily come to trust that AVI would be willing to remit its hold on campus because, purportedly, budgets under $250 are simply “not worth it.”
Further, the unpublished contract begs many questions. A university that will not show its students the terms governing their own budgets has forfeited any right to call its policies transparent. The reinterpretation of a hidden contract leaves the door open for ambiguities which border on arbitration. In instances like these, on our nearly 250 year old campus, one could imagine not that a quiet acquiescence would come to loom over the student body, but that a revolution would erupt on that institution and go on to occupy the office from which such boisterous mandates are produced. For how ludicrous is the imposition that if the students are unable to afford T-shirts, pens, and other regalia, why they must hold no issue spending $60 on a small cake.
Photo Captions: WC Social Event Policies intend to establish campus order.
Photo by Daniel A. C. McBride