NRI PULSE STAFF REPORT
Palo Alto, CA, February 3, 2026: An essay by Elsa Johnson, a junior at Stanford University, has drawn attention to what she describes as widespread gaming of campus accommodation systems — beginning with students claiming religious dietary restrictions, including Jainism, to avoid Stanford’s mandatory meal plans.
Johnson writes that most undergraduates living on campus are required to purchase a meal plan costing $7,944 for the 2025–26 academic year. However, exemptions are granted to students who claim religious dietary needs that university dining services cannot accommodate. According to Johnson, some students exploit this policy by falsely identifying as followers of the Jain faith, which prohibits harm to all living beings and restricts foods such as root vegetables.
In her essay, Johnson says students she knows who are not Jain nonetheless claim the faith to bypass the meal plan, allowing them to spend their food budgets at grocery stores such as Whole Foods rather than eat on campus. She contrasts their access to fresh salads and customized meals with the limited options available to students who remain on university dining plans, arguing that the policy has created resentment and inequity.
Johnson uses the meal plan example to illustrate a broader pattern at Stanford, where she says accommodation systems are structured in ways that encourage manipulation. She writes that administrators are reluctant to challenge religious claims, given the legal and ethical risks of questioning a student’s faith.
The essay then broadens to disability accommodations, which Johnson describes as another system prone to abuse. Citing published figures, she notes that nearly 38 percent of Stanford undergraduates are registered with the Office of Accessible Education, with many receiving housing or academic accommodations. While acknowledging that many students have genuine medical needs, Johnson argues that others claim conditions such as anxiety or ADHD primarily to gain advantages such as single rooms, extra exam time, or flexible deadlines.
Johnson recounts her own experience registering a legitimate medical condition and being granted multiple accommodations with little scrutiny, reinforcing her claim that the system “rewards those who ask.” She writes that students openly discuss and strategize about obtaining accommodations, creating what she sees as an uneven academic environment.
Ultimately, Johnson argues that the issue is not individual morality but institutional incentives. When claiming a disability or religious restriction can mean better housing, academic flexibility, or thousands of dollars saved on meals, she writes, students respond rationally. “The university has created a set of incentives,” Johnson concludes, “and students have learned how to use them.”
