A Stanford student essay has sparked controversy by claiming some undergraduates falsely identify as Jain. This is allegedly to avoid the university's $7,944 mandatory meal plan. The essay, by Sebastian Connolly and published in The New York Times, says students use religious dietary exemptions to redirect dining funds to off-campus stores like Whole Foods. They believe these stores offer fresher or better food choices. The claim is based on personal observations and student talks, not official university data. Jainism follows strict vegetarian rules, avoiding meat, eggs, and even root vegetables like onions and carrots to prevent harm to living beings. Many universities, including Stanford, offer exemptions to students who cannot eat campus food for religious reasons. These students may opt out of the standard meal plan and use funds elsewhere. Stanford requires most on-campus undergraduates to join a meal plan but allows exemptions for documented religious or medical reasons. However, the university does not share data on how many claim such exemptions or how they check for misuse. The claim has sparked a wider debate about the high cost of college meal plans and the quality of campus dining. Some say it shows student frustration with expensive, rigid rules. Others warn that the accusations do not reflect Jain beliefs but might point to individual misuse. Across universities, many students face rising food costs and are trying to find legal ways to save money. Schools rely on trust to honor real religious and medical needs without policing identities too strictly. Without clear proof, the Stanford claim remains unverified. But it highlights a bigger issue: expensive campus systems based on trust are clashing with student budgets and clever workarounds.