The Republican attack against hungry school kids

Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Tim Walz and his fellow Democrats ratified ample changes during the two years they’ve had control of the Minnesota Legislature, from expansions of abortion and LGBTQIA+ rights to tax credits and other forward initiatives aimed at making life easier for families.

Walz has been an activist governor of Minnesota with a strong progressive agenda. And I’d like to focus on one key element of that agenda: requiring public and charter schools to provide free breakfasts and lunches to all students. Walz was literally embraced by elementary students when he signed the bill into law in 2023. Interestingly, child care has long been a defining issue for Kamala Harris, and Walz’s conscientious policies may very well have played a role in selecting him as her running mate.

Initiatives like free meals for school-aged children have encountered hostile opposition from Republican lawmakers, who question why the government should help feed kids. The fact there is such a stark division between the two parties over this humane policy highlights the distinction between the humanitarian populism of the Democrats and the more Darwinist, jingoistic populism of the conservative Republican right. The National School Lunch Program dates back to 1946, passed into law with bipartisan support.

A major reason for the policy is common human decency. Children do not decide to be born into families that are economically disadvantaged or that cannot afford to feed their children appropriately. It is unfair and unjust to penalize them for a situation not of their making. In addition, studies demonstrate children who are deprived of adequate nutrition will grow up to be less physically robust and less productive adults than those who are well fed, so society is less prosperous as a result. Thus, making sure that young children are receiving adequate nutrition is a sagacious investment.

There’s a strong case to be made that child nutrition programs more than pay for themselves by creating a healthier, higher-earning future workforce. In other words, this is one area where there really is a free lunch.

The individuals behind Project 2025, a very reliable barometer for what a second Trump administration is inclined to do, don’t agree. The 900 pages of the project’s “Mandate for Leadership” lays out a detailed policy agenda and focuses on feeding students as something that should be reined in.

“Federal school meals increasingly resemble entitlement programs,” the document warns, as if this is self-evidently a bad thing. A bit farther down, it reads, “The U.S.D.A. should not provide meals to students during the summer unless students are taking summer-school classes.”

I would argue all children should have access to free meals. Goodness knows we are a wealthy enough nation to provide such an option. Moreover, doing so would alleviate many stigmas and obstacles for students. Over the past few years, we have read about and witnessed a series of incidents in various school districts that have resulted in embarrassment and humiliation for students.

Among such actions have been stamping a child’s hand with “I need lunch money,” throwing children’s meals away after they had been served, providing them with sunflower butter and jelly sandwiches rather than a hot lunch, prohibiting students from participating in extracurricular activities, and even going as far as threatening to place students with a considerable school meal debt in foster care.

When students are made to clean the cafeteria as punishment for being unable to pay for lunch, you don’t have to read between the lines to see early traces of the same system that disproportionately punishes low-income and historically disadvantaged adults for minor debt. The undeniable truth is subjecting students to embarrassment because of a lack of funds to pay for a school lunch is cruel, inhumane, and arguably obscene. Thankfully, certain lawmakers are paying attention.

The No Shame at School Act, introduced by Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith and Rep. Ilhan Omar, barred any kind of identification of students who can’t pay for lunch at school, like wristbands or hand stamps. It also would prohibit schools from publishing lists of students who owe money for school meals and from using debt collectors to recoup meal fees. The legislation also would result in more children being eligible for free or reduced-price school meals and provide schools retroactive school meal reimbursement for students who are certified for free or reduced-price school meals later in the school year.

Although these are excellent steps to rectify previous problematic behavior, I am still of the mindset that providing universal meals to schoolchildren is the most effective course of action. Doing so would erase, or at least heavily mitigate, many stigmas.

Amen Walz and forward-looking politicians in other states who had the compassion and foresight to implement such a humane policy to combat the serious issue of food insecurity. Millions of students will be better off due to your altruistic efforts.

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.