nslpfoodway-blog - Tumblr blog

nslpfoodway-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Bethany Harris

AMST 2001-111

Foodways Project

December 6, 2019

The Ridiculousness of Lunch Debt and Lunch Shaming: Highlighting the History of The NSLP

Everybody can agree that food is important. Consumption of food—and its associated nutrients—is one of three things humans need to survive, alongside water and sleep. Abstaining from food for a prolonged period of time leads the body towards starvation. What starts as stomach rumbles and a general lethargy leads to the body sucking itself dry. Food is essential, not only to keep the human body moving forward and away from something as painful and debilitating as starving to death, but also to simply ensure focus and normal brain function in everyday life. The average American adolescent spends 6 1/2 hours every weekday at a learning institution. During these hours, they are expected to listen during lectures, complete assignments, actively participate in things like gym and academic discussions, and generally do well. To successfully finish these tasks, children need energy. A lack of energy equals a lack of motivation, a lowering of attention span, and an increase in apathy. Thankfully, in order to increase the energy of students, and therefore increase their overall success, schools have a mandated lunchtime, because schools understand that their students need food to be the best students they can be. Only, what happens when a child does not come to school with a lunch? What happens when this same child cannot afford the food offered in the cafeteria? The National School Lunch Program exists in order to aid these cases, to make it so getting food at school is an easy task. Through free or reduced price meal plans, kids are able to eat. Except there are hidden agendas at play. There is a sordid two-pronged tongue that needs revealing. Lunch debt and lunch shaming are major issues in U.S. schools. They are not exclusive to any particular age; they travel from kindergartners to high school seniors, affecting and effecting them in largely negative ways. But how did the country get to this stage of not only allowing its children to squander in unpaid meal plan debt but to also be subjected to humiliation at the hands of those in positions of power? Through historical and close analysis of primary and secondary sources, this paper will explore the history of food in United States schools pre- and post-NSLP in an effort to uncover the absurdity of school lunch debt and the potentially discriminatory lunch shaming tactics that follow, and by doing so will showcase the hypocrisy of the USDA’s focus on money over children’s wellbeing.

Prior to the National School Lunch Act’s introduction in the 1940s, several other programs existed, sharing a goal of feeding schoolchildren. The School Lunch Committee, founded in Hell’s Kitchen by home economist Mabel Hyde Kittredge, began all the way back in 1908 and quickly rose in popularity amongst young kids who did not have access to food during school hours. Less than ten years after its inception, the SLC was “serving 80,000 free or low-price lunches a year” (Ruis 193), showing just how desperate these children were. To avoid the potential embarrassment that could be faced by the hungriest children from the lowest-income families, the SLC distributed identical brass checks to all participating students. Those who could not afford to exchange money for one of these checks, which cost “three cents each,” were able to receive them from their teachers “at no charge,” all thanks to donations (199). For one reason or another, they were dependent on Kittredge’s program for nourishment, and the community’s approval of the SLC, and the desire from other locations for similar committees, guided the program towards seeking an eventual takeover. The New York School Board was not interested. Specifically, the Board of Education continually rejected the idea that school lunches should fall under the jurisdiction and responsibility of their umbrella. The burden of ensuring the neediest children received the nutrition they needed continually fell on women, other mothers, people who seemingly cared more for hungry, impoverished youth more than the Board of Education, which claimed malnourished children and the subsequent substandard academic performances of these children were responsibilities the Board did not believe schools should shoulder (Ruis 203). In their eyes, the idea that lunch programs should be funded due to serious malnutrition amongst schoolchildren was “hysterical sentimentality” (195). Not only does this imply sexism with its usage of the word “hysterical,” which carries a hefty misogynistic weight, but it also shows how little these elected officials cared about the proper education of young minds and their prosperity. As it was put to the Chicago Board of Education in 1908 by attorney Frank Hamlin, “…it would not be lawful for the Board of Education to undertake the feeding of children directly, and to expend money for that purpose” (204). This reads like code more than anything else, as if what Hamlin truly means is that he is of the mind that throwing money towards hungry children, a place where it apparently does not fit despite numerous academics coming forward with proof that food was essential for a child’s education, was a laughable suggestion. For the school boards, they needed a way to subsidize school lunches, and they had not yet found a way to do that.

The SLC eventually was able to hand over the reigns to the Board of Education, but the members failed to do anything aside from make things worse. There was no maintenance over the existing programs, and it soon became clear that school lunches were nothing more than a “profit-driven enterprise” (Ruis 212) as the boards tossed money to concession companies over which they had little to no oversight, proving that for these officials, money (or, the conservation of money) was far more important than the children they were elected to help. It was a clear commercialization of school lunch, an attempt to make a profit while disregarding schoolchildren’s health. This was made all the more apparent when the National School Lunch Program, overseen by the United States Department of Agriculture to this very day, was created in 1946 following the signing by President Harry S. Truman of the National School Lunch Act (Linder 220). Ironically, earlier versions of the NSLP which were founded after the SLC got the majority of their food from farmers suffering in the wake of the Great Depression (Rutledge 197). Following the stock market crash, food prices went up, and less people were able to buy. In order to rid themselves of this surplus, farmers offered it to schools. A decade or so later the outbreak of World War II took away this surplus from the schools and instead gave it to the soldiers overseas (Linder 219), but then the National School Lunch Program was born, and the schoolchildren rejoiced. Unfortunately, the USDA’s original goal was to support U.S. farmers, not to feed kids (Linder 218). Their minds were focused on taking care of and putting money into the pockets of farmers and men attached to agricultural processes. If this sounds unbelievable, the words of the Act itself should clear the air: “It is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress … to encourage the domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities” (79 P.L. 396, 60 Stat. 230). This is U.S. capitalism at its finest and most vile. Just as it was prior to the NSLA being signed, the wellbeing of young, growing, hungry children—the future of the United States of America—took a backseat to the preservation of material wealth.

All of this was meant to change when the Child Nutrition Act was signed in 1966 by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Schools taking part in the NSLP were now mandated to offer free or reduced price lunches to all poverty-stricken children, and thus the offering of school lunches transformed “from a farm subsidy to a welfare program” (Linder 222). At this point, schools had incentive for providing these lower cost or free meals, as the reimbursement for these meals was authorized by Congress, but, of course, things are never quite so simple and smooth. The USDA still had a very hands-off approach to the NSLP and its participating schools—there were no clear guidelines as to who exactly qualified for both the reduced price lunches and the free lunches (Linder 223). There was a heavy reluctance to put any policy into place, which left the burden of locating these impoverished children to the very specific local level. Due to the social stigma surrounding poverty, the selection of students at the hands of those nearest to them was “personal and often arbitrary” (Linder 223). It wasn’t until 1971, twenty-five years following the passing of the National School Lunch Act and five years following the passing of the Child Nutrition Act, that Congress finally and “formally established uniform national standards for defining eligibility for free and reduced price meals” (Linder 223). Still, though, even further issues arose when the USDA failed to offer guidelines on how these needy children should be treated. As one can imagine, “inequality, inconsistency, and racism” abounded (Linder 223).

Language in the National School Lunch Act prohibits the discrimination against poor children (Rutledge 638), but that has not stopped schools from acting inappropriately when faced with this fascinating phenomenon called school lunch debt. At first glance, it makes sense. Schools are responsible for paying back the government which is so kind to offer them money so their students can eat. If there is a shortage of money due to children not paying their lunch fines, there must be a way to get this money. Otherwise, it is the schools that suffer. But what about the children? The NSLA also prohibits the “overt identification and segregation of any students who participates in the program” (Rutledge 638), but, once again, this has not stopped schools from doing just that. Separate lunch lines, separate seating areas, different foods—these are just three examples of how students receiving free or reduced price meals are segregated. Because of the high number of protected citizens, minorities, eligible for these free or reduced price meals, the borderline discriminatory treatment they endure can lead to students opting out of participating in the program. Yet again, children are going hungry, and if they choose to continue participation, there is such a social stigma surrounding them, especially when faced with lunch debt. There is a belief that a large percentage of students eligible for free meals have not made themselves known (Shah edweek.org), whether out of embarrassment or sheer uncertainty of how to get themselves on this list. When it comes time to pay at the register, these particular students are presented with a big issue: they cannot pay. This sparks a wildfire of lunch shaming practices. Schools are in charge of ensuring children pay their debts, and this leads to some ridiculous and humiliating procedures. Some lunches are tossed in the bin in front of the debt-ridden child and their peers. Some students are offered basic cheese or jam sandwiches as punishment. Some must wear badges with phrases that call attention to the child’s need for money, some are simply stamped. Officials at certain schools require physical labor such as cleaning the cafeterias, as if these kids got caught attempting to dine and dash. One district in Pennsylvania found itself in very, very hot water when it announced students with high lunch debts could be taken from their parents and placed in foster care.

[Above Image: stamp on child’s arm reads “I Need Lunch Money” with a smiley face above the words. This is an unavoidable marker that calls attention to a student’s lack of funds. There is nothing happy about the image despite the happy face. Undoubtedly, this child felt shame and embarrassment at needing to be branded in such a public way. One can only imagine the stamping occurred in front of his peers.]

[Above Image: represents what some students are forced to eat if they are in debt. Nothing more than a cheese sandwich, when students need far more nutrition to sustain themselves. Without proper nutrition, a child’s lethargy increases as does their inability to both pay attention and retain information. There must be more done to avoid purposely depriving student’s of sustenance.]

Each of these shaming practices is outrageous. These are children. Some are as young as five and six. “‘Hangry’ For School Lunch” calls this particular type of debt “delinquent meal charge debt” (225) as if these little guys are hardened criminals and not hungry, dependent children. In one article, a district food-service director was quoted as saying that people from impoverished areas move to her district “and they’ve never paid for a meal in their life” (Shah edweek.org). Once again, it must be said that these are children. Oftentimes, these are minority children. They do not have an infinite flow of money earned from a high paying job. As pointed out by Anna Karnaze, the singling out and shaming of these students could potentially fall under an infraction of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Treating children as if they are functioning adults, degrading them in front of their friends and enemies, all for money’s sake is terribly sad. For a program that had its early start with the goal of feeding children to ensure their academic success, for a program that took food from kind farmers, for a program supported by millionaires when it was not supported by the government (Ruis 208), capitalism and racism has tainted it so badly it is difficult to see how the slate can ever be wiped clean. Despite efforts to ensure the proper students are filling out the proper forms for free or reduced price meals, despite efforts by state governments to quash lunch shaming practices (because there is legislation in certain states which prohibits these practices), there is still the issue of lunch debt. According to one headline, “Debt Mounts as Lunch Shaming Ends.” Schools are being forced to use funds “that would otherwise be used in the classroom” to pay off their student’s lunch debt. But where is the aid from the government? Where is the help that was once promised to guarantee every child across America attending school gets fed at lunchtime?

Just recently President Trump restricted access to the SNAP program. A White House representative was quoted as saying, “The best welfare program is a longterm, permanent job” in response to national backlash, and it is disturbing how similar the issues facing SNAP participants and NSLP participants is, but it is not surprising. This is The United States of America. The American Dream focuses heavily on earning one’s own way in the world, and that anybody can achieve anything if they only get off the sofa and get to work. It is no secret that this capitalistic utopia is most often directed towards non-whites when it is only capable of being achieved by whites, leaving the rest of the country in the dust. Because it is never so simple and easy, especially for minorities, who have faced discrimination, racism, wage gaps, etc. since the inception of this country. Children deserve to eat. Families deserve to eat. Food should not be such a high-priced commodity. The right to eat and survive should not be a luxury, and there should not be such a conspicuous attempt to capitalize off of America’s hungriest people, who happen to also be America’s minorities, and not being able to afford to eat should not result in humiliation and shame. These lunch shaming practices are an example of the deep-rooted racism and the fear of poverty thriving in the U.S. Were Mabel Kittredge alive today, she would be utterly and inarguably furious and ashamed at how the nation has soiled her efforts to feed hungry and impoverished children.

0 notes