Now this isn't the first time this kind of article has come across my desk. As it always does, the subject matter stirs mixed emotions inside of me. I know the arguments for what occurred and the ones against what occurred. Both sides have some decent points which I will go into momentarily.
The subject of the article and the others I mentioned is a group at a school refused to feed a group of children because their lunch card had run to low to allow them to afford the lunch. The food workers have been fired and the company responsible is working very hard to fix what is obviously a PR nightmare.
There are those that will applaud these actions and there are those who will decry the actions. Those for will argue that no child, regardless of their monetary status, should be allowed to go hungry at school. It is every child's right to enjoy a decent (Okay decent maybe questionable since we are talking about school lunches here.) lunch no matter the circumstances.
The other side objects, usually very loudly. They argue that giving free lunches to kids who don't have the money is unfair to the parents and families that do pay for their child's meals. They say that giving free lunches to children only encourages others to cry poverty and try to get the same deal. Basically they argue that such actions risk turning the Free/Low Cost Lunch Program into a true Welfare program.
We will deal with the second argument first just because I am feeling contrary tonight. The only real solid point that the naysayers have is the one about fairness. In the truest sense of the word, giving something away to some for free that others have to pay for is unfair. However this only becomes an issue if it is a chronic problem where the same kids keep showing up for lunch and conveniently never having the money to pay. If the kids regularly pay and are just short on some occasions, then the argument doesn't have as much Omph behind it.
The first argument basically calls upon the power of common decency. Let me state categorically that I feel that NO child should ever go hungry especially if it is within the power of others nearby to give them food. When I was a young child, we were dirt poor. We barely had enough food at times to feed ourselves, but I promise you that if anyone had showed up at our door hungry then they would have been fed. So yes, if a child is hungry and the School has the power to feed them, then they should. It is the Right thing to do no matter the consequences.
Of course, I would like to inject an argument that I hardly ever see. Having worked in School Cafeterias (Both Grade School and College Level) I can promise you that there is always extra food. No matter how well planned School Menus are and no matter how efficient the preparers are, there is always a significant portion of food left over and discarded at the end of the day. So there is no monetary reason for the schools to not give a child a lunch when they cannot pay. (I use this same argument when discussing the massive amounts of food that most eateries throw out at the end of the day that could be donated to Halfway Houses and Homeless Shelters.)
When all is said and done, I guess the question is this. Is it better to feed Anyone who is hungry even if they don't have money to pay or refuse to help in the fear that negative consequences may ensue? Conscience versus Consequences. I know which one I will choose every time. How about you?
End of rant
In a previous article, they said that the cafeteria workers made them throw their lunches in the trash when they got to the end and couldn't pay, so the food was truly wasted.
ReplyDeleteRight, where is the sense in that? Whups sorry you can't pay for that food, but we can't serve it to someone else so in the trash it goes.
ReplyDelete