I know it may not seem like a big deal to you, but the point isn't the tastiness of the lunch, or it its nutritional value, or even the question of whether the kids should get food. It's about creating a public stigma, about setting kids apart.
I was always poor, and I always got free (later, reduced price) lunches. This meant I had to get in a separate line from the other kids, and that my lunch was the same every day: peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
I used to _like_ PB&J. But people look at you and see what you're eating and immediately make assumptions about you--they assume your parents can't take care of you.
It's completely deflating, demoralizing, and depressing. It's a visual marker of your family's "failures." And for the record: I had a single mom, two kids, worked overtime, still not enough.
I'm not saying that we should let those kids starve--of course not--but they should get the same lunch anyone else gets. You should get the option of the hot lunch like anyone.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2009-02-28 12:00 am (UTC)I was always poor, and I always got free (later, reduced price) lunches. This meant I had to get in a separate line from the other kids, and that my lunch was the same every day: peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
I used to _like_ PB&J. But people look at you and see what you're eating and immediately make assumptions about you--they assume your parents can't take care of you.
It's completely deflating, demoralizing, and depressing. It's a visual marker of your family's "failures." And for the record: I had a single mom, two kids, worked overtime, still not enough.
I'm not saying that we should let those kids starve--of course not--but they should get the same lunch anyone else gets. You should get the option of the hot lunch like anyone.