Serving the High Plains
Serving the High Plains
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, childcare 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 (ag department) 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.
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.
Amen Walz and forward-looking politicians in other states who had the compassion and foresight to implement humane policies 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. Contact him at:
