Hearing vs. Listening

When I was urged by Rinpoche Dorje to direct my messages to "those who have ears to hear," I did my best to follow his advice, as I have always done. However, both the Master and I are forced to acknowledge that those who hear do not always listen, and few of those who listen actually take up the struggle for justice.

I turn to the Judaeo-Christian Bible frequently because I believe it references, describes and dissects virtually the full range of human behavior and psychology. John 8:32 is a passage that I have always held to strongly, but I have been learning the truth of Mark 6:4.

I am therefore taking indefinite leave of this venue and associated Facebook and Twitter postings. This will please some more than it might others; but Diogenes is not gone and will neither be forgotten. La lutte continue sans cesse.

Starve the children

Here again is evidence, if anyone needs it, of the importance of a free press as a bulwark against injustice and oppression.

I was all set to publish a piece about our oleaginous "leader" when I came across the following editorial in today's Newport News Daily Press.

This is a story about a city school board denying food to students. It may not be a big earth-shattering bit of news, but the writer references federal programs, which suggests this kind of outrageous behavior may happen in places other than Virginia.

Whether the actions outlined in this story stemmed from ignorance or a dislike of federal policy that led to a school corporation cutting off its nose to spite its face, it's something that must be fought--especially if other school boards across the country might contemplate similar action.

Please read it.

The phrase "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" has been used for many decades to reflect that there is always some sort of price tag, even when something is nominally free of charge. In recent years, it has come to be used as a cultural mantra by those decrying welfare, unemployment benefits or anything else perceived to be an entitlement.

Sometimes however, the phrase can be taken literally.

Take, for example, Hampton's public school cafeterias.

Families put funds into a student's meal account. One lunch is $1.85 for elementary school students, and $2.05 for high school students — unless the family qualifies for a discount. A breakfast is 90 cents. If a student comes through the line with a meal but is found to have insufficient funds in that account, he or she is given some time to scramble around the room in an attempt to scare up some quick cash.

If that fails, the meal is taken away and thrown in the trash.

This had been Hampton's informal practice for high school students in recent years. This spring, however, the decision was made to establish a formal policy to be in line with requirements from the federal Department of Agriculture and the state Department of Education. The policy review committee, comprised of school division employees, was apparently in a magnanimous mood: It recommended high school students be allowed to "charge" one breakfast and one lunch to an insufficient account before the cafeteria staff begins taking food away and throwing it into the trash. 

Younger students can charge up to 10, which is in keeping with the previous practice for that age.

This policy, even with the update that allows a limited number of meals on credit, is unthinkable. It is unnecessarily cruel and doesn't even have the benefit of saving money.

This last detail was apparently lost on the members of the Hampton School Board when they approved this policy. It was Macayla Smith, a Kecoughtan High School senior at the time and a nonvoting student representative on the board, who offered some food for thought: "I just have a question. ... If you're throwing it away, at the end of the day, aren't you still paying for that meal?"

The answer: Yes, of course. Food costs just as much in the trash can as it does in a student's belly.

Is there a reason that a teenager should be the only one to raise this rather obvious question? (Perhaps one or more parents could have raised it, but none stood to address the issue before the School Board. Whether this reflects disinterest or tacit approval is not clear.) Some of the School Board members appeared to be as offended by this detail as the student rep was, but that did not stop them from unanimously approving the policy.

Let's state this clearly and unequivocally: Under no circumstances should a school's policy involve throwing a student's food away. Frankly, it is astonishing that anyone should have to establish this ground rule, but apparently we do. It makes no economic sense, and it is counterproductive to educational goals, since a hungry student is likely to be distracted and lethargic by the end of the school day.

There are obvious alternatives that are not so unnecessarily wasteful and inefficient. Alternatives that do not call to mind unfortunate comparisons to Oliver Twist, bowl in hand, trembling before a scowling Mr. Bumble.

Take, for example, the current practice in Newport News schools. If a student's cafeteria account has run out, he or she can receive a certain number of meals on credit (depending on the student's age). Once the limit is reached, the student is instead given an alternate meal consisting of a cheese sandwich, a piece of fruit and a serving of milk – a smaller, less expensive plate that provides some sustenance and nutrition to a growing body and an active mind. The Newport News procedures specifically state: "Food trays will not be taken away from students."

There are any number of reasons why a family might let a student's cafeteria account run dry. They range from the sympathetic (poverty) to the understandable (forgetfulness) to the callous (don't care). Not one of those is the fault of the child, and not one should be used as a rationale for making a student go hungry.

Yes, letters and/or phone calls go out to parents informing them of the deficient account. Sometimes those notifications go out immediately, and sometimes after a period of several days. In the interim, more hungry students and more discarded meals.

It's hard to see who actually benefits from this. Not the students or their teachers. Not even the school district, which still pays for the food that gets tossed. Under the Newport News policy, yes, there are a certain number of "free lunches" given away — but the cost is minimal, and it is still a better option. It would be a great day if the biggest waste in a city's budget was supplying sandwiches and milk to students who would otherwise go hungry.

 The School Board should change this policy before the next school year begins. Parents and students should speak up.

Young minds should not be distracted by hunger when there are resources available. Not in our schools.

The Newport News Daily Press, 25 June 2017  www.dailypress.com

--Richard Brown