Published: Thursday, Feb. 6 2014 12:00 a.m. MST
Let's see if I have the facts straight. A District lunch worker seized
lunches already served to elementary school students when those students went
through the "payment" part of the lunch line. When the District lunch
worker saw that the student's account had no money, the District lunch
worker threw the entire lunch in the garbage and then gave the student a carton
of milk and a piece of fruit for lunch. Those are the facts as I remember
hearing them.1. Is a child in elementary school an adult? 2.
Is a child considered to be a financially responsible person under the law?3. Were the (approximately) forty students humiliated in front of other
students?4. What are the written District rules about wasting food that
has been served to elementary age children?Finally, how does the
letter writer justify the actions of the District employee when comparing
government regulations for welfare to the actions of a District employee who
works for a school district which humiliated forty students?
Could another form of bullying be taking money from one person so another can
have food, rent and electricity. Bullying there I think. You are not entitled
to the fruit of your neighbors labor.
J Thompson,Who "justified the actions of the District
employee"??I think you need to read the article again and focus
on comprehension of what is actually written (not what you want to see)===This is not a simple push-button topic. We need to think
about it.Obviously what the employee did was not right, and nobody
said it was done right. They apologized and said it was done wrong. And
nobody said they would do it this way again.IMO They need to find a
way to notify parents in this situation. If it was an oversight, they can take
care of quickly. If it was not an oversight, and it was just irresponsible
parents who don't intend to pay for their children's lunches.... Allow
the kids of the irresponsible parents who refuse to pay for their lunches to eat
lunch for now, and settle the deficient account later (before they can register
for school again). If they refuse to pay for their children to eat... tell
them they need to pack their lunch or transfer to a different school. Or start
a fund people can pay into to help families like this.
This idea that public schools should provide children their meals is insidious.
First, it removes the responsibility of the parent to provide THEIR CHILDREN
their meals. Secondly, it's a way that liberals use to indoctrinate
children early on, that it's the government who provides for their well
being, and the essentials of life, not mom and dad, and family.Doubt
me? Take a look at the Black Family in America. Liberal welfare programs and
policies have all but destroyed this minority. Over 70% of Black Children have
no Father. Again, why do they need a two parent family when the Government is
there to provide all they need. Let's not even talk about the
disproportionally high crime rate among this population.Sorry, but
schools are in the business of teaching, not providing meals for kids. Maybe
parents should start acting like parents and take on their adult responsibility
of providing for their children. I know, I know, I'm just a big bully.
I might be psychologically ruined for life if I were a kid on the receiving end
of Sven's comment. Let's remember - kids depend on adults to put some
order into daily life. Having your lunch yanked away by someone you are supposed
to trust will no doubt stay in your mind much longer than in the minds of the
I for one would gladly trade subsidies for businesses to export jobs overseas
for investment in our most precious resources, our children. I wonder if Sven
from Morgan realized that whites constituted the majority of SNAP recipients and
that the majority of recipients are working. This convoluted perception has been
perpetuated from Reaganomics and trickle down economics and unregulated
capitalism. Utah and America have too many that have been driven from knowing
where their next meal is coming from and it is not from a lack of willingness to
work. High unemployment, a lifetime of education debt, no voice in the
workplace,and wages that haven't even come close to keeping up with the
cost of living are designed and are doing what they are designed to do. Paul
Gibbs, you make a good point.
Jl said:"I for one would gladly trade subsidies for businesses
to export jobs overseas for investment in our most precious resources, our
children."Ever ask yourself the question as to why many of these
businesses are exporting jobs overseas? Let me help you; we have the highest
corporate tax rate in the developed world at 39.2 percent. Why should these
businesses be chumps and pay the Federal Government this insane tax rate? This
also makes these same businesses prone to being purchased by foriegn companies
who work under a much lower corporate tax rates. These businesses are
effectively moved to their new owners home country. When businesses thrive,
they are able to grow and hire more people. Our government has been the catalyst
for businesses moving operations overseas. Really not that complicated.
Thanks to Obamacare, many full time workers have had their full time
positions cut to 29 hours per week in order for their employers to comply with
the Obamacare mandates. Just wait until the "Employer Mandate" kicks
in; think it's bad now? You ain't seen nothing! Under our Glorious
Dear Leader we have 92 million Americans out of work, and over 50 million on
food stamps! Hope and Change!
@ 2 bits,The children are not financially responsible to the school
or to the district to pay for lunches. That duty is the duty of the parents.
No adult anywhere, any time has the right to strip a lunch from the hands of an
elementary school student because the PARENT didn't furnish lunch money,
and then throw that lunch in the garbage. If a student did that, that student
would be expelled from school for bullying. The school has no
responsibility to feed the children. The parents have that responsibility. If
the school offers "hot lunch", then the parents may choose to buy it for
their children. If a child has no money in his account, it is the
duty of an adult to talk to that child BEFORE lunch and offer the milk and fruit
- if that is the school policy. Child services should be called if
the parents neglect their children, but no child deserves to be bullied by a
District employee, a lunch lady or the Principal. The law does not recognize an
elementary school age child to be financially responsible.
J Thompson,I totally agree with you dude! In fact that's what I
said in my comment.The kids aren't responsible for keeping
their lunch account up... their parents are. That's why it was
inappropriate for the lunch worker to take it out on the kids. She should have
addressed it with the parents (and I think they have decided that's how
they will handle it in the future).I never defended the lunch worker
or said what she did was appropriate. Nobody has.What I said is...
they need a way to notify the parents, in case it was an oversight and so they
can fix it ASAP. And if the parents refuse to pay for their kids lunches... the
school administration needs to meet with them and come up with a solution (like
packing a lunch from home, or getting some aid).But never should
they do what they did.I agree it's the parent's job. And
the school should deal with the parents (not the child) in instances like this.
The parents deserve to be notified in advance over their child's funds. The school didn't do that. I don't care what the excuses are.
They didn't and kids were humiliated because of it. Had the
parents been notified and still refused to pay, then we'd be talking about
a different story. That's it, period.
Sven, how does yanking a lunch from a child end up being about Obamacare.
Sometimes the twists are just not right.
Mr Sven, show me a corporation that pays a 39% tax rate and I will show you a
CFO that is on the unemployment line. Please source (official) your rant.
We live in a society where economic hardship yields brutal results to good
people, every day. Work your butt off, stay loyal to a company for 20 years,
then get dumped because the job can be done by a machine or somebody in another
country for far, far less.Why should we shield children from this
type of reality, the reality that they will soon enough have to learn to live
with?It would be refreshingly honest to let children know, and let
the rest of the kids know, which parents are losers. Life in our society and
economy is very unforgiving. We should prepare students for that reality.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments