Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Real Monster: Hunger in America’s Schools

Opinion

young girl pouring fresh juice or milk into cup sitting at table with classmates while eating lunch in school cafeteria.

Young girl pouring fresh juice or milk into cup sitting at table with classmates while eating lunch in school cafeteria.

Getty Images, SeventyFour

Boo wasn’t afraid of monsters. In Monster, Inc., a popular Disney animated film, the wide-eyed, giggling little girl toddled fearlessly through a world of towering, furry creatures—completely unfazed by their fangs, claws, or booming voices. The only thing that scared her was Randall, the lurking, slithering villain who threatened her safety.

I once met a little girl just like Boo. She was about three years old, her hair tied up in tiny ponytails, her eyes filled with curiosity. At a food site I visited during my evaluation of the USDA’s Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), she struggled to climb onto the picnic bench, her small hands gripping the edge as she hoisted herself up. When she finally settled, she shared something no child should ever have to say: “When I stay with my dad, we don’t always eat lunch.”


Unlike Boo, the monsters in her world weren’t make-believe. Her Randall wasn’t a shadowy figure hiding in a closet—it was food insecurity and hunger. And unlike the happy ending of a Disney film, where heroes swoop in to save the day, the story for children like her is being rewritten in the worst way.

With the recent policy decision to remove $1 billion in USDA funding that helps supply food banks and school meal programs, the safety net that once protected children from hunger is unraveling. The boogeyman of food insecurity is creeping closer, not just in the shadows but in classrooms, cafeterias, and homes where empty stomachs are becoming more common. As someone who led the first-ever evaluation of Wisconsin’s SFSP, I know firsthand how vital these programs are. I trained both undergraduate students and high schoolers in Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) methods to help examine the barriers students and families faced in accessing food. What we found was clear: these meal programs were a lifeline—one that was already stretched too thin.

The decision to cut funding for food banks and school meals is more than a budgetary shift—it is a fundamental abdication of our collective responsibility to care for one of our most valuable populations: children. This is not just about dollars and cents; it is about whether we, as a society, believe that no child should go hungry.

There is a unique cruelty in a government that cuts funding for food banks and schools, depriving the nation’s most vulnerable—especially children—of essential support. It has long been recognized that certain groups, such as children and the elderly, require special protections. Yet, this government has crossed a moral line, betraying the fundamental social covenant to care for those in greatest need.

Ensuring that children have access to food in school is not just a practical necessity—it is an ethical obligation. Access to food is a fundamental human right. Denying children food in school violates their right to adequate nutrition and overall well-being. We know from science that hungry children struggle to concentrate, retain information, and perform academically. If some students cannot access food, their learning experience is inherently unequal.

Moreover, investing in child nutrition reduces future social costs related to healthcare, crime, and economic disparity. Ethically, society has a responsibility to prevent harm and promote well-being. The USDA’s decision to cut funding will not only hurt children today but will have devastating long-term effects on education, health, and economic stability.

This crisis calls for action from all of us. But how can we make a difference? We can push back against harmful cuts by raising awareness through sharing research, facts, and personal stories on social media to highlight their impact. Mobilizing at town halls and community gatherings will help us discuss how these cuts affect schools and families. We should engage with organizations like faith-based groups, nonprofits, and food pantries to speak out and advocate for change. Additionally, we must demand policy changes by urging local representatives to speak up and contacting state and federal policymakers with specific complaints and personal stories. Joining or forming coalitions can apply pressure on decision-makers to push for change, while volunteering at food banks or school meal programs can help address gaps caused by funding cuts. Fundraising for local efforts to provide meals to families in need and collaborating with businesses to create food donation programs can also make a difference. Holding leaders accountable by amplifying their positions on food security and supporting those advocating for robust social safety nets is crucial. Finally, encouraging voter participation and tracking leaders' voting records on food insecurity issues will help ensure lasting change. Together, we can make a difference.

In Monsters, Inc., laughter had the power to change the world. In our world, it’s action that makes the difference. These children don’t need magic or make-believe heroes—they need real people who will stand up, speak out, and demand that no child goes hungry. Because this time, the monster is real. And the only way to defeat it is by coming together.

In the world of Monstropolis, monsters once stole screams from children to generate energy. But when they discovered that laughter and happiness were far more powerful than fear, everything changed. We want children to experience joy and happiness, not live in fear and uncertainty. Let’s make that a reality.


Dr. Anthony Hernandez, a faculty member in the Department of Educational Policy Studies at the University of Wisconsin—Madison (UW-Madison), received a research award from the National Academy of Education/Spencer Foundation for his study on leadership in higher education. He has been recognized with four teaching awards at UW-Madison. He led the evaluation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) in Dane County, Wisconsin for two years.


Read More

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

Members of the House Judiciary Committee during the hearing on the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Credit: Olivia Ardito

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing last Wednesday examining claims that the Southern Poverty Law Center had funded the very hate groups the center aims to dismantle. Tensions were high as Republicans and Democrats fired back at each other. Noticeably absent was a representative from the center, a non-profit that since 1971 has fought for racial justice and against white supremacy.

The hearing came after the Texas Attorney General Ken Pax­ton announced last Monday that he was investigating the center. The U.S. Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center in April for allegedly funneling money to people associated with violent extremist groups. The group has flatly rejected the accusations. While Republicans backed these claims, Democrats viewed the allegations as part of the Trump-backed efforts to hinder “DEI” and other racial justice initiatives.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

An analysis of gun violence, political extremism, Islamophobia, and community resilience in America after the San Diego Islamic Center shooting.

GemaIbarra / Getty Images

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

Last Monday, two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego, murdering three Muslim men. Unfortunately, this is the type of horror Americans have been conditioned to expect. After years of political stagnation on gun safety and ongoing hateful acts of violence, our president has signaled once again to children, to the Muslim community, and to everyone else: he does not care if you get shot.

Gun violence has been on the rise in the United States for too long. Perhaps the most harrowing consequence is that gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. Whether from school shootings, homicides, suicides, or accidents, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. In fact, the number of domestic deaths due to gun violence is about as many as U.S. military deaths in every war since World War I combined. More children have been lost to gun violence since 2020 than troops lost since 9/11. Yet even with such a striking death toll—and one affecting children no less—happening on our own soil, Vice President J.D. Vance calls it a “fact of life.

Keep ReadingShow less
The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less