# Chicago public school bans students from bringing lunch **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 12, 2011, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-public-school-bans-students-from-bringing-lunch/578100 "2011-04-12T16:00:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-public-school-bans-students-from-bringing-lunch/578100/141 "2011-04-14T19:04:03Z")
[This article](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-04-11/news/ct-met-school-lunch-restrictions-041120110410_1_lunch-food-provider-public-school) from the Tribune seems to confirm it. > [@](#): > > Fernando Dominguez cut the figure of a young revolutionary leader during a recent lunch period at his elementary school. > > “Who thinks the lunch is not good enough?” the seventh-grader shouted to his lunch mates in Spanish and English. > > At his public school, Little Village Academy on Chicago’s West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria. > > Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices. > [@](#): > > Carmona said she created the policy six years ago after watching students bring “bottles of soda and flaming hot chips” on field trips for their lunch. Although she would not name any other schools that employ such practices, she said it was fairly common. > > A Chicago Public Schools spokeswoman said she could not say how many schools prohibit packed lunches and that decision is left to the judgment of the principals. > > “While there is no formal policy, principals use common sense judgment based on their individual school environments,” Monique Bond wrote in an email. “In this case, this principal is encouraging the healthier choices and attempting to make an impact that extends beyond the classroom.” This parent confirms the policy exists and agrees with it. > [@](#): > > But parent Miguel Medina said he thinks the “no home lunch policy” is a good one. “The school food is very healthy,” he said, “and when they bring the food from home, there is no control over the food.” This school confiscates foods they consider unhealthy. > [@](#): > > At Claremont Academy Elementary School on the South Side, officials allow packed lunches but confiscate any snacks loaded with sugar or salt. (They often are returned after school.) Principal Rebecca Stinson said that though students may not like it, she has yet to hear a parent complain. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-public-school-bans-students-from-bringing-lunch/578100/142 "2011-04-14T20:54:13Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > If they have the money or time. > > It can, it’s better to having something to eat than nothing; both nutritionally and educationally. “Hungry kids learn better” is Republican nonsense. And not eating lunch for years won’t do a kid good nutritionally. That’s true. And where it becomes tricky is if a child will not eat anything ever. A day here or there won’t hurt but I’d suggest a child _never_ eating the provided lunches has serious issues with food and such a pathological aversion may well require professional intervention. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-public-school-bans-students-from-bringing-lunch/578100/143 "2011-04-14T21:11:47Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > A day here or there won’t hurt but I’d suggest a child _never_ eating the provided lunches has serious issues with food and such a pathological aversion may well require professional intervention. Or is just…picky. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-public-school-bans-students-from-bringing-lunch/578100/144 "2011-04-14T21:16:46Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Or is just…picky. _But see_ [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704699604575343130457388718.html](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704699604575343130457388718.html) (discussing a proposal to include “selective eating” among the eating disorders listed in the DSM). ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-public-school-bans-students-from-bringing-lunch/578100/145 "2011-04-14T21:20:05Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > That’s true. And where it becomes tricky is if a child will not eat anything ever. > A day here or there won’t hurt but I’d suggest a child _never_ eating the provided lunches has serious issues with food and such a pathological aversion may well require professional intervention. What requires professional intervention, and what receives professional interventions, are often not the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Who\_me\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/958977/32.png) [@Who\_me\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Who_me_1)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-public-school-bans-students-from-bringing-lunch/578100/146 "2011-04-14T21:26:51Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It has not been esytablished that this program ever existed. It appears to be a fiction. Why do people keep accepting it as established fact? Because they believe the reporter more than the school district. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-public-school-bans-students-from-bringing-lunch/578100/147 "2011-04-14T23:38:02Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > [This article](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-04-11/news/ct-met-school-lunch-restrictions-041120110410_1_lunch-food-provider-public-school) from the Tribune seems to confirm it. > > This parent confirms the policy exists and agrees with it. > > This school confiscates foods they consider unhealthy. Thank you. I concede the point. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-public-school-bans-students-from-bringing-lunch/578100/148 "2011-04-15T09:31:50Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Or is just…picky. My point is that, if a wide range is provided and is of reasonable quality and yet a child will never eat any of it, that seems to go beyond “picky”. But I also concede that I am a layperson when it comes to eating disorders. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-public-school-bans-students-from-bringing-lunch/578100/149 "2011-04-15T09:33:31Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > What requires professional intervention, and what receives professional interventions, are often not the same thing. Very true unfortunately. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-public-school-bans-students-from-bringing-lunch/578100/150 "2011-04-15T10:16:49Z")
I fucking hate this policy. So what if some kids bring Coke and Cheetos? Just ban Coke and Cheetos from being brought in for lunch. Forcing everyone to eat school lunch is a stupid and fascistic overaction when there are much better solutions. (and if anyone says that if they simply ban Coke and Cheetos it won’t work because some kids will sneak them into school, they can still sneak them into school now that home lunches are banned) ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-public-school-bans-students-from-bringing-lunch/578100/151 "2011-04-15T10:22:50Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > (and if anyone says that if they simply ban Coke and Cheetos it won’t work because some kids will sneak them into school, they can still sneak them into school now that home lunches are banned) Kids will always find a way to subvert any policy. That isn’t the point. The way a school conducts itself and the examples it sets are a lesson in itself. they should say “here are a selection of healthy, well prepared meals and we expect you to eat them or go hungry, those cans and chips are junk food and we disapprove. If you have a valid reason for not eating what we provide then we will compromise” That says something about that school and it is a message I definitely buy into to. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-public-school-bans-students-from-bringing-lunch/578100/152 "2011-04-15T10:55:08Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > The way a school conducts itself and the examples it sets are a lesson in itself. > > they should say “here are a selection of healthy, well prepared meals and we expect you to eat them or go hungry, those cans and chips are junk food and we disapprove. If you have a valid reason for not eating what we provide then we will compromise” > > That says something about that school Yes, it says that it is run by fucking fascists or people who are getting kickbacks from the catering company. Why not say the following: “Here is a selection of healthy, well prepared meals and we expect you to eat them or bring your own selection of similarly healthy items (described in the attached guidelines). Those cans and chips are junk food and we disapprove, and are not allowed on school premises.” This gives the message that the school promotes healthy eating and discourages junk food, without forcing their own meals as the only allowed solution. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-public-school-bans-students-from-bringing-lunch/578100/153 "2011-04-15T12:16:23Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Yes, it says that it is run by fucking fascists or people who are getting kickbacks from the catering company. Don’t throw the word “fascist” around so lightly. It devalues both your argument and the word itself. The School is in charge of my children from 9-3, in loco parentis. I am happy with them making collective decisions with a view to what is best for the school as a whole. My children may not enjoy a particular lesson but damn right they have to attend anyway. I shouldn’t have the right to take them out of maths, english or even sex education. the same is true of meal times (outside of the provisos I laid out previously) If they think they can have the greatest effect on the well-being of the children by putting such a system in place then carry on. I don’t feel the need to micromanage what they do. If the school is getting kickbacks from a catering company then of course that needs to be stopped. But that is different question entirely. > [@](#): > > Why not say the following: > “Here is a selection of healthy, well prepared meals and we expect you to eat them or bring your own selection of similarly healthy items (described in the attached guidelines). Those cans and chips are junk food and we disapprove, and are not allowed on school premises.” > > This gives the message that the school promotes healthy eating and discourages junk food, without forcing their own meals as the only allowed solution. That could be a reasonable solution. (though equally as “fascist” by your definition) However I could imagine cases where this leads to a drain on school resources having to police lunchboxes and in fact leading to a greater amount of interference to the home life of that family. I’d think the blanket ban is easier to enforce and gives the school greater control over the educational element of nutrition. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-public-school-bans-students-from-bringing-lunch/578100/154 "2011-04-15T16:13:00Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > This gives the message that the school promotes healthy eating and discourages junk food, without forcing their own meals as the only allowed solution. It gives the message that they are food nazis and children are not to eat anything the school deems fit to ban. The idea that the school is providing good nutritious food is a joke starting with the chocolate milk they serve and ending with the chicken nuggets. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-public-school-bans-students-from-bringing-lunch/578100/155 "2011-04-15T16:38:01Z")
[They’re working on it.](http://www.catalyst-chicago.org/notebook/index.php/entry/628) ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-public-school-bans-students-from-bringing-lunch/578100/156 "2011-04-17T11:42:25Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I don’t have a burden of proof. Yes, you do. Any time you assert something that is contrary to the accepted facts in a debate, you have provide evidence that it is true. And if there is conflicting evidence, we are free to choose. The idea that there is no burden of proof to claim something is false is just lazy rhetoric used by people who can’t defend their positions. I can claim right now that you aren’t a human being. I have the burden of proof to show it false, not you for proving it true, as the common perception is that you are human. Y Back on topic: The problem is that a teacher’s acting _in loco parentis_ works because parents as a group have decided to turn some powers over to the state. Based on the fact that most schools allow children to bring their own lunches, what a child eats is not in the parental rights that have been turned over. And why should it be? Unlike the other things a teacher does, it’s not something we can’t do. The entire purpose of public education is to provide education to all children, because not all parents can provide that. And it has a built-in opt out system for parents who want their child to learn differently. Why should a parent have to give up child’s entitlement to a free education just to be able to decide what their child eats? Has that 2004 law been challenged when it comes to what the parent provides? I mean, in what other social situation are you required by an outside for to eat only their food? School doesn’t have to be a business to recognize that every restriction provided by the school is also one that businesses sometimes enforce. But when have you seen a business that has food requirements? It’s definitely something that we as a people seem to feel very strongly about, not even allowing the workplace to usurp those rights. It really does boil down to who is the boss of our children. The teacher is ideally only boss when we can’t be. This is not one of those times. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-public-school-bans-students-from-bringing-lunch/578100/157 "2011-04-17T18:30:16Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Unlike the other things a teacher does, it’s not something we can’t do. The entire purpose of public education is to provide education to all children, because not all parents can provide that. But actually some parents can provide those “other things” that a teacher does. Also, some parents (many, in some situations) are unable to feed their children healthy food. So that point doesn’t stand. > [@](#): > > And it has a built-in opt out system for parents who want their child to learn differently. Why should a parent have to give up child’s entitlement to a free education just to be able to decide what their child eats? for the greater good? the same reason there is a standard curriculum, uniform and expected behaviour. > [@](#): > > I mean, in what other social situation are you required by an outside for to eat only their food? errrrrr…Theme parks? Cinemas? Theatres? > [@](#): > > It really does boil down to who is the boss of our children. During school hours? the school is the boss. It can’t reasonably be run any other way. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-public-school-bans-students-from-bringing-lunch/578100/158 "2011-04-17T18:55:52Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > errrrrr…Theme parks? Cinemas? Theatres? None of which are essential for one’s future, nor every day things. Education is. You claim it’s “for the greater good”, but how? If a child brings their own lunch how does that hurt the other kids? In my school you could bring your own lunch, buy a school lunch, or (if you couldn’t afford the school lunch, or your own lunch) get a free or reduced lunch. I had the free lunch usually, but occasionally I’d be able to bring something I liked for my own lunch. How was I harmed? ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-public-school-bans-students-from-bringing-lunch/578100/159 "2011-04-17T19:06:11Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Unlike the other things a teacher does, it’s not something we can’t do. But that’s not the rubric by which traditionally parental roles are taken over by the schools. It’s not what parents can’t do, it’s what they _don’t_ do. Too many parents weren’t teaching their kids about sex, so schools started to do it. Too many parents weren’t teaching their kids to drive, so schools started doing it. Too many parents weren’t teaching their kids to budget and balance a checkbook, so schools have started doing it. In this case, at this school, the principal thought too many parents weren’t providing their children with healthy lunches, so the school started to do it. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-public-school-bans-students-from-bringing-lunch/578100/160 "2011-04-17T20:11:26Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > But that’s not the rubric by which traditionally parental roles are taken over by the schools. It’s not what parents can’t do, it’s what they _don’t_ do. Too many parents weren’t teaching their kids about sex, so schools started to do it. Too many parents weren’t teaching their kids to drive, so schools started doing it. Too many parents weren’t teaching their kids to budget and balance a checkbook, so schools have started doing it. > > In this case, at this school, the principal thought too many parents weren’t providing their children with healthy lunches, so the school started to do it. Of course, the analogy would suggest that the school should teach about nutrition, not force kids to eat the school’s food. Forcing a certain diet is different in kind from forcing a child to learn a certain subject. That’s not to say the school cannot legitimately do it, or shouldn’t. But I think it has to acknowledged that this goes beyond the traditional school model. (Even PE is closer to teaching content than this is, since you actually have to do the movements to learn them.) What we eat has long been a central issue for human belief systems. Religions go on and on about it. It is a pretty core parental liberty to control what a child eats. There’s a non-frivolous case to be made that a policy dictating a particular diet in schools violates the parents’ substantive due process rights. But most federal circuits, including the Seventh I believe, have been pretty reluctant to uphold parental rights when there’s any rational argument to be made that the school policy is in the child’s interest. So I wouldn’t bet on a court vindicating the parent in such a case. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-public-school-bans-students-from-bringing-lunch/578100.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-public-school-bans-students-from-bringing-lunch/578100.md?page=9)