The country is struggling. The economy is not in good shape. Unemployment is up. Violence is becoming a major issue. Kids are not meeting expectations. So, in an attempt to improve things, the government responds. The government responds by instituting a policy in which the survival of kids is determined by their performance—after they are sent to a remote island where only one can survive.

If this sounds absurd, it’s because it is the synopsis for Battle Royale, an immensely controversial Japanese movie released in 2000.

But if it sounds vaguely familiar, there’s a good reason for that.

Lawmakers in Tennessee recently introduced a bill that would directly tie the amount of money families receive in welfare to the performance of their children in school. If a child is not successful in school, their family’s welfare benefits will be cut as much as 30 percent. Supposedly, this bill is a way to reward those who are deserving and punish those who are not.

This is what the man who introduced the bill, Tennessee State Senator Stacey Campfield, claims, referring to it as the “latest idea on breaking the cycle of poverty.”

Campfield, who feels that waning parental influence is now the major problem in a struggling system, believes that those parents whose kids are struggling should have their benefits revoked.

“Parents are responsible to make sure their kids are ready for school,” he explained in a blog post. “If parents are not holding up their leg of the job (and your kids are not special needs, learning disabled, etc.) then the state is going to start holding back a portion of that parents government benefits.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, criticism of the bill has been strong. Another elected official in Tennessee, Mike Turner, countered that children with “undiagnosed learning disabilities” could unfairly suffer under the proposal. He also noted that, regardless of how a child is performing in school, “the kid still has to eat.”

Mr. Campfield should get some credit, though, because in addition to using incorrect grammar in his critique of the current system, he has also introduced some of the most narrow-minded, ignorant, cold-hearted legislation imaginable.

If there is a line between what can be considered just and what unfairly punishes people, one could argue that a work requirement for welfare falls below that line. Drug testing for those receiving welfare might fall closer to that line. Legislation recently introduced in Missouri that ties welfare to school attendance regardless of outside conditions could fall past that line. And then there is this bill, which acts as though a line between what fairly and unfairly punishes someone does not even exist.

As Mr. Turner mentioned, what if a child has an undiagnosed learning disorder that prevents him or her from being successful in school? What if a child has inexperienced teachers because public school funding has been slashed? What if the child cannot stay after school for tutoring because busing has been cut? What if the child can’t focus in school to begin with because school lunches have been reduced?

And what about the kids who are unsuccessful in school? Are they supposed to become more successful when they have less food to eat? Is their performance supposed to improve when faced with the pressure of supporting their family’s ever-decreasing assistance? How this benefits society in any way—other than saving money, of course—seems puzzling.

The broader problem that stems from legislation such as this, however, is the concept of running a country like running a business. A business exists to make money, the government is in place to support society, and this contrast needs to be emphasized. Business experience might be a great credential when running for public office, but citizens are not merely business expenses.

Removing welfare benefits—something put in place to help struggling people—for people who are struggling in school is tantamount to cutting your losses. But rather than changes in a spreadsheet or a spending report, this legislation would have immediate, far-reaching consequences. People are people, and viewing them like numbers cannot continue to occur.

Perhaps the defining concept of our country is that of the American dream. The American dream, which is supposed to put everyone on an equal stage, to allow people an opportunity to succeed no matter their circumstances. Yet a bill like this, which unfairly punishes and burdens children for actions that they are hardly responsible for, hinders just that opportunity.

Kids already have to deal with bullying, puberty, pressure and any number of other issues that we all face growing up. Those kids whose families are on welfare additionally are often, though by no means always, subject to single-parent households, higher crime rates, underfunded public schools and a whole host of other issues.

As Gloria Johnson, another representative in Tennessee and a teacher herself, noted, “putting the burden of whether your baby sister has dinner on what your grades are to a ten-year old… is unacceptable.” Kids go to school to be educated, to grow, to expand their minds. They do not go to school to support their family. If Stacey Campfield and the rest of the lawmakers in Tennessee supporting this bill start to look at things from a broader perspective, perhaps they too will realize the absurdity of forcing them to do just that.

 

Reach Contributor Mathew Goldstein here.