Earlier this month a debate ensued around the issue of school lunches. Initially, the City of Warwick school committee decided to provide only sunbutter and jelly sandwiches to children whose parents did not pay the requisite fee for school lunches. Mind you, all these parents have the wherewithal to pay, otherwise their children, if low income, would get free lunches. Instead, the parents are scofflaws who are looking for something for nothing.

The school committee was chastised for shaming the children and it soon reversed itself. Clearly, it is the better part of valor not to put children in the middle of a dispute. Further, it potentially could provoke bullying so removing this “stigma” was important to do. This situation, however, is easily handled without putting the children at risk. School lunch agreements should provide for payment plus, in the case of unexcused payment(s), interest and attorney fees should be recouped if collection has to be initiated. Sue the miscreants.

Yet, the entire issue of “squeezing out” more freebies is important to discuss. Do we develop a mentality that things are “owed” to us when we shrug off non-compliance? A trove of research suggests yes. The more folks get things for free; even more benefits are expected by them as a “right”.

Equally troubling is the prospect that folks devalue things that are free. With “free college”, for example, do students study less hard than their parents or grandparents who had to work to pay tuition? Do we set these young adults on a clear path to continue to seek something for nothing as they get older? In effect, are we inadvertently developing a mentality of entitlement, given the wide exposure of a life lived on other people’s dime as evidenced by their parents and their own experience?

I know this sounds nostalgic but I salute the days where my generation and that of my parents always had “the right change for the bus”. Nothing was purchased until the money was saved. It was unthinkable that anyone else should bear the brunt of personal bills. Today, however, it is standard for more and more folks to expect “bennies” at the expense of unrelated people.

Of course, I am not talking about the genuine taking into consideration of folks’ resources. Pell grants are awarded to worthy students who are too indigent to pay for college. Universities routinely award scholarships to needy students in accordance with their needs. In Rhode Island, however, it somehow became virtuous to allow everybody, regardless of how much money their parents have, to get a free college education. In fact, the Governor aims to extend free tuition to Rhode Island College and the University of Rhode Island.

The underbelly of this largesse, however, is the cost to many who are on fixed income and in minimum wage jobs. Some of the least able folks economically are being tapped to pay tuitions of children whose parents can afford it, and their lunches. What’s wrong with this picture?

Rhode Island is well along the path of being a welfare state, particularly for those who don’t qualify for the status and those who are special interests members. It’s insane to continue this public dole.

Arlene Violet is an attorney and former Rhode Island Attorney General.