For the issue of food insecurity among college students, parties that hold some responsibility in the issue tend to use more neutral language (food insecurity instead of food hunger) to lessen the perceived urgency and severity of the issue. On the opposite side of the spectrum, people fighting the issue want to highlight these factors, so they use more emotionally-driven and stronger language to convey this problem. The problem is also framed as non-political and charitable to help actually focus on fixing the issue itself. By framing it as something neutral in the political spectrum, the focus shifts to what can people do to help, rather then which party wants to help. This language overall hinders the solution because it shifts the focus from changing policy, and it stigmatizes students by having them fight against the status quo of “everything is fine” to solve it.

Image via The Emily Program

The people that benefit from keeping the issue unsolved the most is the institutions. They can benefit from high enrollment without fully covering student needs. When the issue becomes too pressing to ignore, they implement low-cost band-aids to fix it (e.g. food pantries), rather than taking on the financial burden of overhauling the system. This incentive of cash keeps the university from fixing the issue, and providing a much needed solution to the problem. This ends up fueling the problem further and further, to eventually the point where it collapses. However, no one is willing to take that financial hit to fix it.

Image via 123RF

To begin to come up with an effective solution, we have to look beyond charity, and more towards a structural overhaul of the system. While the charity does help, it doesn’t actually solve the issue. It lessens the impact that it has on individuals. Some solutions to this involve expanding financial support for students, reducing SNAP eligibility requirements by reforming policies, and making changes at the institutional level. To convince people of power, the issue must be framed with factors that the institution cares about. For example, by increasing the support for food for students, it can increase graduation rates. By framing the issue with factors they care about, they are more likely to respond and potentially implement real fixes to the issue.