study hall, brought to you by Coke

i've heard people argue in favor of advertising in public schools, saying "i don't care where the money comes from, as long as it goes to the kids." but there are at least two problems with this argument:

1. where should the money be coming from? in his column, hendricks writes that

... next week the Shawnee Mission school board will vote on whether to sell in-school advertising. Blue Valley's board already has set a plan in motion.

Both are trying to make up for the Kansas Legislature's refusal to adequately fund public education.

districts are looking to advertisers for income because they don't have enough money to provide the programs that kids need. in wealthy areas, parent associations can fundraise for library books and chemistry labs. poor parents don't have that option.

it's like yahoo mail versus yahoo mail plus: if you're willing to pay, you can escape the ads. if you can pay booster dues or private school tuition, your kids can avoid getting a brand-name "education." i'm not saying that wealthier parents shouldn't be able to pay more for their kids' education if they have the means and the inclination. but why does that mean poor kids have to go to underfunded schools, and therefore be subjected to ads in their hallways?

2. what if the harm to children is greater than the financial benefit to the schools?

in the great documentary "American Dream," you see how the Hormel company, the biggest employer in one little town, keeps the residents brand-loyal by donating Hormel-branded materials to the school. coke and pepsi have been pushing pouring rights contracts onto school districts for years. why? because it works.

and why does it work? because kids are impressionable. teach a kid to love Coke and he'll buy Coke his whole life. i'm not even talking about the harm to your waistline of drinking Coke your whole life. i'm talking about the potential psychological harm of being exposed, all day long, to ads that are carefully engineered to invade your subconscious.

"without government intervention," marion nestle writes in food politics, "coca-cola will always win."