Every time the government shuts down, liberals invariably say, “Give us what we want, or children will starve.” To a foreign onlooker, it would sound as if millions of Americans are one missed EBT recharge away from death, given how casually the media invokes “starvation” whenever Congress hits a budget stalemate.

During the recent government shutdown, Democrats immediately went to post on their X accounts and talk to their friends in the media to accuse Republicans of being “willing to starve hungry children.” The same thing occurred at Northwestern University.

At an informal policy discussion that included the student organization I chair, Young Americans for Freedom, along with the College Democrats and College Republicans, one of the topics that came up was whether or not states should foot some portion of the SNAP program. Of course, the recent government shutdown was used as a reason why SNAP should be federally funded because “children would starve.” Casting aside the fact that this statement reveals that the student who said this clearly hasn’t put much thought into this issue — having states take responsibility for SNAP would better insulate them from the impacts of a government shutdown — the point that left me bewildered was one I have heard constantly in clips from cable news: that there was a non-negligible number of Americans starving.

The definition of starvation is “widespread or generalized atrophy (wasting away) of body tissues either because food is unavailable or because it cannot be taken in or properly absorbed.”

Observing an obvious disconnect between the term’s definition and its usage, I raised my hand to speak. I commented that the term “starvation” is often used to excite the emotions of the American people, despite being largely inaccurate to describe the plight of those dependent on food stamps. I noted that poverty and obesity were highly correlated in the United States, which necessarily means that concerns about starvation are overblown. I added that the more legitimate concerns for households relying on food stamps involve children who struggle to focus in school when they skip meals, or who face weight-related health issues because healthier foods could be more expensive. These remarks immediately elicited laughter from the room, and when I finished speaking, a “fact-check.”

Intended to prove that my argument was baseless, the student who called for this “fact-check” revealed that either A) he needs hearing aids, or B) he doesn’t understand the distinction between starvation and food insecurity. According to the USDA, “overall food insecurity” affects 13.5% of U.S. households, and it is defined by “reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet” with “little or no indication of reduced food intake.” The more severe case, “very low food security,” which 5.1% of households qualified as at some point in 2023, is defined as “reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.”

How many liberals who sloppily substitute “starvation” to describe “food insecurity” actually know that to qualify as being food insecure entails “little or no indication of reduced food intake”? Presumably none. Even citing statistics for those classified as “very low food secure” does not approach the definition of starvation. Experiencing “disrupted eating patterns” or “reduced food intake” can certainly affect well-being, but it bears no resemblance to “widespread or generalized atrophy.” If I were willing to be as cavalier with terminology as the people conflating these categories, I could just as easily claim that half of all medical students are “very low food insecure.”

This anecdote, coming from one of the United States’ top universities, is illuminating. Liberal politicians, who often come from similarly prestigious pedigrees, use the exact same deceptive tactics when discussing food stamps. The lack of reason, casual disregard for definitions, and confidence with which factually shaky claims are delivered all stem from a common cause: the lack of confrontation by the media, peers, or professors. Surrounded by agreement, liberals at Northwestern, or in the media, never have to confront their premises, assumptions, and claims about the world. They can mindlessly make assertions of systemic racism in their essays — a claim that bears many of the hallmarks of a conspiracy — and expect a solid grade from their professors. And they can wax poetic about immigration and diversity without ever being forced to confront the concept of tradeoffs.

In the end, this episode at Northwestern, along with the others I’ve chronicled, raises real concerns about the trajectory of institutions that are supposed to produce the country’s future leaders. Universities are full of unscholarly liberal students who brand themselves as enlightened but can’t distinguish food insecurity from starvation. Notably, people who subscribe to fact-free fantasies will, at one point or another, obtain degrees from Northwestern University. Perhaps their diplomas will be embossed in gold foil to distract from the absence of critical thought beneath them.