I like your thinking - context is completely being missed here.People need to take a step back and think "what's the problem being solved?" Hungry kids not learning? Or fussy kids not eating?
For example - yes, the whole sushi being woke thing is a joke. At face value there is an implied insult that sushi is posh, privileged, elite even. And that free school lunches are elitism, and that those who eat sushi are elite and therefore....what? Undeserving?
So there might be some humour there, there's definitely an insult. And woke - that's a sneer at those who are posh, elite, clever, liberal, think they're smarter than us, which really is basically the good old bigoted tall poppy that has been weaponised by the right around the world. So there's definitely an implied insult there.
Then there's the person making the joke - David Seymour. Of the Act party. Who are making a career out of weaponising "wokeness" as a way of ensuring any kind of counteraction to neoliberalism is shut down immediately. Is ostracised and isolated. Is sneered at. In other words, a manufactured culture war aimed at divisiveness.
In that context there's no humour at all, only devious, nasty ideological bigots.
And then there's what should be the main focus, which is the lunches themselves.
What are the facts here? They're remarkably absent. How much sushi was actually served as part of these lunches?
What's actually wrong with sushi? It's a lot healthier than shit white bread with some trans fat ridden meat and spread.
What are the lunches actually for? They're providing relief for kids who either have no lunches or families who can't afford to pay for them.
Has anyone asked them?
Or the schools? They all back them.
And will the replacement lunches actually be nutritious? Even edible?
So there's a bit of context which really makes the whole joke seem, well, at best childish, at worst insidious.