n I am disappointed with how our university’s students are reacting to the recent controversy over vegetarianism sparked by the protest last week (“Animal right group protests BU-sponsored event,” Jan. 30, p. 1).
I am not a vegetarian, but my grief does not stem from that: I am more appalled by how each side of the issue is making its arguments.
From everything I gathered from The Daily Free Press article and the following opinions, the only argument that vegetarianism supporters make is centered on cruelty (“Meat protesters hypocritical, Feb. 1, p. 9). Words like “suffering,” “murder,” “visceral,” “guilt” and “torture” are used excessively, and the original article’s photo is of a protester holding a picture of pigs lined up for slaughter. This is sensationalism. There are no objective facts; the Massachusetts Animal Rights Coalition may have included some in the material they passed out, but none are cited in the Free Press.
The anti-vegetarianism supporters make equally weak arguments (“Animals deserve the same rights as people,” Feb. 1, p. 9). Rajkiran Pattanam’s first argument is made with a rhetorical question and the second is a conditional what-if scenario.
I would have much rather read more academic arguments. Meera Kanabar could have quoted poet Jared Paul, who performed on campus only a few months ago, as writing: “it takes 12 million metric tons of grain to feed three million metric tons of edible beef, take that same fuel and give it to human bellies, you could feed four times the people and prevent the slashing and burning of nearly 100 percent of the forest [sic].”
She could have quoted the Bible as saying that God had “provided all kinds of fruit and grain for [mankind] to eat” (Genesis 1.29 Contemporary English Version) and noted that meat is curiously not listed explicitly.
Pattanam, instead of a general what-if scenario, could have cited from Alaskan Department of Commerce how fish and seafood comprised 55 percent of Alaska’s total exports in 2005, totaling $1.9 billion in revenue and directly generating 6,700 jobs.
I have no interest in the underlying debate. I am more concerned with the quality of the arguments that my colleagues are making. If we are part of an academic institution of any worth, we should have more intelligent points to make.
Jonathan Chin
CAS ’07