The Nov. 11 op-ed by William Haun that appeared in The Eagle denouncing Bon Appetit for participating in peta2's vegetarian-friendly campus contest was conveyed as an expression of concern with regards to AU's decision-making. In reality, it was little more than a quasi-concealed attempt at vilifying vegetarianism and animal rights in general. Contrary to the arguments presented in Haun's op-ed, AU's decision to participate should be praised as a refreshingly active approach to social awareness and tolerance.
Haun's condemnation of AU's participation is problematic on multiple fronts, the first being his understanding of AU's rationale for participating. I am uncertain as to where he got the impression that meat products in the Terrace Dining Room are somehow being sacrificed by replacing them with "vegan 'alternatives,'" seeing as there has been no indication of that in observing the cafeteria's food selection. There is a section of the cafeteria that is specifically vegetarian, aside from that the options are restricted to fruits and vegetables or vegan alternatives at the grill on request. All meat products previously available remain so.
AU's decision to participate in this contest demonstrates not, as Haun contends, a method to promote a vegetarian lifestyle but rather a cognizance of the needs of the vegetarian population at AU. In an e-mail sent out on Nov. 11, Housing and Dining Executive Director Chris Moody said the student population has "joined Bon Appetit in recognizing the importance of providing vegetarian options to support the dietary needs of students, faculty and staff at AU." The message is clear: this isn't about making AU "the most vegetarian college in the nation," it is about being the most vegetarian-friendly campus. The contrast is both blatant and crucial: the idea is not to convert TDR into a vegetarian haven, but rather to make it more accommodating to vegetarians.
In addition to his misconstrued perspective as to why AU is participating in this contest, Haun devotes much of his op-ed to an ideologically driven discourse on his dissatisfaction with PETA and the "far left." Although Haun seems to think otherwise, animal rights and vegetarianism are not partisan issues. Instead, they are emblematic of personal ethical and/or health decisions based not on which end of the political spectrum one lies, but rather how they wish to perceive a given matter. Matthew Scully, speechwriter for George W. Bush and Sarah Palin, is a devout vegan and has seen his work on animal rights serve as the cover story in Pat Buchanan's American Conservative. An attempt to portray animal rights/vegetarianism as a leftist cause is simply a failed means of trying to segregate the values behind it as an expression of opposition to such values.
In addition to this cliché attack on vegetarianism, Haun incorrectly refers to one-time animal rights extremist Rodney Coronado as a "PETA terrorist." There is, of course, no such thing as a "PETA terrorist;" they are a legal, legitimate 501(c)(3) organization that acts in accordance with the law. Their financial support of Mr. Coronado's legal defense does not in any sense of the word make him a "PETA terrorist," his terrorist actions were conducted independent of the organization with which he was in no other way affiliated. In turn, AU does not have, as Haun alleges, a "unique history with PETA" in Coronado's controversial NCOR presentation.
Haun's op-ed is loaded with the patronizing use of quotation marks as well as age-old anti-vegetarian talking points and jargon with the intention of doing little more than promoting intolerance towards vegetarianism while ironically denouncing so-called intolerance in the very recognition of vegetarian students on campus. I propose the exact opposite of his position; AU should be applauded for their participation in this contest. The school deserves praise not for coercive measures intended to convert students' dietary preferences and habits but for their conscious decision to recognize the diverse choices when it comes to eating. Accommodating the needs of all is something that should be welcomed with open arms, not shunned as a cause without merit. As members of an academic institution, it is indeed our obligation to serve the community as freethinking intellectuals, not cohorts of trite, close-minded and illegitimate allegations.
Josh Loigman Junior, School of Public Affairs
