Vegetarian Meal Plan
"A professor at a major state university has received federal funding for a program on ethics which life sciences professors from around the country will attend. The professor is a vegetarian on moral grounds. In making arrangements for the five-day program, he specifies that all of the (optional) lunches will be lacto-ovo vegetarian. Several of the participants are outraged. In fact, one sends a long, angry email message to professors across the country and to highly placed personnel in federal funding organizations, including the National Science Foundation, which funded the program." - Gary Varner, Ag Bioethics Forum 6 (1996) http://www.bioethics.iastate.edu/forum/nov.96pg5.html
What do you think of the vegetarian professor's action?
posted by Gary Comstock @ 9:57 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
More on this subject:
An email exchange, "To: ISU Bioethics Program associated faculty; Subject: vegetarian meals," October 1995, http://www.chass.ncsu.edu/ethics/about_prog/people/comstock/documents/vegetarianmealsnonames.pdf
* By G. Comstock, "The Nord Convention," unpublished case study, June 2002, http://www.chass.ncsu.edu/ethics/about_prog/people/comstock/documents/TheNordconvention.pdf
The host should have provided options, that is being hospitable. But the outraged professor should get a life, namely, not bother complaining about it except in private perhaps.
This is a very interesting debate, and I can definitely see the professor’s viewpoint. However, I think this still falls under the idea of one person forcing their belief system upon people who do not share that same belief system. The professor must have felt that he was doing a good thing by imposing the vegetarian meals on other people, in the same way that preachers who try to recruit college students feel that they are doing something morally good for society. However, because the other people are unwilling participants, being forced to do something, it is very likely that they will reject the idea, no matter how morally righteous it is.
A better idea would have been to offer a single meat choice in combination with many delicious vegetarian meals. Then people would not have felt forced to eat the vegetarian meals, but might have willingly chosen those meals on their own. This small step would have made people more aware of vegetarianism, and would have allowed them to make their own judgments about vegetarian meals, rather than forcing the meals on people who would then probably form very negative opinions about vegetarianism. Often small steps like this make progress much faster than actions that appear to be large leaps, but may actually be great falls.
Indeed it seems that this event was blown out of proportion by those "outraged" by the meal plan. Any meal plan will necessarily reflect the cultural or other preferences of the organizer. It is obvious than no attendees are 1)required to eat the provided lunches 2)going to be harmed by eating the lunches or 3)required to change their eating habits. Each attendee can keep their own moral perspectives on their diet, try out a potentially different type of meal than they are accustomed to, and generate discussion to further understanding of vegetarian and non-vegetarian choices.
I believe that there are different ways that this could have been handled to make the meal option less of an issue for all involved. The meal offered could have been a vegeterian meal offering, and didn't need to be publicized as such. The meal could have been offered as just one choice for "cost containment" reasons. Something that is a widely accepted food such as a salad and pasta with marinara sauce could have been offered. Then no-ones views are being forced on anyone else, and no-one is having their views offended.
Another option would have been to allow subway or some other simple food provider to cater the event. Allow guests to choose a sandwhich option of their choice, then the coordinator is not tacitly encouraging meat-eating but allowing people to choose what they normally would prefer to eat rather than forcing them to eat what he desires.
A last option is to simply not serve anything and allow a meal break. People can go make the choice of their own food for lunch.
I think this situation is a good example of many other scenarios where someone has imposed their belief on others. I think that though the professor offered vegetarian meals that were optional, it still gave off the negative impression that the participants would only be provided food if they agreed to eat his particular choice of food. The professor should have respected the eating decisions of the non-vegetarians and provided a non-vegetarian option. Other functions provide options to respect vegetarians.
As a vegetarian myself, I probably understand the Professor’s idea behind planning such a meal. In fact I have been in a similar situation twice. Our host being a strict vegetarian arranged only for vegetarian food during our project meetings. In a group of 13 people, except for 5 of us (including the host) the rest enjoy meat. Yeah, some complained behind our backs, some joked about it and some didn’t care.
I do take offense to those making fun of vegetarianism, but I do not support what the Professor did. I believe in freedom of choice. The key word(s) in this case was ‘optional’ lunch, implying that people attending the seminar had the choice of not eating the vegetarian meal. What exactly were the Professor’s intentions is debatable. The participants taking offense to not being given a choice is justifiable. I have been in this situation many times. Being ‘outraged’ appears a little extreme and publicizing it is definitely exaggerating the situation.
Imposing a belief on others while they are your guests is rude; getting "outraged" over not being able to have meat on the menu for a day and a half or so is just silly.
Post a Comment
<< Home