|
EDITORIALS |
||||
|
VEGETARIANS: CHEW ON THIS EDITORIAL by RYAN FISHER The Terrapin Times Staff Writer According to various surveys, the number of vegetarians in America today is estimated to be between five and ten million. While these people have every right to make this decision for themselves, their motives and often the consequences of their decision must be called into question. Vegetarianism, for obvious reasons, is particularly strong among animal rights activists. Groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), encourage vegetarian and vegan diets to limit the “suffering” of animals. PETA claims that each year in the United States, 10 billion animals are killed in the production of meat products. However, this ignores the estimated 300 million animals killed by farm machinery in the harvesting of grains, fruits, and other products common to a vegetarian diet. Animals that are commercially slaughtered are killed by processes designed for efficiency, and the animal is actually used after its death. Animals killed by farming machinery, however, are simply ground up and left to rot in the fields. PETA ignores these facts and instead sets up sites like www.meetyourmeat.com, which are designed to shock people into giving up eating meat, and urging non meat-eaters to “try to force it on everyone else.” PETA’s advertisements also try to shock the audience into getting their point, but the results are often simply ludicrous, such as comparing chicken farming to the Holocaust. Another common motive for people to label themselves as vegetarians is for health reasons. Vegetarian diets can be harmful to one’s health. In fact, Vitamins A and B-12 are either rare or not present at all outside of meat products. Also, there is no scientifically-proven correlation between consuming meat and ailments such as heart disease and cancer, despite what PETA may say. In addition, recent research has discovered possible links between a lack of meat in the diet and Crohn’s Disease, which affects an estimated 500,000 Americans. Lastly, from a simply ecological standpoint, being a vegetarian simply forfeits humans’ place at the top of the food chain. In fact, the term “vegetarian” was not even coined until 1847. The ability to choose to not eat meat is a modern concept, and meat was a staple of the diet of primitive humans in hunter-gatherer societies. Eating meat is the natural way of life for humans, and a change in this should not be taken lightly.
|
A convenience of our modern society is our ability to choose what to eat and how to eat it. However, just because people have the right to make decisions does not mean they should make poor decisions. And, to paraphrase The Casualties, “If being vegan is the way, I’ll eat hot dogs in your face.”
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: REDUX EDITORIAL by LLOYD MCCOY The Terrapin Times Copy Editor The recent Supreme Court ruling that race can be factored into decisions made by University admission programs has stirred up the national discourse on affirmative action. The ruling explicitly upholds that racial discrimination is legitimate when the goal is to foster an academically talented, racially diverse student body. The controversial ruling has brought to light two highly vocal and widely espoused views on this issue. There are those who assert that affirmative action is wrong and/or unconstitutional while others claim that without affirmative action minorities will be shut out from schools. My view, as an African American, is that the intent of affirmative action is commendable, albeit misguided. While the ruling affirms that the policy is constitutional it does not make it right. Instead of being based on one’s race, affirmative action should be predicated on economic considerations. Affirmative action recognizes the very real fact that society is not a level playing field. There are those who have and those who have not. What is surprising is that affirmative action has actually deprived many lower income minorities from getting an assist into college. The black and hispanic underclass does not benefit from affirmative action. As a matter of fact, the majority of affirmative action beneficiaries are middle and upper-class Blacks and Hispanics, not children of poor hardworking minorities. Shouldn’t this program be aimed towards those who need it most? That is, kids who rise from the ashes of poorly served underprivileged communities. Does it make sense for a poor white kid from the Appalachians to get rejected in favor of an African-American or Hispanic from the Hamptons? |
There are those who argue that such a program would lead to a decrease in the number of blacks and Hispanics admitted to universities. Well, duh. Obviously a program that does not consider race will result in fewer minorities than one that does specifically target race. However, because blacks and hispanics are disproportionate members of the poverty class anyway they will also stand to benefit disproportionately. The income-based affirmative action model would make University admissions colorblind. The current system is inherently contradictory to such an ideal. Affirmative action was intended to end discrimination but it actually perpetuates it. What’s more, it stigmatizes those minorities who are accepted into universities forcing them to consider whether it was their abilities or skin color that got them accepted. There are many benefits to having a need-based approach to affirmative action. It will help minorities who are poor get into universities while not having a negative effect on poor whites who could get the short end of the stick due to their race. The policy will also help address the problem of a lack of intellectual stimulation that many poor households face. Income-based affirmative action can provide the incentive that they need to place a higher value on education. Another very important benefit is that such a modification of current policy would indicate a recognition by universities of the truly disadvantaged, those living in poor communities with inferior educational resources. The poor are woefully underrepresented in most of the top and middle tier universities. The narrow focus on what amounts to race quotas has diminished the true spirit of affirmative action. Affirmative action’s intent was to help the disadvantaged, namely minorities and women, get into colleges. It was a necessary evil because before it was enacted if you checked “African American” or “Hispanic” on the admissions form, you stood less of a chance of getting admitted. Also, the country recognized the fact that most minorities at the time were poor and stuck in bad schools. Income demographics have improved dramatically with time and affirmative action should reflect this change. University admissions should end this racial discrimination by taking out the race factor and give the poor a helping hand. Affirmative action, based on need, is the right way to go.
For more editorials see our Guest Column and SCAN-PAC special. |
||
