Rhetoric against ‘Meatless Monday’ is unmerited and inflated

Half-Assed: Studying abroad hinders a student’s personal growth

According to the Bowdoin website, over half of the College's students have studied abroad by the time they graduate. That statistic tells me a whole number of things. Mostly, it says that the college is blessed with a crazy abundance of resources. As a sophomore, I have spent much of this year listening to my friends talk excitedly about their plans to go abroad next year. The different cities they mention are intoxicating enough to make me dizzy. I've heard plans to go to Tel-Aviv, London, Buenos Aires, Paris, and even (perhaps unwisely) Cairo. There is no questioning the allure of these cities and the countless others that my classmates will be flying off to next year. They will provide the opportunity for incredible language immersion and cultural education.

Half-Assed: President Obama has found ‘viable’ middle ground in pursuing action in Libya

In a speech given Monday night, President Obama attempted to clarify his philosophy on military intervention. He laid out what the United States has done to this point in Libya and then attempted to respond to his innumerable critics by explaining his rationale for American intervention. In doing so, the president showed himself to be a man of strong conviction. To begin with, President Obama lauded our troops for effectively stopping the progress of Qaddafi's forces.

Half-Assed

Rhetoric against ‘Meatless Monday’ is unmerited and inflated

This piece represents the opinion of the author:

Judah Isseroff

Columnist

February 25, 2011

Three weeks ago, I wrote a column encouraging students to stay on campus rather than go abroad during their junior year. As expected, I took a good deal of flak.

Consequently, I was wary last week of writing an article that might further diminish my standing in the eyes of Bowdoin students. In particular, I was hesitant to pen an article touting the virtues of the program known as "Meatless Mondays."

Ultimately, I abstained from writing an op-ed altogether in last week's edition of this storied publication.

So much for that approach. The general sentiment expressed in Bowdoin's uproarious reaction to last Monday's dinner has confused and humored me.

I especially appreciated the comedy in Steve Robinson's column last week in which he deplored the undemocratic character of the Dining Service's attempt at a single "Meatless Monday."

It should be noted that Steve was not alone; the Orient's editorial board shared his grievance that choice was being usurped.

To briefly summarize what I am hopeful is an argument of Bowdoin's enraged carnivores, "Meatless Monday" was an assault on choice. The dining experience is sacred, and anyone who tampers with it without the consent of Bowdoin students is essentially committing sacrilege.

Now, I can understand the sensitivity and high regard with which one sees one's dining experience, especially at Bowdoin.

Food consumption is an exceptionally private matter and almost entirely dependent on preference. Moreover, and this is news to no one, the food at Bowdoin is relatively incredible.

We view our dining experiences in Moulton or Thorne with great anticipation and the expectation of pleasurable satisfaction. Thus, we express emotions suspended between incredulity and outrage when the food does not meet our expectations.

However, I cannot fathom why the style, theme or constitution of a single dinner should be a matter of democratic choice.

To begin, "Meatless Monday" lasted for the duration of a single meal. Let me repeat: a single meal. Why a single meal could have stirred Bowdoin students so deeply confounds me.

I can only hope that my friends and colleagues will treat issues of actual import with at least the same degree of passion and energy.

Second, the food was still good, and the nutritional needs and dietary restrictions of Bowdoin students were still met and respected.

The Dining Service is an amazing operation, and if the menu this Monday did not suit your tastes, it seems to me that you ought to learn to like ravioli.

All in all, I do not think a legitimate argument can be made that quality suffered as a consequence of meatlessness.

Ultimately though, the argument made against "Meatless Monday" was theoretical rather than logistical, so that is the train of thought that most deserves to be addressed.

As I have mentioned, many students have suggested that Monday's dinner was an assault on choice. What I have yet to understand is how they can consider their dining experience at Bowdoin to be a matter of choice.

"Meatless Monday" was imposed on this student body not by any one or number of student groups, but by the Dining Service.

Sure students came up with the idea, but it was the Dining Service's enthusiasm and determination that ultimately decided that the idea could be put into action and that facilitated its implementation.

The Dining Service, one of the most respected institutions at this school, decided that Monday would be meatless. They did this not to advance the autocratic liberal bourgeois agenda (whatever that means).

It is the role of a liberal arts college to challenge and educate its students so that upon graduation, we are enabled to live the healthiest and most rewarding possible lifestyle in its intellectual, physical and nutritional facets.

Upon paying tuition to Bowdoin, we, to a large extent, forfeit the aforementioned claim to democratic choice. We consented to contend with these classes, people and menus that the College has understood to suit its mission.

Now, this is not to say that the College should have the capacity to change its identity immediately or on a whim without student approval.

The dining halls should not be allowed to go totally vegetarian without consulting students. However, one meal did not fundamentally alter the constitution of the College.

Rather, Monday's dinner was an instance of institutional values informing an educational (and apparently challenge-ridden) experience for this college's students.

To a large extent, I have found the rampant complaining about "Meatless Monday" to be baseless. It was not a political statement. Healthy and sustainable eating is not a political issue.

As explained on the table tents in the dining halls and in Ben Richmond's op-ed last week, the consumption of beef contributes to degradation of the environment, and the overconsumption of meat facilitates in the degradation of the human body.

This does not seem to me to be up for debate, and obviously, through other programming, the College has identified health and sustainability awareness as important to life on campus.

What is the role of this school if not to inform our future lifestyle choices in terms of employment, friends and, yes, diet?

"Meatless Monday" was not a cooption of political values but a lesson in learning to live the good life.

We ought to cry out against injustice if we are transgressed against. No wrong was done to us.

We need not adopt "Meatless Monday" as a weekly program, but we should at least reflect on and appreciate the worthwhile lessons that the Dining Service provided us. I can only hope that Bowdoin is intent on challenging us some more.

Comments are permanently closed.