By now, you have probably heard about the controversy concerning the impending slaughter of de facto campus mascots, Bill and Lou, 11 year-old oxen who have been denied the chance to live out their retirement at a sanctuary. What you may not know is that the process by which the decision to kill Bill and Lou was made in a manner that endangered student well-being at Green Mountain College and has diminished the value of a Green Mountain College degree.
There’s a reason that the drinking age is 21. The frontal lobe of the cerebral cortex—the part of the brain responsible for assessing the consequences of actions—hasn’t finished growing until then. Teen-agers are literally unable to accurately estimate the consequences of drinking several shots of liquor in succession. Why would we ask them to accurately estimate the consequences of killing two animals? No responsible parent would ask a teen-ager to determine whether to euthanize a family pet, leaving them with the emotional burden of a life-or-death decision. And, certainly, no responsible parent would ask a teen-ager to make such a decision while withholding vital information relevant to that decision.
But that’s exactly what has happened at Green Mountain College. Immature students have been asked to decide the fate of these animals and to live with the emotional burden of so doing. Furthermore, students have been unwittingly steered toward the “kill” decision. Now that a small subset of students have made the decision to kill, all students have been subjected to heavy peer, faculty, and even administrative pressure to support that decision.
The consequences will be significant. Of course, the oxen themselves will pay the highest price, losing out on years of peace, ease, and friendship at an animal sanctuary. But the school and the students also will suffer.
Animal Welfare at Green Mountain College
All of the school’s students—not just the small sub-set who made the decision to kill and have since claimed that they speak for the entire student body—will have to live with the emotional reverberations of killing two beloved animals who did not want to die, deliberately depriving them of the free retirement home in defiance of a literally worldwide cry for mercy.
All students—including students who cared for Bill and Lou and did not want them to die—will have to grapple with the emotions of seeing “Bill and Lou burgers” on the menu at the school cafeteria.
Those students who do eat hamburgers will be expected—for several months—to consume 11 year-old oxen meat, which will be technically edible, but not at all palatable. Meat is muscle. As they age, muscles become more striated. They become even more so if the muscles are used strenuously, as those of work oxen have been. This will be stringy, grisly meat of the kind usually used in pet food.
All of which is to say, we expect significant crying and retching in the cafeteria on the first day that those burgers are served. And then what? The students who made the decision should be ethically obligated to consume that one ton of barely edible meat. But will they? If not, what then?
Students did not anticipate that likely outcome not only because of their age but also because they were provided with biased “information” in the deliberation process. The faculty member who conceived of the idea of killing the oxen slanted the information given to students in order to favor that decision. After the original decision was protested, other faculty members stepped in to protect students from information from outside sources, thereby steering them toward confirming the original decision.
The actions of these faculty members, and the shoddy reasoning in the rationales they have put forward for the slaughter, have significantly lowered Green Mountain College’s reputation within academia. This will lower the value of your child’s degree. Both publicly and privately, prestigious scholars in relevant fields have urged the Provost and President to reconsider the decision, or at least stop claiming that it is in any way consistent with environmental ethics or respect for animal welfare.
Pictures of animal cruelty at Green Mountain College are circulating online, further lowering the reputation of the school. National media stories and an online video feature Green Mountain College students making callous comments and offering illogical rationales for the killing. All of these are evidence that Green Mountain College teaches callousness toward animals while failing to teach students basic skills such as how to construct a rational argument without falling into fallacy.
Grave concerns about animal welfare at the college have emerged in the course of this controversy. Concerns about the academic credibility of the school’s farm program—which is managed by a faculty member with scant experience and no relevant degrees—also have arisen. All of this evidence will be brought up to challenge the accreditation of the college if it does not act immediately and affirmatively to review and improve its animal welfare policies.
If your student is in the farm program, you should know: She or he is not receiving instruction consistent with 21st century animal welfare policies. She or he is being instructed by a farm manager who lacks academic credentials in the area of agriculture, animal science, or any other related field. She or he is learning out-dated techniques and stereotyped ideas rather than the innovative ideas and practices endorsed by actual experts in the field of sustainable agriculture.
Use your voice as a tuition-paying parent. Tell the President of Green Mountain College to issue an immediate reprieve for Bill and Lou, allowing them to retire to VINE Sanctuary. Demand a thorough review of the farm program, with particular attention to the credentials of staff members charged with the responsibility of teaching students how to care for animals. Whatever your son or daughter might believe, ask that the school respect the rights of all students, protecting those with minority views from bullying and refraining from subjecting minors to the stress of making life-or-death decisions.
Sincerely,
pattrice jones
Cofounder, VINE Sanctuary
p.s. If your child is a vegan or simply feels sympathy for animals, you should know: She or he may have been bullied or subjected to intense peer pressure at Green Mountain College. You may want to check in about that. If your child is one of the many former vegetarians now saying that they will be happy to eat Bill and Lou, you may want to inquire about the process by which she has been led to set her previous ideals and ideas aside in favor of those of the farm manager and his crew.
Did you see that awful news story about the girl whose mother glued her hands to the wall as punishment? Or the mother who locked her kids in a closet for days on end? If you suspected your neighbor of less extreme child abuse, would you do nothing because other children are suffering worse abuses elsewhere?
VINE is a farmed animal sanctuary in the Green Mountain State. VINE was contacted by Green Mountain Animal Defenders about a couple of oxen at Green Mountain College. We did the right thing and stepped up to offer a retirement home for Bill and Lou, free of charge to the college. We were rudely refused and have been the subject of a campaign of vilification on campus ever since. We kept our cool in the interests of saving Bill and Lou. Our respectful and polite interactions with the college are on record.
Why did I write this letter? Because I believe what it says. I am sure this is not something you want to hear, but this controversy has seriously damaged the school’s academic credibility in the areas of environmental ethics and animal studies. VINE didn’t do that. Your professors did that, by ignoring not only public opinion but also the opinions of their colleagues elsewhere in academia.
As for the farm program… You can be mad at me for pointing out that Farm Manager Mulder has no appropriate credentials, or you can ask the administration why it has failed to hire someone with the appropriate credentials. I would like to know the answer to that question, and so would many alumni who are horrified by the turn that the farm program has taken in recent years. How did it come to be that a man with a math degree and no formal training in any field coming anywhere close to agriculture or animal science has been given the power to miseducate Green Mountain College students? How did his mania for public slaughter come to characterize the farm program, so much so that even meat eaters are appalled by the pictures it posts on its own Facebook page?
When it comes to animal welfare, you can be mad at me for asking to see the school’s policies or you can join me in wondering why students and administrators get mad at the very suggestion that there should be such policies. Does GMC have any written animal welfare policies? Do students and faculty members who will come into contact with animals receive training in those policies? How are the policies enforced? Is there any monitoring whatsoever, or does the farm manager feel free to treat animals however he pleases, knowing that no one is overseeing him? Given the grim pictures of dead animals that GMC students and faculty–not VINE, GMC students and faculty–have proudly posted on Facebook, I think these are fairly reasonable questions.
I will say this: We would not have raised these issues publicly if we had any other option. We tried and tried to communicate with GMC administrators but have been ignored or refused in our efforts to meet with them to express our concerns.
Everybody else–hold on–I’m having a hard time keeping all of the threads in order.
All comments by new posters are moderated to avoid spam, profanity, and etc so also be patient if you’ve posted something that hasn’t yet been approved.
I understand that you are upset and it seems like those who disagree with the school are to blame. But the fact remains: The school failed in its obligation to protect student welfare by putting young people into a position to make life or death decisions.
For the record: Lou does not have a broken leg. We saw him up and walking, only slightly favoring one back leg, just a couple of days ago.
If Lou needed to be euthanized, then of course the thing to do would be to euthanize him immediately–the injury happened in August–rather than have a many-months-long deliberation process while withholding pain relief (which cannot be given to animals intended to be eaten).
And the thing to do would be to euthanize him–not to slaughter him. That’s a big difference.
Also Bill is fine.
Unlike GMC’s farm manager, we are animal welfare professionals. We also have access to top quality veterinary care, which we are so sorry we will not be allowed to offer Bill and Lou.
Can you see why many philosophers find relativism to be a dangerous way of reckoning (or, rather, refusing to reckon) right and wrong?
If you think Pattrice is at fault here you are wrong! You can blame GMC for that and their absolute refusal and stubbornness to let Bill and Lou live. The ox does not have a broken leg it is injured but not broken! Euthanasia would be a choice for the ox with the injured leg but not being dragged to slaughter! You have no one to blame except the college that has dug in their heels and refused to let these two beautiful,sentient beings live! And shame on you for using such profane language to Pattrice who has done nothing but try to help and offer sanctuary to two beloved oxen.
The debate, on Green Mountain College campus, on whether or not people should be vegan, vegetarians or omnivores, is ongoing. The same can be said about the entire nation and the world. Our dining hall has vegan and vegetarian options with every meal to serve the thirty percent of students who don’t consume meat or animal products and even to the omnivore who doesn’t feel like eating meat on any particular day.
Our mission to be sustainable has made us both dreamers and realists. Ideally no animal would ever have to suffer the slightest discomfort for continued human existence, but that is at this moment impossible. Green Mountain College is asking the realistic question of how the animals that we eat should be both sustainably and ethically. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, CAFO’s, or factory farms are not a desirable system both because of the way the animals are treated and the heavy environmental costs associated with them, including sourcing the animal feed, manure handling and the fossil fuels consumed for transportation. So instead of supporting such a system, our college raises some of our meat and sources what it can from local and sustainable sources.
Now, you may ask yourself, why shouldn’t Bill and Lou be spared from being slaughtered for their meat? Surely they have names, they have come to be known to thousands of Green Mountain College students, how can we possibly want to eat them? Have they not worked hard throughout their lives? Have they not earned retirement?
Again we are confronted with ideals. Instead of questioning the validity or merit of the questions posed above I would like to explore what would happen if Bill and Lou were to be placed at the VINE sanctuary. They would live for perhaps another four years, enjoying relaxing days and plentiful food. Their food would have to be sourced from somewhere and there would be energy costs associated with that, but I suspect that no one gives that much thought. The real question is where would Green Mountain College get its beef from? Somewhere else. Somewhere that has a surplus that can be purchased easily. It might come from a farm down the road or it might come from a factory farm. We don’t know what the lives of these cows would have been like. We can’t know that they were doted on for all of their lives, scratched in just the right places, or fed apples pilfered from the dining hall. We wouldn’t know their personalities, their quirks and their dislikes.
Who is willing to say that the cow we don’t know is less intrinsically valuable that Bill and Lou? Why does the cow that you don’t know have any less of a right to retirement? To a life longer than that required to get them up to slaughter weight? Wait why don’t you just not eat meat for a month at the college? Wouldn’t that be a fair way of giving the public what they want and giving the oxen a retirement?
It would be a delaying tactic at best. The campus would go back to eating meat and we would be back to where we started. We at Green Mountain College have considered Bill and Lou and considered the cows that would be eaten in their place and made our decision as a community of students, teachers and human beings.
As far as development, we vote at 18, we make decisions that will affect the rest of our lives, we choose careers, we forge dreams, some choose spouses. We can be brash, loud, and short-sighted, but so are people who are developed. We are capable of complex thought, deep emotions and all the rest. This country recognizes us as responsible for our own actions, why can’t you?
The real question, as far as we are concerned, is: What would be best for Bill and Lou?
We do not agree that they should be sacrificed on the symbolic altar of “sustainability,” thereby allowing meat-eating GMC students to believe that –somehow– eating those particular bovines is less environmentally objectionable than eating other bovines.
We do not believe, in general, that the elderly and disabled should be killed to prevent them from consuming resources. We do believe that human creativity and ingenuity is capable of coming up with farm more humane solutions to the problems caused by human overpopulation and human overconsumption.
And, no, eating Bill and Lou is not more humane than eating factory-farmed meat.
Bill and Lou were not “doted on all their lives.” They worked. They were yoked. They plowed and mowed and pulled heavy concrete blocks whenever people told them to, regardless of their own wishes. No, they weren’t whipped all the time, but they were hit often enough that the crop would be a cue. A cue inducing fear of pain. You see, all of the students who worked those oxen have been tricked into deluding themselves about the relationship. A simple series of lessons in behavioral psychology would have taught them that intermittent punishment induces consistent compliance. Bill and Lou did what you told them do because they knew what would happen if they did not. Any honest instructor would have made sure that students understood this.
I’m sure they did enjoy the scratches and petting. But they always knew: This is somebody who may hit me if I don’t do what they want me to.
Bill and Lou were indentured laborers. They deserve to retire. That’s one of the few kind traditions in agriculture, the retirement of work animals. That’s why you’ve been hearing objections not only from animal advocates but from ranchers and dairy farmers. That’s why the community around the school objects to and resents the impending slaughter. That’s why tens of thousands have called and written and done anything else they can to plead for mercy.
Because killing Bill and Lou is every bit as merciless as any slaughter on any factory farm. Know that. Think about it when you bite into a Bill burger. He didn’t want to die. He could have had years of peace and ease. He died because you said so and because, while the sentiments of the world were on his side, the law was on your side. You were the master, and you decided.
A few points
-I haven’t talked to anyone who has seen evidence of bullying on campus. Students who disagree with the decision were actively contacted and recruited to speak with the media. I just came from a meeting where we spent considerable time thinking about how to ensure that those with minority views feel more comfortable sharing them.
-If there is “crying and retching” in the cafeteria the first day that they are served, and 200 students go vegetarian, this would be a great victory for the vegetarian movement, would it not? I personally doubt that this will happen, having eaten several animals that I have been close to.
-The primary person in charge of teaching students how to care for animals is the assistant farm manager, who has a BS in Animal Science and has worked her entire life on farms with animals.
I’m sure there were plenty of people at Rutgers who hadn’t witnessed or heard about the bullying that led Tyler Clementi to jump to his death. But it happened.
I am glad to hear about that meeting and I hope it means sincere efforts will be made. Social psychology research offers a wealth of concrete strategies that might have been used during the deliberation process and ought to be put in place into the future. Perhaps someone from that department could offer counsel on proven antidotes to groupthink, conformity, and undue deference to authority.
You’re right about the likelihood of cafeteria conversions, although that does not mitigate the harm done to Bill and Lou.
I am glad to hear that someone with at least a bachelor’s degree in a related field is on the farm. Nonetheless, Farm Manager Mulder’s lack of credentials remain a serious concern. His online message to students says that farming “isn’t rocket science,” but sustainable agriculture is, in fact, a science. Somebody with a graduate degree in a relevant field should be in charge.
I’d also encourage the administration to look very carefully at the many online comments of alumni who complain about the shift toward animal cruelty taken by the program in recent years. I am not alone in my deep concern about some of the reports I have seen–they’re on Facebook and in blog comments for all to see, so I am not dissing the school by mentioning them–and in the callousness expressed by some GMC students. It does seem, truly, like the farm program as it is currently constituted trains students to be less, rather than more, compassionate than when they entered. That is, I am sure, the opposite of what the college intends. But it does seem to be what’s happening, I suspect because of the attitudes towards animals enacted and promoted by someone in a strong leadership position at the farm.
I also remain perplexed by the defensiveness of GMC students when the question of animal welfare policies is brought up. This suggests that, if there are such policies, they have not been communicated to students — who seem to feel that any affirmative effort to prevent animal abuse attacks them personally as possible abusers. As I understand it, standard practice in academia is for there to be clear written policies concerning the treatment of animals used in research, for any student or faculty member who will be engaging in animal research to be trained in those policies, and for there to be a monitoring system to ensure compliance.
The key is to understand that there is always the possibility of abuse if the opportunities are there. Nobody likes to think that somebody they know might abuse or neglect an animal (or a child, or an elder), but we know that such abuses do occur even in the best families, neighborhoods, and schools. There’s no shame in recognizing that possibility and putting in place procedures to prevent it.
Nearly a decade of extra life — that’s what you get when you move away from eating animal foods and toward a plant-based diet. This is really exciting science for anyone seeking healthy longevity (and who isn’t?)!
According to a recent report on the largest study of vegetarians and vegans to date, those eating plant-based diets appear to have a significantly longer life expectancy. Vegetarians live on average almost eight years longer than the general population, which is similar to the gap between smokers and nonsmokers. This is not surprising, given the reasons most of us are dying. In an online video, “Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death,” Michael Greger, M.D. explores the role a healthy diet can play in preventing, treating, and even reversing the top 15 killers in the United States. Let’s take a closer look at what the good doctor has pulled together…
Heart disease is our leading cause of death. The 35-year follow-up of the Harvard Nurses Health Study was recently published, now the most definitive long-term study on older women’s health. Dietary cholesterol intake — only found in animal foods — was associated with living a significantly shorter life and fiber intake — only found in plant foods — was associated with living a significantly longer life. Consuming the amount of cholesterol found in just a single egg a day may cut a woman’s life short as much as smoking five cigarettes daily for 15 years, whereas eating a daily cup of oatmeal’s worth of fiber appears to extend a woman’s life as much as four hours of jogging a week. (But there’s no reason we can’t do both!)
What if your cholesterol’s normal, though? I hear that a lot. But here’s the thing: having a “normal” cholesterol in a society where it’s “normal” to drop dead of a heart attack is not necessarily a good thing. According to the editor-in-chief of the American Journal of Cardiology, “For the build-up of plaque in our arteries to cease, it appears that the serum total cholesterol needs to be lowered to the 150 area. In other words the serum total cholesterol must be lowered to that of the average pure vegetarian.”
More than 20 years ago, Dr. Dean Ornish showed that heart disease could not just be stopped but actually reversed with a vegan diet, arteries opened up without drugs or surgery. Since this lifestyle cure was discovered, hundreds of thousands have died unnecessary deaths. What more does one have to know about a diet that reverses our deadliest disease?
Cancer is killer number two. Ah, the dreaded “C” word — but look at this hopeful science. According to the largest forward-looking study on diet and cancer so far performed, “the incidence of all cancers combined is lower among vegetarians.” The link between meat and cancer is such that even a paper published in the journal Meat Science recently asked, “Should we become vegetarians, or can we make meat safer?” There are a bunch of additives under investigation to suppress the toxic effects the blood-based “heme” iron, for example, which could provide what they called an “acceptable” way to prevent cancer. Why not just reduce meat consumption? The meat science researchers noted that if such public health guidance were adhered to, “Cancer incidence may be reduced, but farmers and [the] meat industry would suffer important economical problems…” Hmmm, so Big Ag chooses profit over health; what a surprise.
After Dr. Ornish’s team showed that the bloodstreams of men eating vegan for a year had nearly eight times the cancer-stopping power, a series of elegant experiments showed that women could boost their defenses against breast cancer after just two weeks on a plant-based diet. See the before and after here. If you or anyone you know has ever had a cancer scare, this research will make your heart soar. Because there is real, true hope — something you can do to stave off “the big C.”
So, the top three leading causes of death used to be heart disease, cancer, then stroke, but the latest CDC stats place COPD third — lung diseases such as emphysema. Surprisingly, COPD can be prevented with the help of a plant-based diet, and can even be treated with plants. Of course, the tobacco industry viewed these landmark findings a little differently. Instead of adding plants to one’s diet to prevent emphysema, wouldn’t it be simpler to just add them to the cigarettes? Hence the study “Addition of Açaí [Berries] to Cigarettes Has a Protective Effect Against Emphysema in [Smoking] Mice.” Seriously.
The meat industry tried the same tack. Putting fruit extracts in burgers was not without its glitches, though. The blackberries “literally dyed burger patties with a distinct purplish color,” and though it was possible to improve the nutritional profile of frankfurters with powdered grape seeds, there were complaints that the grape seed “particles became visible” in the final product. And if there’s one thing we know about hot dog eaters, it’s that they’re picky about what goes in their food!
Onward to strokes: The key to preventing strokes may be to eat potassium-rich foods. Though Chiquita may have had a good PR firm, bananas don’t even make the top 50 sources. The leading whole food sources include dark green leafy vegetables, beans, and dates. We eat so few plants that 98 percent of Americans don’t even reach the recommended minimum daily intake of potassium. And if you look at killer number five — accidents — bananas (and their peels) could be downright dangerous!
Alzheimer’s disease is now our sixth leading killer. We’ve known for nearly 20 years now that those who eat meat — including chicken and fish — appear three times more likely to become demented compared to long-term vegetarians. Exciting new research suggests one can treat Alzheimer’s using natural plant products such as the spice saffron, which beat out placebo and worked as well as a leading Alzheimer’s drug.
Diabetes is next on the kick-the-bucket list. Plant-based diets help prevent, treat, and even reverse Type 2 diabetes. Since vegans are, on average, about 30 pounds skinnier than meat-eaters, this comes as no surprise; but researchers found that vegans appear to have just a fraction of the diabetes risk, even after controlling for their slimmer figures.
Kidney failure, our eighth leading cause of death, may also be prevented and treated with a plant-based diet. The three dietary risk factors Harvard researchers found for declining kidney function were animal protein, animal fat, and cholesterol, all of which are only found in animal products.
Leading killer number nine is respiratory infections. With flu shot season upon us, it’s good to know that fruit and vegetable consumption can significantly boost one’s protective immune response to vaccination. Check out the short video “Kale and the Immune System,” and you’ll see there’s not much kale can’t do.
Suicide is number 10. Oh yes, vegan food even has something good to offer on this one! Cross-sectional studies have shown that the moods of those on plant-based diets tend to be superior, but taken in just a snapshot in time one can’t tease out cause-and-effect. Maybe happier people end up eating healthier and not the other way around. But this year an interventional trial was published in which all meat, poultry, fish, and eggs were removed from people’s diets and a significant improvement in mood scores was found after just two weeks. It can take drugs like Prozac a month or more to take effect. So you may be able to get happier faster by cutting out animal foods than by using drugs.
Drugs can help with the other conditions as well, but instead of taking one drug for cholesterol every day for the rest of your life, maybe a few for high blood pressure or diabetes, the same diet appears to work across the board without the risk of drug side-effects. One study found that prescription medications kill an estimated 106,000 Americans every year. That’s not from errors or overdose, but from adverse drug reactions, arguably making doctors the sixth leading cause of death.
Based on a study of 15,000 American vegetarians, those that eat meat have about twice the odds of being on antacids, aspirin, blood pressure medications, insulin, laxatives, painkillers, sleeping pills, and tranquilizers. So plant-based diets are great for those that don’t like taking drugs, paying for drugs, or risking adverse side effects.
Imagine if, like President Clinton, our nation embraced a plant-based diet. Imagine if we just significantly cut back on animal products. There is one country that tried. After World War II, Finland joined us in packing on the meat, eggs, and dairy. By the 1970s, the mortality rate from heart disease of Finnish men was the highest in the world, and so they initiated a country-wide program to decrease their saturated fat intake. Farmers were encouraged to switch from dairies to berries. Towns were pitted against each other in friendly cholesterol-lowering competitions. Their efforts resulted in an 80 percent drop in cardiac mortality across the entire country.
Conflicts of interest on the U.S. dietary guidelines committee may have prevented similar action from our own government, but with our health-care crisis deepening, our obesity epidemic widening, and the health of our nation’s children in decline, we may need to take it upon our selves, families, and communities to embrace Food Day ideals of healthy, affordable, sustainable foods by moving towards a more plant-centered diet. If we do, we may be afforded added years to enjoy the harvest.
“assistant farm manager, who has a BS in Animal Science and has worked her entire life on farms with animals” the same who commented in the NY Times article that said: “Lou lay stretched out and still — a sign of ill health for cattle”?
False. Cows lie down flat quite often-it’s called rest or; even sleep.
It IS dangerous if they lie down without any movement at all-but even then; I have known a cow or two who would rest so deeply before falling asleep that one would swear they died, but were quite fine.
I have read through all the comments and have hesitated to write this because Pattrice is clearly a self-entitled, condescending propagandist, and that makes me sad. She takes peoples arguments and twists them to serve her own purposes, talking down to people in a faux kindly manner so as to make them believe that they are the victim of some other injustice besides herself. Her writing style appears incredibly closed-minded and she will most likely respond to my comment in the same manner. Oh well.
AND FOR WHAT WILL SURELY BE THE 100TH TIME: BILL AND LOU ARE NOT OUR MASCOTS.
This is easily verified.
It’s unclear to me where the “inaccurate, biased, lying filth” in the letter might be. As I have said before, I can document every sentence.
The link for the photo is http://www.facebook.com/maxxhockenberry?fref=ts and, at the time it was downloaded, the page included many other photos of the same young man, clearly taken on the GMC campus. His own posts included enthusiastic support for the slaughter of Bill and Lou. He may have changed his page since, but we have screenshots.
If you will scroll back on this blog, you will see our efforts to engage GMC administrators about our concerns. My own letter to the President privately outlined my concerns about the potentially hurtful nature of a skewed deliberative process by which youthful students were asked to make a life-or-death decision based on incomplete and possibly inaccurate information. That letter, which was both emailed and mailed to the school, went unanswered and unacknowledged.
We also offered to come to the school. In fact, we implored the school to allow us to answer questions while students were wrestling with the decision. We knew, from the school’s own public statements, that students had been given false information about the ability of sanctuaries to care for large bovines. We knew, from our own observations of Lou, that students had been given a false impression of the severity of his condition. We knew that no animal welfare professional had been allowed to weigh in. We also implored the school to call in an objective veterinarian to examine Lou and report back to the students. We said specifically to faculty that students deserved access to the full range of information when making such a serious decision. We begged them to allow students access to outside experts and to use deliberative strategies proven to undermine pressures toward conformity. We were on YOUR side as well as on Bill and Lou’s side in so doing. We were ignored.
I must say that I do appreciate your verbal verve in referring to my “faux kindly” manner. I’m sure that, in this context, it is hard to believe that I sincerely care about students as well as animals. I’ll refrain from sharing links to comments from my own students, because this isn’t about me. It’s about Bill and Lou –who may already be dead because you decided. You will have to live with that, but you shouldn’t. The college never should have asked you to make such a decision, and certainly shouldn’t have blocked your access to the full range of relevant information while making the decision.
just fyi, I am back-dating my replies, so they appear right under the comments to which they respond, just for clarity’s sake.
http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/finance-collegeswithmostdebt/green-mountain-college%20/
Especially since this tragic fiasco regarding Bill and Lou, I honestly can’t believe any responsible parent would select this school for their child’s continued education. To pay for what? A lie of “sustainable” meat? A myth of “humane” flesh consumption? Those “lessons” can be had anywhere by anyone who wants to “believe”.
Meanwhile the most precious, priceless gift that belongs to Bill and Lou exclusively, are being pawned off for silver-plated pot metal. For shame!
Ten year old meat? Better for dog or cat food? I wonder how they’ll feel when and if they consume those burgers and find the texture and taste not as palatable as the normal cafeteria burgers?
GMC has the finest opportunity today, in the U.S. and worldwide to put thrmsvrs on the map and be the #1 leader by retiring not slaughtering their working livestock to a sanctuary. They could chose to be a leader, or they could choose to follow the norm. This is 2012, be the example all can be proud of and aspire to follow as a new paradigm for the 21st century.
then you would also call people who advocate Human Rights Fascists – because they also lack tolerance for the view that, say, slavery is right and try to “force” their views onto others who think differently?
Do try and see that morally reprehensible conduct is not to be tolerated, anywhere, anytime, and MUST needs be fought. That has nothing to do with forcing one’s viewpoint onto others. Or would you also defend the rights of those who think that sex with children is o.k.? Surely not. You would say that this is wrong and society needs to take steps to make these people see the error of their ways. Fine. So here.
Children and animals need to be protected from abuse due to the fact that they are vulnerable parties that cannot defend themselves. Full Stop.
And
*Heartbroken Mum*
Lady, I am sorry. But that is the wrong end of the stick you are grabbing there. If you know no better than verbally abusing people who lobby for the right to life of other sentient creatures, then that is a poor indication of what “values” you pass on to your kid. Children deserve better, especially in a world that knows too much suffering, destruction and death already. A great shame …
I feel that the sanctuary that stepped up and was going to take these innocent creatures shows that there are people who actually have a heart and morals. I feel sad for the students that are listening to those who are telling them wrong facts. And by the way, that kid who is standing in this picture where he has killed that chicken, this is someone who later in life that you should watch.
Go seek the attention you clearly lack elsewhere, I beg you. Have a real name, do you? A bit corwardly, hiding behind the link to a stupid website. But not surprising, really ..
You use labels to put yourself in a box, saying you and your friends are LGBTQ. You tell us you are vegan or vegetarian. You are a professor of psychology.
And then proceed to belittle GMC, students, and staff members. And then continue to say you are not attacking the school. Such lies. It reeks of hypocrisy. Your words are poison and are meant to tear us apart, but it is not going to work.
You’ve put yourself so high up on your internet-pedestal and say how great of a person you are. Reality says you are no better then anyone else. At this point in time GMC students hate VINE and you can pat yourself on the back for that one. Students will ruin your reputation as a sanctuary. It is a shame that you’ve chosen to pick on a school who’s morals, opinions, and unity are stronger then your poisonous words. We are a small community and for that reason we are strong. Since you are so old and wise, then I can’t wait for your words to be buried with you. VINE lies about the animals that they “save.” And if we had given you Bill and Lou before this big stink was made, you would lie on your VINE website and say they were “experimented on and abused”
Were you at the live-protest the other day at the school? Because I don’t think I heard much sound from your side of the street.
While others from VINE were with your neighbors at the protest, I was back here taking care of the cows.
I don’t think I’m better than anyone else. I actually have a fairly hard time feeling proud of my accomplishments. I’ve mentioned my credentials and history only in response to specific claims about me. I was hoping that, along the way, students could come to see me and the others here at VINE as people rather than the villains you have been led to believe.
We don’t lie. I do understand that some students believe it to be utterly impossible that any animal who ever lived at GMC could ever have been hurt by anybody. Oddly, these are often the same students who endorse the use of the crop or buggy whip with Bill and Lou.
I remain mystified, since the college publishes the results of its research on animals, that some GMC students are affronted by the idea that GMC conducts research on animals.
Finally, I’m sorry to have to put it so bluntly, but it’s just silly to assume that your family, neighborhood, community, or school is so pure that abuse could never occur within it. Every animal welfare professional understands that abuse can happen anywhere that animals are used as tools unless there are strong policies and procedures in place to prevent it. And, even then, abuses can occur. That’s why reputable academic institutions have such policies in place. It’s no knock on GMC to ask that they also adopt such policies.
FYI, I am back-dating my replies so that they appear directly below the comments to which they respond. This is meant to clarify rather than deceive.
We produce vegetables and meat products for our farm and we would much rather provide our own instead of continuing to finance the animal abuse of factory farms.
What we are doing is 21st century activism. Currently GMC is taking steps to lower our meat intake so that we can purchase local meat and produce more of our own meat. We are not a strictly vegetarian school and choose to not discriminate people based on their diet.
In the meantime, please leave our students alone. You are not going to win. You are NOT going to change the world. You might make a better spokesperson for Oppressed Women in Islam. Better yet, move to India where they don’t eat cows.
Furthermore, shame on YOU for using bullying to coax parents into thinking their child might be at psychological and/or even physical harm at college. Will you stop at no lengths to achieve martyrdom (in your mind)?
By the way, I love animals, can’t even kill a spider, but this blog and what you’ve tried to do to GMC’s reputation and good name is just plain WRONG! Move along now….
And I don’t know that the point is to “win”. This isn’t about any of us. As has been stated repeatedly this whole issue is about the lives of Bill and Lou… Who are by the way right now probably very hungry… It’s standard practice to withhold food for at least 24 hours before slaughter. That fact alone should make anyone wanting a morsel of their precious flesh cringe at the idea!
And if indeed you truly “love animals” you’d expose every possible venue in order to save them – And not deride efforts of honest merit. There is truth in the idea that these kids are far too young to fully grasp the impacts of this arrogant, life-stealing process.
Either the kids are now repressing psychological turmoil at killing NAMED co-workers and friends… Or they aren’t and their cavalier attitude callously genuine. In either case – None of it was necessary… Bill and Lou AND the whole school could have (and still can) champion better way. This is the fallout when one makes very bad decisions. Deal with it or change it.
Thank you so much for everything you’ve done for these two animals and indeed for all the people at GMC. It is very brave of you. Thank you for educating us all.
I was wondering about one more thing. If the oxen are considered state treasures wouldn’t they be afforded some safety through that designation? As you say, they’ve become the de facto college mascots would/ could that qualify them to be considered state treasures? Since I’m not from that region of the U.S., I’m not sure how far and wide they are regarded as part of Vermont’s beautiful landscape. From the outpouring of support for these two animals, I wonder if the state of Vermont doesn’t have a position on the treatment of state treasures (and/or animals and/or education and/or college mascots). If they do have a position on any these matters, couldn’t they step in on behalf of the two oxen and relieve the school of carrying out its own agenda which is at odds with what should be done with a state treasure?
Said another way, if I find a Civil War flag in my backyard, isn’t it a state requirement that I hand the artifact over to the proper authorities for proper handling? If Bill and Lou are considered state treasures, shouldn’t they be handed over to the proper authorities who will manage and handle these state treasures as any state treasure should be?
Your parents, in my opinion, should be appalled by the vile and outrageously inhumane comments that are being allowed to be posted on the GMC facebook page and you are representing our impression of GMC.
What is also crazy is Mr. Throop hiding behind the “student’s decision” to take the life of Lou and Bill when he should have the b***s to come out from hiding and take responsibility. Calls to his office are being made and they are being hung up on.
Your farm? Wow! Mr. Mulder delightfully loading dead sheep into the back of the truck; a mutilated and bloodied sheep in a wheelbarrow, “seniors” gleefully staring at dead sheep hanging from the rafters ~ is this your farm that teaches farm practices and so called “sustainability”. What about your cows that are for sale on Craig’s List.
The students associated with GMC may want to think twice about listing this college on their resume ~ there isn’t a business owner, including myself, that would hire someone from this college. There may be some students that are above the fray, but judging by the subset of GMC that are leaving the abusive, heartless comments about Bill & Lou and eating them, “abused animals are tastier” which is just one comment, you should think long and hard about transferring to a reputable college.
We are watching and, just in, we are not going away.
Research on adolescent brain development actually shows that people’s brains and decision-making abilities often are not fully developed until their mid-20s. In addition, college-aged individuals tend to be very susceptible to peer influences. Thus, even if no one is explicitly being bullied about standing up for Bill and Lou, students are likely to feel pressure to conform to what they perceive as group norms. Given this set of circumstances, these students–most of whom have had zero farm experience prior to completion of high school–should not have been making life or death decisions for anyone.
If I were the parent of a GMC student, I would be appalled that my child is receiving what basically amounts to training in 19th century agriculture techniques. GMC tries to pass off this type of instruction as somehow “innovative” while charging students outrageous amounts of tuition. The fact that the people in charge of the farm do not possess graduate degrees in agriculture is just as alarming. There also appears to be a lack of diversity among faculty members in the other relevant programs. There are almost no women at the college who provide instruction in animal ethics, and I’m reasonably sure there are no people of color. I believe this calls into question the range of ideas to which students are actually being exposed. Of course, the students will tell you they’re being exposed to all relevant perspectives. But given their limited experience, how can they really know this?
The fact that so few students and (as far as I can tell) no students who work on the farm chose to speak out for Bill and Lou is unbelievable. It suggests that GMC has successfully desensitized students to the killing of animals. There is something psychologically unhealthy and callous about killing and eating animals with which we’ve formed emotional bonds. Yet, as the recent Times article and comments on their facebook page suggest, many GMC students do this with glee. Students on Green Mountain’s facebook page drone on robotically about how killing Bill and Lou fits into their model of “sustainability” and with the goals of the farm. The fact that most of them don’t seem to care–or else cannot see–that the farm’s apparent goals are incompatible with mercy and kindness toward the animals they love is deeply troubling. Further, students’ claims that slaughter somehow “honors” Bill and Lou are reminiscent of ritual sacrifices.
Thank you for speaking up for animals. It’s disheartening that so many GMC youth perceive your peaceful protest as a violation of their rights or as a form of “fascism.” Again, this calls into question what these students are being taught.
The agrarian fantasy that the college wants to “teach” is not even how small family farms have operated. Children were incorporated in a number of even the smallest tasks. From what I have been told personally it was exhausting work, particularly on a dairy farm. To do this work one develops a callousness towards animals that nothing has prepared these students for. This false “culture” that the college alleges exists at GMC is nothing but indoctrination (like a cult). Yes, this will be a teaching incident but not as they expected.
It is really wonderful that despite all of the abusive language slung at VINE Sanctuary by the college’s students that you guys regard it for what it is. That is real maturity.
Lastly, a Degree from Green Mountain College is only degraded by people who write factually inaccurate articles about this situation. Green Mountain College is and will be a great place to learn about sustainability, environmentalism and even humane treatment of animals. The author of this article and those who have attacked GMC for this should be ashamed of themselves. why do you ask? Because GMC is not the problem! If you want to make a difference you should attack people who own factory farms that dont let their animals see daylight. Not GMC who is about humane treatment of animals during their life time.
I’m glad you have had a good experience at GMC. I truly want for your school to live up to its stated ideals and to provide you with the good education you deserve.
On bullying: Just because you’ve not seen it doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. What should I tell the parent who called the sanctuary to say their child was bullied, “Sorry, Thomas didn’t see it, so I don’t believe you”?
I’m glad to hear what you say about vegan options at the dining hall. That’s good. But, listen: Just because a person or institution does some good things doesn’t mean that they are exempt from criticism for anything.
Also: We are in agreement about the horrors of factory farms. But many of the large animals here were confiscated by authorities from small-scale, supposedly sustainable, farms. Do you know how bad it has to be for authorities to remove an animal from a farm? (Farmed animals are not covered by most laws concerning humane treatment of animals.) It’s simply not true that small-scale or sustainable farms are necessarily humane.
Let me tell you what I truly believe about GMC. I believe that most of the faculty are fundamentally decent people who had no idea that Farm Manager Mulder was changing the character of the farm program –and the ethos of the school itself– by teaching students on the farm crew attitudes and practices inconsistent with modern sustainable agriculture and modern animal welfare standards. I believe that GMC students enter the school with open minds and open hearts but that the farm program as it is presently constituted teaches students callousness rather than compassion for animals. All the evidence you need is right there on the farm’s own Facebook page. (Unless the school’s public relations folks have finally stepped in to clean it up, in which case we can send you screenshots.)
We tried to alert GMC administrators to this, but we were ignored. Our only recourse was to go to the one set of people to whom they will listen: Tuition-paying parents.
Where are the messages that you aren’t approving? Why do you feel you have to let students know that they are honored enough to get your approval of their comment? Also, please do not use the term animal welfare it makes you sound ignorant about the cause you are fighting for. Read some T. Regan and then I’ll be ok with you filling your blog with lies about GMC. That picture WAS NOT TAKEN ON OUR FARM. And it disgusts me that you used it as an appeal to emotion and pity trying to win more votes for your cause. Come to our campus for a day, any student would be happy to show you around and prove to you that almost nothing that you said here is true. Also teenager isn’t hyphenated. Maybe you should take a college writing class instead of tellin others to take courses on philosophy, etc.
This is our blog, remember. Our mission does not require us to give a forum to anything anybody might like to say. Anybody who wants to use their own blog, Facebook, or Twitter account to express themselves can easily do that.
We’ve actually had some lively and even heated discussions here about whether opposing viewpoints should be given any sort of platform on our blog. Cofounder Miriam Jones feels strongly that allowing defenses of any sort of animal use onto our website is a misuse of our resources. I lean towards approving and rebutting such comments. Since I wrote this post, I get to make the call.
What don’t I approve? I do not approve messages that malign any person other than me. I do not approve messages that are off-topic or from posters who have previously posted malicious comments.
Because I do not want defenses of animal use or abuse to show up on our site unanswered, I do review all comments by new posters (and also monitor the stream of comments by continuing posters). Some comments can be approved very quickly, as they contain nothing objectionable and nothing that requires a response or reply. Comments requiring response or reply are held until I have time to answer.
We have been to your campus. Read the full comment stream to learn about one of the things we saw.
The question of the hyphen in teen-ager/teenager is open but trending in the direction you suggest. This is one of many words that were once hyphenated but have seen the use of the hyphen drop off over time because languages tend to change in the direction of simplification. At present, most publications do not use the hyphen, but some still do. It’s a question of preferred style rather than right or wrong. I’m not saying that I never make punctuation errors, but this isn’t one of them. Nonetheless, you are probably right that I should embrace the more updated style. Tell you what: I’ll do that when Farm Manager Mulder quits using old-time buggy whips on oxen.
NOTE: This reply is back-dated so that it will appear below the comment it answers.
To add to this, the incredible stubborn wrongness of repeating a lie that it is the right thing to do, with the belief that it will make it true, bends towards mental illness.