Well, some good news is that my
alma mater,
IUPUI, is offering vegetarian and vegan options year-round. This might sound minor but considering
IUPUI went without a central, full-service cafeteria for years this is a definite improvement. There used to be a decent
falafel spot in University Place Hotel but I think they closed. I do know that while I was still on campus a year or so ago there were some sporadic
"veg" offerings -- the vegetarian sushi was actually vegan and while it was good, that was about it. Sure there were veggie burgers but they probably had egg and dairy in it, and the vegetarian stir fry at the Asian place was cooked on the same meat-covered woks. According to this recent statement on
IUPUI's Campus Dining Service site:
Vegetarian Options, all year long!
There are many Vegetarian/Vegan options in IUPUI Campus Dining! Don't forget most of these items are highlighted at each food concept in the Campus Center through brochures and on the video screens. Also, Moo Moo's Vegan/Vegetarian Cuisine is available in Outtakes. There are many options at IUPUI for people who choose to eat meat-free at any time of the year! [link]
So maybe my suggestions for clearly labeled vegan items did register.
So why the thumbs down? That ire is reserved for the alleged father of animal
rights, Peter Singer, who spoke on the
IUPUI campus last week for issues completely unrelated to animals. That's probably for the best, since when he's not talking about
The Paris Exception he gives frustrating interviews to the local paper further clouding his stance on animal rights and animal welfare. Where do I begin? First let me point you to
vegblog, which raised some great points on the
Indianapolis Star article.
From
vegblog:
I’m not exactly a big fan of Peter Singer, and this IndyStar.com interview with him solidifies that feeling. I didn’t realize (probably because I wasn’t paying attention) that he gives 1/3rd of his income to charity, mostly to Oxfam…
… as in the Oxfam that provides animal donations (sorry for the PETA link)? The one that allows people to give sheep, baby chicks, goats, and more as if they were just things via their online store?
I don’t like picking apart the ways a person lives to find inconsistencies with their stated philosophies (I’m sure I’ve got plenty of my own), but things like this just baffle me. If you believe in animal sentience and rights, then you don’t donate money to a group that treats animals as commodities, clear even in the wording on their own web site. [link]
Next is Gary Francione. I won't even try to summarize his position, but let's just say he takes Mr. Singer to task for his disregard for equal consideration of all beings. Here's a section that particularly resonated with me:
Singer’s comments reflect—once again—the welfarist notion that our use of animals is not the primary or even a moral problem because, as a factual matter, animals do not have an interest in their lives. That is, welfarists maintain that nonhumans have an interest in not suffering but as they do not have an interest in continued life because they do not have hopes or future desires, we can use them for our purposes as long we treat them ‘humanely.’ Singer clearly accepts the welfarist principle that nonhumans are of less moral value than humans. He clearly, explicitly, and repeatedly rejects the concept of animal rights despite his claim—made again in this interview—that he sought “to create an animal-rights movement.” [link]
