Advocacy or fair analysis?
Farming community expresses concern over animal ethics course
Matthew Frierdich and Greta Brown
Issue date: 2/3/10 Section: News
In the December 7, 2009 issue of Ozarks Farm and Neighbor, an article appeared titled, "A Closer Look at Drury's Study of Animal Rights." The article expressed concern over the core purpose of the course and examined Drury's approach to studying the issue of animal ethics with the realization that focused study in this field directly impacts the farming and agricultural communities.
The article begins with an examination of the texts and other articles used for the course contending that the author's agenda "is veganism and vegetarianism" and "the leaning is to the left in this class for sure."
This poses quite a problem for Drury within such a community oriented toward supporting small, family farms, beef production, and the agriculture industry in general.
Those in the farming and agricultural industries raise issue in the article that the Animal Ethics course may be "suspect for bias."
President Todd Parnell remarked that local farmers are "concerned principally that the course is one-sided against the agricultural industry in Missouri, but it's not." Parnell continued by saying, "The course is in no way an attempt to damage small farms or family farm lifestyle."
Travis Justice, executive director of the Arkansas Beef Council and director of the Beef Cattle Division for Arkansas Farm Bureau, is quoted in the article saying, "We suspect they're biased toward animal welfare… Without sitting through the courses, it's hard to know exactly how information will be presented. We would hope, at least, they'll present a balanced viewpoint. Some of the beliefs and statements being made about agriculture that we've heard are certainly unfair."
In response to the accusations presented in the article, Dr. Charles Taylor, vice president of Academic Affairs at Drury, responded with a letter to the editor. Taylor expressed the university's support for diverse views and the right to present those views publicly. Taylor continued by writing that, "As a university, we are not in the propaganda business, nor do we have an interest in controlling the lives or dietary habits of our students."
The article begins with an examination of the texts and other articles used for the course contending that the author's agenda "is veganism and vegetarianism" and "the leaning is to the left in this class for sure."
This poses quite a problem for Drury within such a community oriented toward supporting small, family farms, beef production, and the agriculture industry in general.
Those in the farming and agricultural industries raise issue in the article that the Animal Ethics course may be "suspect for bias."
President Todd Parnell remarked that local farmers are "concerned principally that the course is one-sided against the agricultural industry in Missouri, but it's not." Parnell continued by saying, "The course is in no way an attempt to damage small farms or family farm lifestyle."
Travis Justice, executive director of the Arkansas Beef Council and director of the Beef Cattle Division for Arkansas Farm Bureau, is quoted in the article saying, "We suspect they're biased toward animal welfare… Without sitting through the courses, it's hard to know exactly how information will be presented. We would hope, at least, they'll present a balanced viewpoint. Some of the beliefs and statements being made about agriculture that we've heard are certainly unfair."
In response to the accusations presented in the article, Dr. Charles Taylor, vice president of Academic Affairs at Drury, responded with a letter to the editor. Taylor expressed the university's support for diverse views and the right to present those views publicly. Taylor continued by writing that, "As a university, we are not in the propaganda business, nor do we have an interest in controlling the lives or dietary habits of our students."
Article last update: 2/2/10 at 8:25 PM CST
Be the first to comment on this story