Your Turn – Letters to the Editor

Dear Editor,

In his letter (“Condemning resolution,” Oct. 24), Jeremy Kidd writes that he was “appalled” to discover that SGA had passed a resolution that condemned PETA and the student organization SETA for the for their recent displays on campus. Kidd additionally uses my quotes from the original news article to claim that I, along with other SGA senators, was largely “uninformed” about the “Animal Liberation” displays. He concludes by saying that senators focused only on the “convenient aspects” of the display.

As the longest-serving senator currently in SGA (I have served continuously since 2002), I would have not continued to serve the student body if I did not commit myself to a level of dedication, commitment and accountability. It is true that, due to my class schedule, I was unable to attend the meeting that Kidd references in his letter. However, my views were far from uninformed. Before taking a stance on this issue, I viewed the PETA/SETA sponsored displays and promotional materials, and I made sure to discuss the displays with both students in favor of and against the PETA/SETA campaign on campus.

SGA’s opposition toward the PETA/SETA displays was not centered around the issue of animal rights. SGA believes in the importance of free speech and assembly, especially in a collegiate setting, but a number of students were hurt and offended by viewing the juxtaposition of past human rights abuses – including slavery, the Holocaust and the “Trail of Tears” – with animal treatment. To many African-Americans, Native Americans and students of the Jewish faith, viewing the past human rights abuses of their people depicted in poses similar to that of animals was downright insensitive and insulting. In short, many students felt that the PETA/SETA displays deprived them of their humanity.

If tomorrow an organization on campus promoting another cause were to hold visual and graphic displays hurtful and offensive to other student groups (for example, Muslims, women, or LGBT students), it is highly likely that many students would join behind the picket lines as protesters. How, then, are PETA’s offensive and hurtful images any different?

As part of a nationwide tour, VCU was not the only location where PETA showcased its latest campaign. Likewise, SGA was not the only organization to condemn PETA/SETA’s on-campus comparison of human rights abuses with animal treatment. Many other human rights advocacy groups have criticized PETA’s most recent approach to address animal rights, including the Anti-Defamation League. Furthermore, the issue of human rights abuses is particularly sensitive in Richmond, where slavery is a stain on the tapestry of this city’s proud American past.

As a person who is personally sensitive to the ethical and responsible treatment of animals, I believe that it was truly unfortunate that the real message of the PETA/SETA campaign – the need to shed light on the unfair treatment of many animals – was clouded by an insensitive treatment of past human rights abuses that was hurtful to students of various ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds.

Would the PETA/SETA displays on campus have been better received if the sponsors of this display focused the discussion on only presenting relevant information and resources to curtail the indecent treatment of animals, and avoided making references to painful pasts of the human race? Probably. But would the PETA/SETA displays have sparked nearly as much attention? Probably not. Perhaps PETA/SETA was searching for that “shock factor” – something that is becoming increasingly elusive in today’s society.

But at what cost? Working to effect change in society is important, but is it justified to condone the commercialization and manipulation of past human rights abuses for another’s gain? While PETA/SETA’s underlying goals may be well intentioned, should SGA, as the voice of the student body of VCU, not take a stance on an issue when a considerable amount of students found the recent PETA/SETA-sponsored displays to be hurtful, insensitive and offensive? Or is this merely a “convenient aspect” that would better be ignored? The answer to these questions, as 31 other SGA senators and myself will tell you, is a resolute “No.”

Sincerely,

Jithin Veer

Director of Senate Affairs,

Monroe Park Campus SGA