(11/01/17 10:28pm)
In response to the Editorial Staff’s ‘Wanted: Student Spaces’ from October 18th: We agree that there are fewer spaces on campus now with converted lounges and changes to the Crest Room. We take issue, however, with the use of the Knoll as the “best example” of this trend.
The Campus claims that the Knoll was rebranded without student input and without reason. The stated result was that the Knoll somehow became less accessible through the name change. The article further reported that students and garden staff were surprised by the new name. This is wholly untrue.
Sophie Esser-Calvi ‘03.5, Director of Global Food and Farm Programs at Middlebury, says that her and Jay Leshinsky, the lead gardening instructor since its founding, “have been discussing the renaming of the farm for years with students, especially the interns and student leaders of MCOF.” Last year, they hosted an open brainstorming session to discuss the name change with students. They decided on the Knoll because “students felt that it was the most inclusive name that goes beyond students only interested in gardening.”
The name change was necessary and long overdue. Fifteen years ago, before the first garden was planted there, the student founders of the farm first called the site the Kestral Knoll. Next it was the Organic Garden, until students changed the name to the Organic Farm. Because the Garden/Farm has always been experimental, students have used not only organic growing techniques, but also permaculture, biodynamic and regenerative methods. This made the “organic” label not only inaccurate, but reductive. Student-led initiatives on the site, aside from tending the crops, have included the construction of a classroom and an outdoor kitchen with a pizza oven.
Not to mention, The Knoll is a literal name; the garden sits atop a “small round hill,” which is the actual dictionary definition of a knoll. Leshinsky added that the Knoll is “clearly descriptive of all that goes on there.”
Esser-Calvi is far from a bureaucratic, commercializing administrator. She is a member of the original team of students who spearheaded this project during her time as a student. Her current job exists because of an ongoing student initiative to create new community spaces that provide academic and social benefit. When we commemorate the Knoll, we are commemorating the College’s support of student-led spaces and initiatives, not the opposite.
When we reached out to Esser-Calvi and Leshinsky for this letter, we heard back within 45 minutes. If the Campus had asked these staff members or any number of students involved with The Knoll, they would know that the rebranding was a move towards a more accessible, open student space on campus.
Let’s address the serious problems in our community before we look for them where they don’t exist.
The Campus editorial board gratefully endorses the clarifications made in this article. We regret the corresponding error.
(05/10/17 11:18pm)
EatReal distributed a survey to garner support for a proposal to reduce meat in the dining halls by 30 percent by the pound over the next three years. The majority of students approved the plan. It will likely pass through SGA next week.
I support the goals of this proposal with enthusiasm. The methods, however, are all wrong.
To justify the proposed changes, EatReal claims that “animal agriculture contributes more greenhouse gases worldwide than the entire transportation sector and is a leading cause of deforestation.”
This sentence is cut straight from “Cowspiracy,” a dramatic documentary that deserves credit for its boldness and intentions (sort of) but, at the end of the day, is sensationalist, oversimplified propaganda that warrants critical examination and perspective.
Why is it obvious they’re drawing from “Cowspiracy” to back this up?
First of all, the use of the term “animal agriculture” is a huge giveaway, because it’s a term popularized by “Cowspiracy” that refers to production of any animal products, including dairy and eggs.
The film’s message is veganist, and if EatReal wasn’t borrowing it, they would say “meat production,” an accurate phrase they use later in their list.
So if we take out the milk and eggs that make up almost 30 percent of livestock sector emissions, meat production’s contribution to climate change is significantly less than “animal agriculture” as a whole. The environmental ramifications of a meat-based diet are indisputably significant. But if we’re going to talk about meat, let’s talk about meat.
Second, the survey’s comparison of animal agriculture’s climate change impacts to the transportation sector is a clear reference to a 2006 FAO report that is a main rally cry of “Conspiracy.” Take the first fact from the documentary’s fact page: “Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation.”
In 2013 this report was thoroughly updated and estimates livestock production to be responsible for 14.5 percent of human emissions, and makes no claims comparing sectors.
“Cowspiracy” was released in 2014.
Ignoring the corrections on an outdated, questionable report is not just poor journalism, it’s compromising the truth to make a point, and that is when integrity flies out the window. We can do better research than this.
Not only is this livestock–transportation comparison illegitimate, it’s out of context. “Cowspiracy” uses global estimates from a global organization. These patterns do not hold universally. In the U.S., the EPA reports that transportation is responsible for almost three times the emissions of the entire agricultural sector itself (not even just livestock).
So when it comes to domestic environmental policy, transportation is a much more urgent problem than agriculture itself, much less “animal agriculture,” much less meat production.
Whatever your opinions on “Cowspiracy” are, it should bother you very much that EatReal is quoting it verbatim in this proposal. This group is responsible for advocating with a sophisticated understanding of these issues.
I say again, I am thrilled that Middlebury College is going to buy less industrial meat in favor of smaller producers closer to Addison County. It makes our environment, economy, humans and animals healthier. It’s a slam dunk.
But we need to be clear about why that is, and we need to do better than intimidation and sensationalism — even if it is being used to advance progressive ends.
Supporting an important and perfectly justifiable campaign with false and deceptive information damages the credibility of an entire movement. Let’s continue this work, but let’s be clear, informed and accurate. Otherwise, it inhibits the movement’s progress.
This movement is strong and growing. EatReal is Middlebury’s chapter of Real Food Challenge, a vast network of campuses creating a more just and sustainable food system. This stuff matters: for advancing agendas of social justice, human rights and environmentalism, which are all connected.
Let’s talk about why these issues are connected, and how. Let’s inform ourselves about our food system with sources that respect our dignity. Civil Eats is a great place to start.