As an alum of the college, former assistant staff writer at the publication, and ethical queer vegan, I’ve been pretty heartbroken since I received my copy of the Spring/Summer 2013 Vol. 109 Issue 2 of Vassar, the alumnae/i quarterly of Vassar College. I got chills when I saw the theme of the issue was “Eat.” Before perusing, I sensed that there was a significant chance that this issue theme would be grossly mishandled. I suspected that Vassar would likely glorify eating (and exploiting) non-human animals by highlighting the work of notable non-vegan alums like Anthony Bourdain, and other so-called food celebrity alums.
It turns out I was right about my suspicions: “Eat” issue is one of the most troubling things I’ve ever seen branded with Vassar’s name. There’s too much offensive material in this 91-page volume to cover all of it, but I’ll share some highlights:
On page seven, the article “The Gritty Life of a Food Activist” profiles a white male alum with a five-o-clock shadow staring at a dead pig head, ostensibly of one of the “heritage” varieties he purports to care about saving through–you guessed it–raising them to be slaughtered:
“[Heritage Foods]’ mission is to preserve rare breeds of turkeys, pigs, cows, lambs, bison, tuna, salmon, chicken, ducks, geese, and goats by creating a market for them…Martins believes that eating heritage breeds is the only way to save them.” (p. 7, Vassar, “Eat” Issue).
Anyone who has read Carol J. Adams’ work The Sexual Politics of Meat can understand the unique sexual politics related to a (white) man presiding over a dead pig’s head, ostensibly one he’s helped kill in order to “save” it. Hmm.
Page 16 features a recipe for Gambas al ajillo (garlic shrimp) complete with shrimp pictures, courtesy of Vassar alum/cookbook author Penelope Casas. Yikes. No vegan option in sight, no explanation, just meat-eating continuing to be perpetuated as the norm and something to be celebrated.
Next, on page 17, there’s an article called “Conscience in the Kitchen” discussing how chef Seth Caswell cooks “fresh oysters right from the shell.” I couldn’t believe the article title. Where, exactly, is the conscience in Caswell’s cooking? I can only assume the writer is referring to the fact that Caswell works in a LEED-certified kitchen when he serves “ever-popular chicken Parmesan” The truth is, meat is not conscionable on any level, and certainly not to the chicken who needlessly gave his/her life.
Page 18 features an alum who runs a restaurant called “Fish Fowl Beef Pork”–I’m gagging. Of all the amazing work Vassar alums are doing in the world, they have to feature someone whose work glorifies killing fish, birds, cows, and pigs? There’s even a mention of this guy’s “grilled Sullivan County fois gras” — besides being incredibly cruel, I have to ask: is Fois gras even legal anymore?
Perhaps the worst article in this issue is “Greener Pastures,”on p. 21 featuring Justin Leavenworth ’96, who is characterized as an effeminate “skinny jeans-, hipster glasses-wearing guy” who somehow finds a way to get along with his fellow “macho men” of the meat industry. If this isn’t a classic sexual politics of meat trope, I don’t know what is. The message is, look, even effeminate Vassar men can be “manly” by showing they know what’s what about killing animals. There is so much wrong with this article, I don’t even know where to start. How about this:
“Some ranchers mistrust the grass-fed movement, considering it a way to move the country one step closer to the ‘liberal vegetarian ideal.'” (p. 21). Side note: Vassar editors, who, exactly, do you think your readers are?
Then there’s a fudge recipe with animal products making up about 50% of the ingredients hailed as “Vassar tradition,” no vegan option included. One could easily substitute coconut milk for the butter and cream and it’d be amazing. Why wasn’t a vegan option even considered? There’s way more offensive material in this issue, but I’m exhausted already. And yes: Anthony Bourdain gets his obligatory profile as well.
Based on my experience working for the Quarterly during my Senior year of college, I recognize that the primary function of the publication is to inspire alums to donate to Vassar through emotional stories relating to the school and its notable attendees, faculty, staff, and community members. What better topic to relate to our emotions than our food, our sustenance, our culturally-linked second heart? I get why the editors of this magazine chose this theme. But writing about food in a way that completely ignores vegan perspectives is really limited, and ignores the great work Vassarians do in this arena.
Couldn’t Vassar editors have chosen to profile even one vegan perspective? We have many notable vegan alums, including but not limited to: Haley Burke, a cancer center doctor living and working in Texas; Pulin Modi, a force for good in this world at Change.Org; activist Lauren O’Laughlin, and on and on.
There are also lots of other incredible current Vassar student vegan activists, like Ali Seiter, Alan Darer, Rocky Schwartz, and more. I met some of these activists at the Marti Kheel Ecofeminist Conference at Wesleyan, and THEY are what makes me proud to call myself a Vassar alum. Vassar does great work in the field of human- and non-human animal welfare; why not highlight it, or at the very least, refrain from mocking it?
I’m pretty happy to report that there was at least one vegan mention in the publication–my contribution to Defiant Daughters: 21 Women On Art, Activism and The Sexual Politics of Meat gets a nod in the Mixed Media section on p. 40.
Final words: I am really disappointed by this issue of Vassar. It doesn’t include or recognize perspectives that are central to many Vassar community members’ activism. It certainly doesn’t make me feel inspired to pull out my wallet. Despite this, I am going to remain hopeful that the good work Vassar students, faculty, alumnae/i and others continue to do in this world for human- and non-human animals will ring far louder than puff pieces aimed to rake in donations.
I encourage anyone interested to e-mail the Director of Alumnae/i Communications, Editor Elizabeth Randolph and let her know what you think about this issue. She can be reached at elrandolph@vassar.edu.
Thanks.
UPDATE: Lagusta Umami of Lagusta’s Luscious has confirmed Foie gras is currently legal in New York State, but banned in California.
queerveganfood.com 
Sarah–
Thank you for speaking out against the latest issue of the Vassar quarterly. As I mentioned in my Facebook comment, I’ve noticed on multiple occasions Vassar’s intense one-sidedness. In my eyes, Vassar strives to instill in its students an open mind and an ability to thoughtfully analyze all dimensions of any particular issue. However, as with the deer cull, the treatment of many more conservative-leaning folks on campus, and now this issue of the quarterly, the Vassar administration continues to display its hypocrisy. As so many other seemingly progressive institutions have done, Vassar fails to even acknowledge the vegan perspective/lifestyle as a legitimate one. But you know what? In the words of Jasmin and Mariann of Our Hen House, this might just be another case of “rising anxieties.” 🙂
Much love,
Ali.
Really great points, Ali. I’ve been so disturbed by the deer cull and have appreciated your insightful blogs and updates on the subject. You have such unique perspectives as a current student who is also so entrenched in the outside activism world (COK, your incredible blogging, your far-reaching writings at the MISC and on and on). Thank you for your feedback–let’s hope something good comes out of all of this.
Dear Editor Elizabeth Randolph,
Based on the description written by Sarah E. Brown about the “Eat” issue of the “Vassar Quarterly”, I can say you’ve followed a popular, green and humane-washed temporary trend of food fetishists (“gluttens” if you read former Altantic writer Meyers piece critical of Michael Pollan’s “Omnivore’s Dilemma”). It would have been my hope that the intellectual and moral (not ethical) fabric of Vassar would have produced a more introspective, fact-based garment to wear than what you produced for “Eat”.
That introspection would by necessity require including the broad spectrum of harms caused by the dietary choices featured in “Eat”. To bring it literally “down to Earth”, the harms extend to the poorest half of humanity impacted by dietary-induced climate change (26 to 51% of greenhouse gasses come from animal agriculture); the loss of biodiversity because of the harms of animal agriculture cast upon ecosystems (26% of Earth’s arable land is grazed by large and small agriculture operations while 70% of agricultural resources are dumped into the most inefficient way to produce food); the suffering of the poor when grain prices rise because of global market competitions that include demands for grain fed to farmed animals; and the suffering we impose upon wild and farmed individuals from other sentient species as we destroy their ecosystems and otherwise slaughter them without necessity are all essential to the discussion you omitted. As you may begin to infer, this is about justice and injustice, the latter being what “Eat” thoughtlessly causes.
I would recommend you look for a screening of the new movie, “Blackfish”, a CNN documentary about the captive orca whale industry. It will easily open your love of the golden rule so you can more readily accept the knowledge in other like, “Peaceable Kingdom” and “Forks Over Knives”, as a beginning. I don’t mean to sound haughty, but the standards I would expect from Vassar have been violated. At least, I hope that’s the case because if “Eat” is business as usual at Vassar, that business needs to be further exposed in the media. I certainly will include it in the next revision of my book.
Earth and all species—including us—are out of time because of what Earth, ecosystems, and the individuals from other species require of us. Food choices, human population growth, and consumer decisions have already done irreversible harm. Will you continue endorsing it?
Regards,
Will
Will Anderson
This Is Hope: Green Vegans and the New Human Ecology
How we find our way to a humane and environmentally sane future
http://www.ThisIsHopeTheBook.com (Blog and book page)
will@ThisIsHopeTheBook.com
Send it her way, Will! A powerful letter.
Why should the Vassar Quarterly cater to vegans/vegetarians when only 4% of the population cares to live that lifestyle? If most people eat meat and are happy eating meat, why should they spend a lot of time on alternatives? Maybe they should have put one recipe? But you can’t pretend everyone is a vegetarian and complain like a child about it.
One, because ecosystems and biodiversity require a change in human ecology; and two (among many other reasons), because higher education is assumed to be an incubator that increases knowledge through a thoughtful dialogue which can happen only if more than one idea is presented for consideration. “If most people eat meat and are happy eating meat, why should they spend a lot of time on alternatives?” Because the last thing you want would be to learn by rote regurgitation of what is instead of what could, can, or needs to be. There was nothing in “Eat”, judging by the description, to offer food for thought or expanding dialogue. I’m sure you can appreciate that we all need this. Disclaimer: I’m not attached to Vassar, so I’ll leave it at that. Thank you.
I don’t think that when Vassar published “Eat” they were meaning to be political or to have some sort of agenda. People really just need to calm down and stop crying that their viewpoint wasn’t raised. This isn’t a perfect world and everyone can’t always be in the spotlight.
Chuck, I find it incredibly dismissive of you to diminish a well-thought out critique (that you may not agree with) to the author “complain[ing] like a child” and “crying that their viewpoint wasn’t raised.” If you disagree and have a legitimate reason to disagree, please don’t detract from your point by insultingly infantilizing the author.
Beyond that, Vassar prides itself on being a progressive institution that gives voice to niche perspectives and thereby empowers its “alternative,” largely social-justice oriented students. I do not know what your connection is to Vassar—or if you even have a connection—but food is a hot-topic on campus and one addressed from a variety of angles. It is also a topic that unites many current students and alums. This publication left out a prominent perspective from among these groups, instead featuring several individuals who reinforce the dominant cultural “ideology.” This “ideology,” as mentioned by Will, is wrought with socially and environmentally destructive consequences.
Why the important vegan perspective have been given a voice by a publication targeting conscientious alums?
I think it’s a problem that there wasn’t even a mention of vegan alums, but I can understand why, and I don’t think that Vassar intended to exclude their voices. I think the people that run the Quarterly probably just didn’t think to include a vegan voice. There aren’t many vegans in the Vassar community, and so the likelihood that there are vegans active in the Alumnae/i Association (which runs the Quarterly), are necessarily lower. Since you were involved with the publication, maybe you can speak to how they solicit articles and make editorial decisions. If the editors generally look for people to interview/profile as opposed to having people suggest interview/profile subjects, then maybe they should have solicited a vegan or vegetarian for interview.
Moreover, plenty of the interviews in this edition are neutral as to veganism. The articles on Sierra-Rolet, Zalben, Rothbaum, Casas, Civitello, and the Zagats (arguably the biggest name in this edition) all take no stance as to the consumption of meat. I think a majority of the articles in this edition, in fact, take a non-political stance towards the consumption of meat.
As for the recipes that were published in the journal and online: I’m not vegan, but it seems very easy to make many of these recipes using vegan ingredients. The paella recipe online requires you substitute vegetable broth for chicken broth and remove the eggs. Use tofu instead of shrimp in the gambas al ajillo. The poached peaches recipe is already vegan friendly. Sarah, you’ve already suggested a substitute recipe for the fudge. The only recipe that isn’t at all vegan friendly are the meatballs. To say that the publication should waste paper and republish an entire fudge recipe when most vegans are intelligent enough (in fact, I assume many vegans are more intelligent than the general population since they understand how screwed up the world’s system of agriculture is) to substitute coconut milk for cream, is really absurd. So, of the five recipes included, one is already vegan friendly, and three require very simple substitutions or exclusions from the recipe. That seems pretty good to me.
While some of the remarks in the publication were grounded in bad norms (like the really gendered comments), I don’t think it’s per se offensive to not include the voice of one small demographic in an alumnae/i magazine. Maybe it would have been offensive had vegan alumnae/i been put forward as options to be included in the publication. As it stands, it doesn’t seem like that was the case. (If I’m wrong, you can ignore the rest of my comment, and please correct me). The reason I’m really disappointed in this critique is because I think the vegan and vegetarian groups at Vassar are the most effective advocates and activists at Vassar, and it doesn’t seem like that community was actively involved in engaging with the quarterly to actually get those voices included.
I appreciate many of the points you address. I guess what it comes down to is prioritization. The bottom line is animals’ suffering and abuse is being glorified in the issue. Bringing attention to this is my priority.
I understand the substitution issue, and I guess that it is wrong that vegans are so often asked to “substitute” in recipes. And I don’t disagree that a vegan recipe should have been included in the quarterly.
Also, I totally agree that one small demographic can change the world, but I still think it’s too strong to call the content in the Quarterly offensive.
I take issue with some of your rhetoric, not the thrust of your argument. Perhaps the publication was problematic in not considering vegan voices, and I think you’re rightly offended that they didn’t. But I think to attribute malicious intent and hold animosity towards the editors for including non-vegan recipes and interviewing people who cook and consume meat is also problematic. I think the basic contention of my argument is that I think that opening a dialogue with the editors of the Quarterly and the Vassar administration is more productive than calling them racist, sexist, and untuned to gender politics, especially when many of their biases are probably unconscious.
I didn’t feel Sarah was suggesting that the problematic elements of the Quarterly only be called out online without any sort of accompanying dialogue. I saw quite the opposite, with her suggestion at the end of the piece that those passionate about the issue contact the editor.
Alums have limited means of establishing a dialogue with Vassar, and in this case a letter to the editor and blog post (that has clearly prompted dialogue) seems appropriate. Current students are momentarily limited by summer break, but perhaps in-person conversation about how the publication can be made more inclusive and less problematic can be initiated in the fall.
Assuming the editor was unaware of the problematic components of the publication does not mean we should refrain from public critique, though it should factor into how a dialogue is approached.
On a personal level, I of course understand that any publication concerning food that is not explicitly veg*n will include meat-centric pieces. Yet, as someone who identifies as a conscientious, environmentalist, food activist (and who has connected with Vassar alums through this shared identity), I found the meat-centric nature of three pieces—”The Gritty Life of a Food Activist,” “Conscience in the Kitchen,” and “Greener Pastures”—to be a slap in the face to my and others’ efforts. I think this should be made known to the Quarterly.
I have just received an e-mail from Elizabeth Randolph, Editor of the publication.
I applaud Ms. Randolph for responding, and am grateful for her willingness to follow up with on-campus groups working to address this issue. Here is the message she sent:
Elizabeth Randolph
12:35 PM (1 hour ago)
to me
Dear Sarah,
Thank you for bringing your blog post to my attention. You’re right when you say that we missed the opportunity (and perhaps failed in our obligation) to present the vegan and vegetarian perspective in this issue and that we should have done so.
I have also heard from students from a campus group concerned about the ethical treatment of animals. You and they have let us know about several Vassar alums and students who are actively working on advocacy and education around veganism and vegetarianism. I’m looking forward to learning more about them and to following up in an upcoming issue.
I regret our omission and appreciate the initiative you’ve taken to broaden the discussion and coverage around food issues.
Best,
Liz
I wrote back:
Dear Liz,
Thank you for your e-mail response, and thoughtful words. I appreciate your willingness to address this.
I really look forward to seeing this followed up on in an upcoming issue, and thank for your work serving our wonderful college!
All the best,
Sarah
VC ’09
[…] Vegan Food and Vassar alum—critiqued the publication’s 2013 spring/Ssummer issue for its troubling tones of speciesism and sexism, offended Vassar students and alums emailed the Quarterly’s editor to express their dissent. […]
[…] summer, I wrote a long post about my alma matter’s disappointing “Eat” issue of the alumni/ae quarterly. I was pretty sad to see that my college’s long feature on how we […]