Despite this objection, Gerety's decision does still give seniors the choice to have their diploma handprinted on high-quality paper rather than sheepskin if they're so inclined and adequately motivated. Given the amount of recent debate on this matter, I thought it would be worthwhile to address four of the most common objections to the use of paper. This year's seniors still have a few days left to indicate their preference for paper, and this year's juniors will be faced with the same dilemma a year from now. Some of the objections also raise interesting questions about how we should treat animals that might have ramifications in our other decisions about what to eat and what to wear.
The most common objection is that sheepskin is an Amherst tradition. I'm a big fan of preserving this college's traditions and have long lamented the absence of the Sabrina statue in recent years. But I'm also glad there are women here, so I appreciate that Amherst decided to change its tradition of only admitting men. The fact that something is a tradition gives it a certain importance, but not without limit. It must still be weighed against other options in the name of progress. As a result, there are cases when traditions necessarily disappear into the history books because we realize how unfair or inhumane they are. For most of us, human sacrifice, that long and venerable tradition, is one we're glad is history. Same for the traditions of slavery and school segregation. If we take the time to learn about the pain and suffering inflicted on other living creatures because of our traditions, we may become willing, with some sadness, to permit certain traditions to fade into history.
A second objection to the change was: as long as we continue to eat meat, why stop using sheepskin? This argument is an appeal to consistency, because the dining hall serves meat. But is consistency paramount or is incremental improvement worthwhile? The goal of avoiding the suffering of animals, like the goal of avoiding human suffering, is not all-or-nothing. Instead, we need to evaluate each circumstance and determine whether we're reasonably able to forsake the benefits we gain from causing suffering.
To be sure, the fact that our society eats meat requires many more animals to live in crowded, dirty conditions, where they are first mistreated, then slaughtered, than does the use of sheepskin for diplomas. But many people have more difficulty choosing not to eat meat than choosing not to use sheepskin for their diploma. It would be great if people chose to stop eating meat; either way, choosing paper over sheepskin is a small step toward reducing suffering-which cannot be eliminated but only reduced in this world.
Similarly, the choice is not between strict veganism and avid carnivorousness. Someone might wish to minimize the harm caused to animals on his behalf and so begin to eat less meat and over time stop eating meat altogether. But if someone were unable to give up eating turkey at Thanksgiving, for instance, he could choose to eat it. That decision doesn't mean he would have to eat meat all year just to be consistent. None of us is capable of causing no harm in the world, yet all of us can reduce the amount of harm we're currently enabling. If we do the best we can, continually striving for further improvement in how we live our lives, progress will be made.
A further objection is that sheep are already killed for their meat, so using their skin as well doesn't result in any more harm. In fact, meat alone isn't worth enough to make raising animals on a large scale profitable. Significant profits come only when there is a market for both meat and leather (sheepskin is a variety of leather). If the demand for leather decreases, fewer animals will be raised and slaughtered. Our choice not to use leather in general and sheepskin in particular does have an effect on the number of animals being raised and slaughtered.
Additionally, the modern tanning process used to turn the skin of an animal into a piece of usable material involves substances such as chromium, formaldehyde, coal-tar derivatives and various oils and dyes-some of them cyanide based. And tannery effluent has a funny way of finding its way into local water supplies. So people who work in and live near tanneries have higher than average rates of leukemia and testicular cancer. Thus, even if it were the case that the sheep were already killed for meat, turning their skin into our diplomas still involves an energy-intensive, environmentally damaging process.
Finally, people say that animal suffering need not be given any weight in our considerations. Some argue that animals are no more than unthinking and unfeeling machines whose only goal is to eat and reproduce. I'm not claiming that humans and animals are the same, but what is it exactly that makes them different? Perhaps their intellectual abilities, their ability to use speech, their ability to develop sophisticated tools and so on. But are any of these differences relevant to the question of whether it's acceptable to cause animals to suffer? It would seem that the only relevant characteristic for that question is whether they can, in fact, suffer.
Our personal experience with pets, as well as physiological research, confirms that animals can, and do, suffer in ways similar to human suffering and under similar conditions-for instance, when they are hit, shocked or cut. Their ability to grapple with abstract ideas and form opinions has no bearing on their ability to feel pain and displeasure when they are forced to live in crowded stalls, are castrated without anesthesia or have their throats slit.
How we choose to act in the world as individuals has actual effects on how other humans and living creatures are treated. Though it may not be perceptible because we are far removed from the sources of our food, clothing and diploma materials, certain choices will cause more suffering than others. When it is possible to make a simple choice that reduces suffering, I believe we should opt to do so.
Noah T. Winer' 01 is a member of Veggie, Amherst's vegetarian society.