SHERRY COLB & MICHAEL DORF – Lessons the Vegan Movement Can Learn from Other Justice Movements

Just another WordPress site

SHERRY COLB & MICHAEL DORF – Lessons the Vegan Movement Can Learn from Other Justice Movements

actually the first thing I wanted to announce is that we’re doing things a little bit out of order so they might have been expecting another shot so and you like to lately won’t be offended you will be speaking in 35 minutes 30 for 30 minutes what one or the other so but in between going where could be talking and we are Sherri Coale and i kaldorf we spoke to you yesterday or something yesterday that’s a lot of topics so our topic for today is how we can learn from other justice movements and how to proceed fulfilling the objectives that we’d like to fulfill as ethical vegan and abolitionists cetera nom now first Michael is going to speak about how we can emulate social justice movements then whose goals we share and then after he does that I’m going to think about how we can think about emulating the social justice movements of his goals he and I Michael I do not share although some of you may and that’s fine and so that it leads like the organizing principle of emulating and thinking about other movements so without further ado here we are Mike indoors and sherry don’t be after yesterday they were pretty funny so today we’re not okay so sharing are both wall professors and we don’t teach the same subjects about the epsilon the lab and we will often get students who take it carries that rights class or take my consultation law class want to know how they can use the skills they’re learning as neophyte lawyers to advance the cause of the mammals and so yesterday Teddy Brian talked a little bit about how one of the best ways is actually not to be doing stuff directly with respect to and the wealth or any of that stuff but to make it easier for vegan businesses to comply with the law to change the law for any businesses I’ve nuclear agree with that today I’m going to talk a little bit about what we can learn from other social justice movements that had the law as a possible tool in their arsenal and it’s going to be basically a cautionary tale and then I’ll turn so he’s here another path little change and i have here listed four categories of oppression basically people have been historically present in this country in another place in the basis of race sex ethn orientation of species and the negativity but with respect to the first three categories there has been and continues to be some progress though it is often two steps forward one step back but I want to go back in time a little bit and suggest that where we are with respect to law in the animal rights movement is somewhere where the law is not especially useful now I could talk about legislation I can’t talk about referenda because of my main area of specialty in constitutional law I’ve chosen to talk about cases and I’m going to just give you a snippet of cases from each of these four categories and I said before i do with respect to all that the law has a positive direction in respect of sexual orientation very rapidly very recently but as I says it still works or if it doesn’t be done with respective species I think we’re at earlier early point so let’s take a look at break so this is a bottom line that you can’t read because it’s too small but it’s a quotation from the supreme court case in eighteen fifty seven year old familiar with Nicole Dred Scott against an FIR the question in the case was whether Dred Scott who was enslaved African American who was taken by his master in every territory became free they’re all the argument that he did by the light of the Missouri Compromise the Supreme Court said Zurich alkalizing constitutional and in any of that you could never be free because the Constitution has baked it to its DNA we are India of white supremacy besides just language it just said to that base

yeah that was 1857 it was probably crazy to think in 1857 that you could end racialized slavery in America by bringing a court case right it took a civil next example sex this is so the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment adopted in 1868 says I’d any person the equal protection of the laws Isis person doesn’t say no male / citizens in white white vs it’s a Myra Bradwell wanted to be held lawyers and was forbidden by the state of Illinois from doing it so soon the steak n turkeys are all the way up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court’s are all come on equal doesn’t he you think it means and there’s this famous patriarchal language can the majority waited at the Paramount destiny admission Wilden are to fulfill the noble and with I’m office of wife and mother is the law that created what we do about it and the rules of civil society must adapt general Constitution things and cannot be based upon exceptional cases it would take nearly another 50 years until women got the vote would take nearly another hundred years until the courts in response to the women’s movement in us or the first wave feminism began to change the constitution a lot as we know as I said there’s still a lot of work to be done sexual orientation like so this as many of you know right the last decade or so cd1 markable change in some of the laws and in social attitudes with respect to social sexual orientation and what’s up what’s encouraging about this and this is the part of our story that’s not a cautionary tale good inspirational tale how quickly it’s Chanukah just think back as recently as a lot of years ago the 2004 presidential election I think it’s fair to say that George W Bush used the fear of same-sex marriage as a con job with which to get folks that otherwise might have come on to John Kerry and there’s at least to give a plausible argue that that was enough to swing that election right again is still not where we need to be this people will probably find the right to the same sex marriage few months but there’s still legal in many states is really respect to employment and other things on the basis of sexual orientation but the ball is now rolling now let’s talk about species which is what we’re all here to talk about today so here’s a case if you may have seen in the news the case brought by the nonhuman Rights Project led by stephen wise in new york state seen a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Tommy who is a captive chimpanzee who was held in the sort of miserable conditions that billions of animals are held in a cold world all over the country but the nonhuman Rights Project at a clever idea they support Tommy because he’s a chimpanzee is essentially a person that’s the keys but noggin rights project they don’t say their literature part of the Boston that he’s a person and scary frenzy on setting virtue of the fact that he’s sentient is it was the first embrace of the fact that he has various capacities that make him a lot like you even if you go to the website of the onion right project which I haven’t taken screenshots they have a picture of a chimpanzee an elephant a dolphin and a packet of Grey parrot right sort of geniuses of the animal kingdom and the message of the sort of course is that the these atoms are special there they’re like you so what people criticize an audience project for the little Missy not but I think that the best that can be said or lies with the Rights Project is well they’re going to start with chimps maybe other great apes and Oracle’s right there’s a similar lost a couple years earlier what my p.m. we have by telecom who is a working on held by seaworld that featured subsequently blackfish and the idea might be if you start with African if you get an opening wedge so here’s what happened right the court says the key work state trial court said that the writ of habeas corpus parks closer you’ll know is simply a piece of paper that says that somebody who is holding a person on waffle custody has a right to go before a court and have the court judge the lawfulness of the custody and so this case he can get off the ground because the projects chimpanzees can’t sue under body becomes multi Dred Scott who guards you’re not a legal persons Crossley sir all right he says the description of Rights is historically in connecting the imposition of societal obligations and duties and chimpanzees can be given the

obligation is to serve on juries to you know to vote so forth and therefore of course well forces ridiculous argument right that’s true of children it’s true humans with disabilities of the moral page but that’s the life and then the judge announces to people it’s okay though because the legislature is extended significant protection animals subject to criminal penalties such as prohibiting the torture or unjustified killing amount so when i read that Isaac oh great because all killing of animals in the United States is essentially a justifiable and most them being tortured and so they have a like that terrific but of course really mean is legislation don’t worry all right what lessons well the first thing I think is it’s a mistake to think that you pass a law and then things change it’s not out of all works well works cuz people’s hearts and minds change their behavior change and then the law plays calculate all right so here’s a here’s the traditional view go right that motivates a lot of lawyers right people do evil because they are making this is Socrates’s you this play Socrates never just asks people questions the idea they already know the truth you just enlighten them then they will do the right thing right this is a tribute to Socrates biochemical Diogenes narratives there is only one good knowledge and only one you think it’s right so people don’t do evil because they’re reading because they’re bad name banjo experiment because they’re not the truth so this idea would say all you gotta do is go out there and tell people the truth I think it’s very important don’t it is it all right so the question is that our people ration or are they rationalizing and just amount your psychological data that says that people use their rational faculties to reduce cognitive dissidence that’s sort of those we’re taking yesterday that was hurt right there’s also some studies i’m just here giving you one this is a famous study from 1951 in which the social scientists showed football game two groups of these Princeton students and Dartmouth students I was at Dartmouth principal ball game he asked how many infractions were were there there that were not called how many rules violations all right and this table basically shows that the Princeton students thought the Dartmouth teams getting away with murder and doctoral students the princes he was getting rid of the word I’m sure we rollin calculus in all sorts of daily life okay similar data about really just the career people are not do i’m not going to go a religious conversion simply because they see in the life right there there’s a lot of social science research is all sorts of social factors about it one of the most important turns out i think is kind to look at the data is having a community that is supportive with respect to the world is converted so the extent that what we are doing is converting when I and a lot of all the views that workers prescot but that’s what we just want you to do what is it that we’re inspiring you have to convert their views I think it’s quite useful okay what are the implications of this cautionary hands slightly hopeful tell practice I think the first is that you should expect too much from quartz or from the law more generally however it is occasionally possible to win by losing so sometimes you talk to activists in various silicon movements they will have a legal strategy as part of their strategy right the ideas you bring a case you lose if we can generate a lot of publicity for your cause and that brings people they’re mobilizing there is some arguing that this was true of prop 8 with respect to California photos and backwards and back by the proposition with backlash and changing public attitudes and there are various examples of this right where you can do by losing but the truth is usually you’re going to lose by losing in the examples I gave you what those losses did was to either walk in a bad set Iranians for many many years or to precipitate a crisis that the outcome of which was not at all sir so the question is what can we do and what’s it like to end in terms of sharing is to ask well should be there for compromise our principles by seeking only what’s possible this is one of those smaller cages and suffer in the hope that you know maybe in the long run things change and the three question marks I think should be a spoiler alert that she’s probably would say no I don’t

know it’s a mystery okay so thank you Michael and baseball I had Gary resumes earlier humble enough to know that he doesn’t do a PowerPoint presentation so I’ll say even less experience than hands so so to be aware of this but I will try my best all right so the question for us is when does compromise make sense um sometimes maybe it does sometimes it doesn’t I think that the view of majority of people within what we might call the animal protection movement broadly takes a review that compromise of welfare ISM makes sense for the movement and this is something that this conference has we’ve stood up against said no it doesn’t make sense for me but that I want to slow a little about that and do so by thinking about the animal rights movement next to a different movement which is the pro-life movement and abortion and as I said it’s not a position that Michael and I table that we have written a book called beating hearts abortion and all right analyzing some of the parallels in terms of strategies struggle and and the kinds of thinking that gets done with the two movements so the provider movements have has somewhat what Benedict has some lessons for us about whether we do compromise and incremental more clarity and fidelity and I call integrity within our movement beating cards that’s a little reference to the book and I think that there are three useful ways to think about how a movement faces challenges and when it ought to handle those challenges in particular way so the first is what is the pain stream you what does the mainstream view of the thing that your movement takes a different view up the second is what is your adversaries loss so you’ve got the main street view of either animals for fetuses you’ve got your adversaries view of those two things and headed finally you have the question if a targets receptivity contraceptive is the target of your messaging to what you’re trying to say okay so what is the mainstream you about animals that there is a hierarchy of animals some animals are worth more than other anything’s right 15 on Human Rights that the nonhuman Rights Project does seem to take that do I actually had a little bit of an email exchange with Stephen wise because he disagrees on that but i think that the arguments that are made about Cassidy’s of chimpanzees and other animals within a group that did not Human Rights Project protect really speaks for itself that talks about autonomy it talks about the ability to plan various other sorts of things that humans do and so in a sense it invokes the specialness of humans as the way we protect a particular but not necessarily well now so primates elephants orcas are included in these special groups grey parrots as well and then you have Dodgers can’t I think for somewhat different reasons I don’t think it’s that big dogs and cats are continuous but there are friends so that we would sort of be like your friends and we also want to protect the geniuses so that’s the mainstream view that some animals and you know people sentient issues to make you believe that people are eating dogs in this country and that they’re harming and horses and put of those up people are eating forces and do my reaction is I can’t believe people are eating animals it’s terrible i agree with you and of course that the communication and so and then the men of course the lower-ranked animals are the cows and pigs and the chickens and the turkeys and the fishes most amazing things when it comes to fishes and I realized it was close to say fish that fishes is a way of identifying that they are actually individuals that have numbers of it when there are a number of them that they’re not just this massive stuff and someone said to me you know and some and some cultures actually fish or vegetables and I said I think Billy isn’t a cultural artifact they’re animals that’s you know simply what they are on and there’s any of them okay so that’s the main view of animals that there’s a hierarchy levels it may be another mainstream on animals is that there are hierarchical arms right so there’s the okay thing to do that which is to eat them and to keep their secretions and then the bad thing is to have them fighting against each other so it can’t fight Amy will be against fighting but not cops watering or dog fighting stuff like the bull fight fighting seems to be bad shouldn’t fight them it should be one-sided where you hold a nitrous water

them and then also they’ll be the view that certain kinds of products are bad at foie gras refer or feel I had exchanged with the one of the justices on the Supreme Court of his field who had ruled edge majority opinion at all that foie gras is impermissible in Israel because it’s cruelty to animals because is unnecessary it’s a luxury food and we were both in the audience because she was speaking and was clear that the audience with the event as well these are people who care about animals again and we said well you know that man chickens are also luxury foods in the sense that they’re unnecessary that she sort of looked shocked because I think most of the audience I call you’re so great that you’re doing anything for animals of all the first country to have recognized anything with respect to an animal cruelty and she said well you’re entitled to your lifestyle and so anyway the outlet which I’m happy until I smell better soon so foie gras fair deal so you see the hierarchy not only of animals but also of attack injuries in hammocks what’s the movement view and I mean by that the abolitionists view of animals is that there are no fiber these ones that get they accept that you’re all equal and in our title meant not to be utilized and tortured and killed when I we call the sense that we all should be you know voting and doing other things that not that not even animals don’t really do and then all uses are equal one rise unnecessary but so is you know looking dog and so it is a hamburger so it’s like blank slide now what’s the mainstream view of a portion that there’s a hierarchy of embryos and feeds there’s a temporal hierarchy in terms of the fetal development and that over time the moral status of the enter you increase it that’s the main street of you and they’re also a hierarchy of reasons or abortion so for example if you’re saving the mother’s life or those for rape incest people are more receptive to think that’s okay and public opinion polls and so on other reasons like you can’t afford another child or it’s interfering with my career or whatever are considered less important so that’s the dimension of view of course and also get their hierarchy of methods partial worth is worse and others that seems to be very it’s not an actual method but it corresponds more or less to a dilation and extraction of course you’re part of the fetus is delivered before being kept okay so what’s the movement view of course the pro-life movement view is that life begins at the inception and that means that all of the different stages are equal it’s I goats and Andros and fetuses and newborns for that matter all equally valuable as enter gates so any kind of distinction drawn between them is invalid much of the loop states is how to distinguish between cow and Anna dolphin all methods are all the objectionable so both for the pro-life and animal rights movement they reject the main stream lines even though these are the main street lights that really the law reflects right so dog fighting is illegal everywhere in the United States and dairy consumption is considered something that has to happen or elsewhere parental credentials are called into question late term abortions are prohibited by law in many places and early abortions are permissible so the law not supposedly embraces these main street views in both the context of animal rights and ownership all right so what is welfarism well do we define it in not controversially in this audience all tourism as laws and policies and approaches that are inconsistent with the ideology and values of the movement so we also recall abortion regulations that say things like oh you can use this method or you can’t abort after a certain point or for this reason we call that abortion welfarism even though it’s not literally for the welfare of fetuses on anesthesia for the fetus but it operates in a similar fashion and now we see more welfares of operating medical rights movement so for example partial birth abortion a late-term abortion ban and door says I’m not saying that it’s worse when it’s later along in pregnancy which is precisely what life movement books or projects the idea that of course is different depending on the stage of the closer you get to part the more valuable it heads so the question does welfare is

important it’s six or better for the pro-life movement in 1981 about 29 well because he needs to go back but 29.3 women for every 1,000 women of childbearing age and proportion in 2005 19.4 current that’s what’s a thousand not a one-trick um had childbearing age heaven portions you see a dramatic reduction you never know for sure what the causes but it could have to do with some of these laws and regulations so that seems to have been more successful criminal rights will consume less successful there’s an enormous consumption of animal products that continues to this day you can turn on the television 45 minute rivets if there are ads and not encounter some kind of every animal product you can imagine there are claims that there people are getting quest neat but it’s not true that they’re eating us of other animal products and so I think I think we need to take those claims with some skepticism they’re true I think maybe they have to do with vegan activist rather than with the wealth resum on the other hand even though we say that the pro-life movement has been successful a pro-life movement opposes the fertility industry because of free if you pre genetically test and then kill tempio men had considered to be like like a person and and yet people are pretty happy about the fertility industry it was celebrated all the time and so it seems that abortion welfarism they have played some role in leaving that alone but by not pushing this message of the actual anti-abortion movement which is that even a zygote is a person all right so what’s another dimension to think besides the mainstream view it is another dimension is who is your adversary so the adversary the pro-life movement the pro-choice of pro-choice movement I will I enter the u.s. like the country at us like my kinetic all right the pro-choice than normal yeah we are that would be so and the ideology is comes down to two things one is that a woman has sovereignty over her body and therefore she should make the choices about what happens to her body including abortion and then second does the Emery the fetus lacks moral status and that most people who are pro-choice are no choice for one reason the other or some combination of the ticket so worship welfarism as a sentence of revelations of abortion that are not quite on the same page in principle as the movements of view I challenges both of these if you have any kind of regulation of abortion or regulating your baby woman salvages no matter what kind of whether it’s a term or method reason or whatever and any regulation also supports the coral status of Phoenix so for squall president raised its own principles but it also effectively challenges the other side the animal rights adversary is an industry animals are here for our use is the view what they think animal should be used responsibly animal husbandry is basically a version of animal welfare that we used but in a kind of sort of way so animal while frozen does not challenge its adversary unlike abortion culture so that’s a point for pro-life compromise over chemical rights commons one last dimension is after the mainstream view where the two movements are even after the adversary of view or the when his i intercepted so who are they abortion consumers each year about 1.2 1.3 million when I get abortions that sounds like a lot of people thirty-three percent of women have had an abortion by the age of 45 but all like two percent of women each year and it’s rare that you’ll find a woman who has three abortions every day that’s an unusual thing and no man as far as we know I’ve had an abortion so we really have it’s really not comparable to our investment and animal consumption typical typical consumer at least three times a day to mobile consumer eats two pounds of animal products a day resistance is enormous so you’re giving up more than an unusual procedure so what does this tell us on the adversary challenge pro-life can afford to be welfarist on the target resistance the pro-life can afford to be principled because there isn’t that much resistance so is that depressing maybe a little bit but some of what the collectors do is quite instructive first of all they push transparency they push it with pictures they do it with the above mandatory ultrasounds which is not something that we would endorse but again we’re not

endorsing collectively more generally were looking to it for lessons they also ignores that they also push free speech and they empower their dissenters conscience by allowing doctors to hop out of doing abortions for example or pharmacist participation in an orange we took in demand transparency for example by posing as we too can speak freely by doing vegan education which we’re all learning to do really well and we too can empower conscience by insisting it there be vegan food in hospitals and prisons and public schools where people don’t have choices about what they get to consume and by placing our products next to their products as to any Brian was so how they’re probably talking about yesterday so our challenges are great the Main Street View differs from ours very much welfarism endorses the adversary of view so we don’t get much points there and audience resistances prevent it but we do have tools other than welfarism so lets em away some of what the pro-lifers do with being an education but people know that all of it all animal uses violent offer its support vegan alternatives and we will win because we are right give me time everybody where this comes with mom I’m gonna start with an adult yes that’s a great question so I can’t answer that question but I’m just gonna say questions so we let it give a historical progression right so there is a race is sex there’s sexual orientation species what’s next so the first thing to note is all of these forms of oppression have roots in antiquity and all of them have been opposed 6n tivity so it’s not the case that you know like no one discovered by the winds this is because everything right what was the case like no one was concerned about patriarchy until after we had handled slavery these are all so these are just it’s the order in which at us all happens have taken up these asians in response to us social movements i think the answer is I don’t know but that it’s a reason to take very seriously what you know new movements right there this is anything like oh my god what were they thinking both that people said let’s no I’m sure look back at what we’re doing to happens and they’ll say that you want to ride and I say what do that I’ll wait on your ears right up but but I don’t know you have an idea just add to that keep them but one of the things that’s hard is that in order for some movement to be taken seriously enough for people to think about it as in a serious way it has to get subtraction already so simple so there are injustice is out there that we may not even be script conscious of precisely because there they don’t have enough power even to get on the table I left out so my disability just as an example that’s that’s a worldwide movement for people disabilities if they’re so there was yes i would take one more question over here just because the best choice and I struggled with this and and that is that i became more compassionate and let it become a vegan good that’s 30 minutes chasing the fire around the house and I go support the death penalty I personally cannot really have trouble reconciling choice and that’s the first half of our book yeah so so the first thing I’d say is that I think that that’s a valid position to take so I didn’t mean to suggest that was pro-life and you know you you’re not welcome here or something like that there are there is room there is space for people who are anti portion and I think it’s very tough i think it becomes tough though at the point of sentence and i think that one answer to your question how do you reconcile is is that around ninety nine percent of abortion happened prior to the point of phenyl sentences and then

part of what grounds are all obligations to the animals to the fly you know that we chased around the house end up and the animals we don’t consume is that they are some too so I think at least for the overwhelming majority of abortions and most of them take place at the very beginning pregnancy it more of them employed actually it haps some of the regulations you’re talking about entry that has yet to acquire the sort of framework of sentience that would be utilized to extend the rights to animals that’s one one piece of it my church with Bob’s presence behind me has a kind of physical music employment even say so we’re going to wrap