I’m a little thrown by the title of the thread. Of course it’s OK to present veganism to 9 year olds, in the sense of telling them (if they don’t already know) that some people are vegans. Some 9 year olds are the children of vegans, or have friends who are vegans or the children of vegans, or live in houses where vegans come to visit.
It is no more OK to present to 9 year olds a claim that everybody should be a vegan than a claim that nobody should be one. Physically, not everyone does well on the same diet. Environmentally, the situation is a whole lot more complicated than some people seem to think. The diet with the least environmental impact, in many parts of the world, is not an entirely vegetarian one, let alone a vegan one. There are a whole lot more species that can find habitat in a properly managed livestock pasture than in a monocropped soybean field. A feedlot is another matter, of course; but ‘be careful where you get your meat’ is entirely different advice from ‘never eat any meat at all.’
Children should learn that hamburger was once part of a live cow, yes. And when I decided I was going to keep eating meat I went to watch a properly done slaughter, to make sure I knew what I was doing. But landing the gory details of a slaughterhouse, in particular if it was a poorly run one, on a class of 9 year olds is a very bad idea. The presenter had no idea of the details of the lives of those kids, and no more business landing that on them than they would have had for giving a Veterans’ Day presentation including graphic video of soldiers dying on the battlefield.
Who says guns are a threat to society? That’s something that’s dependent on your viewpoint, just like the merits of veganism vs. the evils of eating meat.
My point was that both the 2nd amendment activist AND the vegan activist are pushing a particular viewpoint as fact, when they’re most certainly opinion, but doing so by borrowing the school’s legitimacy.
It’s not the veganism per-se that’s the issue, it’s the cloaking it in false legitimacy that’s the issue.
When I was in 10th grade, we had to do an I-search paper in our English class. I remember one girl did it on the meat industry, and showed what I now suspect was a heavily doctored* video of a pig being slaughtered. I was 15, and it was seriously disgusting. (I don’t know what the teacher was thinking in letting her show this – especially as it was around lunch time.)
I can’t imagine how it would have affected me when I was 9. I knew were meat came from. I did not want to see animals fucking tortured.
*Should it really take 5 people 20 minutes just to kill one freaking pig? If so, the meat industry is really, really inefficient.
Maybe instead of talking about how nobody should show us how meat is made we should be talking about creating a process that CAN be shown to 9 year olds.
A bit of sunlight on the darker parts of the meat industry might do everybody (including the animals) some good.
FTR: I eat meat and I’m more worried about the environmental impact of meat production than about animal welfare.
Maybe this is an instance where we can kill (ha!) two birds with one stone?
Based on your experience as an elementary school teacher, do you think a classroom of nine-year-olds are mature enough to understand a presentation on veganism as “part of a larger programme of presenting different world views and points of view”?
Should a classroom of nine-year-old be shown a “shock video with images inside an abattoir”? Absolutely not.
Are nine-year-olds mature enough to be told that meat comes from animals? Sure. Let them know that the cows and pigs and chickens from Old McDonald’s Farm ended up on somebody’s dinner plate. I don’t think a typical western society nine-year-old is mature enough to understand the details of the commercial meat industry. However, I’m happy to defer to the judgment of elementary educators making a considered decision. However, I’d be very surprised, and would object, if that considered decision was to educate the nine-year-olds by distressing them with graphic videos of animals being slaughtered. The “effect” I’d wish to avoid is a classroom of crying children who later suffer nightmares “caused” by someone with an ideological agenda.
Cool, cool. So I’m pro-life. I’m going to come to your child’s school and show them a few videos. Here’s what a 6 to 8 week old embryo looks like, see how it’s moving around? You kids see that it’s alive, and not that “blob of cells” pro-choice people tell you about because that only lasts a few days into pregnancy and women don’t know they’re pregnant yet at that point, so most abortions are done at this stage. Now here’s a video of an abortion.
I have more visual aids, so we’ll also view a video of an abortion done on a 22-week-old fetus who unfortunately has a devastating genetic defect incompatible with life. I’ll explain that this is the only moral reason to have an abortion, because it spares the baby pointless suffering which he or she can’t overcome, unlike being poor or having a bad childhood.
They’re nine. Surely they’re ready to handle the icky realities of what a woman’s choice results in when they choose abortion, right?
I mean, I’ve tried to teach my kids about the impeachment process, about the Syrian civil war, about immigration trends, about Medicaid, about the Leandro decision (NC’s court case about the NC constitutional right to a sound, basic education), and a lot more. I don’t mind ambitious teaching :).
My concern is on bringing in an activist to teach the subject.
So, as a way of arguing the ‘inappropriateness’ of presenting veganism to 9 year-olds, we’ve thus far had comparisons to presentations about: food born deadly diseases, pro-gun advocacy, and now pro-life advocacy.
Interesting to see the extent to which otherwise reasonable people will go when considering the subject of veganism and exposing the issues surrounding the meat industry to children. Seems to me, lunacy is not strictly limited to vegans.
You’re entirely missing the point- it’s not the veganism. It’s the fact that it’s a controversial, polarizing issue that is essentially a political/social statement just like pro-gun advocacy, pro-life advocacy, or any other sort of advocacy/activism out there.
The point is that activism of any sort isn’t something that should be being presented to third graders, and if it is, it desperately needs to be put in clear perspective with opposing viewpoints, etc… and NOT allowed to be wrapped up with the educational legitimacy of the school any more than any of the other advocacies we’ve mentioned in this thread.
It’s essentially a form of proselytizing, and that ought to be off limits in elementary schools for sure, regardless of WHAT is being proselytized, because kids at that age are likely to draw the conclusion that if they’re being presented it in school as if it has official sanction, then it must be the truth. Which it isn’t- that’s still open for debate about ALL those things, veganism included.
I mean if 9 year olds are normally sexually active where you live, or subjected to marriage at that age, then sure (even though birth control in such circumstances is unlikely to be available at any age). But since they are a very low biological and social risk of experiencing pregnancy I might hold off on that for a couple more years. Then hell yes, fire up the film projector and give the 6th graders something to mull over. Children are generally more empathetic than adults, it might have a more profound impact on how seriously they take pregnancy control. 9 year olds do frequently eat meat, however. And they are able to make their own simple ethical decisions. Arm them to do so. Or keep them in the dark, I don’t care. Mine are already grown and know what the world is about.
Or maybe I misread your post and you’re not getting the difference between taking the life of a human embryo/fetus for expedience and discarding the remains, and killing & butchering a cow for food.
Already addressed by Inigo Montoya. But I’ll repeat if you like; If 9 year olds are engaged in sex and at risk of pregnancy, then yes, the baby mamas and baby daddies need to know where their baby is coming from and what their options are.
It’s no more a political statement than environmentalism and personal dietary choices. These are things everyone should be aware of and make informed decisions about. A 9 year old doesn’t have to decide to stop eating meat, but he or she should be given information to make that decision when they are ready, if they so choose.
Also, the OP specifically said that this presentation was part of larger programme to introduce children to new ideas. A new idea was introduced. For ‘reasons’ it’s being treated like propaganda and equated with far more controversial and demonstrably inappropriate subjects. I’m not sure I understand why that is. Perhaps someone will explain the dangerous idea of less meat consumption and more food awareness to me.