League of Humane Voters of New York City

LOHV, which is based in New York City, is a political action group that supports local and statewide candidates in city and state elections. It questions candidates on animal issues and endorses only those who are reasonably responsive. And it has had a number of encouraging successes, including electing a city councilwoman who openly embraces the cause of animal rights. My thoughts on strategy arising from this connection are as follows:

1. The experience and successes of LOHV can be duplicated in many American cities. Local politics is an excellent way to get a political action committee organized. On this level access to candidates is relatively easy and they are usually eager for any support they can get, even from relatively small groups, since voter turnout is likely to be low. There are, moreover, a number of animal issues which can be resolved at least in part on a local level. LOHV for example, is now pressing to have the sale of foie gras banned in New York City, and the city of Chicago had already enacted such a ban.

2. At some point, as support for animal rights continues to grow, such groups might move to the formation of a political party, which might well be taken as the ultimate objective. In most localities, voting for a small animal rights party would seem to many like throwing their vote away. But in New York State, and perhaps in some other states as well, the election laws permit multiple candidacies. A candidate, in other words, can appear on more than one ballot line. Suppose, then, that an animal rights party were formed. Its members and supporters and those of a major party would be likely to overlap. The friends of animal rights could then choose to nominate the major party candidate and offer their support in return for public recognition of animal rights, or, if turned away, could put forward a candidate of their own and draw votes away. The animal rights movement may not as yet be large enough to adopt this strategy. But it is a goal to be envisaged since it is not far distant as a possibility, and its potential leverage on policy is great.

3. Another desideratum on the political level is a nationwide federation of state and local political action groups devoted to animal issues - above all to exchange information on strategies, and perhaps, on occasion, even to coordinate campaigns. This may look to some like a step to a possible third party for national elections. But there is a formidable barrier. National animal rights parties have been launched in Europe where proportional representation makes it relatively easy for small parties to get representation. But the single-member district system, enshrined in the election laws of the United States (and the United Kingdom) rule that out here. A national federation of local parties, however, could be a powerful influence, as a pressure group at national conventions, as well as a lobby in Congress. The Animals and Society Institute has already begun to initiate a program somewhat like this and has begun to draw up a national platform.

4. But there is to my mind an important caveat with respect to program. The lure of political success can lead to compromise, and even abandonment, of principle. Like many others who feel strongly about animal issues, my ultimate goal is to end all exploitation of other sentient beings. Among other things, this means to cease eating animal and products altogether, and to end any use of non-human animals for bio-medical testing and experimentation. These principles should be clearly stated as our long term goals, even though we cannot demand that they be implemented right now.

I do not favor abandoning all efforts at lesser reforms as mere "distractions" from the final goal. The demand for abolition now, and nothing but abolition now, seems to me to be self-defeating maximalism-- the demand for all or nothing. Specific reforms like banning foie gras or gestation crates do not end the eating of meat and, as some argue, may serve only to ease the conscience of the carnivore. But reducing cruelty is a "good thing" as such, and the fight against cruel practices like the caging of veal calves can be a way of raising consciousness on animal issues generally. One battle anticipates another. The banning of gestation crates thus prepares the way for demanding federal oversight of that and other aspects of pig farming. Each contest is thus a mobilization of opinion for the longer run.

There is, however, one requisite to keep our movement on its path. We must always make it clear that abolition is our ultimate goal. This is an indispensable guarantee of our integrity. The statement of the Dutch Party for Animals (Kies Partij voor de Dieren) which won two parliamentary seats in the Netherlands and gained around 8% of the national vote comes close to what I have in mind:

A. "We are thrilled with such a wonderful result of our campaign," says party leader Marianne Thieme. "Finally we can start realizing our party's highest priority: namely ending all animal suffering. We want a constitutional amendment, guaranteeing animals the right to freedom from pain, fear, and stress caused by humans. Let's begin with easing the suffering of the hundreds of millions of cows, pigs and chickens stuck in factory farming." (http.www.partijvoordedieren.nl/contnet/view/129)

This statement is not as strong as it might be; it leaves open the possibility of "painless killing" of animals for food. But it is open to a fuller interpretation and might do at least temporarily.

B. Higher Education

In the longer run the introduction of undergraduate courses and graduate degrees into the universities would be a vital step toward making respect for the rights of animals a standard item of humane culture. Courses on animal law already exist in many of the major law schools, and, like the course at Columbia University given by David Wolfson, they often include a thorough introductory section on animals and ethics. Both Columbia and New York University also have active Student Animal Legal Defense Fund groups and some law schools now publish journals of animal law. The best known of these and the longest established is Animal Law, published by Lewis and Clark Law School. And now at the University of Pennsylvania Law School students have begun a Journal of Animal Law and Ethics which broadens the scope of the issues considered.

But in liberal arts curricula the progress has been disappointingly slow. To the best of my knowledge there are only a very few courses (other than my own at Columbia) devoted exclusively to animal rights even for a single whole semester. The most students usually get are a few hours devoted to "animal issues" in low level survey courses on morals and social policy.

This lacuna can hardly be filled unless the study of animal rights is established as part of a graduate program leading to a Ph.D. Without scholars grounded in that discipline nothing much can change in undergraduate liberal arts programs. Without Ph.D=s ready to train other scholars, there is no way to produce and reproduce a steady stream of teacher-scholars. . Indeed, I am about to experience personally what the present deficit of graduate studies can mean. My animal rights course is offered in the undergraduate department of political science as part of its political theory curriculum. It has been given now for three years; and has been well attended despite a rigorous syllabus. But soon all such gains are likely to evaporate. I have been emeritus now for over ten years at Columbia; I teach as an adjunct and do not fill a regular "slot" in the department, which could be filled routinely when I leave. Soon I=ll be unable to continue. I suspect that the department would be willing to continue the course if I could recommend a replacement. But I know of no Ph.D's specialized in animal rights. The undergraduate teaching of animal rights at Columbia is thus likely to disappear and any legacy thereof may be forgotten.

Two remedies occur to me. One is for some department of political science, philosophy, or history to announce a regular position, graduate as well as undergraduate, in the field of animal rights. There are qualified young scholars who could come here from European universities where the study of animal rights is further advanced. Once the program is instituted, it could be staffed from within as well as from abroad. But this is an expensive step for any university to take, for it is a commitment to an ongoing entire program. Yet any university that had the courage and enterprise to make the move would be rewarded. I believe that animal rights will soon become an important area of study, and a pioneering university could become its acknowledged center. I'd like to think that we are getting ever closer to this.

I note that the Congressional Quarterly Press is in the process of publishing a multi-volume International Encyclopedia of Political Science which will give at least some recognition to animal rights as a branch of that discipline. A brief article on Animal Rights will be included as a subdivision of a large section on Rights in general.

The second possibility is to obtain funding for an Institute of Animal Issues to be located in a major university. It would foster interdepartmental and interdisciplinary studies not only on animal rights, but on environmental, anthropological,, historical, philosophical and other disciplines as well, in so far as they bear on questions about animals. Most universities offer specialties in all these areas, and I cannot imagine that they would refuse additional funding for the entire complex. Animal rights would then appear in the institute curriculum and be part of an institute certificate as well as a minor concentration for a Ph.D. The way would now be open to regular staffing of an animal rights curriculum, both graduate and undergraduate.

This, I believe, would rather rapidly make a significant difference in the public mind on the importance of animal rights as a moral-political issue.