Animal abuse shouldn't be trumped by entertainment

Abuse and exploitation of animals for human entertainment is unacceptable in and of its own right, but to suggest that an establishment with a track record as dark as the one shadowing the Royal Hanneford Circus is worthy of support reaches immorality at its highest plane. Taking an “innocent until proven guilty” approach regarding the welfare of other beings is intolerable as it stands, but using such an approach to mask a company whose guilt has already been undeniably founded is outright offensive and embarrassing.

MSU is a reputable institution whose power should be used to advocate moral responsibility over trivial entertainment. Animals in entertainment do NOT have a choice, and it is not acceptable to promote a society that finds it to be such. Further evidence should not be required to protect these animals (when evidence of harm has already been established) any more than should be required to suggest that Michael Vick not be left to supervise a handful of pit bulls.

The student body has strongly voiced its opinion throughout a matter of months. As the time draws nearer, their previously ignored voices are merely getting louder. Animal abuse is NOT a relative term. It is not open to debate any more than is child abuse. Pain, suffering and stresses are commonplace in any circus environment and should not be trumped by entertainment.

Megan Shelly,
interdisciplinary studies in social science and environmental policy junior