Because of my recent decision to stop eating meat, I've often found myself struggling to explain my choices to concerned friends and family without pushing them on anyone. Because I'm probably not going to change people's minds or diets by chastising them during dinner at Outback Steakhouse, I settle for a live-and-let-live attitude and mutual respect for everyone's dietary preferences. That's why I'm so offended by Andrew Hanelly's column, "Campus 'meatout' supporters full of baloney," March 21. Though not part of the "meatout" initiative, I certainly support the concept. The dining commons still served meat Monday; no one was forced to avoid it. The preferences of those who eat meat were respected, so where does Hanelly get off showing such disrespect for those who choose not to eat it?

This poorly researched column purported to be a reaction to Monday's event, but served only to rail against vegetarianism. The fact that Hanelly enjoys meat is not a convincing argument for its consumption. If he really thinks, "it's all about personal taste," he should bury his head deeper in the sand and let the rest of us use real logic to choose our diets.