I disagree with the above comments. FAM (Fat acceptance movement) uses counternarratives as a means to show social injustice and also highlights the master narratives that surround weight and size. Think of the term that surrounds Obesity: Epidemic. As an "overweight" person, 5'3" and 152 pounds, I personally am more worried with the master narrative's message that we are sending to our youth and ourselves-- that food is the enemy, fat is horrible. Looking at obesity as something that can be "fixed" with a simple surgery or working out and watching what you eat (and if you obese this is much harder than it looks), discriminates those folks. And what is so wrong with looking at ourselves and saying "I am happy the way I am". When was the last time you heard that?

I wholeheartedly agree with the comment above. Legitimizing "fat studies" only encourages the voice of helplessness/"It's not my fault I'm fat" among obese Americans. Yes, I understand that SOME people may be genetically engineered to be fatter. But that is some, not most. MOST fat people in America are fat by choice, and in no way should ANY school be encouraging that choice.

Since the article lacks any sort of contrary opinion on the merit of these programs, let me add my voice of criticism to the mix. In a society that has a serious obesity epidemic *AND* has enough trouble legitimizing other areas of identity studies, I believe this is a possibly detrimental type of research to our national and academic well-being. First, America has an obesity pandemic. That's not my opinion, it is the opinion of the Center for Disease Control and virtually every epidemiologist who has examined the issue. This has serious impact on individual health, including heart disease, diabetes, and early death. It also hurts us as a society as these diseases sap our economic competitiveness, though this is truly secondary to the fact that our friends and relatives are dying because of this disease. To the extent that such a research agenda would seek to legitimize obesity, it would hurt efforts to encourage healthy behavior, especially among children for whom it matters most. (Note: I said healthy, not thin -- anorexia and bulimia nervosa are also serious problems that I am not seeking to minimize. By healthy I am thinking in terms of normal BMI scores). While I certainly agree that there are social pressures antagonistic to fat people, to the extent that these pressures encourage healthier behavior they are a necessary antidote to our ongoing obesity crisis. Second, creating a "fat studies" program in the mode of other identity-based interdisciplinary studies draws a false equivalence and impairs the ability of these other areas to maintain legitimacy in the face attacks from conservative, canon-only scholars. Weight status may not be easily changeable, as the article states, but it is also not an immutable characteristic like gender, race, and sexual orientation, other areas in which identity-based research has blossomed in recent years. "Fat identity" is an identity only by choice (or more likely, neglect), and gives a clear example where academia should draw the line. While certain forms of discrimination based on weight (such as employment and university admission) may be socially undesirable and merit research, couching their research in terms of identity harms the effort of more legitimate identity-based research to be perceived that way. Moreover, legitimizing "fat identity" will only hamper efforts to fight our national obesity crisis. For both of these reasons, Penn should not create a "fat studies" program.