It has recently come to my attention that the U does not have a policy giving students the right to a humane and scientific alternative to dissecting animals. After looking into the matter, there are clearly many reasons why we, as students, should create one.
Starting with Sarah Lawrence College, dozens of progressive campuses around the country have guaranteed students the choice to conscientiously object on ethical, religious or other grounds.California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island have all realized the importance of student choice, humane and effective education and religious and ethical considerations regarding dissection. In fact, they have all guaranteed the right of choice.
Sure, as U students we are able to choose if we wish to wield the great and mighty fork against fellow animals in the cafeterias. As U students, we also have the right to decide for ourselves whether or not we should choose the fashion of compassion and wear fake for the animals’ sake.These are our rights, and they are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America (freedom of speech, freedom of religion), and by our student code (freedom from discrimination, freedom of expression).But no such right formally exists for us to choose whether or not we are allowed alternatives to what critics allege is an archaic form of education: dissection.
This lack of provision for our basic right to choose and conscientiously object is far from an insignificant, ethical matter.Not only are our personal choices of the utmost value in a free and democratic society, but this lack of a codified right to choose is also to the detriment of our education, to our university and to our country.
Firstly, who could logically argue that if a professor is familiar with only one book on a given topic, he or she is able to effectively teach it?The more resources and perspectives, the better. The greater the array of resources our professors use, the more likely they will be teaching us a deeper and more diverse understanding of the subject.What follows is-assuming we as students engage the subject matter-a better educated and informed student body.
So, too, might we learn more from our fellow students.You see, when one opens an educational brochure on Sarah Lawrence College, one sees-there in the opening pages-a proud announcement of the students’ right to choose.By attracting students who both respect a formal right to choose and appreciate sound educational programs, schools such as Sarah Lawrence are more likely to be on the leading edge of the academic curve and in turn are also more likely to advance other people oriented progressive policies.
As a society, when we are choosing exciting and effective alternatives to archaic status quo models, the benefits are indeed widespread.We improve the alternatives through trial (using the knowledge gained from the status quo ante). We develop more effective models through our greater understanding of the subject.In short, we solve our world’s problems quicker and easier.
Why not try a dissection by choice policy, evaluate its success and learn in the process? According to the National Anti Vivisection Society, dissection was once “thought to be a good learning tool in the study of anatomy, physiology and the theory of evolution,” but no longer.As technology has improved and knowledge strengthened, “more sophisticated teaching methods have been developed which can replace dissection and save animals.” Why, then, are we still using dissection?
The point of all this is that we have on our hands a complicated issue.What are the costs of not having a formal choice policy? What are the benefits of moving toward a formal dissection-by choice policy? What alternatives exist (see www.animalearn.org) and which ones should we use? Does this open the door for students having greater involvement in their education and if so, how else should we foster this?
As students at the U, whether in mathematics, business, biology or nursing, we should demand our rights!In a democratic society, what could choosing a little personal freedom possibly hurt?