As a senior biology major, I have followed the confrontation between the Biology Department and Oberlin Animal Rights with some interest. Initially I thought that the position of OAR was quite reasonable and would raise little protest. Apparently, I was wrong about the second part of that assumption.
I agree with Mr. Treuhaft (Letter to the Editor, Feb. 1) that dissection helps in developing a complete understanding of animal morphology. My own experience in dissection has aided me greatly in understanding evolutionary patterns and processes. So I have no dispute with the Department's position on that score.
I disagree, however, that such a thorough knowledge of morphology must be acquired in introductory courses. Many students pass through these courses: prospective biology and neuroscience majors, pre-med students, environmental studies majors, psychology majors, and students simply seeking to fulfill their 9-9-9 requirement. Does it really make sense to obligate all of these groups to dissect?
Clearly, those students who want to dissect should be able to do so. Dissection is an option in intro courses, and necessary in some upper-level courses, for those who want to study morphology while undergraduates. These are the people who will go on to medicine and biological research. The Department is not being so draconian as to force students to dissect. But it is insisting that students be tested on a dissected animal. This is simply unfair. On psychological grounds, students will test less well on an animal which they have not studied. If students want to have no part in dissection, then they should not be coerced at any point during their education. The prospect of a lower grade on an lab quiz can be coercive.
Dissection may be necessary to a true understanding of morphology, but that point has by no means been established. Nor has the department shown that this level of understanding must be acquired by students in an intro course, regardless of their reasons for taking the course. Until the department can make this argument, which I do not think it can, the stronger case rests with OAR.
Copyright © 1996, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 124, Number 17; March 8, 1996
Contact Review webmaster with suggestions or comments at ocreview@www.oberlin.edu.
Contact Review editorial staff at oreview@oberlin.edu.