Biology Dept. does not have a fair and adequate dissection alternative

For over the past year, we, the members of Oberlin Animal Rights, have been meeting with the biology department in order to institute an adequate dissection alternative policy in Biology classes, particularly Biology 118/119, a general interest course in Biology and a required course for Biology majors. We believe that there is presently not a fair and adequate policy within the department that respects and deals properly with students' ethical objections to participating in the animal dissections. Presently, students in Biology 118/119 are not required to actually dissect a rat, but they are, however, required to use a dissected rat on an exam. Failure to do so results in a zero on the exam.

We began our efforts last school year. We knew of several students in Biology 118/119 who were morally opposed to participating in the required rat dissection, and we were upset (and still are) that students' ethical objections are not respected but rather met with penalization. We drafted up a dissection alternative policy proposal that would guarantee the right of students to adhere to their serious ethical convictions, and allow them to freely use a non-animal dissection alternative, without being penalized. Such alternatives include life-like models, computer simulations, books and detailed diagrams.

We proceeded to meet with the Biology department several times last school year, and continued our meetings throughout the first semester of this school year. While they have agreed to at least announce in class that students with ethical objections have the option to not actually dissect a rat, and they have written up a similar announcement to be printed in the course syllabus, they have continually refused to completely accept our proposal or respect students' moral convictions by eliminating all required involvements with the rat dissection and providing adequate alternatives.

We and other students morally object to the animal dissections simply because the animals used for dissection in Biology classes have been killed, denied of their interest and right to live. Biological supply companies breed and capture a variety of animals, which are then forced into gas chambers where they meet their sudden and unrightful deaths. Next, they are pumped full of formaldehyde for preservation. Animals which happen to survive the gas chambers feel the tubes inserted into them and burning formaldehyde fill their bodies.

The fact that some students wish to respect the lives of rats and all living beings should be respected in our educational system, as any serious ethical objection should be. But it is not. It is penalized and looked down upon. Essentially, the respect and defense of all living beings is met with a loss in grade. This is ridiculous and outright wrong. Think about it, because someone respects life, because someone wishes to adhere to his or her deeply held moral beliefs, he or she receives a lower grade. That cannot be right.

Students should be able to hold their own moral convictions and freely continue their education at the same time. Further, educators have a responsibility to provide students with an academic environment which encourages learning and free thought, not one in which students are forced to violate their own deeply held beliefs or else receive less credit. It follows that students should not be required, in any way, to participate in an animal dissection, and they should in no way be penalized for adhering to their moral convictions.

The biology department opposes our proposed policy for a few different reasons. First, they make the claim that dissecting an animal is inherently a part of the study of Biology and that they cannot be separated. While we recognize the importance of learning basic anatomy, we do not believe that this learning should or needs to come through the killing of another living being, through the violation of another's moral rights. The Biology department claims that dissection gives students an appreciation and respect for life. However, killing a living being certainly cannot teach any kind of respect for life. Science and ethics must go hand in hand.

The biology department also asserts that to institute a departmental dissection policy would be infringing on the academic freedom of teachers. However, this is not the case, for teachers would still be free to teach animal dissections. We are only asking them to equally recognize the freedom of students.

Another argument given by the department is that being able to point out anatomy on an actual dissected rat requires more knowledge and work than using a model or diagram, or answering detailed oral questions. Thus, they conclude, it would not be fair to give the same "A" to a student who points out things on an actual dead rat and one who doesn't. They maintain that a student just does not get the same thing out of a model that he or she gets out of an actual rat.

However, it is not as if a student who does not use an actual rat in his or her examination will not have worked hard and will not know a great deal about the anatomy of a rat. Every student will need to study hard and know body parts and their functions. The only difference is that the student with the ethical objection will not explain what he or she has learned on an actual rat. This difference is really infinitesimal compared to the need to respect a student's serious ethical objection in the school classroom.

It is especially ridiculous and frustrating that this overall problem exists at a college that touts itself as being so progressive and pioneering. Because our discussions with the Biology department have thus far failed to produce a truly fair and adequate policy, we are now trying to reach out and educate other students, faculty and whomever else this may concern. We wish to make you aware of this problem and hope to gain and mobilize support for our cause, in order to bring about the needed change. We will be petitioning for support in Wilder Hall and across campus in different dorms and co-ops. Please join our campaign.