STUDENT
GRIEVANCE APPEAL
Trulie
Nobis
---
Rochester,
NY 14618
---
February
15, 2001
Statement
of the basis for the grievance:
To
Whom It May Concern:
The
following is the basis of my grievance with Dr. Rachel Simons, my instructor
for BIO 142 Human Anatomy. Animal dissection is said to be a requirement for
the Human Anatomy course. However, animal dissection is contrary to my
religious beliefs. My religious beliefs concerning the sanctity of life require
me to not participate in animal dissection, directly or indirectly.
In
responding to my request to use alternatives to dissection, Dr. Connett
(Biology) told me that I can either do the animal dissections or fail the
class, drop the class, or find a new career (I plan to become a dietician).
Dean Glocker’s decision effectively restates Dr. Connett’s.
MCC
is discriminating against me on the basis of my religious beliefs. MCC is, in
effect, saying that anyone that has
religious beliefs that do not permit them to dissect animals can not take
the Human Anatomy course. They are also saying that anyone with these religious beliefs cannot become a Nurse, Dental
Hygienist, or any of the other professions for which BIO 142 is a required
course (see below).
MCC’s
policy also seems to imply that anyone
who cannot dissect animals, due to disability or medical condition, can not take
the Human Anatomy course, nor pursue these career paths. So, MCC’s policy
discriminates both on the basis of religious beliefs and disability.
Monroe
Community College’s stated policy (Catalogue/Handbook, p. 1) is that it does
not discriminate on the basis of religion or disability. It also states that
Any student who is unable, because of religious beliefs, to attend classes on a
particular day or days shall be excused from any examination or any study of
work requirements” (p. 190). MCC’s policy regarding dissection violated MCC’s
general anti-discrimination policy. The United States Constitution and NY State
Department of Education do not allow discrimination in public education on the
basis of religion or disability.
Dean
Glocker notes the course description for BIO 142 states that there is animal
dissection in the course. However, it is illegal and contrary to MCC’s policies
for an instructor to force a student
to violate her religious beliefs. The mere fact that the catalogue states that
there is this requirement does not mean that no exceptions can be made and,
most importantly, that a student would have to forfeit her legal rights to be
in the class.
There
are many alternatives to animal dissection available. Despite what Dean Glocker
states concerning the educational role of dissection,” there is a wealth of
educational research that shows they work just as well, if not better, than
animal dissection (furthermore, they are less costly). This research is readily
accessible. Many colleges, even SUNY colleges, allow alternatives. No licensing
or accreditation organization requires animal
dissection: animal dissection is not required for any profession for which MCC
offers degrees or certificates in. MCC also has human cadavers that I could use
as an acceptable alternative to animal dissection to learn human anatomy.
I
would be happy to provide you with more information regarding the educational,
legal, religious, and moral issues surrounding animal dissection. Thank you for
your consideration.
Sincerely,