Trulie Nobis
---
Rochester, NY 14618
---
FAX: 716-273-5331 (c/o NN)
RICHARD J. CONNETT
Chairperson, Biology
Monroe Community College
Building 8, Room 230
1000 East Henrietta Road
Rochester, New York 14623
Phone: 716-292-2729
FAX: 716-292-3866
RACHEL SIMONS
Instructor, Biology
Monroe Community College
Building 8, Room 430
Rochester, New York 14623
Phone: 716-292-2735
FAX: 716-292-3866
January 27, 2001
Dear Professors Connett and Simons:
Due to my respect for the sanctity of life, I have religious and moral objections to animal dissection. I am also enrolled in the Human Anatomy course because it is a prerequisite for a degree in dietetics. The following summarizes our discussions regarding my request to use non-animal alternatives to animal dissection for the Human Anatomy course at Monroe Community College.
On Thursday, January 24, at 1:30 PM I met with my instructor, Rachel Simons, to inform her that (1) I had religious and moral objections to animal dissection, (2) that I was thereby interested in doing an alternative to dissection, (3) that I already had acquired alternatives for cat dissection (Neotek’s “Catlab Cat Dissection Laboratory” 3-Dimensional CD-ROM [www.neotek.com, 412-521-1111] and a life-size plastic model of a dissected cat), (4) that I had an extensive catalogue of other readily-available alternatives to dissection (e.g., computer models, slides, photographs, interactive software, etc.) which I had access to [I gave this catalogue to professor Simons, although all these products are available from regular biological supply houses], and (5) that other colleges, including medical schools, allow alternatives for students who have religious and moral objections to dissection.
Professor Simons replied that she was sensitive to the issue of dissection and that she had wrestled with the issue herself. She said she has thought that dissection shows a lack of respect for life. She said that she would be open to an alternative, although she did express concerns that: (1) dissection is necessary to maintain accreditation for a laboratory course and (2) that an alternative would not provide the hands-on experience that she claimed is anatomy.
At the conclusion of our meeting, Professor Simons told me that she would have to meet with the department chair, Professor Connett. I met with Professor Connett at 11 A.M. on January 26. Before I met with him, I met with Professor Simons at 10 AM, the same day.
Professor Simons told me that the human anatomy course is like a course where you have to eat meat, so a vegetarian cannot take the course. Again, she insisted that there is not an alternative to the dissection experience. Professor Simons suggested a compromise: that I merely watch other students dissect.
Professor Simons said that, perhaps, in the future there could be alternatives to animal dissection and MCC could implement some of the newer, computer-based learning technologies, if more students were interested.
Finally, I met with Professor Connett at 11 A.M. on January 26. He told me that if I do not perform the animal dissections, then I can either (1) drop out of the course, (2), fail the course, and/or (3) find a new career path.
He said that MCC lacks the resources for human cadavers for the Human Anatomy course. He said that alternatives cannot replace the dissection experience. He said that students cannot learn from 3-D computer modeling: he said that touching and feeling dissected animals is necessary to learn human anatomy.
I noted that there is educational research that shows that students learn just as well, if not better, with computer models and non-animal alternatives. Profesor Connett objected to this claim, arguing that this research is faulty because it tests students’ learning on the basis of pencil and paper exams. When asked what kind of testing he thinks is required to determine whether students have learned, Profesor Connett said that brain scans are needed to reveal “detailed brain processing.”
Professor Connett said that he uses a computer model of a frog in a course that he teaches. He uses computer models because frog populations are low, in part because so many frogs have been taken from their natural habitats to be dissected in college classes.
Profesor Connett also mentioned that a student has repeated the course for a higher grade but had been allowed to not take the lab.
In conclusion, to repeat my position, I have deeply-held religious and moral objections to animal dissection. Human anatomy can be and is successfully taught without animal dissections: there are hundreds of alternatives used in other colleges, medical schools, and veterinary schools. There are educational studies showing that students who use alternatives learn just as well, if not better, than students who dissect. No important educational goal is compromised by allowing me to use an alternative.
Thus, your not allowing me to use alternatives results in you discriminating against me on the basis of my religion. You are violating my Constitutional rights. Your defense of animal dissection could also easily result in similar illegal discrimination based on physical and medical disability. Since the course can easily be taught without animal dissection (there are hundreds of alternatives) available and these do not compromise the educational goal of learning human anatomy (and there is ample evidence that this is so), you are illegally discriminating against me in not accommodating my religious views.
If I have misunderstood or misrepresented anything you said, please let me know so I can make corrections. Please contact me to let me know how you plan to resolve this situation.
Sincerely,
Trulie Nobis