Trulie Nobis
1390 Monroe Ave. #1
Rochester, NY 14618
March 17, 2001
Dr. Simons:
First I would like to state that Ms. Alberta Lee told me
that in the hearing my advocate would be allowed to speak and that there would
be ample time for discussion and for me to present all the aspects of MY
grievance. Ms. Lee stated that the chair would likely go as long as was needed.
She stated that the chair would adjourn the hearing if it was getting to a time
around 8:00pm. She stated that it would
not need to be hurried which was the reason she scheduled the hearing for a
Friday afternoon. The hearing on Friday, March 16, 2001 ended in a hurried
manner after about an hour and a half even though I had not finished presenting
my case nor responding to yours. Since Ms. Lee misled me on all these matters,
the hearing was unfair and contrary to the manner of how these procedures are
to be implemented according to the catalog (p. 194).
Since you are probably still "confused" about what
my grievance is actually about, I will help you. First, I suggest that you reread the catalog for the procedure
for academic grievances. In it you will see that that the academic grievance is
to be directed towards the faculty member. The second meeting is to be with the
chair and the third with the dean. At no point is the aggrieved member switched
to someone or something else. In the
final step the named faculty member will be named on the sheet to appeal the
dean's decision. The named faculty member is not changed to something else.
There is but one space for the aggrieved member. It is not a space asking for
other entities (all of the biology staff, the curriculum committee, the course
catalog). This would result in a different grievance from the one initiated. If
you were confused as to why you were named as the aggrieved party, then you
should have addressed that in the beginning (i.e., in the meeting with the
dean). I was surprised that the hearing committee did not even understand how
these grievances proceed, as evidenced by their questions as to why you are the
aggrieved party.
Also, who will be the person who will be penalizing my grade
because I will not participate in the animal dissections or using dissected
animals for tests and quizzes because of my religious beliefs? I think the
answer to that question will explain to you why you are named as the aggrieved
party. Just because you feel that you are not respected by the chair, college,
dean and curriculum committee to be deemed competent to judge what would be an
acceptable alternative to accommodate me and not penalize my grade does not
mean that you should not be the aggrieved party. I would suggest that you stand
up for your rights as the instructor of the course to those who will not give
you that respect.
Again, to understand the basis of my grievance and eliminate
confusion, reread the first 8 lines of my handwritten grievance (p. 1 of MCC
catalog). Reread the basis for the appeal to the dean's decision. Any
reasonable person, who after reading these sections, would understand the basis
for the grievance. After you read this, it should be clear that most everything
you stated was completely irrelevant to the legal basis of my case. See my web page below for more information
on the law and how Gary Francione, Esq., has presented these cases in
successfully suing
Ohio State, U. Colorado, U. Penn and SUNY Stonybrook. Students in these cases
were in situations EXACTLY like mine. Why do you think you, the biology faculty
and MCC would be an exception and be allowed to discriminate on the basis of
religion here?
There also seemed to be some confusion about the nature of
discrimination. Professor Rigoni stated
that she did not understand why I claimed that I am being discriminated against
since, according to her, to discriminate against someone is to "treat them
differently." So, according to her, since I am asking to be "treated
differently" I am asking to be discriminated against. According to this
reasoning, a person in a wheelchair who asks for a ramp to get into a building
is ASKING to be discriminated against. Also, according to this
reasoning, if Ms. Simons were to accomodate a Jewish student who
didn't want to dissect pigs (she said she would do this), she would be
"discriminating" against this student because she's "treating him
differently." This shows that at least some of the
committee misunderstands the nature of discrimination and, thus, my grievance.
Again, I am being discriminated against because I am being told that since I
have these religious beliefs that preclude my participating in animal
dissection or using dissected animals, I CAN NOT take this course or be in any
program at MCC that this course is a requirement for.
In the hearing, the catalog description was used as the
basis to say that any change to the course where there is no animal dissection
would be unacceptable because you say that there is a very strict rule that
courses must follow the course description. Based on that reasoning, if human
cadavers became available for the course YOU claim that they are unacceptable
and would violate your "articulation agreement," and, thus, learning
HUMAN anatomy from HUMAN cadavers would be unacceptable for BIO 142, HUMAN
Anatomy. This shows that your reasoning is absurd.
The EDUCATIONAL VIABLITY OF ALTERNATIVES TO DISSECTION was
thought to not be an aspect of the grievance, but it is. The State is required to meet educational
objectives for a student in a state sponsored school using means that are not
inconsistent with that student’s religious views. There are 25 + studies of alternatives to dissection that are
used in colleges, medical schools and veterinary schools. Some of these studies are specific to
alternatives in human anatomy and physiology courses. These studies prove this: that IT IS NOT TRUE THAT ANIMAL
DISSECTION IS REQUIRED TO LEARN HUMAN ANATOMY and that there are many ways for
this material to be taught that is consistent with my religious beliefs. Thus, there is no overriding mandate that I
be forced to perform the behavior of dissecting or observing the dissection to
learn human anatomy. Thus, there is no
“Compelling State Interest” in animal dissection, since there are “least
restrictive alternatives,” and one of the five elements of a Free Exercise
Claim is satisfied for my case [see handout on ‘How the law defines religion,’
p. 31].
You and your colleagues have no sound basis to discredit the
case for the educational adequacy (if not superiority) of alternatives to dissection. There's a good literature on this topic,
including for teaching anatomy and physiology, and you're not going to be able
to make a case against it. If you and
your colleagues would read-up on this literature, you'd know this and wouldn't
be making the unfounded claims you all are.
I think these claims might contribute to your misunderstanding of the
legal case, so maybe an improvement in the former would improve the latter. By
the way, these alternatives to dissection were tested at research universities
with students in Anatomy and Physiology courses. Apparently these biology
faculty were able to do this without violating their "articulation
agreements." Your discussion of this topic is simply not relevant and is
not a defense. Tony Olek, at the University of Rochester, stated that there
would be no problem in accommodating a biology student with religious
views.
You and your department should learn about the educational
and legal aspects of this issue. I
would encourage you to consult with the resources on my web page at
http://mail.rochester.edu/~nobs/dissection/
Sincerely,
Trulie Nobis
http://mail.rochester.edu/~nobs/dissection/
Trulie (Ankerberg) Nobis
truliea@hotmail.com
1390 Monroe Avenue #1, Rochester NY 14618
home: 716-242-0346