See Statement from Monroe Community College Public Affairs Department (referred to in Democrat & Chronicle Article).
http://mail.rochester.edu/~nobs/dissection/mccstatement.pdf

Response:

Paragraph 1:

MCC's claim: "At MCC, our faculty--who are experienced in their fields and active in their professional organizations--have endorsed the academic merit of dissection and included it in certain courses."

Reply:

1. There are 25 + studies showing that students learn as well, if not better, using alternatives to dissection.  For bibliographies of these studies, see Animals in Higher Education Problems, Alternatives & Recommendations (2000, HSUS) by Jonathan Balcombe, Ph.D.
2. MCC faculty have not published or presented any academic research on the value or disvalue of using/not using alternatives to animal dissection.  They have no formal research basis to endorse "the academic merit of dissection" and no basis to discredit the educational case in favor of alternatives.
3. The department chair, Richard Connett, uses computer-based alternatives to frog dissection; instructor Rachel Simons has said that the educational viability of alternatives is not at question in this case.

No student in any "hands on" heathcare profession (e.g., nursing) is required by the State's licensing boards or any accrediting organization to dissect animals.  Department Chair Richard Connett has told the MCC Student Senate that this is so and that the State requires dissection, but this is false.  MCC's nursing and dental hygiene programs have said that they are unaware of any such dissection requirements.

The fact that the Catalog says that there is a dissection requirement is not relevant and it is not a defense.  The catalogue, in effect, says "No one with these religious beliefs is allowed in this class," which is obviously discriminatory.  Compare this claim to claims heard decades ago: "No women are allowed in this class," "No non-whites are allowed in this school," etc.  The fact that the catalogue has a discriminatory clause in it does not matter.

The fact that there is a lower-level human anatomy course that has "little to no" dissection is irrelevant.  Students in the health professions who wish to take the higher level Human Anatomy course have a legal right to do so and not be discriminated against on the basis of their religious views. In fact, any student--"Liberal Arts" and "non-matriculated" students included--has a legal right to take any course offered at MCC and not be discriminated against by being, as a condition of her passing the course, forced to do something that her religious beliefs prohibit her from doing (see, e.g., Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 [1963]).

The fact that a "student" is not "matriculated," i.e., not in a degree program at MCC does not mean that the student has no civil rights on this issue and that MCC, SUNY, and State and Federal policy does not apply to her.  Most of MCC's students are "non-matriculated."  The Dean and the College's Attorney have said that MCC has fewer legal obligations to non-matriculated students.  For proof of this, contact the authors.
 

See the main page for Dean Janet Glocker's decision.  See also our appeal where we argue that she gave NO REASONS why MCC, SUNY, State, and Federal policies on religious discrimination do not apply here.  In fact, she seems to admit that MCC is illegally discriminating here, but that it's ok.  She also suggests in her decision that MCC needs a policy that, effectively, dissallows students their Constitutionally-protected religious rights to not be forced to do that which conflicts with their religious beliefs.

For more information from MCC, contact Cynthia Cooper, Director, Public Affairs, 716-292-3022.

For more information about this case, contact Nathan Nobis (nobs@mail.rochester.edu) or Trulie Nobis (truliea@hotmail.com).
Main page: http://mail.rochester.edu/~nobs/dissection