Trulie Nobis

2/28/2001

MY GRIEVANCE AGAINST MONROE COMMUNITY COLLEGE:

A Simplified Statement.

1. MCC, SUNY, NYSED, NY state, and Federal policies and laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion. These policies and laws prohibit the state from forcing people to do actions which conflict with their religious beliefs (unless there are overriding reasons to do so, but there are none concerning animal dissect [see 4, below].

2. Views about the Sanctity of Life, Reverence for Life, and consistently held “Pro-Life” views are religious views, according to the First Amendment of the US Constitution. A view need not be theistic or part of an organized, established church to be religious.

3. I hold these religious views and my holding these views does not permit me to participate in animal dissections, neither directly nor indirectly.

4. There is no overriding or compelling need for me (or any student) to dissect animals.

There are readily available ways to learn human anatomy that don’t involve dissecting animals. For one, there are human cadavers (and MCC owns 2). For another, there are many computer-based alternatives, models, and other visual aids to learn human anatomy. There are 25 + studies in educational journals to prove that students that use these alternatives learn just as well, if not better, than students who dissect animals. Ms. Nobis’s instructor, Rachel Simons, has said that she agrees that there are viable alternatives to animal dissection.

No state licensing board or accreditation organization requires any student to dissect animals to earn a degree, certificate, or licensure.

5. MCC’s Dean Janet Glocker has given no reason why MCC “did not violate [MCC’s] academic regulations by illegally discriminating against Ms. Nobis’s religious and moral beliefs with respect to dissection.” She has given no reason why “NY State does not require institutions of higher learning to accommodate religious or secular philosophies with respect to dissection.”

She has given no reason why MCC, SUNY, NYSED, NY state, and Federal policies and laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion do not apply to Ms. Nobis’s case. She has given no reason to believe that the State does not recognize Ms. Nobis’s beliefs as religious beliefs and, thus, protected under law. NY State does require K-12 educational institutions to accommodate these religious beliefs, so the state does recognize Ms. Nobis’s beliefs as religious beliefs. In fact, it appears that Dean Glocker recognizes Ms. Nobis’s beliefs as genuinely religious and that MCC is, in fact, “illegally discriminating” against her, but that MCC still need not accommodate her.

Other reasons:

6. Students at colleges, medical schools, and veterinary schools have sued their schools over this issue and nearly always have won, sometimes with monetary damages for the student. SUNY Stoneybrook was nearly sued over the issue, but they gave in to the student’s demands when a faculty member admitted that they weren’t allowing alternatives because they didn’t think the student’s beliefs (like Ms. Nobis’s) were indeed “religious” in nature. Stoneybrook’s attorney quickly advised the school to acquiesce in order to avoid a lawsuit (that the attorney was sure they would lose), so they did.

7. Women and girls are most likely to request alternatives to dissection. In denying them alternatives, MCC might discourage some interested students (especially women) from pursuing the sciences. Biology Chair Richard Connett told Ms. Nobis to “get a new career goal” if she wouldn’t dissect. Ms. Nobis plans to become a dietician. So, MCC’s policy might result in a form of gender discrimination regarding educational and career opportunities. Ms. Nobis has been contacted by a number of former MCC students who sought alternatives to dissection but were denied.

8. MCC’s policy is discriminatory towards any student who, due to disability or medical condition, is unable to dissect animals. If MCC is able to accommodate such a student, this shows that MCC holds that animal dissection is not necessary to learn human anatomy. Again, a wealth of educational studies shows the same.

9. Alternatives to animal dissection cost less and result in equal or better learning. 25 + educational studies have demonstrated this. Using alternatives would help MCC cut costs, which the taxpayer would surely appreciate.

For more information on the legal and educational aspects of this issue, as well as the record of Ms. Nobis’s correspondence with MCC on this issue (including Dean Glocker’s decision, records of discussions with the Biology Chair and the course’s Instructor), please visit:

http://mail.rochester.edu/~nobs/dissection