CAAR's request that a non-animal alternative be offered for students taking BIO 102 was prompted by the experience of Emily Hewitt, a social sciences major, who was denied an alternative to the dissection of a fetal pig. Emily's objection was based on the grounds that she is a vegetarian and is strongly opposed to the industry that supplies the pigs. The fetal pigs used in dissection are removed from the uteruses of pregnant sows who are butchered for their meat. To a student who is vegetarian or vegan, being forced to dissect can feel the same as being forced to eat meat. Emily finally withdrew from the class after her professor told her that if she refused to participate in the dissection, her grade would suffer.

Some students object to this inhumane practice because they feel it violates critical ethical principles of their religion. Other students feel that animal dissection is an inferior, archaic practice and prefer to be taught using different methods. After doing extensive research, CAAR found that Emily is not alone in her experience with the Biology department. Other Radford students have faced similar dilemmas.

The RU Biology Department maintains that individual professors have the right to authorize alternatives to dissection as they see fit. If true, this statement should be printed in the course catalog and course syllabus for Biology 102 so that all students would be aware that they can request an alternative. However, this "informal" policy of the Biology Department is not dependable, as evidenced by students such as Emily, whose professor decided that her ethical objections did not warrant an alternative. No university professor has the right to judge a student's ethical or religious beliefs based on their own standards.

If Radford educators are indeed interested in providing students with the best methods by which to learn, then why ask students to compromise their ethical principles? For students with sincere objections to dissection, other methods such as computer programs, realistic models, or videos would be far more beneficial academically. These students should not be discriminated against or treated differently merely because of their religious or ethical beliefs.

Any student at Radford could one day find themselves in a situation such as that of Emily, where his or her ethical or religious beliefs are not being respected. Please help us by showing the administration that you are in favor of the Biology Department offering alternatives to dissection. Please send polite letters to any of the following:

Dr. Covington, President, Radford University RU PO Box 6890

Dr. Liss, Dean of Arts and Sciences RU PO Box 6940

Dean Hurlburt, Dean of Students RU PO Box 6898

Dr. Niehaus, Biology Department Chairperson RU PO Box 6931

Dr. Gibbon, Professor of Biology RU PO Box 6931

Name: S. Cloud
Year: Senior
Major: Social Science
Comments:
I have been called a hell of a lot worse than idiot. In a way, I take it as a compliment. "Idiot" is someone who lacks mental capacity. If anything, I think I put too much damn thought into the rather trivial issue of the use of word "rights". Obviously, I stepped on someone's toes and the best way that person could figure out on how to refute me (instead of attacking my reasoning, which even I admit is shaky and somewhat biased on this issue) is to try discredit me personally. I'm been in this situation several times in my life, but never has someone tried to discredit me with such an impotent try. By calling me idiot, the poster reveals the true nature of his or her own maturity and intellect. In other words, right back to ya', jr.

Name: jeff
Comments:
OK, I really see no place for name calling. S. Cloud happens to be a very intelligent person who is looking at both sides of the issue, something we should all be doing here?!?

Comments:
s. Cloud is an idiot

Name: S. Cloud
Year: Senior
Major: Social Science
Comments:
I hate to beat a dead cat, so to speak, but I feel compelled to comment to the posts following mine. Antipop, I don’t see how those “rights” were violated. Erin did not lose her identity or ability to believe in whatever she wished. Using your thesis, it could also be argued that since I am offended by buying a right-wing text book, I am not able to be who I am or believe in what I believe. There is a major difference between an annoying provision to a mutually engaged upon relationship and a tyrannical government action that infringes a citizen’s rights. Don’t ascribe to this situation any more malfeasance that what it is worth. Also, if rights are not protected by law, then you don’t have them. Secondly, to Erin I agree with your statement in full, except your use of the word rights. Students clearly need an avenue for objecting to and possibly abstaining from activities they find objectionable, but whether or not this is a “right” is highly murky. Also, we have to consider the broader implications of this action. Where do we draw the line? If we allow everyone to have an avenue for circumventing university requirements because of personal offense, then I would like to not be required to pay student fees. I am offended by all the conservative church groups whom meet on campus (which is supported by my frees and whom also receive some of my student fee money directly). Why should you be permitted to circumvent university policy because of ethical objections and I not be able to? We could go on and on and on with hypotheticals. One could argue that these are all situations that need rectifying and by fixing one (dissection) then that will set a precedent for fixing lots of others (university support of ROTC for example). But this generally has not been the case. Historically, when a situation like this gets fixed it stays within that situation and everyone else is left out in the dark until their cause because the flavor of the month. In sum, rhetoric about “rights” is appealing, but it also misguided and insulting to struggles where real rights were in jeopardy (religion, speech, voting). Fight the good fight, but don’t wrap your message up in an argument that is not justified.

Name: Erin
Comments:
Carr is working for a cause that is trying to expand the rights of all students. If a person has no objection to disection they should still consider the beliefs and feelings of a student who does have an objection. All people have different thoughts and opinions when it comes to issues such as this, but just because this isn't a issue you strongly believe in doesn't mean that it isn't important to someone. I hope that all students will read this article and move to make changes on this campus, maybe those changes will not effect them but they may just help someone else.

Name: ANTIPOP
Comments:
Perhaps the rights they were talking about are the rights to be who one is, the right to believe what one wants to believe, and the right to be respected. Those aren't in the Constitution, but they are inscribed in the heart, a much more important place.

Name: S. Cloud
Year: Senior
Major: Social Science
Comments:
I'm all for activism for issues that students care about, BUT I don't understand how the title of this article relates to animal rights activism. What human rights are being violated or need protecting? Students clearly have a choice of whether or not to attend RU or another university that offers dissection alternatives. I am not up on my gen ed requirements, but I also think that social science majors might be able to take courses other than biology to fulfil their science credit (things have changed, so I have no idea about that). Regardless, I am as opposed to the industry that supplies the pigs as Emily is, yet I don’t think that any her of “rights” have been violated, especially any her constitutionally protected ones. Free Speech? Due Process? I personally am offended by having to buy required text books published by a far right wing think tank (ironically enough for a class on civil rights), yet none of my rights were violated. No one made me take that class or return to school to get my second degree. Come to think about it, no one made me attend university in the first place. The point of this rebuttal is to strongly caution my fellow students to be careful with the use of the word “rights”. Far too many people throw that word around with only a shallow understanding of the legal concept behind it. This tends to denigrate the word until we don’t have a common understanding of it and think we have a lot more rights than we actually do.

Name: Olivia, VP CAAR
Year: senior
Major: CRJU
Comments:
For all those students being "bothered" by our requests, I apologize. However, I'm not sorry we are continuing to pursue what we, and many others, believe is a legitimate cause. As for reevaluating our approach..we started from the very beginning, by talking to the bio department. Unfortunately, they are very uncooperative and are unwilling to submit a formal policy that will allow those who wish to dissect, an alternative. While many will, however, let students choose not to participate, they do have to watch. This is still not acceptable to those who find dissection an unethical/religious issue. This is a clear disrespect of student rights. Even if you do not support our cause, understand that there are students at RU being denied the highest level of education possible because the university is not respecting their rights.

Name: Brian Korte
Year: seasoned senior
Major: advertising
Comments:
Radford Universtiy does need to catch up with the 21st century in respect to honoring other's beliefs. I do feel, however, that dissection is vital- not to average BIO students, but for those on track for a medical degree. I would suggest to RU to make two classes. One for people trying for a science credit, and one for those serious in medicine, veteranary school, or some other medical profession. I would never send my pet to a vet who has no working knowledge of the inner-workings of an animal, and I would never go "under the knife" with a surgeon who has only worked with muscle tissue on a computer simulation. The inner workings of humans and animals are important learning tools when headed for this path. Yes, I agree with CAAR that students should have the option to opt out, but if the intentions of the class are to take things higher to a medical degree, I feel that no student should skirt from the reality that some day, whatever their field, they may encounter muscles, tendons, bones, etc. Having that "hands-on" experience in college is crucial to that. I wish CAAR the best, and will continue to support their humane efforts. I also wish RU the best, as I know how slow things are to change. I don't know if a few emails will help things move along, but it may be worth a try.

Name: jeff
Comments:
As much as I am inclined to agree that petitions are a good mode of getting the faculty to listen, CAAR's voice will be even stronger if they confront the faculty in this direct way. I think what they are doing now is great because it shows the administration that what is going on right now in the Biology Department is disheartening to many students. And really, how can you call that spam? CAAR isn't asking you to buy anything. Its clearly amazing how some people refuse to have compassion for other causes that may cause them to actually >gasp< THINK.

Comments:
I am sssooo tired of hearing about the CAAR shit. As if it wasn't bad enough that you spammed half the campus, I find it very irresponsible that you are cluttering up the university presidents in box with letters. Would it not be more effective to collect letters and petitions and present them all at once? From my expierence, the majority of the professors on this campus are very willing to work with their students when there is a conflict in the class. Maybe you should re-evaluate your approach. I'm sure you will find better results.