ARE YOUR RIGHTS BEING PROTECTED?

By Bridgett Cherry and Lisa VanRompay

Right here at Radford University, students are facing discrimination because of their religious or ethical beliefs. The RU organization Campus Awareness of Animal Rights (CAAR) is currently campaigning against the Radford Biology Department due to its refusal to offer a reasonable alternative to dissection in its BIO 102 classes.

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. Emilyís 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 ěpolicyî of the Biology Department is not dependable, as evidenced by students like Emily, whose professor decided that her ethical objections did not warrant an alternative. No university professor has the right to judge a studentís personal 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 his- or herself 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 or emails to any of the following: Dr. Covington,RU PO Box 6890; Dr. Liss (Dean of Arts & Sciences), RU PO Box 6940; Dean Hurlburt (the Dean of Students), RU PO Box 6898; Dr. Niehaus (Bio Dpt Chairperson), RU PO Box 6931; or Dr. Gibbon (Professor of Biology), RU PO Box 6931. If emailing, please send a carbon copy to CAAR so that we may keep track of responses.