FAQ

Why does UIUC need student choice for dissection?

From some religious/ethical perspectives, the suffering and loss of life inherent in dissection are an affront to the sanctity of life and are thus forbidden. For courses at a public University to require these students to dissect violates their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The Student-Choice Policy for Dissection protects students' rights by ensuring that they may participate in an appropriate alternative. The Need for Policy explains the legal issues in greater detail.

Has this policy ended dissection at UIUC?

No, this policy does not affect students who choose to participate in dissection labs. It only protects the rights of objecting students.

How can students learn without using real animals?

Dissection alternatives, including physical models and interactive computer simulations, are readily available and are sometimes free of charge. An overwhelming number of studies have shown these methods to be at least as effective in teaching the same principles of anatomy and physiology as the traditional exercises they replace. The Alternatives page provides examples.

Why can't they just watch other students dissect?

Watching other students dissect is not an acceptable alternative. For example, many belief systems (such as Buddhism and Jainism) prohibit not only participating directly in unethical acts, but participating indirectly as well. So, to be forced to watch others perform dissection still goes against the religious and ethical beliefs of these individuals.

What about instructors' academic freedom?

Traditionally, "academic freedom" is the freedom instructors have in discussing whatever material they feel appropriate, not in requiring students to take whatever actions the instructor feels appropriate.

Even if we are charitable and include the freedom to require students to take specific action, there are limits to academic freedom. In the classroom, as in larger society, any freedom must be checked by responsibility to the rights of others, or as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., famously wrote, "The right to swing your fist ends at the point of another person's nose." Academic freedom is no different; because classroom activities involve the rights of both students and instructors, academic freedom is not absolute and must always answer to its counterpart, academic responsibility. This principle is neither new nor controversial; instructors, university administrators, and government lawmakers regularly prescribe rules for classroom conduct that balance students' rights with instructors' rights.

When it comes to classroom dissection, an objecting student's desire not to violate his or her religious beliefs outweighs the instructor's preference for a particular exercise when alternatives are readily available. In providing alternatives, an instructor relinquishes very little, if any, academic freedom; after all, the instructor still directs the discussion, defines the educational objectives, and evaluates the student's performance, all while teaching the non-objecting students with whatever exercises the instructor pleases. On the other hand, in not providing alternatives, the instructor may protect some small amount of academic freedom, but at great cost to the religious freedom of the student. The solution that protects the greater interest and prevents the greater harm--and the solution supported by the courts--is to provide alternatives.

Why not just take another class?

Some majors require lower-level biology courses that dissect. Regardless, objecting students choose courses (and majors, for that matter) based on career goals. In the courses in question, the objectives are learning not dissection but anatomy and physiology, which can be effectively learned through alternatives. Required dissections are therefore a needless obstruction to their career goals that are in accordance with their religious or ethical beliefs.

Students' pursuit of their career goals in state institutions are protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

What's next, "Writing papers is against my religion"?

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment only applies when the belief is part of a sincerely held religion or ethical system. It's unlikely anyone adheres to such a system that prohibits paper writing. As for dissection, testimonies gathered from UIUC students show that their belief systems are similar to those of students who have successfully sued other schools for the right to use dissection alternatives. Now that the dissection policy has been adopted for the sake of those students, it is our hope that all students will have access to the alternatives. Since alternatives are reusable at no extra cost, they can be used as a supplemental study aid for all students in these classes, regardless of whether or not they choose to dissect.

Who is eligible for alternatives?

The law applies to all students with beliefs that prohibit participation in the taking of animal life, as long as those beliefs are religious in nature. This includes Buddhists, Jains, and Hindus, but is not limited to members of organized religions or people who interpret their religions in an orthodox way. So, for instance, some Christians and Jews who understand "dominion" from Genesis to mean "stewardship" are protected, as are some atheist vegetarians and vegans. As long as the beliefs serve the same function in a student's life as a traditional religion would, the student qualifies for protection under the First Amendment.

Furthermore, the actual policy passed states that students have valid personal reasons apart from religious beliefs for wanting to avoid animal dissection, indicating that any students with objections are covered.

What about pre-med or pre-vet? These students need experience.

These students will have plenty of experience; their professional programs will make sure of that.

Although the policy applies only at the undergraduate level, it is interesting to note that many professional schools are ending traditional dissection and vivisection laboratories in favor of more "real-world" experiences, including observing and assisting procedures on real patients (for example, Harvard students train with surgeons in hospitals). Not only do these experiences expose students to more practical medicine, but they also satisfy students who object to dissection. When the use of a dead animal is unavoidable, there is the option of ethically sourced specimens. These may include recently deceased animals that have been donated by their owners.

For more information on options for medical and veterinary students, please see these resources:

• Medical schools with alternatives (includes Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Mayo, Stanford, Yale, and many others)
• Veterinary schools with alternatives
• The Humane Society's Ethically-Sourced Animal Program