The Need for Policy

Student Choice for Dissection is not simply an "animal" issue; it is a student rights issue concerning what actions an instructor may demand of students. Recognizing that the protection of these rights is important both for students whose rights are directly threatened and as a precedent for resolving other threats, many groups joined SILA in support of the Student-Choice Policy for Dissection:

Indian Student Association
Marwari Rajisthani Club
College Democrats
Students for Democratic Thought
Independent Media Center Steering Committee
Students for Environmental Concerns
Environmental Resources
Women's Direct Action Coalition
Illinois Student Environmental Network
Red Bison
Campus Vegetarian Society

These groups agreed that a Student-Choice Policy at UIUC was long overdue. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects each citizen’s right to practice any religion (or similarly functioning, deeply held belief system) without interference from the state, except in some special circumstances that do not apply here (usually involving blatantly criminal conduct). The case is simple:

Students who object to dissection and vivisection on religious/ethical grounds are protected under the First Amendment. From some religious/ethical perspectives (see FAQ for a partial list), the suffering and loss of life inherent in dissection/vivisection are an affront to the sanctity of life and are thus forbidden. Therefore, in order for UIUC, an arm of the state, to require students who sincerely hold these beliefs to dissect/vivisect, UIUC must demonstrate two things: first, that the required dissection/vivisection serves a compelling interest of the state, and second, that the required dissection/vivisection serves this compelling interest in the way that least restricts religious freedom. UIUC may be able to show a compelling interest in teaching principles of anatomy and physiology as training for future doctors, scientists, and so on, who will someday serve the state. But the same principles of anatomy and physiology can be taught using non-animal alternatives, which many recent studies conclude to be as effective as--if not more effective than--dissection/vivisection. Because these non-animal alternatives are less restrictive than dissection/vivisection, UIUC cannot force students to use dissection/vivisection. Under the First Amendment, then, students objecting to dissection/vivisection are protected and should be allowed a non-animal alternative. [1]

However, without a Student-Choice Policy at UIUC,

Current course requirements for dissection and vivisection abridge students’ Constitutional rights. SILA has gathered testimonies (see Experience Notebook) from students showing that UIUC has refused in many cases to provide students with access to non-animal alternatives to dissection/vivisection. Instead, students have had no choice but to be penalized with failing grades on laboratory assignments when religious/ethical beliefs forbid them to participate. In other cases, students have been told to find their own alternatives, placing the burden for learning solely upon the students and demanding significantly more of the students’ time and energy, all because their religious/ethical beliefs differed from those of the instructors’.

Finally, by providing objecting students with non-animal alternatives,

A Student-Choice Policy should protect students’ rights and solve the problem as similar policies have elsewhere. SILA’s proposed Student-Choice Policy would have created uniform, campus-wide protection for undergraduate students objecting to dissection/vivisection by guaranteeing them the option to use a non-animal alternative at no penalty. The actual policy that was passed at UIUC does not guarantee universal availability of alternatives, but does mandate that they be provided in all general education courses, and ensures that students are aware of dissection requirements, their right to use alternatives, and how to address grievances. Policies like this have been successfully implemented at many schools at a departmental level, including UC-Berkeley, Cornell, and Virginia Tech, and in grades K-12 in the state of Illinois without substantial administrative burden. Thus far, University of Illinois is the first university to have a university-wide policy addressing alternatives to dissection and vivisection.

1 Francione, Gary L. and Anne E. Charlton. Vivisection and Dissection in the Classroom: A Guide to Conscientious Objection.