Submission to the Murdoch University Working Party on Conscientious Objection in

Teaching and Assessment

Andrew Knight

2nd year veterinary science student

Murdoch University

24/10/98

[On the 11th of November, 1998, Western Australia’s Murdoch University took the groundbreaking step of formally allowing conscientious objection by students to animal experimentation or other areas of their coursework. Murdoch is, to my knowledge, the first Australian university to formally take this step. Student representatives on the University’s governing Academic Council had successfully called for the establishment of a working party into conscientious objection in teaching and assessment, which in turn called for submissions on the issue. The following is my submission. It’s re-use by others in similar campaigns elsewhere is permitted and encouraged.]

Contents

  1. Introduction

1. Negative Approaches Adopted Elsewhere

2. Recommendations

  1. Formal policy
  2. Definition of conscientiously held beliefs
  3. Assessing claims of conscientious objection
  4. University handbook
  5. Divisional student information booklets
  6. Unit materials

5. Possible Objections

1.Alternatives would be too burdensome economically and administratively
2.Alternatives are educationally inadequate

7. References

8. Appendix I – Alternatives to harmful animal use in tertiary education, A. Knight.

16. Appendix II – UK veterinary training

  1. Appendix III – US veterinary training

19.Appendix IV – Comparative studies of the performances of alternative students compared with those trained by harming animals

Introduction

Statements from the circulated discussion paper on conscientious objection such as, “The university is a public body whose mission includes a commitment to equity and to caring for its students”, and, “By our very nature as a university, we are also committed to welcoming and respecting a range of ideas and beliefs, including those with which we may disagree.”, reflect an ethos with which I strongly agree.

This ethos is reinforced by further statements on Murdoch’s website such as, “Murdoch University prides itself on being a small and friendly multicultural community that respects the rights and beliefs of staff and students alike”, and in Vice Chancellor Steven Schwartz’s inspiring message to all staff and students following the rise of the One Nation party in the 1998 Queensland State Elections. Vice Chancellor Schwartz stated that, “At Murdoch University, we respect and celebrate our differences … We must dedicate Murdoch University to opposing ignorance and fear, and to championing decency and respect for others.”

It is unfortunately true that real problems have been caused by the University’s failure to accommodate conscientious objectors to date and that “if the University does not get this right, we are likely to get more problems in the future.” (discussion paper).

In the following I examine some of the negative approaches to conscientious objection that have been adopted by a small number of overseas institutions and list some of the flaws associated with these. I then list some more positive recommendations concerning the adoption and implementation of a formal policy, definition of conscientiously held beliefs, procedure for assessing claims, appeals process, and appropriate publication of all of these.

My own experience as a veterinary student has shown me that there are certain staff who believe that conscientious objection should not be allowed and that alternatives to harmful animal usage should not be provided. In the remainder of this submission I seek to respond to some of the objections these staff might raise. I lack the expertise to comment on other possible areas of conscientious objection unrelated to animal usage.

I begin with two common objections to humane alternatives: that alternatives would be too burdensome economically and administratively, and that alternatives are educationally inadequate. In Appendix I I have included an essay which examines these and other issues relating to humane alternatives in more depth. Appendices II & III provide details of successful alternative veterinary training programmes in the UK and US respectively. Appendix IV lists 18 published studies showing that students learning via humane alternatives perform as well or better than those using animals.

Negative Approaches Adopted Elsewhere

A very few universities overseas have chosen negative responses to the issue of conscientious objection, such as:

  • Requiring students to register their conscientious objection at time of application or enrolment.
  • Requiring students to sign an agreement on enrolment to the effect that they will participate in vivisection, dissection or other potentially objectionable activities.
  • Interviewing students to attempt to screen out those with animal rights sympathies.

Adoption of any such approaches would incur the following problems:

  • Adoption of these or any similar discriminatory policies would leave the university wide open to legal challenges and adverse publicity.
  • Students, particularly those applying for admission to highly competitive courses such as veterinary science, would be reluctant to admit any such concerns at time of application or enrolment, fearing that to do so would jeopordise their chances. An accurate picture could not be gained in this way.
  • One of the objectives of a university education is to teach students to think. It should therefore come as no surprise to discover that student beliefs often evolve over time. A common phenomenon in the US medical schools is that students enter knowing little about the animal practicals in their courses, or the alternatives available. They rapidly find out about both, their thinking develops accordingly and they then start demanding alternatives. This, indeed, was precisely my own experience in the veterinary course.

I am encouraged by the positive direction in which the university seems to be moving with regard to conscientious objection and commend the working party for its wisdom in not adopting negative approaches such as those above. I urge the working party to consider instead the positive recommendations below.

Recommendations

  1. Formal policy

The University should adopt and implement a formal policy allowing conscientious objection to educational activities that violate the conscientiously held beliefs of students, as defined below. Alternative educational experiences and assessments should be provided for these students that require approximately equal commitments of time and effort and that are certainly not punitively burdensome. If, due to financial, time or other constraints the university feels unable to provide alternatives acceptable to the student then the student should be exempted without academic penalty from the objectionable activities. It should, however, be made clear that this is not an acceptable long-term solution to the problems caused by an objectionable activity, but, realistically, such a solution would satisfy almost all complainants.

Notwithstanding the above, the University should not be obliged to provide alternatives to activities deemed objectionable if by doing so it would violate a law (e.g., demands for racial segregation due to beliefs based on racism).

  1. Definition of conscientiously held beliefs

I agree with the definition twice approved by the High Court of Australia that:

"Conscientious belief is an individual's inward conviction of what is morally right or morally wrong, and it is a conviction that is genuinely held after some process of thinking about the subject. It represents a conclusion that is uninfluenced by any consideration of personal advantage or disadvantage either to oneself or others, and perhaps when put to the test should be ordinarily combined with a willingness to act according to the particular conviction reached although this may involve personal discomfort or suffering or material loss."

with the following provisos:

  • A conscientiously held belief may also be an individual's inward conviction of what is ethically or religiously right or wrong.
  • A conscientiously held belief need not have a religious basis.
  • A conscientiously held belief need not have a rational basis.
  • Although when put to the test a conscientiously held belief should ordinarily be combined with a willingness to incur personal discomfort or suffering or material loss, the essence of these recommendations is that no student should be required to incur such costs as a result of conscientiously objecting to educational activities, for such treatment of students is discriminatory.
  1. Assessing claims of conscientious objection

Claims of conscientious objection should initially be assessed by the Unit Coordinator, for the sake of simplicity, or, where the issue is systemic to the units offered within the programme, by the Programme Chair or Head of School. Students whose claims are denied or who are not offered alternatives assessments and educational experiences to their satisfaction should have access to an avenue of appeal, possibly via the Equity and Equal Opportunity Committee or the Student Appeals Committee. Given the potential legal implications where conscientious objectors are discriminated against in any way appeals committees should include a lawyer, possibly from the School of Law.

Staff assessing claims of conscientious objection should be directed to the relevant sections of the Handbook, containing details of the policy, definition, procedure for assessing claims, and appeals process. In particular they should be reminded that conscientious beliefs need not have a religious or rational basis and that they are required to respect all beliefs, including those with which they may personally disagree. Their sole objectives should be to determine whether or not the beliefs are conscientiously held, and if so, what alternatives to the objectionable activities can be provided. They should not seek to cross examine students unduly nor seek to change their beliefs.

The following quotes from the NSW Law Reform Commission (1984)1 may be of assistance to staff:

“In Australia various courts, tribunals and administrative officials have, over a substantial period, been required to test conscientious beliefs in the context of applications for exemption from civic duties imposed by legislation. The courts, in explaining this testing process, have been consistent in stating that the sole task of any person required to test a conscientious belief is to determine the genuineness of the particular applicant’s conviction and not to consider the reasonableness, wisdom or correctness of its content.2

For example, the Chief Justice of Tasmania, in an early compulsory national service case, stated:

“The only question I have to determine is whether the appellant does in fact conscientiously object to service … And if I find that he does then my own view of the cogency or otherwise of the reasons upon which he holds the objection becomes immaterial, since it is of the essence of freedom of conscience that a man may hold to his conscientious conviction irrespective of whether a Judge or any other person thinks that he ought. Nor do I think that I should be too ready to impugn the bona fides of his objection because of some inconsistency in the views which he puts forward, or of evidence of instances of divergence between his behavior and his principles, since the compatibility of such phenomena with sincerity is unfortunately a commonplace of human experience.”3

This statement has been expressly approved by the Supreme Court of South Australia.4”

  1. University handbook

The University handbook should include a section on conscientious objection listing the formal policy, definition, procedure for assessing claims, and appeals process. The current statement under Biological Science - Division of Science, that, “Students undertaking units in Biological Sciences … will be required to work with fresh tissue from dead animals in certain units.”5 should be deleted (preferably) or modified to the effect that conscientious objection will be allowed. The similar statement provisionally recommended by the Division of Veterinary & Biomedical Science working party on conscientious objection for that Division’s section of the Handbook should be similarly deleted (preferably) or modified.

Students should be advised to seek information about educational activities to which they might have a conscientious objection from the handbook, any divisional student information booklets, unit materials, Unit Coordinators or their Programme Chairs or Heads of School as early as possible. In order that staff be given the maximum possible time to prepare alternative assessments and educational experiences students should be requested to raise their claims of conscientious objection with their Unit Coordinators, Programme Chairs or Heads of School as early as possible, and preferably before the start of semester, although this will be determined to some extent by the date of release of unit materials.

A minority of poorly prepared students may only become aware of the depth of their objection to an activity when physically confronted with it (e.g., vivisection), and the university may still be legally obliged to cater for them. Therefore there should not be a cutoff date for raising claims of conscientious objection, however it should be made clear that the quality of alternatives provided to students may well depend on the amount of time they give staff to prepare them. Staff should also be directed to at least think in advance about what alternatives they might provide to potentially objectionable activities within their units.

  1. Divisional student information booklets

Student information booklets such as that distributed within the Division of Veterinary & Biomedical Sciences should also include a section on conscientious objection listing the formal policy, definition, procedure for assessing claims, and appeals process. Students should also be alerted to the relevant section of the handbook.

Students should again be advised to seek information about educational activities to which they might have a conscientious objection from the handbook, divisional student information booklets, unit materials, Unit Coordinators or their Programme Chairs or Heads of School as early as possible. In order that staff be given the maximum possible time to prepare alternative assessments and educational experiences students should be requested to raise their claims of conscientious objection with their Unit Coordinators, Programme Chairs or Heads of School as early as possible, and preferably before the start of semester, although this will be determined to some extent by the date of release of unit materials. It should be made clear that the quality of alternatives provided to students may well depend on the amount of time they give staff to prepare them.

Divisional information booklets should attempt to summarise information on potentially objectionable activities occurring within the units of the Division. In the case of animal usage this information should include:

What units animals are used in, what species and numbers of animals are used, why the animals are used, a summary of the procedures carried out on them (e.g., dissection, vivisection, non-recovery surgery), whether and how the animals are euthanased, and how the animals are sourced. All of this information is necessary to allow students like myself to properly consider in advance whether or not we conscientiously object to educational activities. This in turn allows us to give our academics the maximum possible time to prepare alternatives.

  1. Unit materials

Information should be given as for the divisional student information booklets above, with the following differences:

  • The formal policy, definition, procedure for assessing claims, and appeals process should merely be summarised and students directed to the relevant section of the Handbook for the full details.
  • The information on potentially objectionable activities occurring within the unit, e.g. animal usage, should be more detailed.

Possible Objections

  1. Alternatives would be too burdensome economically and administratively

Alternatives are, on the whole, cheaper than animal usage; a fact that has been borne out by numerous studies and comparative costings. Economics, rather than ethics, has in fact been the major driving force for the worldwide replacement of animals in teaching with alternatives. Please see the section on “Economics” in Appendix I for further details.

There is, to my knowledge, as yet no relevant Australian legal precedent relating to this issue. However in the relevant US cases it has been demonstrated that a vet school may cite cost and administrative difficulty as a legitimate reason for not providing alternatives only if it can demonstrate that the financial and administrative burdens incurred by doing so would be so great as to seriously jeopordise the continued operations of the school. The onus is on the vet school to prove this to the satisfaction of the court; it is not on the student to prove otherwise.6 This principle reflects the importance that the right to conscientiously object is accorded in a democratic society, and the gravity of the situation required before a responsible legal system will consider allowing that this right might be violated.

  1. Alternatives are educationally inadequate

Numerous studies have been published showing that students learning from alternative methods are at least as competent as their conventional counterparts. In fact every study published to date has confirmed thiswithout exception. See Appendix II – Teaching efficacy, and Appendix IV – Comparative Studies, for further details.

In addition, there are numerous veterinary courses worldwide where alternatives are extensively and successfully used. For example, 20 out of 31 US vet schools now have an alternative programme in place for students who request it (Appendix III), and all 6 of the UK vet schools have, by our standards, an alternative system, in which no healthy animals are harmed or killed just for teaching purposes (Appendix II). Many of these courses are accredited by the relevant professional organisations, and it therefore is very difficult to argue that alternative teaching methods are educationally inadequate.

Staff who wish to argue this, and who seek to claim that alternative teaching methods would not be good enough to gain professional accreditation, should be required to demonstrate how these claims can be so, in light of the considerable evidence to the contrary, before they are allowed to deny conscientious objection. The onus should not be on students to prove otherwise.

References
  1. New South Wales Law reform Commission, (1984), Community Law Reform Programme Sixth Report: Conscientious Objection to Jury Service.
  2. In re JDAT Walker, 29/5/42, Supreme Court of Tasmania, per Morris CJ; King vs Minister of State for Labour and National Service [1953] SASR 199, at p206, per Ross J; Aitken v. Minister of State for Labour and National Service [1965] 1 DCR 164; In re Appeals from Registrar under Industrial Arbitration Act, 1940-53, s.129 B(11) [1954] IR (NSW) 71, at p81; and Collett V. Minister for Labour and National Service (1966) 9 FLR 221, per Andrews DCJ, in New South Wales Law reform Commission, (1984), Community Law Reform Programme Sixth Report: Conscientious Objection to Jury Service.
  3. In re JDAT Walker, 29/5/42, Supreme Court of Tasmania, per Morris CJ, in New South Wales Law reform Commission, (1984), Community Law Reform Programme Sixth Report: Conscientious Objection to Jury Service.
  4. King v. Minister of State for Labour and National Service [1953] SASR 199, at p206, per Ross J in New South Wales Law reform Commission, (1984), Community Law Reform Programme Sixth Report: Conscientious Objection to Jury Service.
  5. Murdoch University, (1997), Murdoch University Handbook 1998, Perth: Murdoch University.
  6. Francione, G.L, & Charlton, A.E., (1992), Vivisection and Dissection in the Classroom: A Guide to Conscientious Objection”, PA, USA: American Anti-Vivisection Society

APPENDIX I