The President of the Central District Court, Judge Hila Gerstel, rejected a lawsuit by students in the Faculty of Agriculture of the Hebrew University in Rehovot to prevent dissections of animal corpses in introductory zoology classes
The President of the Central District Court, Judge Hila Gerstel, dismissed in a principled and precedential ruling the claim of students at the Robert H. Faculty of Agriculture. Smith of the Hebrew University, and stated that dissecting animal corpses as part of the "Introduction to Zoology" course, which the students were required to participate in, are legal and comply with the provisions of animal protection laws. The court ruled that in the balance between academic freedom and the students' freedom of conscience, academic freedom has the upper hand.
In the ruling, the court stated that the autopsies performed at the university are legal and comply with animal protection laws since they are animal corpses. In doing so, the court accepted the position of the Hebrew University which was presented by the lawyers Beaz Ben Tzur and Hagi Halevi, and rejected the position of the student Alexandra Brodtsky.
The court even rejected the students' claim that their freedom of conscience was violated - a right defined as a fundamental right. The court ruled that academic freedom, which is also a fundamental right, prevails in our case over freedom of conscience. The court ruled that the academic freedom of the university should not be interfered with, which decided that the dissection is essential for the training of the students and should not be satisfied with a computer alternative.
The judge stated in the ruling that academic freedom prevails over freedom of conscience in light of the fact that these are selective conscientious objectors since the petitioning students are not categorically opposed to animal experiments. The court accepted the university's position that the autopsy requirement was included in the registration documents and in the yearbook and the students were aware of this requirement at the time of registration.
In the margins of its ruling, the court stated that it was aware that the plaintiff students would not be able to complete their studies if they did not perform the autopsy task against their conscience. However, the court ruled not to interfere with the academic judgment of the university, which believes that these dissections are essential for the training of the students.
The head of the Department of Animal Sciences, Prof. Berta Sivan, said about the verdict: "I am happy that the verdict will help us maintain the academic level of the courses taught at the university."
More on this topic on the science website
18 תגובות
I was personally horrified to hear about the judge's decision. Not only is it unnecessary death in general, forcing students of high morals to participate in experiments against their conscience is simply appalling.
Biomedical experiments during a bachelor's degree only show us how much there is no supervision and not a drop of compassion in the academic world. I think that there must be an actual and well-founded justification to authorize harm to a living being, the development of life-saving drugs answers this, while experiments for educational or cosmetic purposes are not justified. True Today, there is no such thing as rights in Israel, we trample them in the field of clothing, gardening, food and education. As long as we continue to be egoistic and think that everything is kosher as long as we enjoy ourselves and it doesn't matter who we trample on the way, the situation will not change and we will continue to live in a cruel and abusive world, not only towards animals.
optimistic
And yet the court itself is supposed to be composed of judges with a higher level of conscience than the norm and an expanded discretion that can also take into account the arguments made by Dr. Ami Bachar and Ziv and not leave the first year students who are not yet mature and ready enough to understand what they are getting into.
There are developed countries where, before a student specializes in a certain specific field and all that is involved, he must first take general studies that allow for longer preparation/and time in order to reach a more successful weighing himself to understand the conscientious levels within him and a niche that corresponds to him. for the sake of those around him.
Unfortunately, it also seems that not everyone deserves to be a judge and not all the 'subjects and presidents' of the Academy in their fields are well-informed and have a deep understanding of matters of conscience and high morality - and its many consequences.
The general feeling is: no man's land. Worse, failure to learn lessons.
sad.
XX:
Thanks for the explanation.
I said there was a question here so it's not exactly a mistake.
I also said "mostly" and that's even true.
I understand that this is the practice, but in my personal opinion, the inclusion of the requirements regarding the method of acquiring knowledge (which is more than the definition of the knowledge to be acquired) in academic freedom is unnecessary and harmful. It is somewhat similar to the law that the army will pass that will oblige the soldiers to shave (unlike the existing law that obliges them to be shaved).
Be that as it may (and I understand that in the present case there was no problem with my next argument) - the special requirements must be published in advance so that a student does not get into a conflict where requirements he did not know about require him to go against the dictates of his conscience.
And maybe something extra for future students. Before getting dragged into lawsuits that are likely to fail, it is better to consider the logical options
1. Study another subject
2. Study at an institution that does not require such courses
3. Try and talk, in a civilized way and not with threats and curses, with the faculty. Try to reach an agreement with the lecturer or the institution in a slightly more humane and apparently more effective way.
The only lawsuit that ended with a relatively "good ending" came to this state because the university in question made a commitment to the student to find a replacement but later reneged on it
Michael, you are wrong
Academic freedom also includes the institution's right to define what is necessary study material. There are courses about which there is a consensus in academia - organic chemistry, biochemistry, genetics. and others that not every academic institution defines as important courses as an introduction to the design of a biologist.
Rather, the Faculty of Agriculture is a faculty that contains a wide variety of biological study tracks, and the only one of them that includes the zoology laboratory is the animal track. This is not very surprising since this is a preparation track for future veterinarians. And how can a future veterinarian now refuse to dissect a shark and participate in 4 years of veterinary studies in the surgeries of cats, dogs, rodents and birds that have been killed? What is the big difference?
The plaintiff could have studied at another institution (zoology is not a compulsory course at ATA) or in another track (biochemistry, plant sciences...) but she chose to study a track in which, in fact, the zoology course included in it is the first among many courses that include animal analyzes and even experiments (non-invasive ) in the stock market. Those who do not believe that this is a justified thing, it is better for her to register for another route.
Yigal C:
You're right.
I thought of intervening in the same matter, but I refrained because the moral question interests me and I did not want to interrupt the discussion in case I get some new insight from it.
I also thought that there was a question here regarding the term "academic freedom" because this term is mainly used to define the right of the researchers to determine the directions of the research and not to define their right to determine the requirements of their students.
And one more thing: the right of those whose academic requirements do not suit them, not to study the subject that does not suit them or not to study at all!
It seems to me that there is room to clarify something: the judge did not express a position regarding the actual analysis of the animal corpses. She determined that academic freedom - the right of the university to determine what belongs to the curriculum - prevails over freedom of conscience - the right of individuals to determine what suits them and what does not.
And as for the ability of animals to feel pain: every trait and ability that exists in man (each and every one of them!) did not appear all at once with the appearance of man, but developed gradually (like all organs including the brain) in inferior animals along the way. Among these qualities are also the feeling of pain, the ability to plan, awareness and much more. Hence, all these features and abilities are found at one level or another in animals as well, and the more developed the animal is, the higher it is on the evolutionary scale - these features are more developed. Anyone who thinks otherwise is, at best, naive.
It seems that there are those here who are sure that animals in general feel pain and suffering.
It's a mistake to be sure of that.
There is a huge difference between an animal that writhes (which is a physical act), and an animal that feels pain (a conscious mental process). And we relate this because we humans have a correlation between the 2 types of phenomena.
I think it's likely that animals don't feel at all because they don't have a conscious mind.
Why the extremism?
After all, there is a difference between a person and her life.
The border here is set by us and the fact that there are people who cross the border is another story.
We must differentiate between wild animals and animals that are bred for our needs, such as food, which is 99.99%, and some and only the "bred" ones (I hope) will also be used for experiments that will eventually generate some kind of profit.
We are also talking here about corpses and not life.
A child who abuses animals will indeed develop this but
A. It's not his fault it's probably the environment,
B. Does a kid who doesn't do this mean he's going to become a murderer after an introductory zoology course?
Really, this thing is taken as if from a movie of a beautiful soul..
Let's all be vegetarians and shanti..
GET REAL. There is a limit to animal abuse and it is forbidden for an animal to suffer but from here and to court? Very far!
Apparently the 'barbecue' phenomenon is a kind of sublimation of that habit :)
Ask any beginning social worker, a child who kills and abuses animals as a child, ends up hurting people as an adult, an adult who abuses people as an adult, ends up being called Dr. Mangala.
In my opinion, it's as simple as the court decreed academic leave... and it's possible...
But there are objections here that, in my opinion, were not examined by the court, because of academic freedom..
Is it necessary in this case... and it seems to me that the opinion of Biolgino, Ami Bachar is logical and reasonable..
Again, sorry for the horrifying comparison, but did the German scientists also think this way, when they conducted the surgeries, the engineers, and the experiments on the Jew-Judaism of the living dead.
When you start with frogs, mice, etc. and the conscience is dulled, it is very easy to slide on until the lowest lows and lowest lows.
Terrible!
A question for clarification: I wonder who even bothers to kill the same mice that are served on the Tes HaZaf to the students of the academy?
disgrace.
It turns out that in order to preserve one's conscience, there is no point in going to court, everyone who works there from the lawyers to the judges, cheats from the same profession - the profession of prostitution, and there is no point in looking for a conscience
point,
I think there is a mistake in your words. Research must be distant from emotion. When emotion touches research it guides it and determines or deflects its results. Emotion and science do not go well together - even though they are related to each other on a certain level. In any case, even if we accept this approach - first year undergraduate students are far from being "academic thinkers" or "researchers" or "biologists". they are students And so it is true until you go out into life itself and deal with it in real research. I don't know anyone (besides me) who has a master's degree in zoology. I'm sure there are - there's no doubt about that at all - but they are so few that there really is no reason to delve into the analysis of the first year. As someone who graduated at the time with a master's degree in zoology, I can testify for myself that none of the many analyzes I did as part of undergraduate courses enlightened my path or gave me anything that I could not get from reading or computer visualization.
I don't think that it is necessary to ban EB surgeries or EB experiments as a matter of principle. It's OK. I don't have a big problem with that (again, as long as there is no grief or agony for the party). I truly believe that there is no point in it in the first year of a bachelor's degree. Those who want to specialize and specialize - should go for it further down the road. At this stage - there is no need.
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
Ami, perhaps this is a matter of principle, it seems to me that the academic thinking is that you cannot be a researcher as long as your attitude towards the research object is emotional.
As someone who has analyzed some animals, dead and alive at the same time - I believe that this pleasure can certainly be given up in biology studies. Practical courses of this type can certainly be advanced elective courses in the third year, while the theory can be conveyed with the help of books and computer simulations. Personally, I have no conscientious problem with animal surgery in any situation (as long as there is no cruelty to animals or abuse in the process), but in this case of studies - I have no doubt that it is not necessary. For the most part, the student will not use the knowledge he acquired in the practice of surgery. You can even perform one analysis in class by the lecturer and project it live to everyone.
Those who later want to go in the direction of zoology and delve deeper into this type of material - should be given the opportunity to also receive practical courses in animal surgery (although in my opinion there is no advantage in this today and the alternatives are much better than hands-on).
Greetings friends,
Dr. Ami Bachar - biologist