The Faculty Senate last week voted overwhelmingly to refer a proposed resolution on animal dissection to the University Faculty Committee for a rewrite.
The resolution that appeared on the senate's final April 14 agenda represented an agreement reached after months of discussion among students, faculty and administrators over the university's policy on animal dissection.
The original April 14 agenda offered two competing resolutions. One affirmed the right of students to be provided with alternatives to dissection in all courses. The other affirmed the right and responsibility of faculty members to determine the content of their courses and added: "In the biological sciences, it is the faculty member's right and responsibility to use his or her best judgment whether or not to include dissection or an alternative to it in their courses."
But before the April 14 meeting, the months of discussion paid off, agreement was reached and the two competing resolutions were scrapped in favor of the resolution finally proposed. That resolution affirms the practice of offering alternatives to dissection in introductory biology courses but also affirms the right and responsibility of faculty "to determine the content and conduct of their courses."
In addition, it "affirms that a Cornell education should convey and instill, among other values, a respect for the environment, for fellow human beings, and for other living beings and recommends educational practices that reflect those values."
Because of other business, discussion of the dissection resolution was postponed until April 21.
Speaking in favor of the proposed resolution, Charles Walcott, professor of neurobiology and behavior and director of the Division of Biological Sciences, explained that the discussion group of students, faculty and administrators had worked many months on the issue. "They reached reasonable agreements, and the resolution carries the essential elements of those agreements," he said.
But some senators preferred the earlier resolution that focused on faculty rights, and others felt no resolution was needed.
"I looked at this thing and asked, 'Why is it here?'" said Terrence Fine, professor of electrical engineering. "Bedrock for me is that faculty determines the content of its courses. The parties came to agreement, the issue is past, let it go."
But Richard Baer, professor of natural resources, responded: "This resolution means that these issues won't have to be visited again and again. ... We go on record as respecting diversity of opinion."
Other senators criticized what they called the ambiguous language and organization of the resolution.
Some worried that the second paragraph, in particular, might prove problematic in the future. That paragraph reads:
"Whereas, the Faculty Senate deems it desirable that no student ever be coerced to perform, as part of a curricular exercise, an action which that student finds morally or ethically repugnant or inadmissible. ..."
Baer said that wording might be ambiguous, as some students have expressed moral objections to taking exams, for example. He proposed an amendment to clarify the paragraph by making it specific to animal dissection, but the amendment was defeated.
Peter Stein, professor of physics, suggested that the ambiguous wording could "open a channel for further complaints and discord in the future." He moved to refer the resolution to the University Faculty Committee, the executive committee of the senate, for further work. That motion carried.
J. Robert Cooke, dean of the faculty, said he will oversee rewording of the resolution and asked that senate members send suggestions for revision to him. He said he hopes to have a revised resolution ready for the May 12 senate meeting.
| Cornell Chronicle Front Page | | Table of Contents | | Cornell News Service Home Page |