Students at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign are no longer required to dissect animals.

The university’s student senate voted to adopt a dissection alternatives policy May 5.

The Student-Choice Policy for Dissection applies to general education courses at the undergraduate level. Among the policy’s main provisions is that core courses requiring students to perform an animal dissection must have alternatives available to those who request them. Furthermore, instructors are required to notify students of the availability of alternatives during registration.

If a student believes they have been unfairly denied an alternative, they may appeal the decision under Urbana-Champaign’s “Grievance Procedures in Matters of Religious Beliefs, Observances and Practices.”

The policy aims to protect students with religious and ethical concerns by ensuring alternatives to dissection, which include physical models and interactive computer simulations.

University coalitions of religious, political and animal protection groups, such as Students Improving the Lives of Animals, championed this policy. They argued that students who object to dissection are protected under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and should not be forced to harm or kill animals in their public university education.

University of Wisconsin sophomore Jenny Skiba supports having such a policy in place for general education courses. Skiba said dissection is not necessary unless it applies to what a student ultimately wants to do.

“I know people who have serious problems with dissection,” Skiba said. “I feel that if a student knows all the information and can do the dissection through alternatives, they should be given that choice.”

However, some Urbana-Champaign faculty opposed the policy, claiming that animal dissection is often necessary to understand class material. They argued that attempts to constrain teaching strategies violate academic freedom.

Proponents argued that academic freedom does not require students to do whatever their professor feels appropriate, but that it does extend to the discussion of whatever material they think is suitable to the class.

Although the UW has not adopted a policy like the Student-Choice Policy, some professors voluntarily provide alternatives to dissection.

But UW sophomore Amy Vessey said dissection is a fundamental part of learning the biological sciences.

“I can understand where the animal rights issue comes in,” Vessey said. “But if you are going to do the research, you need to be able to do the dissection.”

Vessey added that seeing the subject first-hand is beneficial and helps her understand the material. She said alternative materials available in her classes, such as visuals, tend to be old and do not really help.