A scientist’s perspective
The Trojan horse of animal protectionism:
The battle over curriculum
By Patrick H. Cleveland PhD, Retired Professor, UCSD School of Medicine
Published in the CFAAR Newsletter, March 1994
Our future will be determined by the children
Virtually every medical advance has used animals in some stage of research
or testing. Thus, whether medical progress continues at the same pace in the
next century depends upon an informed public supporting the continued use of
animals in responsible research and testing. Let us hope that the children of
today make their decisions tomorrow using a moral value system that distinguishes
between humans and animals and between animal welfare and animal rights.
Confrontation
Some groups have taken a direct approach and clearly label their curriculum
as animal rights. They mislead students about issues of animal abuse. Adrian
Morrison, the director of animal issues for the National Institutes of Mental
Health, summed up their approach best when he said: “Everyone has the right
to believe a rat is due the same moral consideration as a child. What is wrong,
though, is the promotion of beliefs among the untutored by dishonest presentations
of the ways animals are used by humans. Such tactics have, in fact, been used
to discredit biomedical research using animals – tactics that were a necessary
prelude to the current campaign against biology education: Convince people that
animals are badly used in one sphere and reap carry-over benefits from this
‘softening up’ process when you focus on another arena.”1
Deception
Other animal rights groups have elected a devious approach – a secret
battle. They disguise their goals and methods by disavowing the methods of the
militant animal rights movement. Instead of ‘animal rights,’ they
call their curriculum ‘humane and environmental education.’ They avoid
the term ‘animal rights’ but teach the same value system. Most educators
are unaware of this deception. Teachers welcome humane education as a means
to prevent violent behavior in some students and environmental curriculum as
a means to develop a sensitivity to the environment. More than 20,000 teachers
nationwide have bought into this program.
Have their school efforts been successful? Several different student polls
have shown steady gains for the acceptance of the animal rights philosophy.
The most alarming of these was a 1993 national Gallop poll which demonstrated
that 60 percent of American teenagers “support animal rights,” including
bans on all laboratory and medical tests that use animals. How have they been
able to produce such a striking change in attitude?
HSUS
The Humane Society of the US with its 1.5 million members calls itself the
nation’s largest animal protection organization. Few people know that the
HSUS animal protection philosophy is not animal welfare but an animal rights
philosophy that says it is morally wrong for humans to use or kill animals and
that they have been guided by that philosophy since 1980.2
Furthermore, HSUS has set as its goal the abolition of animals in laboratory
research and education.3,4,5 In recent years, HSUS elected to call
themselves ‘animal protectionists’ to disassociate their group from
the bad press that the Animal Liberation Front and the People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals have brought to the animal rights movement. HSUS shares
the same animal rights philosophy and goal of abolishing the use of animals
in laboratory research as militant animal rights groups, but they differ in
tactics and timetable for reaching that goal. Their tactic is to slowly but
progressively wean society away from using animals.
In order to avoid the extremist label HSUS has deliberately sought to project
a ‘moderate’ image and hide the animal rights message under animal
protectionism and the guise of humane and environmental education. Many of the
HSUS projects are laudable and could be described as animal welfare. They work
very hard to keep that image. Corporate donations and the respect of the education
community are dependant on that image. However, their hidden agenda is to get
people to give animals the same respect they give humans. What better method
to accomplish a change in societal values than by incorporating it into a nationwide
elementary school curriculum on humane and environmental education?
NAHEE
Is HSUS a Trojan Horse being covertly carried into the citadel of elementary
education?6
HSUS has endeavored to establish itself as The Authority in humane and environmental
education. Indeed, the organization has won several awards for KIND News; has
had the Adopt-a-Teacher program placed in the 1992 Environmental Success Index;
and had a field representatives appointed to the prestigious National Environmental
Education Advisory Council of the Environmental Protection Agency.
To help establish this reputation, HSUS created the National Association for
Humane and Environmental Education, a separate youth education division. NAHEE
had a 1992 budget of $940,000 and 14 full-time staff , an increase of 31 percent
over the 1991 budget. The goals for NAHEE were articulated in the 1992 HSUS
annual report: “ ... NAHEE strives to ensure that humane attitudes become
a viable part of mainstream education and environmental perspectives. ... NAHEE
continues to monitor and evaluate new children’s books, children’s
magazines, and newspapers as well as all major elementary and secondary teaching
magazines and newspapers to encourage the promotion of humane values in publications
other than our own.”7
Indeed, NAHEE has been successful in influencing other publications as evidenced
by a series of three grossly misleading articles biased against using animals
in medical research which appeared in the nine-million circulation Weekly Reader
and its companion for middle schools Current Science.6 NAHEE’s
influence even extends beyond the USA as they have sent their educational materials
to 13 foreign countries.
It is clear that HSUS has been acknowledged as The Authority and is being warmly
welcomed through the educational gates of Troy by unsuspecting teachers and
administrators who thought they weregetting ‘humane and environmental education’
but ended up with those elements mixed with a subtle animal rights message that
says it is wrong for humans to kill, capture, or use animals for any reason.
It is a message that elevates respect for animals to the same plane as respect
for humans. This is a brilliant tactic as respect and consideration for animals
is a hallmark of animal welfare. HSUS has reduced the difference between animal
rights and animal welfare to the degree of respect and consideration given animals,
thus blurring the difference between the two.
KIND News, KIND Teacher
NAHEE’s primary effort is directed at publishing and distributing a classroom
newspaper covering laudable humane and environmental themes laced with a heavy
dose of respect for animals, endangered species, and an emphasis on not harming
animals.
Kids In Nature’s Defense (KIND News) is published at three reading levels
for children in grades one through six and is read by more than 600,000 children
in 20,000 classrooms nationwide. KIND News does not cover controversial animal
rights issues. However, the accompanying teachers’ guide (KIND Teacher)
brings up animal rights issues without identifying them as such. KIND Teacher
indoctrinates children by having the teacher lead discussions on the use of
animals in dissection, the use of wild animals in laboratory research, the use
of animals in product safety testing, the keeping of wild animals in zoos and
circuses, the capture and sale of wild birds, hunting, trapping, and rodeos.8
KIND Teacher also promotes the students to form KIND Clubs and engage in club
projects. The nature of the project and the agenda is determined by the club
and club president. Given the HSUS emotional and strongly–held position
on these issues, can we expect a balanced presentation?
HSUS Student Action Guide
The HSUS Student Action Guide, NAHEE’s newspaper for middle and secondary
students, is more direct as it openly seeks to promote activism by forming Earth-Animal
Protection Clubs. These clubs target a number of animal rights issues, including
laboratory animal research, product safety testing, dissection, animals in science
fairs, zoos, animals in entertainment, hunting, trapping, and dolphin-safe tuna.
The students are referred to HSUS to obtain specific misleading materials on
these issues as well as animal research and so-called alternatives to animal
research.
California’s environmental education
Given this background, I was concerned when I learned through the 1992 HSUS
annual report that “Materials published by NAHEE such as ‘Sharing
Sam’ and lessons from KIND Teacher had been incorporated into A Child’s
Place in the Environment, California’s new environmental education curriculum
guide. The guide promises to have a substantial impact since one out of nine
children in the US attends schools in California. In addition, the guide will
inevitably serve as a model nationwide.”
NAHEE and animal rights in California’s school curriculum
In 1993, I obtained a late stage draft of the first grade edition of the guide
Respecting Living Things from the California Board of Education. Fortunately,
the guide had not been finalized and was still in draft form. I was surprised
to find that three out of the nine guide reviewers were affiliated with NAHEE
and one NAHEE field representative was on the guide committee.
The guide had a pronounced animal rights bias as half the recommended resources
at the end of several units were animal rights books such as The Animal Rights
Handbook: 67 Ways to Save the Animals by Anna Sequoia and Animal Rights International,
The Animals’ Agenda, and Going Green, A Kid’s Handbook to Saving the
Planet. These resources contained grossly misleading and dishonest presentations
of how animals are used by humans and in some cases gory pictures of animals
that are totally inappropriate for first graders. Furthermore, more than half
the resources listed as “organizations concerned with humane treatment
of animals” turned out to be animal rights organizations such as HSUS,
NAHEE, the Fund for Animals, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals, and the Animal Protection Institute of America. The guide also suggested
additional names of humane organizations listed in the book 67 Ways to Save
the Animals. There were 77 organizations listed in the book and all 77 were
identified by the author as ‘animal rights organizations.’
Respect = sacred reverence for animals
A common theme that ran through the unit on Respecting Living Things was that
animals were anthropomorphized and respected to the point that they were elevated
to the same plane as humans. Animals were held in such reverence that they were
equal to humans. Another theme that was repeated many times was that out of
respect for animals, they should not be captured and taken into the classroom
for study. The theme “Look, Learn, and Leave Alone” was inviolate.
It was even stressed in the teacher preparation section not to capture animals
(including insects) for classroom study.
The source of these themes is hard to determine. Were they placed there by
the guide’s author? How much influence did NAHEE have on the author or
this curriculum? It is interesting to note that Are You A Good Kind Lion, the
one poem that NAHEE contributed, contained a line that is the heart of the animal
rights message: “Don’t hurt the animals for any reason.” Would
that message tell first graders that it is morally wrong to eat animals?
Balance
Working with the California Biomedical Research Association, we took our concerns
to the California State Board of Education. We were successful in deleting all
the animal rights organizations and books as resources prior to the guide’s
publication in 1994. We were also successful in deleting the NAHEE poem “Are
You A Good Kind Lion.” Furthermore, the prohibition against capturing animals
for classroom examination was replaced with a discussion on the proper methods
of capturing and caring for animals.
Although our partial success was heartening, this episode graphically illustrates
how close animal rights activists came to having their philosophy accepted as
part of the nation’s largest and most influential humane and environmental
education curricula. The educational community needs to be alerted to the hidden
agenda of “animal protection” organizations. Local humane societies,
APHE, and animal rights in schools.
Another source of concern is the local humane societies that have been hijacked
and taken over by animal rights activists. They have also developed educational
curricula with animal rights propaganda and have been taking it into the schools
for many years.
The Association of Professional Humane Educators (formerly known as the Western
Humane and Environmental Educators’ Association), a group that is often
affiliated with HSUS and NAHEE, is comprised of education officials from at
least 21 western humane societies and SPCAs, most of them located in California.
APHE provides a framework for these educators to network and share classroom
material on animal rights along with humane and environmental themes. For example,
on March 15-16, 1994, APHE (then known as WHEEA) held its annual meeting in
San Diego, California. The keynote speaker was Kim Sturla of the Fund for Animals,
a national animal rights organization. Two HSUS representatives were in attendance
to promote KIND News and Adopt-a-Teacher programs.
The Packrat, the APHE Newsletter, is a bulletin board for animal rights educational
material from a large number of animal rights groups such as the American Anti-Vivisection
Society, Animals’ Agenda, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Rights Information
Service, Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, Fund for Animals, HSUS,
Last Chance for Animals, NAHEE, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,
PeTA Teachers Network, Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and
the United Coalition of Iditarod Animal Rights Volunteers.
Most humane societies have one or more education officers who go to schools
and teach children about proper pet care, humane treatment of animals, endangered
species, and environmentalism. Because most teachers perceive the local humane
society to be an animal welfare organization, they are welcomed by the schools.
APHE members take advantage of this relationship to introduce an animal rights
message along with their regular presentations. For example, the Peninsula Humane
Society of San Mateo, California, publishes an informative unit on endangered
species. However, at the end of the unit, they urge students to read animal
rights books, join animal rights organizations, write politicians about animal
rights issues, sign petitions about animal rights issues, boycott specific companies
that do product safety testing on animals, and boycott products made from animal
skins, fur, or other parts. They also provide grossly misleading information
on animal research.
Animal rights and New Age religion
If the Catholic Church had set out to indoctrinate public school children with
a new moral system imbedded in a humane and environmental curriculum, there
would have been a huge outcry and controversy. A religious cult is indoctrinating
public school children, but there is little outcry or controversy because the
religious overtones and the value system have been masked. The religion is called
New Age; the value system is animal rights.
Thomas Berry, an ‘ecotheologian’ and the ‘spiritual guide’
for the HSUS Center for Respect of Life and the Environment, was one of several
of the speakers at the HSUS 1992 annual meeting who focused on New Age themes
of total reverence and respect for animals and the environment because the spirit
of God was in the whole universe equally.
Although totally open about the spiritual and religious aspects of their movement
in the annual meeting, HSUS is careful not to present its KIND News as part
of a religious movement. In his book What Are They Trying to Do to Us? The Truth
about the Animal Rights Movement and the New Age, Bernard Palmer illustrated
that the animal rights movement takes on the fundamental tenets of the New Age
religion. Furthermore, Rod and Patti Strand make a similar observation about
the religious nature of animal rights in their book The Hijacking of the Humane
Movement. Both books make the case that the energy that propels the movement
is the faithful volunteers spreading the gospel of respect and sacred reverence
for animals.
What can you do? Get involved!
- Give a copy of this article to your friends.
- See if your school subscribes to KIND News and check your school’s
curriculum on humane and environmental education.
- Find out if local humane societies are invited to give presentations and
if these presentations contain animal rights propaganda.
- Ask to see the material and teachers guides.
- Alert your child’s teachers, administrators, and school board about
animal rights messages hidden in humane and environmental curriculum.
- Volunteer at your local school.
- If animals rights is discussed, make sure that a balanced discussion of
the issue is presented.
- Check the school library for books presenting both viewpoints.
- Encourage your professional society, institution, or employer to support
education programs that present the use of animals by society in a balanced
manner. (The Massachusetts Society for Medical Research has produced such
a program entitled People and Animals: United for Health Teaching Curriculum.
Contact MSMR at www.msmr.org, msmr@att.net,
or (978) 251-1556 (phone) or (978) 251-7683 (fax).
For More Information
References
- Morrison, Adrian R.; Biomedical Research and the Animal Rights
Movement: A Contrast in Values, The American Biology Teacher, Volume 55,
No. 4, P 204-208, 1993.
- HSUS A Discussion ... Rights for Animals, HSUS pamphlet 1990.
- Stephens, Martin L.; Alternatives to Current Uses of Animals
in Research, Safety Testing, and Education: A Layman’s Guide. Published
by HSUS, 1986.
- Hoyt, John A.; Animals: It’s Their World Too, report
of the president 1990, HSUS annual meeting, October 27, 1990.
- Welborn, Robert F.; The Potential for the Institutional Animal
Committee, HSUS News, Spring 1992.
- Cleveland, Patrick H.; CFAAR/San Diego Special Report, December
9, 1992.
- HSUS Annual Report, 1992
- KIND Teacher, page 51 and 53, September 1991.
|
