Animal Liberation Front
From Letter #1:
"Why is it that the civil disobedience of the past is romanticized (the civil-rights movement, suffrage movement, etc.) and yet more recent manifestations are now condemned by people throughout the political spectrum (even by so-called "progressive liberals")? An animal-front action has never resulted in another person's death. How many people have died because of U.S. wars of aggression and "economic interest"? That's a pretty big number. How about just during this year? Are you beginning to see the real hypocrisy here?
I also find it a bit ironic that one of the primary complaints about the action is the financial cost to the university. And yet the university is offering a $10,000 reward for information about the "culprits." Aren't there much better uses for this money? Give someone a scholarship or something. The damage is done. Are we really so bent on "punishment" that we'll whine about the cost of animal liberation and then gladly pay exorbitant amounts of money just to "teach someone a lesson"?"
"Smashed computers and a few privileged college kids having to miss a day of class is a small price to pay for this."
Maria Cassino
UI student
From Letter #2
"When I see a guinea pig with electrodes cemented to her skull, I see terrorism of the worst kind. I would rather not hear the person who bored holes through her brain whining about a broken computer. Political direct action from animal-rights and environmental groups has never resulted in a single human casualty, yet the FBI considers them the leading domestic-terror threat. It is a curious class of terrorist that spares all forms of life.
In 1773, the Sons of Liberty dumped £10,000 worth of tea into Boston Harbor, and the seeds of dissidence were officially sown in U.S. history. This country has a long history of political direct action - people who were willing to obey their conscience in open defiance of laws that we can all agree, in retrospect, were unjust.
State and federal law sanctions virtually all manner of animal exploitation. Birds, mice, and rats, 95 percent of the animals used in experiments, are excluded from the Animal Welfare Act. They have no legal protection whatsoever. But devices that shock those animals and the scalpels that dissect their bodies are protected. Our laws protect a cage better than the animal confined behind its bars.
Was the break-in at Spence Laboratories illegal? Undoubtedly. Was it wrong? Is property destruction ever justified? Is life more important than property?
If we are being honest in condemning violence, we cannot ignore the obscene suffering inflicted on feeling creatures in the name of science. No doubt researchers and their families have suffered in the wake of vandalism at Spence. But I suspect their suffering pales in comparison to the suffering millions of animals endure in the course of lethal experiments every day."
"For those who defend animal experimentation in deference to science, here is a sample of work being done at Spence: One professor conducts research to answer the question, "Do infant rats cry?" They do, crying louder when subjected to "extreme cold exposure." Another professor slices open pregnant rats, removes fetuses and pumps chemicals into their mouths. He counts how often the fetal rats wipe their faces in response to the chemicals. In other words, no person's health depends on this research. It is no surprise that the people who pay their mortgages on the backs of these animals cry "terrorist" the loudest."
Thousands of animals are killed in experiments at the UI every year. They are all innocent, feeling creatures. To me, that is the greatest tragedy of all.
Leana Stormont
president, Iowa Law Student Animal Legal Defense Fund
From President Skorton's Response:
"There is no philosophical justification for the wanton destruction
perpetrated on our friends and colleagues in The University of Iowa
Department of Psychology. This was not a political act or an act of
civil disobedience. It was a felony crime and deserves nothing but condemnation.
We are disturbed and disappointed by recent opinion pieces that have
attempted to rationalize the criminal destruction of both physical and
intellectual property in Seashore Hall and Spence Laboratories. We are
also saddened and angered that the perpetrators of this act have
successfully intimidated some within our community who, under other
circumstances, would have spoken out against these crimes.
This is a crime against society as a whole and a crime against the
values that bind us as a community of scholars. The University of Iowa
is a community that has, as its highest values, academic freedom,
learning, and the creation of knowledge. This life of the mind
requires a measure of safety in which controversial topics can be
discussed and explored and in which individuals who study unpopular
notions - and their work- are safe from harm. The right to seek
answers to questions great and small must be staunchly
defended. Vicious acts that destroy scholarly work, create an unsafe
workplace, disrupt classes and create a sense of anger and
helplessness among our colleagues, students, staff and friends hurt us
all. Defending criminal behavior on the grounds that it promotes an
alternative point of view is the road to anarchy."
"With that said, we reaffirm our values and our missions. Learning goes
on. Research will continue. But we cannot and will not tolerate
criminal attacks on our community. Violence such as that perpetrated
in Seashore Hall and Spence Labs can never be justified and must be condemned."
David Skorton
President