Here at Lewis & Clark College School of Law, students of 'animal law' are learning another way to change social practices that involve animals. They are just as passionate as animal-liberation advocates. And they may become more influential.
Animal law is the study of all laws relating to animals, whether they enable harsh treatment of animals or encourage kind treatment. 'It's a lot like where environmental law was in the 1970s,' says Laura Ireland Moore, founder and executive director of the National Center for Animal Law, based at Lewis & Clark.
Students in the field study animal-related local, state, and federal legislation and case law. Topics include animal cruelty, hunting, animal fighting, and performing animals; the history of animals' legal status; the use of animals in scientific research; free-speech and religious-practice limitations on animal sacrifices; and such federal statutes as the Animal Welfare Act and the Humane Slaughter of Livestock Act.
Critics of the animal-law courses say they risk taking a political stance. Indeed, the conviction that humans should treat animals better motivates almost all the students who enroll in animal-law courses...
But it is arguments like that that prompt blunt criticism from legal educators who are skeptical of the way advocates of animal "rights" are shaping the teaching of animal law. Yes, the human use of animals is an important component of the law, and has been since ancient times, says Richard A. Epstein, a professor law at the University of Chicago. But that does not mean, he says, that "preposterous" and "overinflated" claims about animal emotions and intelligence should guide it now.
"Very few people will take the side of saying, 'Yes, animal protections are appropriate,'" he says, "but 'No, animal rights are not.' That's a very uncomfortable position to be in, because you can always be painted as an ogre."...
In animal-law classes, debates involve questions about which human uses of animals are acceptable. Students generally deplore the use of animals in the testing of cosmetics and household products but are divided about their use in medical research. Attitudes toward food production often vary according to students' dietary practices. ...
Impassioned debates aside, not all experts are sure the field can grow fast enough to provide meaningful work for all of its graduates.
Geordie Duckler, an animal-law attorney in Portland who often helps teach the courses at Lewis & Clark, believes that animal-law students frequently graduate with what he calls "the naïve, unreasonable, and problematic goal of working to 'protect the animals.'"
"There is only so much money that can be spent on promoting fashionable cruelty legislation," he says. "If the idea is to actually make a living, most new practitioners are going to have to swallow hard and get on the unpopular side of a huge number of legal questions on custody, neglect, conveyance, and injury." That, he says, might mean representing universities using animals for research, ranchers breeding horses, or even pet marketers accused of operating "puppy mills."
Animal-law instruction, he believes, should focus on laws as they are written and enforced, not so much on moral arguments.
Ms. Moore and others in the field do not agree. ...
Sounds remarkably similar to the early days of environmental law (also a specialty at Lewis & Clark--they know their brand) and bioethics. if you want to make a living in these fields (after the law schools do their initial staffing up), it helps to check your values at the door. Sadly, such is professional life, at least for most folks. There are, of curse, notable exceptions.
It's not that Richard Epstein "can be painted" as an ogre; Richard Epstein IS an ogre. Bless his evil heart.
No comments:
Post a Comment