Tatro V. Minnesot Case Study

Tatro v. University of Minnesota (2012) involved free speech and human cadavers, two topics that naturally incite curiosity. The Mortuary Science Program at the University of Minnesota is a Bachelor of Science program for upperclass undergraduate students. The program’s mission is to prepare students to become licensed funeral directors and morticians. The anatomy course of Mortuary Science Program relies on the generosity of individuals who choose to donate their bodies to science after they have died. Given the sanctity of human life, the course syllabus included rules to ensure that the cadavers were treated with respect. These rules allowed “respectful and discreet” conversation involving the cadavers outside of the lab. However, “blogging” about the cadavers and laboratory procedures was strictly prohibited. The instructor of the course testified that “blogging” was a broad term which included social media posts, which she claims she explained to students during orientation.

Amanda Tatro was a Junior in the Mortuary Science Program who posted four “status updates” on Facebook that raised concern for the University’s faculty and staff. Not only were the posts a clear violation of the rules
Given the importance of scientific research using cadavers, having such policies that promote respect and professionalism are paramount. Simply put, the human body deserves to be treated with respect, even after death. Though Tatro’s defense is understandable, it does not detract from the fact that she violated the academic policies she once agreed to. In one’s opinion, Tatro’s posts were distasteful. However, if she had not signed the Disclosure Form for the anatomy course, she may have had a better chance of winning this case. Distasteful Facebook posts on their own are not reason for academic sanctions, nor are they exempt from the protection of freedom of