I am offended by the last question on my final exam for ASL/Deaf Studies class. In summary, it says that we should be opposed to the UK’s Fertilization and Embryology bill, and we should pretend we are giving a presentation to the House of Lords on why it should be canceled. We are to use what we have learned in class about identity in our mock argument. Links are given to this article and information on the bill.

Now, the linked-to article explains that the bill would prohibit families from choosing a deaf embryo where a hearing one was available; it might also limit the ability of deaf people to donate eggs or sperm. So I can see why it’s related from that perspective. However, a half-second of digging turns up more information. The bill would also allow scientists to inject animal eggs with human sperm for the creation of human/animal hybrids, and it also allows lesbians to be named as the parents of test-tube babies without any reference to a father.

I object to the question having been asked at all. The idea that I should base my opinion on a bill on only one of its statements is absurd, but furthermore, the idea that I should be asked to defend a prescribed opinion to a political question as part of my final exam is outrageous. If they had told me to give my opinion on the question, I would have no problem with that. But defending the position they tell me, on only part of the bill…well, I just don’t know what to do about it. Should I contact the team of teachers who developed the exam and ask for an alternative question, or should I answer the question as if the deaf question is the only one on the ballot, or…my god, how can they ask such a thing?!