Title: Therapy animals at ARUL: Student representative summary of options and recommended solution

Word count: 960 words

Module title: Professional Communications; Skills for Higher Education

Module Code: MOD006960

Student Number: 12345678/9

Date: 23/03/20

Introduction

The purpose of this summary document is to address questions around access and availability of ‘therapy animals’ to provide mental health support for students within Anglia Ruskin University London (ARUL). A number of universities in the UK and Europe have introduced animal therapy centres on campus or are allowing students to bring their own therapy animals to accompany them to classes, and to live with them in students’ residences. This is a response to increasing concerns about students’ mental health, for example the increasing cases of anxiety and depression (Hoffman 2015). It has been suggested that animals can have a positive effect on students by providing a sense of calm for stressed students (Ward-Griffin and Klaiber 2018). However, there have been concerns raised over the animals’ welfare (Pieters 2018) as well as the impact any change in policy may have on other students (Hoffman 2015). Three possible policy solutions will be listed before being evaluated in turn. In conclusion it will be recommended that overall the most appropriate option will be to allow students to bring their own therapy animals to university under certain conditions.

Possible solutions

The following three possible recommendations have been identified for further examination:

1. The university prohibits students from bringing any animals on campus and invests in mental health support, such as counselling and student services.
2. Universities invest in animal therapy centres for students to play with animals in a designated space.
3. Students bring own animals to campus. These animals can accompany them to classes and live with the student in their home or university accommodation.

Each of these will be evaluated in turn before a final recommendation is given.

Analysis

The first possible recommendation would be for the university to prohibit students from bringing any animals on site at any time and instead invest any available funds they can on addressing student mental health support needs through counsellors and student services. This would have the advantage of protecting any students with allergies or phobias who might have a negative reaction to some animals being brought into university (Hoffman 2015). It would also prevent the need to train animals specifically or any excessive stress to animals owned by the university itself (Pieters 2018). Despite these advantages, prohibiting students from bringing their own therapy animals to university would prevent students with genuine mental health problems from being able to access them while studying, possibly resulting in accusations of discrimination or law suits against the university (Hoffman 2015). Furthermore, this option would possibly be illegal itself if it prevented students who required guide dogs from bringing their animals to university. It would also seem hard to justify exemptions for some animals, for example guide dogs, while at the same time restricting students from access to animals for other conditions, making this option less than ideal for ARUL at this time.

A second suggested policy choice would be for ARUL to set up an animal therapy room on its campus and allow students to access animals there. The university would be responsible for training and looking after the animals and the spaces and managing how students access it. This would have the advantage of potentially avoiding some lawsuits, though it would not be possible to provide access to any animal a student requested. The other benefit would be that some students may have their stress and anxiety levels reduced particularly at key stages in their studies such as during exam periods. As has been demonstrated conclusively in recent research, therapy dogs have been shown to result in “significant reductions in stress as well as increased happiness and energy” (cited in Ward-Griffin and Klaiber 2018). Nevertheless, this would inevitably result in significant expenses for ARUL to set up and maintain, and the lack of a range of animals may mean there are still student requests that cannot be met through this policy. Finally and perhaps most worryingly, there is evidence to suggest that while reducing stress levels for students, university puppy rooms could be damaging to the puppies themselves as they may become over-stimulated and stressed during their development in this kind of environment (Pieters 2018). The possible complaints around this and lack of student choice make this recommendation inappropriate for ARUL.

The final option to be examined is allowing students to bring their own therapy animals to university, on condition that they can provide medical evidence justifying this. Concerns have been raised that students may be able to abuse this system by accessing dubious online sources for their medical certificates, though it should be possible for universities to validate this through standard checking procedures (Hoffman 2015). There may also be issues with animals triggering other students’ phobias or allergies, though it has been claimed that these issues could be dealt with on a case by case basis using the student behaviour charter (ibid). Moreover, animals on campus could cause damage to property. On the other hand, the policy would be inclusive in that it allows for any student’s own needs to be met, whilst respecting the rights of their peers. In addition, the costs of running a ‘puppy room’ are avoided, as are the issues of causing stress to the animals (Pieters 2018). Finally, ARUL would avoid problems of lawsuits from students claiming they have been disadvantaged. As claimed by an expert in disability law, “Property damage is cheaper than litigation” (cited in Hoffman 2015).

Conclusion

To conclude, the options to prohibit animals from university would lack inclusivity, and the costs and potential animal welfare issues make setting up a puppy room in ARUL unfeasible. Therefore, the recommendation is to adopt a policy of allowing students to bring in their own therapy animals, subject to medical justification and following the same code of conduct for students.

References

Hoffman, J. (2015). “Campuses Debate Rising Demands for ‘Comfort Animals’.” The New York Times available at https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/05/us/four-legged-roommates-help-with-the-stresses-of-campus-life.html?module=inlineaccessed 26/02/19.

Pieters, J. (2018) “Experts Denounce Amsterdam University’s Puppy Room.” NLTimes available at https://nltimes.nl/2018/10/18/experts-denounce-amsterdam-universitys-puppy-roomaccessed 26/02/19.

Ward-Griffin, E. and P. Klaiber (2018). “Sit, stay, heal: Study finds therapy dogs help stressed university students.” ScienceDaily available at https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180312085045.htmaccessed 26/02/19.