People always ask us how we know GAP is effective.  Based on the nature and extent of anecdotal evidence alone, we are 100% certain that GAP wins hearts, changes minds, and saves lives.

However, actually quantifying the magnitude of the effect is a more difficult question.  Poll table results suggest between 5% and 15% of students change their minds from pro-choice to pro-life, but the sample is considered “biased” (a statistical term), because the participants self-select to respond (as opposed to being selected at random).  We have no way of knowing in which direction the bias affects the results.

Still, I just came across a set of class papers as representative of student opinion as we have ever encountered.  They were written by students for extra credit in an undergraduate philosophy class at the University of Louisville.  FAB is hard-pressed to believe that pro-lifers (or persuadables, for that matter) are more (or less) likely to take a philosophy class, nor do we believe that they are more (or less) likely to want/need extra credit.  If that’s true, then let us consider that possibilities that the data suggest.

A total of 17 students wrote papers for extra credit in their undergraduate philosophy class.  The professor in the class shared the papers with us.  (FAB couldn’t see the names of the students, only their remarks.)  Of 17 papers written:

• 11 (65%) said the GAP display was effective, either because GAP either (a) changed their own minds, (b) caused them to think analytically, and/or (c) appeared to be effective at engaging students in general.
• Of those 11, 5 (29%) said GAP changed their own opinions about abortion.
• Another 2 said GAP forced them to think analytically about abortion, but did not say it changed their opinion.  That makes a total of 7 (41%) said that GAP was effective at getting them to think about abortion.
• The remaining 4 (of the 11 who said GAP was effective) described GAP’s effectiveness in general terms, but did not specify an effect on themselves personally.
• Only 5 (29%) said GAP was not effective, primarily because either (a) GAP didn’t change their own thinking, or (b) they noticed that some of the more vocal passersby tended to reject the message.
• 1 (6%) did not state an opinion as to whether GAP was effective or not.

If these numbers are anywhere close to representative, then GAP is successful beyond our wildest dreams.  Below are representative comments:

Student B:

I had always believed in choice … but the pictures were too convincing.   I’m not sure why the relationship between abortion and genocide has never crossed my mind, but the display was surprisingly convincing.  … Abortion is a form of murder and genocide.

Student I:

… it truly changed my perspective on abortion …

Student L:

I had only a few cheap glances over at [the pictures], but what I did see I whish I would have not. … [The photos] made me think about this and I think that the pictures woke me up … and gave me a reality check. … The pictures said enough for me.

Student O:

The first picture stuck in my head and I just stared at it in total shock.  It was a picture of a tiny little embryo/baby, its head the size of a dime, lying dead in blood with all its organs visible … They are murdered because of the selfishness of others.

Student P:

I think these photos were used to prove the point that abortion is still murder and in mass numbers, should be compared to genocide.  I  didn’t think of abortion in this way until viewing the exhibit.

Student A:

It definitely make everybody not just stop and look, but to really think about the message …  It worked!

Student J:

They made the presentation so that you didn’t want to look but you couldn’t help but look.

Student Q:

It was a clear illustration of how a well-planned … project could reach hundreds of people in a very short span of time.

Student D:

The exhibit could not have made the point they wanted because every time I walked by it I seemed to see many liberals ranting about it.

Student E:

The purpose of [GAP] is as pointless as the message it is trying to convey.

Student N (self-identified as pro-life):

It seems to me that [the GAP display] was trying to be extra graphic to prove a point but in reality I thought it did the opposite.

Note:  Student N should speak with Students B, I, L, O, P, A, J, and Q.

Tags: CBR, Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, GAP, Genocide Awareness Project, University of Louisville

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 27th, 2013 at 3:03 pm and is filed under Campus Debate (GAP). You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.