What moral theory would you argue for this case?

Professor dosen't have the right to take away students' autonomy. Better not to use moral theory, as arguing with an immoral person by moral theory is illogical.

I don't think I can help you here, but I am interested, and it would be nice if you can explain to me your two positions against the professor.

(i think it is more important that autonomy is relinquished. "animal testing is wrong" is a difficult and very controversial topic. you may have to
1. Prove human superiority one way or another. (through our necessity to prioritize each other over other species (?))
1.A. That our superiority gives us the right to utilize lower life forms.
1.A.i. How superior are we really if we have to utilize lower life forms?
2. Is ALL animal testing wrong, or some?
2.A. what is the criteria which allows us to determine which are bad and which are wrong?
2.A.i. Similar complications to hedonistic calculation; unpractical, complicated, and too subjective.
3. What is "Testing"? What is "Animal"? Etymological and federal law complications and controversies.
BUT if you are able to clear away all this shrubbery, it would be one of the most amazing papers that I would love to read. I am very interested in egalitarianism of ALL life forms, humans to bacteria.

On the other hand surrendering autonomy might be easier to prosecute and expand; how this attitude and method will affect the students for the rest of their lives and the effect it will have in shaping the future, using historical examples of this form of exercise (nazi. socialism. slavery.))
Trying to fight the "wrongness" of the professor through proving what he says is good and bad are wrong is not only difficult, but you'd be committing the same fallacy of claiming what is good and bad in your own opinion, which is exactly what you are trying to argue against. Fighting what he defines to be "hypocrite" is difficult as well, for, I personally, can't think of a way to claim his fallacy without yourself committing one as well by asserting an opinion. Has the professor's behavior been seen in the past? are these similar views and practices increasing or decreasing, why? is it good that it is increasing/decreasing, why? And you can pretty much make a compare and contrast paper of history and today and current views and consistencies that seem to be reoccurring, so your nor other's opinion is not involved, but harbor rather a "research paper" hue.)

Another ethical flaw I see in this situation is the education system that will allow this form of behavior of a professor to be allowed. An argument from this perspective would not be too different from the relinquishing of autonomy, but a more narrow, specialized argument.

Morals are illogical

Moral relativity trumps normative ethics (moral theory).

Morals are specific to ones community and ones acceptance of the community morality is the price of membership in the community... There is no human morality...

When Aristotle said the line between vice and virtue is one that divides all of mankind, he might more properly have said that the line between morality and immorality is one that divides every individual from his community, and, his community from every other community... No community can be objective about their own strengths and weaknesses of morality and no community can be objective about the strengths and weaknesses of other community morals... All morals are based upon the emotional bond that grows between families and familiar people... It has one ultimate rule: Blood is thicker than water...

Nope, morals are only what one might make them, unless you are going to substantiate moral absolutism (have fun with that!). However I do not necessarily fully discount moral absolutism as it relates to genetic predisposition (for example).

Nope, they need not be "specific to ones community" nor need they have "acceptance of the community morality" nor need one's morals be the same so as to have "membership in the community". Further there are many people in my "community" that do not share my morals and yet would commonly be considered to be of my "community".

As to "human morality" (a term you used not me) it could be in contrast to a non-human morality. For example chimp morality, dolphin morality, Alpha Centurion morality (superheroes published by DC Comics). As such I argue there is a "human morality" by contrast.

I'll be glad to talk to you about it, and since morality and all moral forms are infinites, I would agree that they cannot be both absolute and infinite... But morality being a translation, a coining of a word: Ethics into Latin, it is to there we should go, because as word it is very similar in meaning to ethnic, which we more commonly use and understand, and it has much of the same meaning as Ethic, as Character, and also the meaning of custom...

What all ethical communities have in common is that people share a common identity rather than an individual identity... A member of the Dine would describe himself as one of the Dine, rather that Geronimo, for example... They knew that they must stand together to survive, and the society was defined as much by its own honor as by the hostility that surrounded it... When a person ventured outside of his community it was his reputation, the reputation of his community for instant vengeance and honorable dealling that protected him, because honor does not only set people at odds, but unites all people who are honorable... But the moral was this: That within the protection of ones community all people were free to be some one of their own choosing, to say and do as they pleased... Outside of ones community boundry, no person was free to bring hostility and dishonor to his group...

You see, the absolute in regard to morals and ethics is the life of the community, and that was the sinequanon of ones own life... No primitive ever thought he had his ife free and clear... He knew where his life came from and knew he owed that life to the defense and protection of his own...Ultimately, the whisper of a moral sense that we still have leads to the physical health of the society... People do not commit crimes because it is bad for the community... They do not engage is casual sex because venerial disease is bad for the community...The do not take drugs or kill each other because it is bad for the community... As bad as it may seem; what the Jews and Arabs do to each other is perfectly moral, and those people are highly moral especially when they are not acting civil.. It is because they are defending their own group against others...