The (Secret) Shame of a Tar Heel

Yesterday marks a significant victory against "ag-gag" laws in my home state of North Carolina and a defeat for my alma mater, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), which shamefully acted on the wrong side of history.

After undercover investigations found that UNC researchers failed to relieve pain to hundreds of laboratory animals and violated federal guidelines, UNC and the respective chancellor supported the "Property Protection Act," initially passed by the North Carolina General Assembly in 2015. 

Criminal trespassing can be prosecuted with or without the Property Protection Act. The overly punitive Property Protection Act also allowed UNC to seek damages from whistleblowers via a civil court, making the Act the only kind in the United States of America. Per court documents, animal rights groups planned to conduct an undercover probe of UNC's animal research facilities but "refrained from doing so out of fear" of reprisal from the Act. 

In 2016, several organizations, including PETA and the Animal Legal Defense Fund, challenged the Act through a lawsuit, noting that the law infringes on freedoms of speech and press and the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. The UNC chancellor at the time, Carol Folt, was listed as a defendant. Carol and UNC could have declined to prosecute through the Property Protection Act and recused themselves as defendants in the lawsuit. They did not.

In 2020, the Act was struck down by a federal court for violating First Amendment rights and for unconstitutional provisions. During the case, UNC intervened on behalf of the defense to preserve their right to levy damages to whistleblowers. In 2023, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law's unconstitutionality. Finally, UNC's last option was petitioning the Supreme Court of the United States to review the case and, perhaps, overturn the lower court's decision. Once again, the UNC chancellor, Kevin Guskiewicz, signed as a petitioner officially representing the University.

Mercifully, SCOTUS declined to review the petition, which should end the saga of the "Property Protection Act" as of yesterday, October 16, 2023. I'm so relieved, but I can't help but feel disgusted at UNC for supporting such regressive legislation. Aside from the flagrant abuse in treating laboratory animals, UNC cozied itself with an opaque industrial animal agriculture industry. For example, poultry and pig farming in North Carolina has immiserated residents and rendered regions of the state unliveable. A few significant conglomerates control animal farming in North Carolina, and they thrive by maintaining secrecy, avoiding regulations, and depriving workers of pay and rights.

Hopefully, you are as stunned as I am by UNC's support of the Property Protection Act. Kevin Guskiewicz and UNC were making it needlessly difficult for journalists and whistleblowers to perform their duties. I am shocked at the University's disregard for its stated values. Support of this Act did not serve North Carolina and its residents. And I doubt that the Act would "improve society and help solve the world's greatest problems."

Sincerely,

Karthik Sekar, '09

Note: this post was adapted from this memo, which was co-written with a current UNC student who asked to be unnamed. Thanks to Carter Dillard for review.