Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 870 views

    Peta

    Uploaded by

    Washington Examiner
    Dr. Alka Chandna, a vice president at PETA, was invited to speak at an NIH public meeting but was barred from entering the NIH campus. According to the letter, Dr. Chandna had previously posted flyers on campus critical of animal experimentation. When she attempted to enter for the meeting, she was denied access due to her affiliation with PETA and the viewpoints expressed in the prior flyers. The letter argues this exclusion violated Dr. Chandna's First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly, and demands assurance that PETA staff will not be barred from future public meetings or NIH facilities due to their viewpoints.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Peta

    Uploaded by

    Washington Examiner
    870 views3 pages
    Dr. Alka Chandna, a vice president at PETA, was invited to speak at an NIH public meeting but was barred from entering the NIH campus. According to the letter, Dr. Chandna had previously posted flyers on campus critical of animal experimentation. When she attempted to enter for the meeting, she was denied access due to her affiliation with PETA and the viewpoints expressed in the prior flyers. The letter argues this exclusion violated Dr. Chandna's First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly, and demands assurance that PETA staff will not be barred from future public meetings or NIH facilities due to their viewpoints.

    Original Description:

    PETA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Dr. Alka Chandna, a vice president at PETA, was invited to speak at an NIH public meeting but was barred from entering the NIH campus. According to the letter, Dr. Chandna had previously posted flyers on campus critical of animal experimentation. When she attempted to enter for the meeting, she was denied access due to her affiliation with PETA and the viewpoints expressed in the prior flyers. The letter argues this exclusion violated Dr. Chandna's First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly, and demands assurance that PETA staff will not be barred from future public meetings or NIH facilities due to their viewpoints.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    870 views3 pages

    Peta

    Uploaded by

    Washington Examiner
    Dr. Alka Chandna, a vice president at PETA, was invited to speak at an NIH public meeting but was barred from entering the NIH campus. According to the letter, Dr. Chandna had previously posted flyers on campus critical of animal experimentation. When she attempted to enter for the meeting, she was denied access due to her affiliation with PETA and the viewpoints expressed in the prior flyers. The letter argues this exclusion violated Dr. Chandna's First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly, and demands assurance that PETA staff will not be barred from future public meetings or NIH facilities due to their viewpoints.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    February 15, 2023

    VIA E-MAIL: lawrence.tabak@nih.gov

    Lawrence Tabak, D.D.S, Ph.D.


    Acting Director
    National Institutes of Health

    Re: Unconstitutional Exclusion of Dr. Alka Chandna from


    National Advisory Mental Health Council Meeting

    Dear Dr. Tabak:

    I write on behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,


    Inc. (“PETA”) and its Vice President of Laboratory Investigation
    Cases, Dr. Alka Chandna, concerning the National Institutes of
    Health’s (“NIH’s”) unconstitutional exclusion of Dr. Chandna from
    the February 7, 2023 National Advisory Mental Health Council
    (“NAMHC”) Meeting at the NIH Main Campus in Bethesda,
    Maryland. Absent NIH’s assurance that Dr. Chandna and other
    PETA staff will not be unconstitutionally barred from future NIH
    public meetings, PETA is prepared to take legal action.

    The relevant facts are as follows:

     On October 24, 2022, Dr. Chandna and fellow PETA staff Dr.
    Katherine Roe and Evelyn Wagaman posted PETA flyers and a
    PETA leaflet in publicly accessible spaces at the NIH Main
    Campus. These explained: “At the National Institutes of
    Health, monkeys are kept in solitary confinement for years on
    end, given irreversible brain damage, and terrorized with life-
    like ‘snakes’ and ‘spiders.’” They “urge[d] NIH to end []
    worthless monkey fright experiments immediately.” See
    Exhibit A.
     On January 28, 2023, Dr. Roe wrote to Dr. Karen Gavin-
    Evans, Chief of the National Institute of Mental Health’s
    Extramural Policy Branch, “to indicate PETA’s interest in
    delivering oral comments” at the February 7 NAMHC meeting.
    Dr. Roe enclosed a brief description of PETA and its proposed
    oral presentation. See Exhibit B (explaining that PETA
    intended to, among other things, “share information regarding

    1
    specific monkeys in [a NIH] laboratory,” and “offer several
    effective alternatives to [NIH] experiments.”).
     On February 3, 2023, Dr. Gavin-Evans extended a written
    invitation to Dr. Roe and Dr. Chandna. See Exhibit C. The
    invitation assured Dr. Roe and Dr. Chandna that upon “giv[ing]
    the [security] attendant your name,” “you will be directed to
    the seating area” for the NAMHC meeting. Id. Finally, it
    explained that, barring unforeseen “scheduling concerns,” they
    would receive “up to 5 minutes to speak on the topic”
    previously approved by Dr. Gavin-Evans. Id. Dr. Chandna
    confirmed receipt of this invitation enthusiastically. See Exhibit
    D.
     Given this cordial exchange, Dr. Chandna was shocked when
    she was unceremoniously—and discriminatorily—denied entry
    to the NIH Main Campus on February 7. As instructed, Dr.
    Chandna presented her driver’s license to a security attendant
    and filled out a card indicating the purpose of her visit.
    However, after a 15 minute delay—during which Dr. Chandna
    observed NIH security personnel passing her driver’s license
    around and conferring with each other—two security guards
    approached her and informed her that she would not be
    permitted to enter the campus.
     Confused, Dr. Chandna told the security guards that she had
    received a written invitation, which she presented to them. One
    guard informed her that because of her affiliation with PETA,
    and because of PETA’s prior action on campus, she would not
    be permitted to enter. When Dr. Chandna asked whether all
    PETA employees were banned from the campus, the guard said
    “no” but informed her that after her “action” of “leaflet[ing]” a
    few months ago, she had personally been banned from entering
    the campus. Dr. Chandna was perplexed, and explained that
    she had simply posted flyers in publicly accessible spaces,
    which she did not believe to be in violation of any rules. The
    guard responded that the issue “was what was on the
    flyers,” not just the act of posting them. Dr. Chandna
    understood this to mean that she had been banned from the
    NIH campus because of the viewpoint expressed on the
    flyers she posted—that is, a viewpoint critical of the
    agency’s unethical treatment of animals. Shortly thereafter,
    Dr. Chandna thanked the security guards and left the building.

    2
    As this description makes apparent, Dr. Chandna’s exclusion from
    the NIH Main Campus violated the First Amendment. When, as
    here, a government entity opens a forum for “certain groups” to
    engage in expressive activity, “or for the discussion of certain
    topics,” it creates a “limited public forum.” Rosenberger v. Rector &
    Visitors of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995). The Supreme
    Court has repeatedly held that “[a]ny access barrier” “to a limited
    public forum . . . must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral.”
    Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of the Univ. of California, Hastings
    Coll. of the L. v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661, 679 (2010) (collecting
    numerous cases); see also Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 829 (“The
    government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific
    motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is
    the rationale for the restriction.”). By banning Dr. Chandna from its
    campus because of her viewpoint and her affiliation with an
    organization that advocates for the ethical treatment of animals, NIH
    blatantly flouted these bedrock constitutional principles.

    In light of the foregoing, please provide your assurance that Dr.


    Chandna and other PETA staff will not be unconstitutionally
    excluded from future NIH public meetings and from NIH
    facilities. Absent such an assurance, PETA is prepared to take legal
    action to enforce Dr. Chandna’s and its constitutional rights.

    Because litigation is now anticipated, please also preserve all


    documents and other materials relating to the above-described
    events. This preservation obligation includes, but is not limited to,
    documents, emails, letters, text messages, photographs, videos,
    memoranda, reports on government-issued or personal devices, and
    records of instant messages from applications including but not
    limited to Confide, WhatsApp, Slack, and Signal.

    Thank you for your attention to this matter.

    Sincerely,

    Jeffrey Stein
    Litigation Counsel
    PETA Foundation
    JeffreyS@PETAF.org

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy