A photo
tweeted out by an assistant coach of the Clemson football team went viral in
the fall of 2012 and started a constitutional battle against college football
programs across the country that continues to this day. Star receiver DeAndre
Hopkins was submerged in a trough on the 50-yard-line of the Clemson football
field. Hopkins was not enjoying a post-practice cold tub, but rather taking
part in a sacred religious ceremony, fully dressed in his Clemson gear,
surrounded by his Head Coach, Dabo Swinney and the all of his teammates.
 |
| Clemson Head Coach Dabo Swinney |
This month, Sports Illustrated revisited this issue
investigating further into Clemson football and the religious culture that
coach Dabo Swinney has created. Swinney is a devout Christian and in addition
to post-practice baptisms, Swinney has team church cays, Friday chapel services
and team prayers. Swinney has staffed the program with those equally as
religious as him and has brought on a former player as the team chaplain. These
chaplains, employees of public universities, are being funded by public tax
money. It is important to note although only 54% of college students consider
themselves Christian, 100% of chaplains at college football programs are
Christian ministers.
Following the release of the photo of Hopkins’ baptism, the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), a non-profit that promotes the separation of church and state, became involved. In 2014, Patrick Eliot, a FFRF attorney, opened an investigation of the Clemson football program. Eliot sent a letter asking Clemson to stop team prayers, Bible studies and organized church trips stating that the First Amendment prohibited the school, as a public institution from “supporting, promoting or endorsing religion.” Five years later there has been no change in the religious culture of Clemson Football. Clemson football is creating a culture that pushes Christianity onto its athletes and violates the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. FFRF filed a report, “Pray to Play,” arguing the extent of this issue beyond just Clemson and the unconstitutionality of the issue at hand.
FRRF
is willing to sue Clemson but without a “victim” or plaintiff they are unable
to take this issue to court. I argue
that this very issue begins my case for the unconstitutionality of these
programs. No current Clemson player is going to come out against their coach
due to the unique and I argue, coercive relationship between athletes and their
coaches. These coaches have immense power over their athletes, deciding on
playing time, scholarships, and for many with hopes of the NFL, their future
career.
NFL player, Arian Foster, recently came out as an atheist and spoke on this coercive dynamic of the coach-athlete relationship and his time at the University of Tennessee. Foster explained that, “the separation of church and football- not to mention church and public education is blurred at the University of Tennessee.: Foster claimed he was denied the ability to be excused from coach-imposed Sunday church services and his request labeled him as a “conceited outcast.”
The highly regimented and disciplined nature of college football teams are comparable to the military. This brings me to cite a 2003 case involving the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) which establishes the unconstitutional precedent of this issue at hand. In the case, two VMI cadets, objected to the college’s mandatory prayer ceremony prior to dinner each night. The Fourth Circuit court of Appeals in Richmond ruled that this school-orchestrated prayer violated the First Amendment, which prohibits government from establishing religion. The U.S. Supreme Court, turned down the request to review a federal appeals court decision, reaffirming the principle that public state institutions cannot endorse particular religious beliefs.
This debate brings up the issues of direct vs. indirect aid and neutrality in the debate surrounding the establishment cause. In Everson v. Board of Education the court defined the “minimum meaning” of establishment which states that no tax in any amount can be levied to support religious activities. Public Universities employing Christian ministers and funding their salary using state-taxes is direct aid of religion. Additionally, other religious chaplains are not employed or represented in these programs which lacks neutrality and insists the government is aiding one religion over another. Adopting a separationist interpretation of the Establishment Clause, I do not belief religious practices should be conducted at a secular University.
Additionally, the establishment of Christianity in these football programs fails the three-pronged test used to determine the establishment of religion in Lemon v. Kurtzman. First off, there is no secular legislative purpose of encouraging Christianity in football. Secondly, it both advances and inhibits religion, inhibiting other religious practices while encouraging Christianity. The third test regarding the entanglement of government and religion, also fails. I believe there is an inappropriate entanglement caused by the public funding of chaplains and coaches that are promoting and endorsing a specific religion.
I know it seems like just football, but the implications of this issue are crucial in understanding the intersections of religion and law. These programs should be facing unconstitutional charges or else the current interpretations of the establishment clause would be irrelevant. Allowing an establishment of religion in public Universities blurs the wall of separation of church and state that Jefferson and Madison insisted on.
Following the release of the photo of Hopkins’ baptism, the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), a non-profit that promotes the separation of church and state, became involved. In 2014, Patrick Eliot, a FFRF attorney, opened an investigation of the Clemson football program. Eliot sent a letter asking Clemson to stop team prayers, Bible studies and organized church trips stating that the First Amendment prohibited the school, as a public institution from “supporting, promoting or endorsing religion.” Five years later there has been no change in the religious culture of Clemson Football. Clemson football is creating a culture that pushes Christianity onto its athletes and violates the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. FFRF filed a report, “Pray to Play,” arguing the extent of this issue beyond just Clemson and the unconstitutionality of the issue at hand.
 |
| University of Tennessee- Prayer Circle |
NFL player, Arian Foster, recently came out as an atheist and spoke on this coercive dynamic of the coach-athlete relationship and his time at the University of Tennessee. Foster explained that, “the separation of church and football- not to mention church and public education is blurred at the University of Tennessee.: Foster claimed he was denied the ability to be excused from coach-imposed Sunday church services and his request labeled him as a “conceited outcast.”
The highly regimented and disciplined nature of college football teams are comparable to the military. This brings me to cite a 2003 case involving the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) which establishes the unconstitutional precedent of this issue at hand. In the case, two VMI cadets, objected to the college’s mandatory prayer ceremony prior to dinner each night. The Fourth Circuit court of Appeals in Richmond ruled that this school-orchestrated prayer violated the First Amendment, which prohibits government from establishing religion. The U.S. Supreme Court, turned down the request to review a federal appeals court decision, reaffirming the principle that public state institutions cannot endorse particular religious beliefs.
 |
| Ole Miss Pre-Game Prayer |
This debate brings up the issues of direct vs. indirect aid and neutrality in the debate surrounding the establishment cause. In Everson v. Board of Education the court defined the “minimum meaning” of establishment which states that no tax in any amount can be levied to support religious activities. Public Universities employing Christian ministers and funding their salary using state-taxes is direct aid of religion. Additionally, other religious chaplains are not employed or represented in these programs which lacks neutrality and insists the government is aiding one religion over another. Adopting a separationist interpretation of the Establishment Clause, I do not belief religious practices should be conducted at a secular University.
Additionally, the establishment of Christianity in these football programs fails the three-pronged test used to determine the establishment of religion in Lemon v. Kurtzman. First off, there is no secular legislative purpose of encouraging Christianity in football. Secondly, it both advances and inhibits religion, inhibiting other religious practices while encouraging Christianity. The third test regarding the entanglement of government and religion, also fails. I believe there is an inappropriate entanglement caused by the public funding of chaplains and coaches that are promoting and endorsing a specific religion.
I know it seems like just football, but the implications of this issue are crucial in understanding the intersections of religion and law. These programs should be facing unconstitutional charges or else the current interpretations of the establishment clause would be irrelevant. Allowing an establishment of religion in public Universities blurs the wall of separation of church and state that Jefferson and Madison insisted on.
I completely agree with Bess's analysis of this case. I think this case is a perfect example of the blurred line and slippery slope because it is an intersection between public education, but also the complicated power dynamic of coach to athlete relationship. Not only does this case clearly advance religious purposes, it is even worse because it coerces athletes who are already in a vulnerable place.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, I disagree with Bess. I see that the verbiage Bess uses in " Swinney has team church cays, Friday chapel services and team prayers" incredibly important. Swinney is not requiring players to attend but rather offering the services. The issue of a chaplain being funded by the school is also an interesting issue as most university's if not all (including Bucknell) employ many religious leaders to lead students in worship. If a player asked Swinney to provide another form of chaplain or religious, Swinney could easily contact the university to provide guidance for religious minorities on the team. Players also have freedom of belief and can listen to the prayer and not believe it. The fact the FRRF has not found someone to be "victim" is important because it indicates people are not feeling victimized by the programs.
ReplyDeleteThe players and the coaches have a right to practice their religion, whether that be in the form of pre-game prayer or attending their choice of service, but it should not be public. Since this team is funded by a secular university this would interfere with education since it has been upheld that public state institutions cannot endorse particular religious beliefs. I believe Bess' use of the Lemon Test accurately and logically highlights an establishment of religion in this case due to the lack of secular purpose, the advancement of Christianity and assumed/pressured inhibition of other religions, and the entanglement caused by the public funding of chaplains and coaches.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Bess' findings on this situation. There is definitely a problem with these coaches pushing religious practice onto their athletes. These coaches are employees of secular institutions and are given a lot of responsibility in these coach athlete relationships. While I do believe that the coaches and players should be able to express their religious practices, the coaches should never be allowed to impose these beliefs. The stories of Arian Foster and the VMI school were very concerning to me, as they are obvious unconstitutional acts that show what problems can arise from cases such as this one. As coaches of these big state schools with very successful programs, they probably have little to no objection in matters such as these. There should be much stricter regulation on what is acceptable at state institutions such as this, especially when college coaches have so much influence within them. This is a direct aid to religion, and allowing for these relationships to be abused for religion is a real issue.
ReplyDelete