Monday, September 30, 2019

Religious Exemption for High School Athletes

For Seventh-day Adventists, a Protestant-Catholic denomination, Sabbath is celebrated on Saturdays, as worship takes place from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown.  This is the case for Joseph and Joelle Chung, tennis players who attend William F. West High School in Chehalis, Washington.  They both are on their high school tennis team and were hoping to play in the state championship tournament this past school year.  Joelle, a senior, was disqualified from the state championship tournament because she does not compete on Saturdays, her day of Sabbath, which is when the final match would have taken place.  After not receiving the religious exemption that they had asked for, the Chung Family sued the Washington Insterscholatic Activites Association (WIAA) in August. Joelle had gone undefeated her whole senior year and probably would have won the tournament. She wanted to fight for this religious exemption to allow her brother, a sophomore, the opportunity to be able to play in future championship matches.
Joelle and Joseph Chung, Seventh-day Adventists

The WIAA denied Joelle’s request for religious accommodation last season because the rules were that if she could not commit to playing the whole tournament then she would not be allowed to compete at all, even though the only conflict was not until the final day of competition.  She would have played every match until it affected her Sabbath, and then would have dropped out if necessary.   They usually allow players who get sick or injured during the tournament to drop out, but they did not give this same option to anyone with a religious interference. Asking for a compromise, the Chung family asked if they would move the state championships to a weekday or allow Joelle to play in all of the qualifying tournaments and then have an alternate play in the championship, which is what they allow for others who drop out mid-tournament. The WIAA said it wouldn't be fair for the people who she had eliminated along the way.  This seemed unfair to them because the Association had recently allowed volleyball and golf matches in the same school to be moved based on the religious beliefs of those who observe Saturday as their day of Sabbath.

Joelle said, “As a senior, it was hard to give everything I had to support my team all season, only to be forced to sit out after the entire season simply because of my faith.  I will never get the chance to play for a state championship again, but hopefully, this case will protect other Seventh-day Adventists like my brother from having to choose between sports and their faith."  The lawyer defending the Chung family believed that the rules of the WIAA discriminate against religious minorities and students whose faith honor keeping the Sabbath.

Shortly after this article was written, the WIAA agreed to add religious observance to its reasons for missing games without being penalized.  The Chung family won their case celebrating this step to creating religious equality in all situations like theirs.

Joelle Chung practicing tennis 
I agree with the ruling because this case does discriminate against religion, specifically those who celebrate their Sabbath on Saturdays.  Not allowing Joelle or her brother the right to a religious exemption from participating in a match on Saturday goes against their free exercise of religion.  There are usually no high school sports played on Sundays, and since that allows for anyone who celebrates their Sabbath on Sundays to be exempt, then that is discriminating against the religious minority.  Also, if this high school gave religious exemptions to other sports players on different teams, then they should also give it to the tennis players who wish to receive it.  Joelle was not getting herself out of anything or using her religious beliefs as an excuse but was being treated unfairly for celebrating her day of Sabbath on a day that is known for many other things to take place.

Being an athlete, I would never want my religious beliefs to interfere with being able to play the sport that I love, especially if I could win a championship for my team and high school.  Joelle stated how much she loved playing tennis and being able to win for her school as a senior would have been an amazing opportunity, so she clearly was being sincere about her religious beliefs and truly do put those beliefs before her hobbies and passions.  This case also does affect any other person’s beliefs and is not hurting anyone in the process.  Even though it seems like a small, irrelevant case, it is a big deal to Joelle and her family.  Having to choose between your religious beliefs and doing that of what you love would be a very hard decision to make.

6 comments:

  1. I agree with Caroline. Because the WIAA allows for un-penalized exemption for many other secular circumstances, not allowing a religious exemption would be a clear act of discrimination against religious minorities. However small this case may seem, Joelle fought for what she believed in and created a new sense of understanding for religious minorities in her community.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with the author's opinion. This case impedes on Joelle's free exercise of religion. I only agree on the grounds that other exemptions for injured players are given. Since Joelle practices the Sabbath on Saturdays, the obvious idea would be to just move the championship game to any other day. This is not the case, and the WIAA denies Joelle's application for an exemption.In this way, the WIAA is favoring sectarianism over religion. However, I see it that if the policy is changed and there is no exemption of any type, then this would make the rule neutral and there would be no base for Joelle's claim.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with Caroline's opinion. This tournament had privileged one religion over another, as religions who had their sabbath on Saturday were the only penalized. Also, religious exemptions have been granted in many capacities, and alternative options were also available. I have raised Seventh-day Adventist so I know that many people in this denomination take their faith and duty to God very seriously, and should not be penalized because they do so.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Initially, I did not believe that the students should receive a religious exception since the rules pertaining to tournament involvement seemed facially neutral, and since it is difficult to cater to everyone's religious needs. However, after reading the entire post, I agree with TJ that this seems to go against free exercise of religion since other exemptions are made for secular reasons. Therefore, denying any religious reason would be discriminatory. Since other students who drop out mid-tournament can reschedule matches, it should be the case that students with religious obligations can to do the same. Although not as serious as choosing between one's religion and one's business, as was the case with Braunfeld v. Brown, this still brings the unfair issue of choosing between one's religion and one's passion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with Caroline because I believe that not allowing Joelle to be exempt from participating in a match for religious reasons is violating her First Amendment rights, especially if the WIAA clearly states that individuals can miss games without being penalized for religious grounds. In addition to this, if other individuals on other teams at this school are allowed to be given religious exemptions, then Joelle should be allowed to too. This shows that this case is clearly discriminating against religious minorities and is privileging one religion over another. Therefore, I believe that this case is unconstitutional.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with Caroline. While the policy was intended to be facially neutral, as Sarah brings up, it's evident that the rule is ultimately discriminatory against religions which recognize Sabbath on Saturday's. Refusing to accommodate Joelle violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The WIAA was forcing Joelle to choose between her religion and an activity she loves. I see overlap between this case and Braunfeld v. Brown. While tennis is not considered Joelle's "occupation," it is a significant part of her life that does not deserve to be taken away due to her religious beliefs. In Braunfeld v. Brown, I believed that the indirect burden on Jewish merchants was unconstitutional since it forced merchants to choose between two aspects of their lives that they held as important, their religion and their occupation.

    ReplyDelete