Tuesday, December 3, 2019

Kanye West Violates 1st Amendment rights of Prisoners to promote Jesus Is King

On November 15th in Harris County of Houston Texas, Kanye West performed 2 surprise concerts for the inmates and staff of the county jail.  West’s concerts were performances of his new album Jesus is King, an album with deeply Christian themes and ideas presented throughout.  West has recently publicized his devout Christianity and has been projecting his faith by both his media presence and through his popularity in music.  The concert was organized by West through his communication with the jail officials.  The media that observed this, on the concert, called the event “more of a church service.” The prisoners were given the opportunity to be selected for allowance to attend the event, but attendance was voluntary.

There were additionally various tweets and interviews with the prison officials, and the governor of Texas gave statements on the occasion.  The various media that the officials and the governor have communicated through about the situation give insight to the nature of the concert that they approved and organized.  County Sheriff Gonzales tweeted: “@kanyewest and his choir brought some light and #churchservice to people who needed it today at the Harris County Jail.”  Additionally to this he tweets: “On this date, @kanyewest visits @HSCOTexas jail system. ‘This is a mission, not a show’ - Kanye.”  In an interview Gonzales is quoted stating “you can see some who were down on their knees in prayer - to even some of our teammates who were brought to tears.”  Along a similar vein, the public affairs director of the prison tweets: “Say what you want about the man. But @kanyewest and his choir brought some light to people who needed it today at the Harris County Jail.”  The governor of Texas, on Kanye’s performance, stated: “What Kanye West does to inspire the incarcerated is transformative, saving one soul at a time. Inmates who turn to God may get released earlier [because] of good behavior & may be less likely to commit future crimes.”

The FFrR has challenged the constitutionality of this performance, requesting that the jail systems agree to refrain from organizing from “worship services” containing such content that West provided.  The organization also requests the information regarding the creation of the concert as a program for the prison, so as to have a more wholistic understanding of how the event came about.  In doing this, the FFrF is demanding that the Harris County Jail acknowledges the concert as an infringement of the first amendment and comes to an agreement that the jail system will no longer provide such events.  The organization claims that the concert was exhibiting a preferential treatment of Christianity, an infringement of the establishment clause, in that it was assembled and provided by decision of state officials in the prison.  Additionally, the FFrF sees the concert as being facially voluntary, given the options for the prisoners are between attending or remaining in their cells.  The use of Kanye West, a very famous and recognized musician, as the figure performing a gospel album is seen as being a coercive means to instill the Christian themes.  Further, they posit that this was a part of an agenda on behalf of Kanye, using his relevance to spread his Christian faith.  The media around the concert is the basis for the FFrF’s claims on the nature of the concert as religious, and by requesting the information on the creation of event the organization looks to reaffirm their claims.

This situation is somewhat difficult in various regards. Based on the information that is provided through the tweets; interviews; and coverage of Kanye’s concert, the FFrF is correct in their claims that this was an infringement of the prisoners’ first amendment rights.  Likewise I see the attendance of the prison officials to this concert as an infringement.  Both groups seem to be given no real choice in attendance to what is held to be “more of a church service.”  There is a need to obtain information on the actual methods by which attendance to the concert was decided for both groups. If it was simply a question of whether or not the prisoner would rather go to the concert or continue their normal everyday schedule in jail, I would venture to guess that the choice to see Kanye West perform is not easily turned down.  The content of the concert is problematic in this regard too, which will lead to the next problem I saw with this, but regarding the voluntary nature of the concert, I cannot say that the choices given to the inmates were necessarily realistic in truly providing a neutral religious event.  The problem I see with the concert is a difficult one.  The claim that his music and the subject of it are preferential to Christianity seems well founded, in both the media on the FFrF’s accusations and the media coverage of the actual event.  Looking at what the prison officials reflected (quoted above) about the nature of the concert, as well as the governors wishes that prisoners will “turn to god,” it seems clear enough that a specific religion was being promoted by a state entity.  The difficulty I see is in the application of this to future instances.  Whether a similar, religiously based, music performance could be organized and truly be voluntary within a prison could be difficult to accomplish, especially given the various infringements that can be seen in Kanye’s concert.  To a similar end, the status of Kanye West and his prominence in todays world presented difficulty.  Whether you can truly call the music indoctrination seems to be more of a consideration for those prisoners who attended.  This stance would clearly not favor the minorities, who may not feel so inclined to voice an injustice done to them by means such as this.  There is something to be said about the place of music in these settings as means to promote religion, as it is a form of entertainment that is subjective in reception, though it seems that it will be very clear when an infringement is taking place based on context through which these events have to be organized by state officials.  I believe that the FFrF’s claims are well founded and that this is a clear breach of the establishment clause on the basis of a state sponsored preference of religion and an indoctrination of the prisoners by state officials.

12 comments:

Evelin M. said...

I agree with the author on several points. By allowing Kanye West to perform his Christian-inspired songs it does represent a Christian endorsement from the prison. What makes matters even more difficult is the fact that the governor of Texas made a comment that suggests a preference for a Christian prisoner over a non-religious prisoner. Not only was the performance questionable but its strong support from the Texan government does raise some concern.
In any other case, I feel that a religiously inspired concert at a prison would be a positive form of rehabilitation. Kanye West's concert is fair if they were to invite other religious and non-religious artists to perform there. However, if there are no such opportunities then as it currently stands the Texan government and prison system appears to equate a Christian prisoner as a reformed prisoner/citizen.

Nathan_Feyrer said...

I disagree with the author. I believe that because the concert was not paid for by the state and attendance to it was completely voluntary, there is no true Establishment violation. Inmates could freely choose between a religiously based option or a secular option of continuing their day. BY simply not attending, they completely avoid any issue of feeling discriminated against based on religion. Mainly, the fact that the concert was free and was technically not a true church service professing a single faith leads me to believe that the courts will see no violation of the Establishment Clause.

Meghan C. said...

I agree with the author. First, the FFrF is in fact correct that this was an infringement of the prisoners’ first amendment rights. This concert is not religiously neutral and has a Christian message through Kanye's lyrics. This prison is fined by the government, tax payers money, giving the prison the strict separation between any type of religion and government. Secondly, the attendance of the concert was voluntary but like the author stated, what prisoner would want to pass up seeing a famously known artist preform for free. The prisoners were being coursed to attend this concert which does not make it fully voluntary.

Will W said...

I adamantly disagree with the author. Kanye's concert did not mandate any prisoners attendance. They could choose to go about their normal day. Additionally, the concert was not funded by the state, discounting the establishment argument. Most prisons host many religious services prisoners (as we have previously discussed) and prisoners can opt to attend or not. This concert is no different. No prisoner was forced to go.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Nate and Will. I believe that since this concert was completely voluntary, there should not be an issue. Yes Kanye West is extremely popular and many would not turn down a free concert performed by him, but if someone did not feel comfortable attending a concert that promoted certain religious views, they did not have to attend. The fact that the concert is also not paid for by the state makes it another reason why I do not think its a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Ben R said...

I disagree with the author, and agree with Nate, Will, and Caroline. This does not seem to be an establishment of religion because although the prison allowed Kanye to come, they did not pay for him to be there and they did not force the inmates to attend the concert. Kanye is a famous artist, so I understand the author's point regarding coercion. However, is someone was honestly against the idea of listening to Christian worship music, they would not go. Those who attended knew what they were getting themselves into.

Carolyn M said...

Kanye West clearly states that the primary purpose of his performance is not entertainment, but mission. While West communicated with jail officials in order to be sure that everything would run smoothly, there is no evidence that the officials monitored any aspect of West's performance. Therefore, they are not complicit in it. The jail is allowing and not supporting the performance because the government is not paying for it. As is noted in the above comments, prisoners are also not required to attend. However, if the county jail allows this performance promoting Christianity, it seems that it then becomes an open forum for other religions as well. If the prison did not also allow for the opportunity for other religions to preach their message, it could be perceived as a violation of the Establishment Clause. I think it is degrading to prisoners to mention indoctrination; they are not to be likened to young and easily-influenced schoolchildren. Rather, I think we should focus on the fact that to a reasonable observer, if the prison only allows a Christian message to be preached, that institution may be seen as a religious institution. The situation would be different if there was an open forum for shared ideas/beliefs to be expressed.

Unknown said...

I disagree with the author. This is an extremely peculiar situation. Kanye West is an extremely popular performance artist which means that exceptions can be made for him sometimes. I do think there was an exception here. Since the prison did not pay for the performance and did not require inmates to attend, I believe that this is not an establisment of religion. However, if it were a different artist preaching about a different religion, I do not think the prison would have allowed it.

Emma A. said...

This concert would be fair and neutral if other religious and non-religious artists were able to perform at this Texas prison, but since the prison is not paying for the event then I do no think it is an establishment of religion, so long as other organizations would be allowed to participate as well if they were willing to pay to host the event. Furthermore, since prisoners were not required to attend this event, it does not constitute a violation of the establishment clause.

Selby S. said...

While Kanye's album is a Christian viewpoint, I don't see this as establishment because the prison is not paying for it and there is no mandatory attendance requirement. I liked your point that the type of music presents a tricky issue for future concerts that may take place at the prison. Music is "a form of entertainment that is subjective in reception" so I think censoring the music based on its genre is a slippery slope that would require more government entanglement and subsequent Establishment than this does.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with the author's opinion of this case. I do not think the Kanye or the prison violated any constitutional rights of the inmates or the prison. The concerts held by Kanye were free, so there is no issue of establishment by the prison. And attendance to the concert was optional for the inmates, so their rights were not violated either.

Manning M said...

I agree with the other commenters who said that this was NOT an establishment of religion. The event was not performed at tax-payers' expense, and prisoners did not have to attend the event.