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.