After reading the online articles posted in this week’s Learn section, what legal concepts would you need to take into consideration if you were a Christian

Consider the cheerleaders: Religious expression

ProQuest document link

ABSTRACT The problem is that the Lions have, perhaps, posted these gains after making illicit use of performance-enhancing prayer. Since the start of the year the school's cheerleading squad has been displaying banners painted with Bible verses (like the one pictured above). FULL TEXT   Should a public school's cheerleading squad be allowed to display banners painted with Bible verses? THE Kountze Lions, a high-school football team from east Texas, are having a good season. Their all-time win percentage is 38%. Thus far this year, they're five for seven. The problem is that the Lions have, perhaps, posted these gains after making illicit use of performance-enhancing prayer. Since the start of the year the school's cheerleading squad has been displaying banners painted with Bible verses (like the one pictured above). It's common at high-school football games for the team to run onto the field by bursting through such banners like the Kool-Aid man, but it's not common for the banners to carry religious messages, because public schools aren't supposed to promote religion. Last month, accordingly, the district's superintendent banned such banners, but on October 18th a district court ruled that the school can't enforce the ban for the time being. At a press conference in support of the cheerleaders last week Rick Perry, the governor, and Greg Abbott, the state's attorney-general, were looking like Christmas, and I do mean Christmas, had come early. America's constitution separates church and state, as indeed does the Texas version. But Texas's contemporary political leaders have notably declined to give the principle much respect. The controversy had given them a chance to stand up for Texas, high-school football, cheerleaders, God, and the constitutionally enshrined right to free expression, all in one go, against the interference of–as Mr Abbott put it, in an incredulous tone–"an atheist group from Wisconsin". The speech rights of students are often debated, because if a student is in public school, as most American students are, a lot of their self-expression happens under the auspices of a governmental entity. Broadly speaking, it's probably constitutionally correct to say that students have the right to put Bible verses on banners, just like all Americans do. And if the complaint is that an outside observer would assume that any student doing so is working under the auspices of school authority, Mr Abbott and Mr Perry would probably still be on firm footing. The exercise of rights shouldn't be curtailed simply because of other people's perceptions and preferences. A wrinkle here, though, is that courts have already taken the position that cheerleaders are representatives of the school, even agents of the school's authority. Ian Millhiser, at ThinkProgress, notes that this point was considered legally relevant in another recent case in Texas: in 2010 a cheerleader in Silsbee was kicked off the squad after refusing to cheer for one of the players. The girl had accused the boy of raping her; he later pled guilty to simple assault. She sued the school, arguing that by kicking her off the squad, it had violated her rights to free expression. The Fifth Circuit court ruled against her, and its reasoning was that as a cheerleader, she was supposed to speak on behalf of the school, not on behalf of herself. A less directly relevant example, which nevertheless suggests that cheerleading is serious business, would be the case of Crystal City, where the high school's discriminatory policy

against Mexican-American girls who wanted to be cheerleaders led to several years of protests, starting in 1969, on behalf of Chicano rights. (One of the young activists who organised those protests, JosE Angel GutiErrez, would go on to co-found and lead La Raza Unida.) In other words, courts have held, and Texans believe, that cheerleaders are a special subset of students, and not just for the reasons dramatised in John Hughes movies and Taylor Swift songs. They're not people who happen to be standing on the football field, exercising their right to free speech. They're deputies of the school administration; they speak for the school, not themselves. That was the point of the Fifth Circuit's ruling, anyway. So which is it? Do cheerleaders speak as themselves or not? It's unsurprising but significant that Mr Perry and Mr Abbott would argue otherwise. Neither of them can get through a press conference lately, including the aforementioned one, without deflecting a question about whether he's running for governor in 2014. Mr Abbott is also a Republican, and might be willing to challenge Mr Perry in the primary; a widespread opinion among Texas politicos is that should Mr Perry stand for another term, Mr Abbott has a better shot of beating him than anyone else, in the primary or the general. Polls have shown that a large majority of Texas voters support the separation of church and state, and everyone knows that the state's changing demographics could mean trouble for Texas Republicans. But if Texas's leadership is going to continue to dabble in the culture wars, it's a solid sign that the shift isn't afoot just yet. DETAILS

Subject: Cheerleaders; Church &state; Students; Bible; Football; Press conferences; Federal court decisions

Location: Texas; United States–US

Publication title: The Economist (Online); London

Publication year: 2012

Publication date: Oct 24, 2012

Publisher: The Economist Newspaper NA, Inc.

Place of publication: London

Country of publication: United Kingdom, London

Publication subject: Business And Economics

Source type: Magazine

Language of publication: English

Document type: NEWS

ProQuest document ID: 1115286158

LINKS Get It At Liberty

Database copyright  2024 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest

Document URL: https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazi nes/consider-cheerleaders/docview/1115286158/se-2?accountid=12085

Copyright: (Copyright 2012 The Economist Newspaper Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Last updated: 2022-11-16

Database: ProQuest Central

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujrd20

Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance

ISSN: 0730-3084 (Print) 2168-3816 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ujrd20

Prayer 101: Deciphering the Law — What Every Coach and Administrator Should Know

Jennifer Beck Willett, Bernie Goldfine, Todd Seidler, Andy Gillentine & Scott Marley

To cite this article: Jennifer Beck Willett, Bernie Goldfine, Todd Seidler, Andy Gillentine & Scott Marley (2014) Prayer 101: Deciphering the Law — What Every Coach and Administrator Should Know, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 85:9, 15-19, DOI: 10.1080/07303084.2014.958252

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2014.958252

Published online: 27 Oct 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2075

View related articles

View Crossmark data

JENNIFER BECK WILLETT

BERNIE GOLDFINE

TODD SEIDLER

ANDY GILLENTINE

SCOTT MARLEY

Jennifer Beck Willett ([email protected]) is an associate professor in the Department of Exercise Science and Sport Management, and Bernie Gold- fi ne is a professor in the Department of Health Promotion and Physical Education, at Kennesaw State University in Kennesaw, GA. Todd Seidler is coordinator of the graduate program in Sport Administration at the Uni- versity of New Mexico in Albuquerque, NM. Andy Gillentine is a professor and associate dean of the Department of Sport and Entertainment Manage- ment at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, SC. Scott Marley is an associate professor in the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University in Tempe, AZ.

Successful high school administrators and coaches wear many hats and perform numerous tasks related to their jobs. Finances, hiring, scheduling, and com- plying with Title IX often take the forefront. More recently, administrators have also had to address the

issue of prayer at athletic events. Not only is prayer a risk-man- agement issue, it is often the topic of hot debate and has been a source of controversy and confl ict (Gillentine, Goldfi ne, Phillips, Seidler, & Marley, 2004). Schools that are not compliant with the

Prayer 101:Prayer 101:Prayer 101:

What Every Coach and Administrator Should Know

DECIPHERING THE LAW —

JoPerD 15

16 Volume 85 Number 9 NoVember/December 2014

law could face lawsuits and legal costs that would be detrimental to already-strapped school district budgets.

According to Coakley (2011), “Athletes and coaches use reli- gion, religious beliefs, prayers, and rituals in many ways” (p. 535). Proponents of prayer believe that it provides many positive bene- fits in athletic settings, such as building team unity and helping ath- letes to deal with the uncertainties of sport. Opponents of prayer contend that it can divide a team and alienate some team members.

Even though 73% of the United States population considers them- selves Christian, 20% of Americans are “atheist, agnostic, or unaf- filiated with a religion” (The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life [Pew], 2012). Additionally, almost 5% of the U.S. public affili- ates with a non-Christian religion (e.g., Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, etc.). Since religious affiliation in the United States is clearly diverse and fluid (Pew, 2013), it is not surprising that the use of prayer in sport events is a hotly debated topic.

Table 1. Prayer and Public Schools

Year Court Case Case Summary 1962 Engel v. Vitale Prohibits the recitation of school-sponsored, nonsectarian prayer. The rationale of the court was

that it was a violation of the Establishment Clause because government cannot be involved with creating and sponsoring religious activities.

1985 Wallace v. Jaffree Prohibits teachers from setting aside time for prayer activities. The rationale of the court was that the government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion.

1992 Lee v. Weisman Prohibits school-sponsored prayer at commencement delivered by an invited clergy. The rationale of the court was that students were being forced to participate in a religious ceremony.

Table 2. Interscholastic Sport-related Cases

Year Court Case Case Summary 1989 Jager v. Douglas Prohibits clergy from conducting invocations prior to football games. The rationale of

the court was that pre-game invocations were unconstitutional. 1995 Doe v. Duncanville

Independent School District Prohibits coaches from leading prayer before practices and games. The rationale of the court was that the school was endorsing religion by allowing one of its employees to lead prayers.

2000 Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe

Prohibits school officials, administrators, and employees (coaches) from initiating, leading, sponsoring, or promoting prayer at interscholastic athletic events. In addition, school officials cannot allow prayer over a school public address system. The rationale of the court was that prayer violated the Establishment Clause because it was delivered over the public address system.

2008 Borden v. East Brunswick School District

Prohibits coaches from endorsing student-led prayer by kneeling and bowing their head with the team. The rationale of the court was that, observers could conclude that a coach who does so is not merely showing respect but is instead endorsing religion.

2009 Marszalek v. Fadlallah & Dearborn School District

The principal of Fordson High School (Fadlallah) did not renew the wrestling coach’s (Marszalek) contract because of his association with a Christian volunteer coach who converted a student-athlete to Christianity. Marszalek was a renowned coach with over 35 years of experience and numerous awards. He claimed that Fadlallah and the school district violated the U.S. and Michigan constitution and statutes. The lawsuit was settled and Marszalek was awarded $24,500; however, the district admitted no liability and instead claimed they wanted to eliminate the costs associated with litigation (Associated Press, 2010).

2013 Matthews v. Kountze Independent School District

Cheerleaders from Kountze High School have had a tradition of displaying Bible verses on run-through banners as the football team enters the field of play. In June 2013, the District Court decided that banners that included religious messages such as “If God is for us, who can be against us? Romans 8:31” were permitted under the Constitution (Carcamo, 2013). The rationale was that the display of Bible verses was protected by the cheerleaders’ free speech rights.

JoPerD 17

In 2012, a fan who self-identified as an atheist complained about the traditional pregame prayer at the University of Tennes- see–Chattanooga (UTC) football games. This complaint compelled the university to place a ban on all future prayers at sporting events (Garrett, 2012). Such pre-game prayer had been a traditional part of the game experience at UTC Finley Stadium football games, as well as at many other universities in the south. However, af- ter the UTC decision, the University of Georgia and University of Mississippi have both eliminated prayer before football games in the past two decades (Garrett, 2012). Although these universities have voluntarily discontinued pre-game prayers, the courts have upheld the right of schools at the university level to continue the practice of prayer at graduation and before games as long as they are nonsectarian or generic. The rationale for this decision is that college-age students are old enough to know that a prayer does not equate to a state endorsement of religion (Chaudhuri v. State of Tennessee, 1987). Although many universities have stopped prayer at athletic events, the main focus has been at the scholastic level.

Administrators at the interscholastic level must address the issue of prayer at athletic events, balancing the desires of students and stakeholders with the institution’s legal obligation under federal law. The religious makeup of our country is ever changing, as evi- denced by the fact that 72% of the millennial generation considers themselves to be more spiritual than religious (Grossman, 2010), and students’ attitude toward pre-game prayer is different today than it was in decades past. Additionally, legal rulings have bol- stered the case against school-sponsored prayer at interscholastic athletic events. The Constitution of the United States of America provides numerous freedoms, among which are the freedom of re- ligion and the separation of church and state. The First Amend- ment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an estab- lishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof . . . ” (U.S. Const. amend. I). Charges that prayer at school-sponsored activi- ties violates this Amendment has led the U.S. court systems to vital decisions regarding religion and prayer at public schools. Tables 1 and 2 provide a brief summary of several court cases and decisions involving prayer in public schools and interscholastic sports.

Despite these rulings, many coaches continue the practice of prayer with their teams be- fore and after athletic events. A nationwide survey of public- school athletic administrators was conducted to investigate current prayer practices at in- terscholastic sporting events, in which high school athletic direc- tors (N = 585) were randomly sampled from across the United States (Beck, Goldfine, Seidler, Marley, & Gillentine, 2009). The Prayer and High School Athletic Events Survey contained ques- tions regarding religious activi- ties at athletic events, who leads religious activities, whether the

school has religious activity policies, and the religious beliefs of the respondent.

Regarding prayer practices at high school athletic events, the nationwide study revealed that many public high schools through- out the country are not compliant with the law regarding prayer at interscholastic athletic events. Specifically, divided by region, the South reported the highest rate of pre-game prayer at athletic events, noting that it occurs at 50% of the games. The remaining regions reported significantly lower rates: The Midwest reported 24.5%, the West 23.2%, and the Northeast 12.7%. The athletic event with the highest reported rate of pre-game prayer was foot- ball (40.3%), and the State of Alabama had the highest reported rate of pre-game prayer at football games (70%). Alabama was closely followed by South Carolina, which reported 66%. The states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas all reported rates of over 40% (Goldfine, Beck, Seidler, Mar- ley, & Gillentine, 2010).

Based on the findings of the study, researchers have identified several steps coaches and administrators can take in order to mini- mize religious controversy at interscholastic athletic events.

Step 1: Understand the Laws Regarding Prayer at Interscholastic Athletic Events According to the Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000) decision, the following activities are deemed unconstitu- tional. If schools are involved in any of these unconstitutional ac- tivities, they should be stopped immediately:

1. School sponsorship of a religious message, including an- nouncements over the public address system.

2. Prayer led by school officials at school-sponsored functions. 3. School administration and employees (including coaches) or-

ganizing and/or promoting formal prayer.

D AJ

/T hi

nk st

oc k

18 Volume 85 Number 9 NoVember/December 2014

Constitutionally acceptable activities involving prayer include the following:

1. Any student can pray before, during, or after competitions or school.

2. Any player can kneel and pray in the locker rooms or on the field or court.

3. Any attendee can organize an impromptu prayer session with others.

In summary, according to the law, all employees, including coaches, may not participate in any form of religious activity in- volving students. This also includes prayer in the locker room or in a huddle.

Step 2: Establish a Prayer Policy Athletic administration should check to see if their school district has a written policy regarding prayer. If so, the administration should ensure that the policy follows the guidelines set forth by federal law. Of all the athletic directors queried on this issue in the nationwide study, 71.1% indicated that prayer policies are de- veloped by school districts rather than by individuals in the ath- letic department. Yet, in a 2008 study of public schools across the United States, only 21% of athletic directors reported that their school district actually had a written policy regarding prayer at interscholastic athletic events (Goldfine et al., 2010). If one does not exist, the school district should create one that mirrors the law.

Step 3: Assess the Current Religious Practices at Athletic Events To assess the current situation regarding prayer at athletic events, athletic administrators should speak to the coaches of each team or attend each sporting team’s athletic competitions and observe which religious practices fall within the boundaries of the law and which do not. If school-sponsored prayer has been occurring, the student-athletes must be informed that the coaches can no longer be involved as leader or participant in any team prayer. Coaches who have strong religious convictions and believe in prayer can convey that they are simply following the guidelines of federal law and not expressing any personal opinions regarding prayer or reli- gion. However, it is also important that student-athletes know they can continue prayer practices individually or in groups without cause for concern. If prayer does not exist in the team environment, there is no need to discuss this issue with the student-athletes.

Step 4: Educate Constituents on the Laws Regarding Prayer and Interscholastic Sport Many schools may not be adhering to current recommendations and legal obligations simply because the coaches are uneducated about the law. This lack of familiarity with federal law was under- scored by the findings from the nationwide study, which exposed respondents’ lack of knowledge regarding the crucial Santa Fe In- dependent School District v. Doe (2000) Supreme Court ruling. Specifically, in response to the question, “To what extent are you familiar with the court case?” a full 62% of the athletic directors who responded to the survey reported “not at all” or “not very familiar” (Beck et al., 2009). Therefore, athletic directors must first familiarize themselves with the law and should then assess the circumstances at their school. If questionable prayer practices exist within a high school environment, the principal or athletic

director must provide resources to coaches, student-athletes, and other stakeholders that clarify which prayer practices fall within the boundaries of the law and identify those that do not. Athletic directors need to be proactive in clearly explaining prayer policies to their coaches at the beginning of each academic school year to prevent any issues from arising.

Step 5: Enforce the School District Prayer Policy and the Law Athletic directors and coaches are obligated to uphold the law and adhere to school district policy regarding prayer at school-spon- sored sport events. Despite this obligation, many schools have pre- and post-game traditions that include a prayer led by the coach. This is not unexpected, given that more than 65% of athletic di- rectors agreed or strongly agreed that prayer should be allowed at athletic events (Beck, Goldfine, Seidler, Marley, & Gillentine, 2011). Clearly, athletic directors’ or coaches’ personal beliefs play a strong role in their decision to adhere to or ignore federal law regarding prayer at sporting events. This was highlighted by the nationwide study, which revealed that a statistically significant re- lationship existed between the level of a coach’s religious devotion and the presence of prayer at football games. Specifically, the more religious or spiritual the athletic directors professed to be, the more likely they were to allow prayer to be led by a school representative at a sporting event. However, the study also found that 88% of the athletic directors who responded wanted to protect nonpartici- pants’ rights by allowing team members to leave if prayer offended them. However, there are unintended consequences for those who choose not to participate in a team prayer. Those athletes who ab- stain from team prayer may miss out on a significant team-bonding experience, or they may feel like outsiders because they do not share the religious beliefs held by others on the team. In the Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000) court ruling, the court expressed concern that nonadherents may feel pressured into participating in team prayer so that they do not feel like outsiders.

Therefore, while many administrators are well intentioned by allowing