By Chloe Scheller
A new conflict over First Amendment rights is taking place in collegiate athletics.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), a group based in Madison, WI, has claimed that Clemson University has allowed religion to become too entwined in its football program. The FRFF claims that the school is violating the Constitution with its team bible studies, devotionals and three privately funded bus trips to a Baptist church in a neighboring town.
In response to the allegations, Clemson University’s attorney wrote that the FFRF has misinterpreted the law in its complaints toward Head Football Coach Dabo Swinney and the level of influence his personal beliefs have had on the football program. Erin Swann Lauderdale, Clemson University’s senior associate counsel, sent a letter to FFRF Staff Attorney Patrick Elliot, on April 24, which reads “it is clear that you have misconstrued important facts and made incorrect statements of the law.” Lauderdale went on to say that programs at the university are continuously reviewed to guarantee the wellbeing of students and to remain compliant with Constitutional requirements. Lauderdale also said that the FFRF’s complaints would be considered during their next review.
Whether or not students felt forced to participate in these activities is still unknown. However, even if an activity is stated to be voluntary players may still feel pressured, according to one expert.
“Some red flags to look at are if any of the religious activities are required or forced upon players,” said Dr. Jennifer Beck Willett, associate professor of sport management at Kennesaw State University. “Coaches may say the activities are ‘voluntary’ but sometimes those who choose not to participate face penalties that could affect the way a coach perceives them, their position, playing time, along with other factors.” In the past, Willett has conducted comprehensive studies dealing with prayer in public high school sports. “All football players engage in ‘voluntary’ summer practice and conditioning. If you ask any player if this workout was ‘voluntary’, they would say ‘No!’ Speaking directly to the athletes is the only way to discover this answer.”
Another disagreement involves the team chaplaincy position held by James Trapp. The FFRF claims that the chaplaincy position violates the constitution due to his legal duties and state obligations prohibiting him to use state resources for proselytizing. “Mr. Trapp, as a paid employee of a state university, may not proselytize or promote religion and may not use his university office to do so,” Elliott wrote.
Lauderdale rebutted that the Supreme Court has defended the right of public bodies to employ chaplains and that partaking in prayer “is not in conflict with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom.” Dr. Andy Gillentine, associate dean and professor at the College of Hospitality, Retail and Sport Management at the University of South Carolina believes that value can be found in chaplaincy positions because they may provide students with additional support. “Universities should offer all forms of support to students to help them deal with issues and needs. These positions can be very useful to all athletes despite religious or non-religious beliefs,” said Gillentine.
As for the coaches’ involvement Gillentine goes on to say that “[this is a] very delicate situation. Everyone has the right to believe as they see fit but people in positions of influence must be careful not to exert undue influence or pressure on others. Coaches have the right to attend religious activities as they see fit and to openly pray but need to be respectful of other’s beliefs or non belief.”
In the end, the debate boils down to the definition of the First Amendment itself. “FFRF’s goal is separation of church and state so that is what the first amendment specifically states,” said Willett when asked about what the FFRF is trying to accomplish. On the other side of the fence stands Dr. Everett Piper, President of Oklahoma Wesleyan University.
“The First Amendment clearly states that it defends ‘freedom of religion’ not ‘freedom from religion’,” said Piper. “It was originally put in place by President Thomas Jefferson to protect the church from the state, not the other way around. We should be honoring the original language. We should not be making religious activities mandatory or endorsing a certain religion but we also cannot tell state bodies that they cannot practice.”
Coach Swinney did respond to the allegations stating that in the past he has coaches and welcomes players of all faiths and of no faith. Despite the claims, Swinney does not plan on making any changes to his practices.
