By Landon Huffman
Consider this text message sent by an intercollegiate head coach to all players in April 2014:
“Father, thank you for being the example I need to follow! In this Most Holy week, thank you for showing me how to suffer with the spirit of not giving up. Lord, as I press through my suffering, I pray that You will equip my mind, heart and spirit with the tenacity to endure and the joy of knowing that You are in control. In Jesus Name, I pray. Amen.”
Does this text message reflect legal communication between a head coach and 18-22 year-old student-athletes at a faith-based school? In general, yes, but the appropriateness of the communication may be called into question. Does this text message fit within legal parameters at a state-sponsored secular school? The answer is an emphatic no. So how and why do we get to this point when First Amendment rights are so blatantly and unequivocally violated? Please join me as we consider the facts of this case and then ponder next steps to better manage the intersection of sport and religion at public colleges and universities.
On June 9, 2015 a complaint was filed in reference to Natalia Mendieta, a former female volleyball student-athlete at Delaware State University (DSU). Ms. Mendieta completed her third season in the fall of 2014 when she, unexpectedly, received notice in December 2014 that her athletic scholarship would not be renewed for the 2015-2016 academic year. Why would a student-athlete in good academic standing at DSU, eligible in accordance with NCAA rules, and competing at an elite athletic level not have their athletic scholarship renewed? The ambiguous, yet unfortunately common, “violation of team rules” was the reasoning provided to support the decision not to renew Ms. Mendieta’s athletic scholarship.
According to Ms. Mendieta, she and a number of her volleyball teammates missed curfew the night before an away game of her junior year. At the conclusion of the season (December 2014), she learned she would not have her athletic scholarship renewed, effectively dismissing her from the team. However, she was the only player among those who missed curfew not to have her scholarship renewed. Ms. Mendieta is unable to afford the cost of attending DSU for her senior year (2015-2016) without the athletic scholarship, which led to her filing this complaint, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, … [and] injunctive relief in the form of an order instructing Defendant DSU to provide proper training to its employees so that similar constitutional violations are avoided in the future…” So how does missing curfew relate to violation of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment? Additional facts must be considered.
Ms. Mendieta was recruited by a coach who ultimately left the program prior to Ms. Mendieta matriculating at DSU. The replacement head coach, LaKisya Killingsworth, was not hired until the following April 2013, which can make for a volatile situation regarding the current players who were recruited by a previous coaching regime. Nonetheless, Ms. Mendieta indicated she formed a positive, meaningful relationship with Coach Killingsworth. However, during the first season of competition and the out-of-season training that followed (i.e., Fall 2013 and Spring 2014, respectively) Coach Killingsworth implemented mandatory as well as optional activities unrelated to athletics or academics.
These activities were to the tune of: mandatory attendance at church services, personally directed team prayer prior to each match, personally distributed Bibles to players, mandatory attendance at Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) Bible studies, and “Church” added to the “official team schedule of activities, alongside practices, official matches, and tournaments.” Ms. Mendieta ultimately declined to participate in these required activities, which she later attributed to Coach Killingsworth’s motive for retaliation manifested in not renewing Ms. Mendieta’s scholarship.
Each of the aforementioned accusations represented a fairly clear violation of the Establishment Clause, let alone the other accusations, seeing as DSU is a taxpayer supported, secular, state university. However, will the court side with Ms. Mendieta’s claims that she was discriminated against on the basis of religion which led to her dismissal and decision not to renew her athletic scholarship? Ultimately, arguing in favor of the plaintiff or defendant(s) is not the sole purpose of this article. Rather, my focus shifted to the systematic failure of state-sponsored athletic departments to effectively navigate the intersection of sport and religion.
One of the most distressing statements in the complaint was as follows:
“…[Athletic] Director Young had knowledge of Coach Killingsworth’s conduct and the mandatory religious activity participation policies that she enacted, but did nothing to correct those policies or prevent Coach Killingsworth from repeatedly imposing her religious convictions upon Ms. Mendieta and the rest of the volleyball team.”
I would presume the situation at DSU is not the exception. While coaches and/or athletic administrators at public schools may not explicitly mandate religious participation, the fact of the matter is many public athletic departments effectively endorse religion when they allow sectarian chaplains, pastors, etc. access to athletic facilities and student-athletes for devotionals, chapel, prayer, etc. Anecdotally, athletic administrators are content to adopt the ideals and practice of “plausible deniability,” “looking the other way,” and assuming “ignorance is bliss.” However, deferring to this status quo poses legal risks as well as potentially endangers student-athletes by subjecting them to individuals who are not held accountable to professionalization standards (e.g., counseling).
Recommendations? Lawyers in the complaint suggested implementing training and supervision targeted at “employees in the athletic department to respect the First Amendment rights of student-athletes.” While there is validity to this proposed resolution, this is like using a BAND-AID to treat a displaced fracture. Sport management professionals must gain a better understanding of legally-sound spiritual service provision to better care for athletes and avoid litigation.
Rather than implementing a zero-tolerance approach regarding religious influences, embracing a transparent, spiritually-inclusive paradigm of holistic care is a better strategy. While this may seem counter-intuitive at the surface level, a staffed spiritual advisor committed to a multi-faith methodology rather than inter-faith methodology could bridge the gap to provide spiritual resources for those who seek it. In other words, a multi-faith approach acknowledges a variety of spiritual beliefs as well as no spiritual belief(s) and will meet student-athletes where they are and connect them with who/what they request. Spiritual values and worldview are of utmost importance in some individuals’ lives, so to dismiss the spiritual dimension, whether passively or actively, is a disservice to athletes who desire these specialized resources. A transparent model would hold the spiritual advisor accountable to state and federal laws and professional standards so as to avoid unconstitutional proselytizing. Coaches could encourage players to visit with the spiritual advisor the same as an academic advisor, sport psychology consultant, athletic trainer — all while avoiding the type of religious endorsements occurring in this case with Coach Killingsworth.
Obviously, this is a 30,000-foot view of a reformed holistic care model, and there is much more to be researched and written regarding best practices for spiritual service provision within public intercollegiate athletic departments. While continuing with the status quo is easy, athletic administrators must decide if they want to “pay now” or “pay later” — “pay now” by investing time, energy, and resources to gain a better understanding of properly integrating spiritual care resources, or “pay later” in litigation and potential irreparable harm caused to student-athletes.
So where are we now? The fallout of deferring to the status quo, as evidenced in Mendieta v. Killingsworth, Young, and Delaware State University, has resulted in costly litigation, but more importantly has negatively impacted several lives. Ms. Mendieta “suffered and continues to suffer from emotional distress, humiliation, anxiety, mental anguish, physical manifestation of anxiety, and lost and future academic and athletic opportunities and benefits”; Ms. Mendieta’s teammate “was treated badly by Coach Killingsworth and ultimately decided quit the team…”; Coach Killingsworth decided to uproot and leave DSU; and Athletic Director Young has assumed another appointment within a different academic division at DSU. Too many lives are at risk to continue doing things as they’ve always been done. Therefore, I implore the readership to make strides to understand and implement legally-accountable, fiscally-responsible, health-conscious, holistically-inclusive resources rather than settle for the status quo.
Huffman is Assistant Professor of Sports Studies at Guildford College.
