By Landon T. Huffman, Ph.D., Visiting Assistant Professor, Sport & Fitness Leadership, Johnson University (Lhuffman@JohnsonU.edu)
What are some of your most memorable moments as an athlete or coach? When, where, how, and with whom did they occur?
If your experiences were similar to mine, championships were rewarding, but it was the moments with teammates between competitions that were most memorable. Relationships can’t be manufactured and team building is both an art and science. Teams spend a significant amount of time together in practice, training, the locker room, and travel (e.g., bus, plane, hotel, etc.) which provide opportunities for team building. However, conflicts are prone to arise when these organic moments lack parameters and are grossly unsupervised.
When does playful antagonism, joking, teasing, and/or off-color comments fall under the purview of hazing, bullying, harassment, discrimination, and/or First Amendment infractions? On May 20, 2016, plaintiff Orin Duffin, a former tennis player at Idaho State University (ISU), brought suit against the university, athletic director, head coach for men’s tennis, assistant coach for men’s tennis, and members of the men’s tennis team for allegations pertaining to violation of First Amendment protections (among other claims). Specifically, Duffin alleges he experienced religious discrimination by virtue of the fact he is an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (also known as LDS or Mormon church). Shortly after enrolling at ISU in the fall 2014 semester he learned he was the only LDS member of the men’s tennis team and was subsequently singled-out and harassed due to his religious affiliation. Below are excerpts from complaint pertaining to perceived religious discrimination:
“Plaintiff was questioned by coach Gross [assistant coach for men’s tennis] about whether ‘Mormons can masturbate,’ ‘if Plaintiff would sleep with women selected by Gross,’ if ‘Plaintiff was permitted to go to strip clubs as long as he didn’t touch the dancers,’ and why ‘Plaintiff was celibate.’ All of this harassment was directed toward Plaintiff in the context of conversations about and disparaging remarks directed toward his LDS religious beliefs.”
“When Coach Goeltz [head coach for men’s tennis] found out that Plaintiff had accepted a call to serve a mission, he retaliated and prohibited Plaintiff from playing in any further doubles matches.”
“While staying in Las Vegas for a tournament, assistant Coach Gross amped up the religious based discrimination and harassment. He arranged for a trip to a strip club and invited team members including Plaintiff. When Plaintiff declined he was harassed and ridiculed by Gross.
“While staying in Las Vegas, coach Gross hatched a plan involving team members and arranged to send two prostitutes/strippers to Plaintiff’s room for the purpose of propositioning him with sex. The women asked Plaintiff if he was interested in ‘having a good time.’ Gross sent the women to Plaintiff’s room to tempt him to violate his religious tenets and to sexually harass and embarrass him.”
“Coach Goeltz knew that this harassment had occurred, but instead of investigating the discrimination and holding coach Gross accountable, he questioned Plaintiff’s sexuality and insinuated that Plaintiff was gay. Goeltz questioned ‘maybe he doesn’t shoot that way,’ because Plaintiff declined to let the women into his room.”
Nearing the conclusion of the tennis season Duffin filed a complaint with ISU athletic administration and the office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action, and an internal investigation was immediately conducted. The internal investigation provides another perspective into the allegations, and whether or not Duffin’s accusations are substantiated.
The now Defendants disputed making disparaging remarks regarding Duffin’s religion, belief, and practices. They argued their comments, behavior, and treatment of Duffin was consistent with “typical” freshmen status and tasks, not religion. They also collectively acknowledged that any differences in treatment was self-inflicted by Duffin given the fact he chose to live off campus, lacked social etiquette, and was uncoachable. Finally, it was substantiated that comments were made which were religious in nature, but these comments were in the context of cordial, respectful conversations seeking information about the LDS religion. Overall, the defendants affirmed Duffin’s lack of communication regarding his dissatisfaction was interpreted as consenting with the culture of the team. When asked about the incident involving prostitutes at Duffin’s hotel door, there were conflicting statements: the coaching staff and some players denied having any knowledge whereas other team members acknowledged conspiracy involving Gross and teammates.
Based on the recommendations from the internal investigation, credibility and evidence weighed in favor of Duffin’s accusations — and this reality is troubling. The content of the comments and actions were largely undisputed. Should the case go to court it’s the tone and motives that jurors will be tasked with discerning.
The lens through which I write is that of intercollegiate athletic administration, so I lack the legal expertise of much of the readership. While I cannot confidently speak to the extent of Constitutional infractions (i.e., First Amendment protections), the accusations in this case certainly appear to support religiously-based discrimination, particularly in terms of sexual harassment. Subsequently, ISU should be held accountable to violations of protections outlined not only in the United States Constitution, but also according to Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
Systemic red flags arising from this case signal a continued lack of education, training, and supervision as well as a lack of valuing diversity of the human experience. Duffin wasn’t simply the victim of the proverbial “lapse in judgment” — there were numerous incidents spanning the course of months. The coaching staff and/or teammates had several opportunities to intervene and put the team’s culture on a different trajectory; instead, the product was a calloused culture.
Mark Twain is given credit for saying, “history may not repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” Unfortunately, this is yet another case of bullying and hazing, this time motivated primarily by faith-based differences. As a sporting culture we cannot keep doing the same thing we’ve been doing and expect different results.
In my line of research, I explore the intersection of sport and religion, particularly from the perspective of holistic care service provision. The more I become aware of tragedies such as what Duffin and ISU experienced, the more confident I am that one point of entry for change is a shift in the ethos of holistic care. Intervening by offering a legally-permissible spiritual care advisor (traditionally referred to as a “chaplain”) can assist in our shared pursuit to “expect different results” to prevent callous cultures in sport.
It is disheartening to read about Duffin’s internal rationalization that he was reluctant to speak-out about his treatment because he felt it would not be valued, but rather retaliated against, primarily because he was alienated and targeted as the only Mormon on the team. Chaplains, among other duties, serve as advocates in their sphere of influence, caring for the spiritual needs of those who seek it; advocates who can connect sportspeople with a community of like-minded individuals. Also, chaplains are expected to serve as broader ethical sounding boards and moral compasses for athletes, coaches, and athletic administrators as someone who understands their unique environment, experiences, and challenges. When individuals have questions about religious traditions, rituals, observances, and values, particularly as it intersects with dynamics of sport (as claimed by the now Defendants), chaplains can educate and provide resources. Surely, Duffin could have benefited from a trusted ally and advocate with shared interests in spiritual challenges and opportunities; and the men’s tennis coaches and players could have benefited from gaining an in-depth understanding of Duffin’s faith-based convictions and desire to serve a mission.
An adage states that “wisdom isn’t learning from your mistakes — even fools learn from their own mistakes. Wisdom is learning from others’ mistakes.” One statement from ISU’s internal investigation reads:
As a mandatory reporter of discrimination and/or harassment, [Coach Goeltz] bears a responsibility to report problems such as those faced by [Duffin] to the appropriate university personnel for action. Instead, [Coach Goeltz], either through ignorance or indifference, failed to appropriately oversee interactions among players and coaches on the men’s tennis team.
The comment that screams off the page is, “…either through ignorance or indifference.” This is unacceptable and we must learn from others’ mistakes; admit our own weaknesses and make changes that are a good fit for our respective communities. Remaining naïve and passive regarding spiritual matters will result in history that “rhymes” with that of Duffin and ISU. Both sides of the aisle can make arguments for why chaplains will or will not work. Nonetheless, our values must shift to reflect a shared commitment to combatting ignorance through education and indifference through engagement — chaplains are one strategy to open theses doors and bridge the gap in holistic care within intercollegiate athletics. My heart breaks for Duffin, ISU, and the families affected; yet, I remain steadfast that leaders are listening to the holistic reverberations and making changes so when we leave our respective communities they are healthier than how we entered them.
