(Editor’s Note: What follows is an interview with Landon T. Huffman, a doctoral student in the Recreation & Sport Management program at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK). The interview was gathered as part of the reporting for a story on The Freedom from Religion Foundation’s claim that Clemson University has allowed religion to become too entwined in its football program, in violation of the First Amendment.
Huffman has taught introductory courses to Recreation & Sport Management, Intercollegiate Athletics, and is currently teaching Recreation & Sport Marketing as well as serving as graduate assistant for Partners in Sports, a student organization at UTK which provides opportunities and resources for students pursuing careers in the recreation and sport industry. Before beginning his studies under advisor Dr. Rob Hardin at UTK, he graduated with both his bachelors and masters degrees in Exercise and Sport Science: Sport Administration from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as well as attaining a minor in Coaching Education. Huffman’s research interests include examining the role of faith and spirituality in the holistic care model for athletic participation, which is why we sought him out for an interview.)
What are some red flags that religion might be too intertwined with a public school’s team?
“Anytime a specific faith (dis)belief is communicated should be a red flag within a public school context! I think we are naïve when we ignore the fact that faith (dis)beliefs are strongly interwoven in our culture, and college campuses and athletic teams are no exception. Consequently, I’m an advocate for being transparent with the discussions and best practices rather than simply to accept the status quo, pretend there is nothing to discuss, and then privately hope (which may ironically include praying) to avoid litigation. I do not expect 100% of state employees to separate their professional lives from their personal beliefs. When we do this we silence one of humanity’s strongest assets — our “voice.” As a result I’m in favor of adhering to the adage “there’s a time and a place…” when expressing our core values, which can certainly include faith (dis)beliefs. When discussions of faith (dis)beliefs arise in regards to a public university’s sport(s) team(s) it is critical to seek answers regarding who is communicating what message within what context. Red flags should fly from a legality perspective when one of these components is inclusive of sectarian elements — this certainly does not mean First Amendment protections have been compromised, but is worth evaluating.”
What are your thoughts on public university chaplaincy positions?
“I’m a strong advocate for university chaplaincy positions when structured in a legally-sound manner. In short, chaplains are in a position to offer a critical, but sometimes neglected, component of holistic wellness — spiritual wellness. Spirituality is subjective and carries different meanings to different individuals which can be largely influenced by one’s faith (dis)beliefs. Not everyone will identify with their spirituality according to the same standards nor seek out spiritual resources as frequently as others (if any at all). Nonetheless, I think it is essential for spiritual resources to be available should an individual desire to foster their spiritual health, which can be facilitated by a chaplain.
“Furthermore, focusing on providing chaplaincy resources for intercollegiate athletes is encouraged given their unique time demands, responsibilities, and issues arising from athletic identity. Offering sport chaplaincy resources in a legally-sound manner is a challenge which is why the majority of public schools have few, if any, changes during the last few decades. In doing so they have deferred to continuing with the status quo of allowing an FCA and/or AIA representative to have access to intercollegiate athletes, or giving an individual a dubious “secular” title while in reality they function primarily as a chaplain. In the spirit of transparency I would rather see chaplaincy positions funded by the university and held accountable to being a state actor rather than a third-party representative of a private religiously-affiliated organization.
“Employing a sport chaplain requires a commitment to this shift in the ethos of holistic care. Not that I’m advocating to force spiritual resources on students, but simply offer them in a legally-sound manner which requires open dialogue. This open dialogue is ripe for discussion but requires additional efforts to professionalize the vocation of sport chaplaincy to ensure an ecumenical approach, particularly at public schools. There is not a one-size-fits-all solution as each institution and athletic department is structured differently from an administration and governance standpoint. Nonetheless, this is an exciting time as we seek to care for intercollegiate athletes from the lens of each of them as a person, not a commodity.”
Do you believe lines are crossed if participation in religious activities is available but not made mandatory to players?
“The dreaded answer: it depends.
“For example, if a sport chaplain assumes a spiritually-centric ecumenical approach then relationships should be the focus, not religion. This explanation requires elaboration, but in short I foresee the sport chaplain serving as the point person for connecting each person with individualized resources to help him/her foster spirituality according to their specific desires. For example, the sport chaplain would have a network of local individuals who subscribe to various faith (dis)beliefs who can provide specific religious activities should a player request it.
“Back to the original question, I think lines are crossed if specific religious activities are publicly made available but not made mandatory. Anecdotally speaking, I’ve observed several teams which assume this practice almost verbatim; however, I think this is a slippery slope. In my opinion it is a farce to suggest the aforementioned approach is truly “voluntary” because players can easily feel coerced and/or alienated from such a practice. If coaches are committed to providing a formal time on the schedule for spiritual wellness then it needs to facilitate athletes being able to retreat away from a public space and/or to a private space without coaches and/or teammates being aware. The sport chaplain would be an ideal person to know the whereabouts of an individual during this time who would then keep this information confidential.”
As public employees, should the coaching staff be allowed to openly pray and engage in religious activities? Why or why not?
“Going back to part of my earlier comment, I do not expect 100% of state employees to separate their professional lives from their personal beliefs. When we do this we silence one of humanity’s strongest assets — our “voice.” As a result I’m in favor of adhering to the adage “there’s a time and a place…” when expressing our core values, which can certainly include faith (dis)beliefs. Along those lines, I would advise a member of the coaching staff at a public university to be sensitive to the audience and avoid openly praying and/or engaging in religious activities at team and university functions as these too closely align with sectarian practices. However, if the individual feels strongly about their freedom to exercise religious practices then that’s his/her prerogative and must be prepared to face the consequences should they arise. On the other hand, it is important the pendulum does not swing completely the other direction which would prohibit an individual from expressing his/her core values in general conversations, which could be inclusive of faith (dis)beliefs, at any public or private function.
“The million-dollar question is when does a state employee cross the line from personal (dis)beliefs to endorsing a (dis)belief as a state actor? Wearing a religious trinket? Having a religious tattoo? Displaying a sacred text in the office? At some point we have to be comfortable saying we can agree to disagree while genuinely respecting the other person and his/her right to an opinion.”
What do you believe is the goal of the Freedom from Religion Foundation in the Clemson case?
“I believe the goal of FFRF is publicity of their agenda, which is educating the public relating to matters of nontheism and freethinking. The FFRF’s calling-card is separation of church and state which is an honorable pursuit, but seems to be more charged by promoting nontheism rather than defending the US Constitution.
“Clemson Football is a powerful brand so attaching to them is a method to enhance one’s marketability — which is why organizations pay top dollar to partner with them from a sponsorship standpoint! Obviously this situation involving FFRF is much different but publicity is an undeniable variable. I am optimistic that one of their goals is the best interest of intercollegiate athletes so I agree strides can be made to offer legally-sound opportunities for spiritual development. My question to the FFRF would be hear their stance on spirituality rather than religion.”
