A panel of judges from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the ruling of a district court, finding that a school district was within its rights to ban a parent from attending a home game, who violated the district’s guidelines “by using incendiary language denigrating coaches and young players.”
Plaintiff William Blasi is the father of two children, Oliver and Pierce, which he described in the complaint as being mixed race, i.e., “part white and part ethnic Chinese.” In November 2009, both children tried out for the middle school basketball team in the Pen Argyl Area School District. They both made the team, along with every other student who tried out.
However, Blasi, a pro se litigant, sued the district after the defendant’s coaches “encouraged assaults on his children by other children who ‘were mainly white,’ and denied his sons equal opportunity to play basketball because ‘lesser skilled white boys’ and ‘much lesser skilled white boys’ played more than his sons.”
The plaintiff went so far as to send 17 emails to various officials and coaches of the defendant,”where he complained about how the program was run, players being encouraged to foul excessively, the Blasi children being excessively fouled, and the discrimination of the coaches and their favoritism toward white student players,” according to the court.
On December 22, 2009, “Terry R. Barry, the principal of the Blasi children’s Middle School, sent a letter to Blasi to inform him that he was prohibited from attending one home basketball game for violating the School District’s policy, i.e., several provisions of the August 2005 Parental/Spectator Guidelines.”
Blasi ultimately sued, alleging a violation of his First Amendment right to free expression, his right to petition the government for redress, and his right to be free from retaliation for exercising his constitutional rights.
The school successfully district moved to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leading to the appeal
In agreeing with the lower court, the panel wrote that “school officials have comprehensive authority, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to maintain an environment suitable for academic and extra-curricular learning by all students. See Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969). There is no constitutionally protected right to play sports. See Angstadt v. Midd-West Sch. Dist., 377 F.3d 338, 344 n.2 (3d Cir. 2004).
“The narrower goals of an athletic team differ from those of academic pursuits and are not always consistent with the freewheeling exchange of views that might be appropriate in a classroom debate. See, e.g., Lowery v. Euverard, 497 F.3d 584 (6th Cir. 2007). “School officials have a legitimate interest in affording student athletes ‘an educational environment conducive to learning team unity and sportsmanship and free from disruptions that could hurt or stray the cohesiveness of the team.’ Wildman v. Marshalltown Sch. Dist., 249 F.3d 768, 771 (8th Cir. 2001).
“In order to achieve an effective and efficient athletic program for the students who wish to play, school officials may properly condition participation with a greater limitation of constitutional rights, including the right to free speech, than might otherwise be permissible. See Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association v. Brentwood Academy, 551 U.S. 291, 127 S.Ct. 2489, 168 L. Ed. 2d 166 (2007) (restriction on speech in recruiting athletes); Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 132 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1995) (voluntary participants in school athletics have reason to expect intrusions upon normal rights and privileges).
“In this instance, plaintiff’s charges are made in the context of an athletic program in which his sons’ participation, and by extension his own, is voluntary. Plaintiff was aware of and agreed to the standards required of students, and their parents, in order to participate in the School District’s basketball program, including restrictions on the manner and tone of speech used with respect to coaches and other players. Although he makes an unsupported argument of non-applicability, the plaintiff acknowledges in his complaint that such restrictions were ‘drafted as a reasonable time, place, and manner regulation of speech.’
“The Guidelines and the challenged subsequent amendments are reasonably designed to enhance the educational and athletic experience of plaintiff’s sons as well as that of other students participating in the program. The Guidelines do not preclude or prohibit criticism of coaches (or even other team members) but regulate the time, place, and manner in which such concerns are expressed in a way necessary to manage an effective and efficient basketball program. The policy permits the coach and players to focus on the game when at hand, without distraction of competing views on the strategies and tactics best calculated to win.
“Athletic programs may … produce long-term benefits by distilling positive character traits in the players. However, the immediate goal of an athletic team is to win the game, and the coach determines how best to obtain that goal. … ‘The plays and strategies are seldom up for debate. Execution of the coach’s will is paramount.'” Lowery v. Euverard, 497 F3d. 584, 589 (6th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
“The sanction upon plaintiff was imposed because, contrary to the Guidelines, he used incendiary language denigrating coaches and young players alike. In so doing, plaintiff not only violated his own agreement to refrain from using abusive language, he also jeopardized the interests of other participants in the athletic program.”
William Blasi v. Pen Argyl Area School District; 3rd. Cir.; No. 11-3982, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2095; 1/30/13
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Pro se, Pen Argyl, PA. (for defendant) Ellis H. Katz, Esq., Jonathan P. Riba, Esq., Sweet, Stevens, Katz & Williams, New Britain, PA.
