By Kenny Berkowitz
At East Brunswick (N.J.) High School, Head Football Coach Marcus Borden made national headlines by resigning from his position after being told to stop kneeling or bowing his head while his team prayed. In the four years since, he’s taken his fight all the way to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case in March. That leaves the school district’s ban firmly in place. But where does it leave other coaches?
•••
Is it okay for coaches to silently kneel or bow their heads while their athletes pray? The short answer is, “Probably not.” But there’s a gray area in that “probably,” depending on whether public school coaches are (a) simply supporting student-athletes’ right to pray, which is legal, or (b) supporting prayer as an endorsement of religion, which is illegal.
There’s a thin line between the two, and as in any legal judgment, history matters. At East Brunswick, team prayer was firmly in place before Borden arrived in 1983. For the next 14 years, he continued that tradition, praying with players in the locker room before each contest and inviting a local minister to say grace at the season’s first pregame dinner.
In 1997, when the athletic director ordered the minister to stop leading grace, players began reading the minister’s grace instead. That continued until the minister’s retirement six years later, when Borden started a new tradition: leading grace himself at the first pregame dinner and choosing senior student-athletes to say grace at other dinners.
Then in 2005, responding to a series of complaints about the grace, the district superintendent told Borden to stop leading team prayers. Borden countered that he wasn’t leading prayers—he simply bowed his head or took a knee while his student-athletes prayed.
In the policy that followed, East Brunswick clarified its stance, saying coaches could not “encourage, lead, initiate, mandate, or otherwise coerce, directly or indirectly, student prayer at any time in a school-sponsored setting.” If prayers were “truly student initiated,” players were free to pray on their own before a game, after a game, or during halftime. But coaches couldn’t legally join them without crossing the line “between respect for religion and endorsement of religion.”
The wording reflects the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In practice, that means public institutions can allow prayer, but cannot legally favor one religion over another or promote religion in any way. In the district’s view, Borden’s presence at team prayer, whether he was silent or not, signaled an endorsement of religion.
Borden resigned from coaching when the policy was announced, then withdrew his resignation one week later, and returned to work. (In the three years since, he’s remained on staff at East Brunswick as the Head Football Coach and a tenured Spanish teacher.) He filed suit in federal court, asking for permission to “show his respect” for players and East Brunswick football by silently bowing his head during grace and taking a knee in the locker room. Relying on the U.S. and New Jersey constitutions, he argued the district had deprived him of free speech by forbidding this secular “symbolic conduct.”
In 2006, a U.S. District Court agreed with Borden in a summary judgment: As long as he didn’t lead or initiate prayers, he was within his rights to participate silently. But the school district appealed its case, and in 2008, three judges of the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled in its favor.
All agreed that East Brunswick’s policy was constitutional. One judge wrote that given Borden’s 23 years of organizing and leading prayers with his team, “a reasonable observer would conclude that Borden is showing not merely respect when he bows his head and takes a knee with his teams.” A second judge ruled that even without that context, silently kneeling and bowing is a clear endorsement of religion. A third, while agreeing on constitutional grounds, wondered if the court would have decided differently in the case of a coach who had no history of praying with his or her team.
What does the decision mean? From legal precedent, it was already clear that coaches may not lead or initiate prayers with their public school teams. With the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Borden's appeal, it’s now understood that even coaches’ silent participation in prayer can constitute endorsement of religion.
Borden claimed that bowing his head during prayers fostered his students’ “character education,” and that he was simply acting in his role as an educator. But the court felt Borden’s argument was undercut by his 23-year history of leading team prayers and his resignation when he was told to stop.
That leaves one last “what-if.” What if another coach, who has no history of leading prayers, remains in the room as players pray, simply as a gesture of support? According to the decision by the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, that might be legal—but until that hypothetical coach steps forward, the safest path for coaches is to leave student-athletes to pray entirely on their own.
FEEDBACK
All of this could be easily resolved by coaches leading a "moment of
silence" before and after games or practices, dinners, banquets, with no
particular religious affiliation. Why should sport coaches acknowledge
any one religion over another? The sport coach should not assume all of
his/her athletes are christian nor do a poll to check to see if all of
the athletes are christian. It is none of his/her business!
Athesists, agnositics, deists, christians, jews, muslims have basic
ethics and morals that are common. Focus on elements of commonality.
Coaches should focus on being good role models without the prayer and
preaching! There are enough hypocrits in all religions where people
preach "the word" but don't follow by their actions. Focus on better
role modeling.
Please, let's get displays of religious piety out of sport. Religious
people of all religions are allowed freedom to worship in their homes,
synagogues, churches and mosques. Non religious people do not need to be
subjected to displays of of religiousity!
— Ethan Reeve
The problem with Mr.Reeve's feedback is that he neglects one very
important constitutional gaurentee, that we Americans are allowed to
practice our beliefs freely and openly not just in our homes,
synagogues, churches or mosques. If someone choses not to listen or
participate that is also guarenteed in our constitution. If we adhere to
MR. Reeve's standard of not subjecting non-religious people to displays
of religiosity then I guess we should be arresting professional athletes
who thank God on network television either verbally or through the act
of blessing themselves with the sign of the cross. Taking offense at
displays of prayer or religiosity (not my choice of words) merely
demonstratres the utter conceit that has begun to plague our society. To
believe for one moment that we are the ultimate in creation is the
pinacle of that
conceit.
I have been coaching in the public sector for over 38 years and
throughout that time have constantly reminded our athletes that all of
their athletic abilities come from a higher source- God. And I teach
that we should be thankful to God for all of the gifts we are given. We
also tell our athletes that they have a duty first to God, then to
family, then to school and then finally to their team. I also think
that the best example that a coach can set for his or her athletes is a
profound respect for a higher authority. The example set by those
without a belief in God is usually selfish and arrogant and one to
which I would not want my own five children to be subjected.
Our constitution clearly states that Congress will make no law
respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
excercise thereof. The framers of our constitution wrote this clause
because they did not want this new countrry to do what was done in the
old country, that is establish a state church or designate a specific
religion as the state religion. It sounds to me like our 'Justices' got
it backwards. Their ruling prohibits the coaches right to say a prayer
or to even recognize the existance of God in public. That sounds like a
prohibition of the free exercise thereof.
- Tommy Brennan
Football Coach
I've been covering Marcus Borden's lawsuit over the past two years, so I think I can shed a little light on the concerns raised in the above feedback. We need to be careful to not confuse two separate things: Our right as Americans to freely exercise our beliefs, and the responsibility of public school educators to provide an environment where students of all faiths (or no faith at all) feel equally respected. The main issue in the Borden case is that as a football coach at a public high school, Mr. Borden is acting /as an agent of the school district/ when he's with his team, so his constitutional right to freely exercise his religion isn't the same as when he's acting as a private citizen. For instance, if your local public school has a devoutly Christian or Jewish or Muslim teacher, he's free to profess his faith openly and in public on his own time, and even try to gain converts, and you're free to listen to him or ignore him as you choose. That's the free marketplace of ideas our democracy is based on. But he can't profess his religion in the classroom or while he's acting on behalf of the public school--that's the dividing line between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause in the constitution.
Also, the justices in this case didn't tell Borden he couldn't pray with his team. They simply said that the school district's existing policy, which says coaches cannot pray with their teams, isn't a violation of his constitutional rights. The district created that policy because it understood that its teachers, coaches, and other employees are acting on the district's behalf when doing their jobs, and are authority figures in the eyes of high school students -- So they need to ensure that all students, regardless of faith, feel comfortable and welcome while participating in school-sponsored activities.
For the same reason, the analogy of a professional athlete thanking God or making the sign of the cross on TV isn't apt for this situation. Pro athletes, unlike public school employees, aren't acting as agents of a government/public entity. The government doesn't own the league or its teams, so in that case, an athlete who displays or professes his faith is acting as a private citizen, and his right of free and open religious expression is respected, as well it should be.
-Greg Scholand
Associate Editor
Athletic Management
Kenny Berkowitz is an Assistant Editor at Athletic Management.