This has been bothering me and just about everyone I know for some time now, but with the conclusion of Bowl season, I feel the need to comment on the matter. As many of you have witnessed in the past few years, there has been a increased use, by NCAA football players, of incorporating bible passages onto their eye-black patches (e.g. John 3:16). These passages are easily viewed on their faces, through their masks, and the images are broadcast around the nation on television and the internet. So what’s the big deal, you may ask.
My problem is three-fold. First, in the case of a public university, there is arguably a very real First Amendment violation taking place; namely a violation of the Amendment’s Establishment Clause’s long-recognized principle of separation of church and state. Second, it is arguably a violation of the NCAA Guidelines. And my third point is simply this: Those who don’t currently have a problem with the displays may very well have real issues with them in the future. The bible-fearing Christian that may enjoy Tim Tebow’s bible quote of the day may not like his successor’s quote from the Koran.
As to the issue of the displays under the First Amendment, the issue is quite clear. If you’re an official representative or agent of a state financed institution, you are prohibited from proselytizing your religious views in an official capacity. Keep in mind, there’s nothing stopping an individual student from dressing up as Moses and running around their public university campus with cardboard cutouts of the ten commandments. Just so long as they’re doing it as an individual and not on behalf of their school. This isn’t a pickup game between private individuals on the quad. This is a well-financed school program that puts you in a uniform and expects you to represent that school on the local, regional or national stage. So why then are these students allowed to advance their particular religious views as that official representative, all the while being financed to do so with your tax dollars?
Interestingly, the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to review a case from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which addressed a somewhat similar matter. American universities should take notice of The 5th Circuit Court’s opinion, which addressed a Texas school district’s dress code, which prohibited student clothing that displayed political commentary. In rejecting the student’s argument that the policy censored political speech and upholding the school’s dress code, the Court opined that the policy’s intent was to “eliminate distractions.” Consequently, a public university’s policy based upon the same rationale would arguably be upheld by the Supreme Court, especially since the 5th Circuit case concerned students simply attending class as opposed to students acting as an official representative of the state school.
With regard to the second prong of my argument, the NCAA Guidelines state in pertinent part:
The NCAA has rules in place to prevent student-athletes from displaying inappropriate personal or commercial messages on their uniforms (or person) during games. Responsibility rests with individual institutions and conferences to monitor appropriate uniform wear. The NCAA Football Rules Committee will continue to work with conferences to ensure application of the rules.
In the case of a private Christian university, for example, The University of Notre Dame, there is arguably nothing “inappropriate” about displaying such a message. In the case of public university, for example, The University of Florida, there arguably is. The issue with the public university relates back to my first point about the First Amendment. However, “inappropriate” could also be interpreted, not as a legal reference, but a pragmatic one. Institutions such as these have an interest in not alienating their audience, opponents, and current and prospective students. While I’m not aware of any Islamic, Jewish, agnostic or atheist universities in the United States – at least any that have a serious athletic program – there certainly will be at some point and just try to imagine a match between them, all the while one side displaying messages that the other side is “going to hell” or that “God doesn’t exist” or so on. It’s unnecessary, inflammatory and, dare I say, inappropriate in the realm of sport.
Finally, for those who tolerate or even admire such displays on NCAA football players faces, please bear in mind that one day, in the not-too-distant future, you will see blowback or retaliatory displays from people with contrary ideologies. For example, if you were a Christian and a University of Ohio State alumn and the Buckeye’s new, young quarterback starts wearing eye-black with “Pro Choice,” “Thug Life,” or “Allah Akbar,” I could foresee you having a very real problem with this. While “Thug Life” doesn’t violate the First Amendment, it may very well offend you since you don’t approve of that life style and disapprove of the University implicitly or indirectly promoting it via their official representatives on the football field. “Pro Choice” may also not necessarily be a religious statement but it could alienate about 50% of the viewing audience. And how many red blooded Americans really want to see “Allah Akbar” on their favorite players faces? (Note, I’m just being realistic here). While I’m guessing most wouldn’t mind that various players on their favorite team are of different religions, they most likely don’t want to be proselytized upon by them.
So what’s the solution?
I believe that a private solution is generally always preferred over a solution imposed by the state. Further, a solution by the NCAA would be applicable over public and private institutions alike, whereas a ruling handed down by federal courts would only be applicable to public institutions. Yet it’s clear the NCAA and its Guidelines, which allow the universities to regulate themselves in this respect, aren’t working. Accordingly, I believe that the NCAA should follow FIFA’s example and simply make a blanket statement, clarification of the Guidelines, or institute a new policy that simply says “keep personal, political, religious, or ANY messages, albeit words, symbols or otherwise, off of your person and your uniform while engaging in official NCAA activity.”
FIFA Law 4, Decision 1 states:
Players must not reveal undergarments showing slogans or advertising. The basic compulsory equipment must not have any political, religious or personal statements.
A player removing his jersey or shirt to reveal slogans or advertising will be sanctioned by the competition organiser. The team of a player whose basic compulsory equipment has political, religious or personal slogans or statements will be sanctioned by the competition organiser or by FIFA.
I believe this should be the NCAA model. FIFA has historically been in a much more diverse environment, both politically and religiously, than the United States and, thus, it has much more experience and sensitivity with potential issues of this nature. The NCAA, like FIFA, is a private and voluntary association that has the ability and authority to dictate mandatory rules over the athletic activities of public and private actors alike. Membership in the NCAA is not mandatory and, thus, if a university felt so strongly against an NCAA rule as to completely opt out of it, they’re free to do so (with the likely consequence of not being able to compete against other NCAA members).
Absent an NCAA solution, I fear that this issue could soon be a point of contention between the public, media, and/or competing athletes. Why not nip it in the bud before it becomes a distracting problem of epic proportion? So please NCAA, use some common sense.