Ben Herschend
Professor Clay
ENGL 1030
5 December 2022
Position Statement Op-Ed
Since the first amendment to the U.S. constitution was ratified in 1791, there has been a persistent national debate regarding the protections and boundaries it places on religious expression. Freedom of religion has morphed into freedom from religion, although the two principles are just opposite sides of the same ideological coin. In May 2014 the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a complaint to Clemson University regarding “serious entanglements between its football program and religion”.
The complaint alleged that the first amendment rights of players were infringed upon by repeated forced exposure and participation in Christianity by head coach Dabo Swinney and the Clemson University football program as a whole. The foundation was given access to school records at their request, and it was from these records that they claimed to have found evidence of religious coercion. The complaint centered around the team chaplain James Trapp. The foundation believed he was given excessive access to the team for religious purposes as a state employee. At times, the complaint seems to be targeting the entire idea of the team chaplain rather than James Trapp himself. The actions outlined hardly seem out of the ordinary. I say this because the statement that James Trapp “as a paid employee of a state university, may not proselytize or promote religion and may not use his university office to do so” should seemingly apply to any sort of chaplain position at any state school. Every major college football program I can think of has a team chaplain, yet Clemson was the target of the complaint. It is logical to assume that Clemson was the target because of how outspoken Coach Swinney was and still is regarding his faith.
Throughout my research, I found little that contradicted the facts of the complaint from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The much larger debate centered around whether the activities listed in the complaint were optional or not, the implication being that if these activities (bible studies during practice, players attending events put on by Christian organizations, baptisms of team members) were not optional, Christianity was being forced upon the players. Swinney, speaking for himself and the school, addressed that exact concern in his statement responding to the complaint. He kept his response concise, maintaining that “Players of any faith or no faith at all are welcome in our program”. There are no rules prohibiting the use of religion in recruiting, and while it has been alleged that Swinney’s utilization of his personal faith in recruiting is wrong, there isn’t much, if anything, to back up that statement.
The aftermath of this controversy was essentially nonexistent, as it was decided in 2014 that Swinney and the Clemson Football team weren’t really doing anything wrong. On top of that, Clemson Football has been quite good since the controversy over religion in 2014. They have won two national titles and sent 45+ players to the NFL in that time while making the playoffs a whopping six years in a row. Swinney has publicly maintained his faith and has attributed much of the Tiger’s success to God and the faith of the team. I fully take the side of Coach Swinney on this issue, as Swinney has acted in nothing but good faith throughout his tenure at Clemson University. Freedom of religion does not just mean that people can practice whatever religion they choose, it also means that people can express and proselytize for their religion, and that is what Swinney has done. Even if you wholly disagree with his religion, you cannot argue with his immensely successful methods.
