Originally posted by SJHovey
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
SCOTUS, Now with KBJ
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by SJHovey View PostThe only "facts" that I know about the case are those referred to in the decision,
...
He even asked if he could do it after all the players left, when he was alone, and the school turned him down.
"Kennedy stopped participating in locker room prayers and, after a game the following day, gave a secular speech. He returned to pray in the stadium alone after his duties were over and everyone left the stadium, to which the District had no objection."
You could at least read the facts first.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Swansong View Post
This is a wild misstating of the facts of the case.
The coach was in a position of authority and made it unofficially very clear that prayer was required. No one was offended at the site of some superstitious people praying. They were offended that players were effectively peer pressured into joining. Want to play? Come and ostentatiously pray with us.
This was a performative act designed to get attention. The school responded to a complaint the right way, and then the coach made a major media campaign about it and got it all the way to this renegade court.
My god, is every GQP and GQP-adjacent just allergic to facts?
Below is the text of the letter sent by the school district to the coach that summarizes what happened that ultimately lead to his dismissal. Following receipt of the letter, the coach went ahead and did the same thing the following week (briefly said a prayer by himself at the center of the field while the players were off celebrating) and he was fired.
No kids were coerced into participating. He made a public prayer, by himself, and the school was pizzed about it.
The record is 376 pages long, if you care to read it. I skimmed through a sizable amount of it. It's actually kind of interesting.
Here is the letter.
JA 90
Letter From A. Leavell to J. Kennedy
(Oct. 23, 2015)
Dear Coach Kennedy:
OnSeptember17,2015,I provided you with
guidance and a set of standards for compliance with
Bremerton School District Board Policy 2340. Those
directives were in response to your prior practices
involving on-the-job prayer with players in the
Bremerton High School football program, both in the
locker room prior to games as well as on the field
immediately following games. In general, I believe
that you have attempted to comply with the guidelines
set forth in that letter.
However, immediately following the end of the
homecoming game on October 16, 2015, you knelt at
midfield and bowed your head in prayer. While most
of the BHS players were at that moment engaged in
the traditional singing of the school fight song to the
audience, your intention to pray at midfield following
the game was widely publicized, including through
your own media appearances.
I wish to emphasize my appreciation for your
efforts to comply with the September 17 directives.
Nevertheless, I find it necessary to clarify the
District’s expectations going forward. As was
discussed in that letter:
Many decades of federal court litigation,
including decisions of the United States
Supreme Court, have fleshed out the meaning
of the First Amendment’s Establishment
Clause and Free Exercise Clause. In the
public schools context, it is clear that schools
and their employees may not directly prohibit
JA 91
students from participating in religious
activities, nor may they require students to
participate in religious activities. Further, it
is equally clear that school staff may not
indirectly encourage students to engage in
religious activity (or discourage them from
doing so),or even engage in action that is
likely to be perceived as endorsing (or
opposing) religion or religious activity. In
short, schools and their employees, while
performing their job duties, must remain
neutral—allowing non-disruptive student
religious activity, while neither endorsing nor
discouraging it.
Federal case law makes clear that a violation of
the United States Constitution’s First Amendment
Establishment Clause occurs if a school employee
engages in conduct which a reasonable observer,
familiar with the history and context of the conduct,
would perceive as government endorsement of
religion. I again emphasize that the District does not
prohibit prayer or other religious exercise by
employees while on the job.However, as my
September 17 letter stated, such exercise must not
interfere with the performance of job responsibilities,
and must not lead to a perception of District
endorsement of religion. I conclude that your conduct
of October16, 2015,is not consistent with these
requirements.
As the District has emphasized to your legal
representatives, paid assistant coaches in District
athletic programs are responsible for supervision of
students not only prior to and during the course of
JA 92
games, but also during the activities following games
and until players are released to their parents or
otherwise allowed to leave. Supervision of students,
including in dressing rooms, is explicitly listed among
the responsibilities of assistant coaches in the District.
Indeed, I have confirmed with your head coach that for
over ten years, all assistant coaches have had assigned
duties both before and after each game and have been
expected to remain with the team until the last
student has left the event; that until recently, you
regularly came to the locker room with the team and
other coaches following the game; that you have been
among the assistant coaches with specific
responsibility for the supervision of players in the
locker room following games; and that you have helped
in the supervision of students until they are picked up
by parents or leave the facility, including during post-
game meetings between the head coach and
coordinators. From this review, I am satisfied that you
are and have been aware that as a paid assistant
coach, you remain on duty following games until the
last student has left the event. If that has been
unclear, I trust any confusion on your part as to these
expectations has now been remedied.
Thus, when you engaged in religious exercise
immediately following the game on October 16, you
were still on duty for the District. You were at the
event, and on the field, under the game lights, in BHS-
logoed attire,in front of an audience of event
attendees, solely by virtue of your employment by the
District. The field is not an open forum to which
members of the public are invited following completion
of games; but even if it were, you continued to have job
responsibilities, including the supervision of players.
JA 93
While I understand that your religious exercise was
fleeting, it nevertheless drew you away from your
work. More importantly, any reasonable observer saw
a District employee, on the field only by virtue of his
employment with the District, still on duty, under the
bright lights of the stadium, engaged in what was
clearly, given your prior public conduct, overtly
religious conduct. And there were many such
observers: The game had ended mere moments earlier.
Under federal court precedent, a court would almost
certainly find your conduct on October 16, in the
course of your District employment, to constitute
District endorsement of religion in violation of the
United States Constitution. That same case law not
only allows, but requires, the District to prohibit such
violations from recurring. In addition, Washington
courts have held that Article IX Section 4 of the
Washington Constitution, which provides that public
schools “shall be forever free from sectarian control or
influence,” imposes an even more strict prohibition on
public agency endorsement of religion.
I wish to again emphasize that the District does
not prohibit prayer or other religious exercise by its
employees. However, it must prohibit any conduct by
employees that would serve as District endorsement
of religion. I have explained above why your conduct
of October 16 violates that expectation. On the other
hand, I wish to make it clear that religious exercise
that would not be perceived as District endorsement,
and which does not otherwise interfere with the
performance of job duties, can and will be
accommodated. Development of accommodations is an
interactive process, and should you wish to continue
to engage in private exercise while on the job, the
JA 94
District will be happy to discuss options for that to
occur in a manner that will not violate the law.
It is common for schools to provide an employee
whose faith requires a particular form of exercise with
a private location to engage in such exercise during
the work day, not observable to students or the public,
so long as this does not interfere with performance of
job responsibilities. For example, a private location
within the school building, athletic facility or press box
could be made available to you for brief religious
exercise before and after games, if this will not
interfere with your assigned duties. Please let me
know if you would like to discuss such
accommodations.
Finally, I would like to remind you of what I said
in my September 17 letter: That is, the District values
very highly your positive contributions to the BHS
football program, and in particular, your motivational
and inspirational talks to the players. In that letter, I
assured you that you could continue that practice,
focusing on appropriate themes such as unity,
teamwork, responsibility, safety and endeavor. After
the game immediately following that letter, you
provided such a talk to the players of both teams,
while remaining entirely secular. That talk was well
received,and appreciated by the District and the
community. I would certainly encourage continuation
of that practice.
To summarize: While on duty for the District as
an assistant coach, you may not engage in
demonstrative religious activity, readily observable to
(if not intended to be observed by) students and the
attending public. You may not repeat your conduct of
JA 95
October 16, 2015, for the reasons discussed above.
Given the severity and likelihood of liability faced by
the District in the event of further violations of these
directives, any further violations will be grounds for
discipline, up to and including discharge from District
employment. It is my hope that you will choose to
honor these expectations, and .continue your positive
work with the BHS football program for the remainder
of this season.
Sincerely,
[handwritten: signature]
Aaron Leavell, Ed.D.
SuperintendentThat community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.
Comment
-
By the way, if you are interested in the record, here is the link. The letter I copied and pasted into my post begins on page 98 of that pdf.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...20Appendix.pdfThat community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
Well, fortunately, there is a record, and it is public.
Below is the text of the letter sent by the school district to the coach that summarizes what happened that ultimately lead to his dismissal. Following receipt of the letter, the coach went ahead and did the same thing the following week (briefly said a prayer by himself at the center of the field while the players were off celebrating) and he was fired.
No kids were coerced into participating. He made a public prayer, by himself, and the school was pizzed about it.
The record is 376 pages long, if you care to read it. I skimmed through a sizable amount of it. It's actually kind of interesting.
Here is the letter.
JA 90
Letter From A. Leavell to J. Kennedy
(Oct. 23, 2015)
Dear Coach Kennedy:
OnSeptember17,2015,I provided you with
guidance and a set of standards for compliance with
Bremerton School District Board Policy 2340. Those
directives were in response to your prior practices
involving on-the-job prayer with players in the
Bremerton High School football program, both in the
locker room prior to games as well as on the field
immediately following games. In general, I believe
that you have attempted to comply with the guidelines
set forth in that letter.
However, immediately following the end of the
homecoming game on October 16, 2015, you knelt at
midfield and bowed your head in prayer. While most
of the BHS players were at that moment engaged in
the traditional singing of the school fight song to the
audience, your intention to pray at midfield following
the game was widely publicized, including through
your own media appearances.
I wish to emphasize my appreciation for your
efforts to comply with the September 17 directives.
Nevertheless, I find it necessary to clarify the
District’s expectations going forward. As was
discussed in that letter:
Many decades of federal court litigation,
including decisions of the United States
Supreme Court, have fleshed out the meaning
of the First Amendment’s Establishment
Clause and Free Exercise Clause. In the
public schools context, it is clear that schools
and their employees may not directly prohibit
JA 91
students from participating in religious
activities, nor may they require students to
participate in religious activities. Further, it
is equally clear that school staff may not
indirectly encourage students to engage in
religious activity (or discourage them from
doing so),or even engage in action that is
likely to be perceived as endorsing (or
opposing) religion or religious activity. In
short, schools and their employees, while
performing their job duties, must remain
neutral—allowing non-disruptive student
religious activity, while neither endorsing nor
discouraging it.
Federal case law makes clear that a violation of
the United States Constitution’s First Amendment
Establishment Clause occurs if a school employee
engages in conduct which a reasonable observer,
familiar with the history and context of the conduct,
would perceive as government endorsement of
religion. I again emphasize that the District does not
prohibit prayer or other religious exercise by
employees while on the job.However, as my
September 17 letter stated, such exercise must not
interfere with the performance of job responsibilities,
and must not lead to a perception of District
endorsement of religion. I conclude that your conduct
of October16, 2015,is not consistent with these
requirements.
As the District has emphasized to your legal
representatives, paid assistant coaches in District
athletic programs are responsible for supervision of
students not only prior to and during the course of
JA 92
games, but also during the activities following games
and until players are released to their parents or
otherwise allowed to leave. Supervision of students,
including in dressing rooms, is explicitly listed among
the responsibilities of assistant coaches in the District.
Indeed, I have confirmed with your head coach that for
over ten years, all assistant coaches have had assigned
duties both before and after each game and have been
expected to remain with the team until the last
student has left the event; that until recently, you
regularly came to the locker room with the team and
other coaches following the game; that you have been
among the assistant coaches with specific
responsibility for the supervision of players in the
locker room following games; and that you have helped
in the supervision of students until they are picked up
by parents or leave the facility, including during post-
game meetings between the head coach and
coordinators. From this review, I am satisfied that you
are and have been aware that as a paid assistant
coach, you remain on duty following games until the
last student has left the event. If that has been
unclear, I trust any confusion on your part as to these
expectations has now been remedied.
Thus, when you engaged in religious exercise
immediately following the game on October 16, you
were still on duty for the District. You were at the
event, and on the field, under the game lights, in BHS-
logoed attire,in front of an audience of event
attendees, solely by virtue of your employment by the
District. The field is not an open forum to which
members of the public are invited following completion
of games; but even if it were, you continued to have job
responsibilities, including the supervision of players.
JA 93
While I understand that your religious exercise was
fleeting, it nevertheless drew you away from your
work. More importantly, any reasonable observer saw
a District employee, on the field only by virtue of his
employment with the District, still on duty, under the
bright lights of the stadium, engaged in what was
clearly, given your prior public conduct, overtly
religious conduct. And there were many such
observers: The game had ended mere moments earlier.
Under federal court precedent, a court would almost
certainly find your conduct on October 16, in the
course of your District employment, to constitute
District endorsement of religion in violation of the
United States Constitution. That same case law not
only allows, but requires, the District to prohibit such
violations from recurring. In addition, Washington
courts have held that Article IX Section 4 of the
Washington Constitution, which provides that public
schools “shall be forever free from sectarian control or
influence,” imposes an even more strict prohibition on
public agency endorsement of religion.
I wish to again emphasize that the District does
not prohibit prayer or other religious exercise by its
employees. However, it must prohibit any conduct by
employees that would serve as District endorsement
of religion. I have explained above why your conduct
of October 16 violates that expectation. On the other
hand, I wish to make it clear that religious exercise
that would not be perceived as District endorsement,
and which does not otherwise interfere with the
performance of job duties, can and will be
accommodated. Development of accommodations is an
interactive process, and should you wish to continue
to engage in private exercise while on the job, the
JA 94
District will be happy to discuss options for that to
occur in a manner that will not violate the law.
It is common for schools to provide an employee
whose faith requires a particular form of exercise with
a private location to engage in such exercise during
the work day, not observable to students or the public,
so long as this does not interfere with performance of
job responsibilities. For example, a private location
within the school building, athletic facility or press box
could be made available to you for brief religious
exercise before and after games, if this will not
interfere with your assigned duties. Please let me
know if you would like to discuss such
accommodations.
Finally, I would like to remind you of what I said
in my September 17 letter: That is, the District values
very highly your positive contributions to the BHS
football program, and in particular, your motivational
and inspirational talks to the players. In that letter, I
assured you that you could continue that practice,
focusing on appropriate themes such as unity,
teamwork, responsibility, safety and endeavor. After
the game immediately following that letter, you
provided such a talk to the players of both teams,
while remaining entirely secular. That talk was well
received,and appreciated by the District and the
community. I would certainly encourage continuation
of that practice.
To summarize: While on duty for the District as
an assistant coach, you may not engage in
demonstrative religious activity, readily observable to
(if not intended to be observed by) students and the
attending public. You may not repeat your conduct of
JA 95
October 16, 2015, for the reasons discussed above.
Given the severity and likelihood of liability faced by
the District in the event of further violations of these
directives, any further violations will be grounds for
discipline, up to and including discharge from District
employment. It is my hope that you will choose to
honor these expectations, and .continue your positive
work with the BHS football program for the remainder
of this season.
Sincerely,
[handwritten: signature]
Aaron Leavell, Ed.D.
Superintendent
Comment
-
Republicans are awesome at willful blindness. It's their ****ing superpower.**NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.
Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.
Comment
-
Originally posted by psych View Post
Looks like the author of the letter repeatedly states he violated their code of conduct and the law by doing it while a) people were present and viewed him perform the act while b) he was supposed to be watching students safely leave the premises, as being an assistant coach/guardian meant safety of the kids came first before his freedom of religion. Once they all left the premises, he was free to pray, as his duties to protect the safety of his students was discharged. Sounds like he knew that, and he violated it anyways.
The whacko wing of SCOTUS? Not so much.
If you don't change the world today, how can it be any better tomorrow?
Comment
-
Originally posted by psych View Post
Looks like the author of the letter repeatedly states he violated their code of conduct and the law by doing it while a) people were present and viewed him perform the act while b) he was supposed to be watching students safely leave the premises, as being an assistant coach/guardian meant safety of the kids came first before his freedom of religion. Once they all left the premises, he was free to pray, as his duties to protect the safety of his students was discharged. Sounds like he knew that, and he violated it anyways.
The school district knew they couldn't fire him for privately praying on student grounds. In fact, they write that in the letter. They also knew that they had no evidence of coercion or anything else that they could use to make their "establishment" clause case. So they come up with this "failure to perform your job" argument in the letter, that he violated with his "fleeting" prayer (his words, not mine). As shows up elsewhere in the record, everyone knew that was a bogus claim by the district. The kids were off singing a song. There was nothing he was expected to do, and the evidence was that the school officials "on duty" in these situations were always off doing their own personal thing, so that whole argument was a sham.
It's pretty obvious from the record the school got set up, that much is clear. The coach and his lawyers knew that the school had no legitimate basis upon which to take action, so he clearly went out and offered the prayer, by himself, at the center of the field, with the whole world watching, and the school got baited into firing him. If they had done nothing, and refused to take the bait, the thing would have died down, everyone would have lost interest, and they could have simply elected not to renew his contract the next time it came up.That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.
Comment
-
By the way, did you guys know that Kirk Cousins filed an amicus brief in that case? Seriously. When I get time, I'm going to have to go and read what ol' Kirk had to say about this.That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
What happened was this, and you can see that in the letter.
The school district knew they couldn't fire him for privately praying on student grounds. In fact, they write that in the letter. They also knew that they had no evidence of coercion or anything else that they could use to make their "establishment" clause case. So they come up with this "failure to perform your job" argument in the letter, that he violated with his "fleeting" prayer (his words, not mine). As shows up elsewhere in the record, everyone knew that was a bogus claim by the district. The kids were off singing a song. There was nothing he was expected to do, and the evidence was that the school officials "on duty" in these situations were always off doing their own personal thing, so that whole argument was a sham.
It's pretty obvious from the record the school got set up, that much is clear. The coach and his lawyers knew that the school had no legitimate basis upon which to take action, so he clearly went out and offered the prayer, by himself, at the center of the field, with the whole world watching, and the school got baited into firing him. If they had done nothing, and refused to take the bait, the thing would have died down, everyone would have lost interest, and they could have simply elected not to renew his contract the next time it came up.
Comment
-
Originally posted by psych View Post
Sounds a lot like your opinion, as some of what you say in there conflicts with what I’ve read about the case. I will ask you again, are you arguing the school should have waited for a more liberal SCOTUS to rule in their favor?
From the school's standpoint, their goal should be to avoid litigation. Schools are short of money the way it is. Litigating cases with employees, all the way up the the Supreme Court, should be an expense they are looking to avoid. Furthermore, now that the SCOTUS has ruled against them, they probably face a bunch of costs and back wages from the coach.
The school claims they were worried about being sued by someone claiming they were violating the "establishment clause" if they let the coach proceed. However, as I pointed out earlier, in my opinion that was only slightly likely to happen. No one was complaining about this, and it apparently went on for about seven years. It was only when someone from a neighboring town pointed it out that the school took action. However, there was no question the coach was going to sue, that became apparent very early on. There were other ways of handling this, such as just quietly not continuing the coaches contract that next time it came up.
Second, it is clear from the record that the coach was spoiling for a legal battle that could be litigated all the way to the SCOTUS, if necessary. He had some conservative outfit out of Texas representing him.
Bad facts can make bad law, and the school had bad facts in this case. There was no evidence he was making anyone pray, or that anyone even felt compelled to participate. If you are someone who is evaluating whether you want this case to go to any court, even the SCOTUS, you want good facts on your side, not bad facts. Groups actively seeking a separation of church and state should have definitely been in the ear of the school telling them this is not a good factual case to litigate, certainly not before this version of the SCOTUS.That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
No, what I'm saying is this.
From the school's standpoint, their goal should be to avoid litigation. Schools are short of money the way it is. Litigating cases with employees, all the way up the the Supreme Court, should be an expense they are looking to avoid. Furthermore, now that the SCOTUS has ruled against them, they probably face a bunch of costs and back wages from the coach.
The school claims they were worried about being sued by someone claiming they were violating the "establishment clause" if they let the coach proceed. However, as I pointed out earlier, in my opinion that was only slightly likely to happen. No one was complaining about this, and it apparently went on for about seven years. It was only when someone from a neighboring town pointed it out that the school took action. However, there was no question the coach was going to sue, that became apparent very early on. There were other ways of handling this, such as just quietly not continuing the coaches contract that next time it came up.
Second, it is clear from the record that the coach was spoiling for a legal battle that could be litigated all the way to the SCOTUS, if necessary. He had some conservative outfit out of Texas representing him.
Bad facts can make bad law, and the school had bad facts in this case. There was no evidence he was making anyone pray, or that anyone even felt compelled to participate. If you are someone who is evaluating whether you want this case to go to any court, even the SCOTUS, you want good facts on your side, not bad facts. Groups actively seeking a separation of church and state should have definitely been in the ear of the school telling them this is not a good factual case to litigate, certainly not before this version of the SCOTUS.
Comment
-
The Right is only acting like we always knew they would act when they got control of the Court. None of this is a surprise.
This has always been the Right:
“When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.”
The only way to fight them is to retake power, and the only way to retake power is to oppose them strongly so that voters will support us. The Democrats' mewling, wincing, apologetic centrism of the last fifty years has destroyed America. We need a muscular Left that will fight these monsters.
Last edited by Kepler; 06-28-2022, 10:25 AM.Cornell University
National Champion 1967, 1970
ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020
Comment
-
Originally posted by SJHovey View PostBy the way, did you guys know that Kirk Cousins filed an amicus brief in that case? Seriously. When I get time, I'm going to have to go and read what ol' Kirk had to say about this.
Cornell '04, Stanford '06
KDR
Rover Frenchy, Classic! Great post.
iwh30 I wish I could be as smart as you. I really do you are the man
gregg729 I just saw your sig, you do love having people revel in your "intelligence."
Ritt18 you are the perfect representation of your alma mater.
Miss Thundercat That's it, you win.
TBA#2 I want to kill you and dance in your blood.
DisplacedCornellian Hahaha. Thread over. Frenchy wins.
Test to see if I can add this.
- 2 likes
Comment
-
Putting aside one's opinion on the ruling, "I want to be an ostentatious asshole about my superstitious belief in an invisible white, bearded sky dude and his 2000 year-old book of cannibalistic, warmongering, patriarchal, xenophobic fairytales, despite Matthew 6:5-6 explicitly saying not to be an ostentatious asshole about it" is totally on-brand for the Christofascist GOP.
- 1 like
Comment
Comment