Gene Hackman As Legal Precedent

No, really. Here is the setup from a ruling from the 6th District court:

Derrick Lowery, Jacob Giles, Joseph Dooley, and Dillon Spurlock(hereinafter “Plaintiffs”)were students at Jefferson County High School in Tennessee during the 2005-06 school year.1 All four were members of the Jefferson County varsity football team. Defendant Euverard became the head varsity football coach at Jefferson County in 2004. During the 2005 season, many of the Jefferson County football players, including Plaintiffs, became dissatisfied with Euverard’s coaching methods. Plaintiffs allege that Euverard struck a player in the helmet, threw away college recruiting letters to disfavored players, humiliated and degraded players, used inappropriate language, and required a year-round conditioning program in violation of high school rules.

In early October of 2005, after discussions with Dooley and Lowery, Giles typed the following statement: “I hate Coach Euvard [sic] and I don’t want to play for him.” JA at 745. Giles and Dooley asked other players to sign the petition, which would be held until after the football season. Giles and Dooley intended to then give the petition to Defendant Schneitman, the principal of Jefferson County, in order to have Euverard replaced as head coach. JA at 580. Eighteen players eventually signed the petition, including Spurlock.

Euverard learned of the petition on October 7, 2005. Darren Whitehead, another player on the team, told Assistant Coach Ricky Upton about the petition, who then told Euverard. Euverard called an all-coaches meeting on October 9. Schneitman was also present at the meeting. At the meeting, the coaches discussed how to deal with the petition. The coaches decided to question the players individually to learn more about the petition.

When the players arrived for practice on October 10 they were told to sit in front of their lockers and remain quiet. Players were then taken one by one into an office in the weight room where they were interviewed by Euverard. Assistant Coach Brimer was also present in the office, taking notes. All the players were asked the same questions:

1) Have you heard about the petition?,
2) Did you sign it?,
3) Who asked you to sign it?, and
4) Do you want to play football with Coach Euverard as coach?

It is hard not to see this as a sort of pseudo-Gestapo operation meant to be "persuasive" to high school aged youth, and as such I'm quite uncomfortable with state agents (which is what coaches at public high schools are, like it or not) using such tactics with non-adults. The upshot of all this is that the unrepentant ring leaders of the petition were kicked off of the team, while others who signed but "apologized" were allowed to return. Those who were kicked off sued saying their First Amendment freedoms were violated. The 6th Circuit disagreed, but I found their way of putting the opinion together....unusual:

A two-part test is used to determine if a government official is entitled to qualified immunity. First, the Court must determine if the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right. If this question is answered in the affirmative, the Court must determine if the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Garretson v. City of Madison Heights, 407 F.3d 789, 796 (6th Cir. 2005). Thus, the Court must first determine if Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights were violated when they were dismissed from the football team.

In the 1986 movie Hoosiers, Gene Hackman plays Norman Dale, the new basketball coach at a small Indiana high school. On the first day of practice Dale makes an introductory speech to the players. All of the players attentively listen to Dale except two, who are talking to each other. Dale notices the two players talking, and the following dialogue ensues:

Dale: Basketball is a voluntary activity. It’s not a requirement. If any of you feel you don’t want to be on the team, feel free to leave right now. Did you hear what I just said?

Player: Me?

Dale: Yes, you.

Player: Sure, I’m just kinda curious to know when we start.

Dale: We start when I say so.

Player: Ok, would you kinda let me know, ‘cause I’m kinda getting tired of standing.

Dale: Alright. Out. Out of here. Right now.

The two players then leave the gym. Shortly thereafter one of the players returns with his father, who informs Dale that his son has something to say. The player apologizes to Dale and asks for a second chance. Dale accepts the apology and tells the player to suit up. The other player is not heard from again.

The movie takes place in the 1950s, before the Supreme Court case of Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969), which held that the First Amendment does not stop “at the schoolhouse gate.” Id. at 507. Assuming that Tinker was in force at the time of Hoosiers, would the players have a First Amendment claim against Coach Dale? That hypothetical case is not before the Court, but the instant case, although it contains different facts, presents a similar question: what is the proper balance between a student athlete’s First Amendment rights and a coach’s need to maintain order and discipline?

Of course, setting the case up in this way doesn't do justice to the student's side of the argument. Presumably there is a difference between back-talk to a coach while he is engaged in his duties and the writing and circulation of a petition. To try and make a direct analogy between the two instances seem just plain wrong.

As if to underscore this bad analogy, the opinion states it a different way:

The contour of First Amendment protection given to speech depends upon the context. For example, it is beyond question that citizens have a First Amendment right to criticize the government’s military policy. However, does this mean that an enlisted soldier has a First Amendment right to be disrespectful towards his commanding officer?

This seems an even more outlandish and harsh standard to saddle children with, on or off of a football team.

Indeed, whenever the opinion strays from the immediate facts at hand it becomes very grim. Basically, public school sports coaches are given the ability to not only punish whatever they deem "insubordination," but they may also compel speech against the will of any child. This seems needlessly authoritarian in a supposedly democratic state.

All this being said, I don't think the dismissed players have much of a case, on the much narrower grounds at issue. As when the court states:

Plaintiffs suggest that the issue is whether it is permissible for school officials to engage in viewpoint discrimination against student athletes. However, this formulation is overly abstract, and also misleading. This case is not primarily about Plaintiffs’ right to express their opinions, but rather their alleged right to belong to the Jefferson County football team on their own terms. The specific question presented by this case is whether Plaintiffs had a right to remain on the football team after participating in a petition that stated “I hate Coach Euvard [sic] and I don’t want to play for him.”

Were the court to stay on this point I would have very few problems, but as written it seems to open the doors for abuse of student right whenever they attempt to employee the time honored device of voicing their grievances via a petition. It is ironic that in a country which honors the Declaration of Independence as a foundational tract all we can tell high school petition makers is, "Don't be so uppity."