Citation: Borden v. Sch. Dist. of East Brunswick, No. 06-3890 (3d Cir. Apr. 15, 2008)
Topic: Separation of Church and State- Prayer during school sports activities
Relief Sought: Football coach brought action against school districts policy directive forbidding him from being present and engaging in symbolic gestures while the team prays.
Issue(s):(1) Does the silent bowing of one’s head and “taking a knee” by a high school football coach, and teacher, during player-initiated pre-game prayers constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause?(2) Did the policy and actions of the school violate Mr. Borden’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech, free association, due process, and academic freedom?(3) Did the court below err in finding that district policy regarding faculty participation in student initiated prayer does not apply to a football coach?
Facts: Plaintiff, Marcus Borden engaged in bowing his head and “taking a knee” while students initiated pre-game prayers and bowed his head at an awards banquet prayer, a twenty-three year practice.TheBrunswickHigh Schoolsuperintendent received complaints from parents regarding Borden’s actions. Officials at EBHS restated policy that prohibited representatives of the school district from participating in student initiated prayer as it violated the Establishment Clause. Administration issued a directive forbidding Borden from participating in pre- game prayer.Borden contended that thepolicy was vague and overboard and continued his actions. The school board concluded that the conduct of the coach was considered as participation in the student initiated prayers, regardless to Bordenremaining silent. Borden resigned his position as coach rather than be charged for insubordination and possiblydischarged. Plaintiff rescindedhis resignation and agreed to fulfill the directive of the board for the rest of the season.He would remove himself from prayer untilthe case was settled.Borden initialed a lawsuit challenging the policy.
Finding of the Trial Court: For plaintiff.
Finding of the Appellate Court: Reversed decision of the court below.
Reasoning: Borden’s claims were rejected. The word “participate” is not constitutionally overboard. Public school districts have discretion to control their employee’s instructional methods, their employees’ curricula, and all aspects of their employees’ official interactions with students.Adoption of the school district’s policy was within its rightsdue to Establishment Clause violations concerns. The court relied on the test found in the United StatesSupreme Court case of Connick v Myers, 461 U.S.138 (1983). Borden’s actions were not protected speech because they did not address a “matter of public concern”. They were expressions of belief personal to the coach, in the first prong of the test. Regarding Borden’s academic freedom claim; Bordenadmitted that his acts were pedagogical in nature. The acts were open to regulation by the school district. The school district’s policy was within reason. The school board and was justified in its interest in avoiding Establishment Clause violations. The court stated that the decision may have been different if there had not been a twenty-three year history.