FREEDOM FROM RELIGION foundation

P.O. BOX 750 MADISON. WI 53701 (608) 256-8900 

 

December 4, 2017

SENT VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL:


Dr. Thomas Kopatich
Superintendent

MSD of Mt. Vernon
1000 W. Fourth St.
Mt. Vernon, IN 47620

Re: Coach prayers with students
Dear Superintendent Kopatich:

I am writing on behalf of the Freedom From Religion Foundation regarding
comments you recently made to local media. FFRF is a national nonpro?t
organization with about 30,000 members across the country, including more
than 450 in Indiana. purposes are to protect the constitutional
principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public
on matters relating to nontheism.

You recently made comments to media regarding complaint to
Evansville Vanderburgh School Corporation about high school football
coaches participating in prayers with their students. You were reported as
saying:

It?s sad that it?s coming to that place that we?re trying to eliminate that.
People have to realize, if you don?t want to be there or you don?t want to
participate in something of that nature, you don?t have to. It?s a choice.1

You also admitted to leading students in prayers yourself when you were a
public school coach:

In the mid-90s, when Kopatich was named Mount Vernon High School?s
basketball coach, he recalled reciting the ?Our Father,? also known as
?The Lord?s Prayer,? with his team before and after games.

 

1 Zach Evans and Megan Erhacher, Re?t: coach prayer with team unconstitutional claims
atheist group (Nov. 28, 2017), COURIER PRESS, available at



 

Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor, Co-Presidem:

Most of the time, he said, players led prayer.

Kopatich said he was reminded then that coaches aren?t supposed to
lead prayer.

?The only thing I had was my athletic director came to me and said, ?You
need to be careful if you?re leading prayer. Just be very careful with
that.? That was my very ?rst year, and I coached several years, and
we did it all the way through,? he said.

These statements raise several serious concerns. First, voluntariness does not
excuse a constitutional violation. See Lee 0. Weisman, 505 U.S. at 596 (?It is a
tenet of the First Amendment that the State cannot require one of its citizens
to forfeit his or her rights and bene?ts as the price of resisting conformance
to state-sponsored religious practice?); Schempp, 374 U.S. at 288 (Brennan,
., concurring) (?Thus, the short, and to me suf?cient, answer is that the
availability of excusal or exemption simply has no relevance to the
establishment question?); Mellen v. Bunting, 327 F.3d 355, 372 (4th Cir.
2003) cannot avoid Establishment Clause problems by simply
asserting that a cadet?s attendance at supper or his or her participation in
the supper prayer are Jager 0. Douglas County Sch. Dist, 862
F.2d 825, 832 (11th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1090 (1989) . .
whether the complaining individual?s presence was voluntary is not relevant
to the Establishment Clause analysis . . . The Establishment Clause focuses
on the constitutionality of the state action, not on the choices made by the
complaining 

As a superintendent you must understand that allowing students the choice
to opt-out of a religious activity with their coach does not make it permissible.

Second, leading students in prayer is illegal, not something to ?be careful
with.? As we explained to the EVSC, the Supreme Court has continually
struck down school-sponsored prayer in public schools, including the Lord?s
Prayer speci?cally. See, Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290
(2000) (holding student-led prayer over the loudspeaker before football games
unconstitutional. ?Regardless of the listener's support for, or objection to, the
message, an objective Santa Fe High School student will unquestionably
perceive the inevitable pregame prayer as stamped with her school?s seal of
approval? because it occurred at a ?regularly scheduled school-sponsored
function conducted on school property?); Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
(?nding prayers at public high school graduations an impermissible
establishment of religion); Wallace 0. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) (overturning
law requiring daily ?period of silence not to exceed one minute . . . for
meditation or daily prayer?); Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp. 0. Schempp, 374

US. 203 (1963) (holding school-sponsored devotional bible reading and
recitation of the Lord?s Prayer unconstitutional); Engel v. Vitale, 370 US. 421
(1962) (declaring school-sponsored prayers in public schools
unconstitutional).

Your statements encourage your employees to violate these students? rights
by endorsing religion at school-sponsored events. This is especially
concerning because you are now tasked with enforcing constitutional
compliance in your school district in order to protect your students? right to a
secular public school. About 44% of young Americans are non-Christian,
including about 35% who are not religious at all.2

In short, for years you used your government position to impose your
personal religion on other people?s children and recently you encouraged your
staff to do the same. We urge you to schedule a District-wide training on
constitutional boundaries regarding religious endorsement, in light of current
federal caselaw. If District counsel is unable to provide such a training, FFRF
would be happy to offer more guidance and education on these issues. Our top
priority is to educate school districts so that constitutional violations can be
avoided, rather than intervening after a student informs us that a violation
has already occurred.

Sincerely,

   
   

Ryan D. yne
Staff Attorney

 

2 America ?5 Changing Religious Landscape, PEW RESEARCH CENTER (May 12, 2015), available
at