2008 Woodie Awards
Thoughts Written on Napkins
Coach's views do not represent those of the university, but they still cannot be ignored
Dan Rosenberg
Issue date: 1/29/08 Section: News/Features
Recently Rick Majerus, head coach of the Saint Louis University Men's Basketball team, drew the ire of the local Archdiocese for expressing some personal political views. SLU, a private Catholic university, took issue with a Majerus' recent comments at a Hillary Clinton rally at which Majerus stated his support for her candidacy, as well his ardent support for a woman's right to reproductive choice and for stem cell research. Archbishop Raymond Burke questioned not only Majerus' sincerity as a Catholic, but also his legitimacy as a public representative of the university. Burke went as far as to say that it is not possible to hold the positions Majerus does and be a Catholic as well. Certainly Burke's views do not represent those of Catholics as a whole, and it does not seem that the university took issue with Majerus for his comments. However, Burke's reaction does bring up an interesting question about the relation between a coach's politics and religion and those of his university employer.
Like SLU, Vanderbilt is a private university. However, unlike SLU, Vanderbilt does not have any religious affiliation. I would characterize our university as institutionally agnostic. That is, as a matter of policy, religion has no place in the public face of Vanderbilt University. This theological ambivalence extends only as long as the preeminent public face of the university is the administration and official university spokespeople.
However, it is not the administration that constitutes the most recognizable public face of the university. Rather, it is often the athletic coaches who tend to present the most well-known voices of the school. This, then, would seem be the crux of what Burke seems to be insinuating when he criticizes Majerus. Majerus' expression of his views is problematic not only because of his religious affiliation, but also because he is a well-known voice that represents the school. The problem is not so much that the employee of a Catholic institution ought not hold these views privately. Rather, the problem is that the coach is closely associated with the school, whether he is acting as an official representative or not.
Like SLU, Vanderbilt is a private university. However, unlike SLU, Vanderbilt does not have any religious affiliation. I would characterize our university as institutionally agnostic. That is, as a matter of policy, religion has no place in the public face of Vanderbilt University. This theological ambivalence extends only as long as the preeminent public face of the university is the administration and official university spokespeople.
However, it is not the administration that constitutes the most recognizable public face of the university. Rather, it is often the athletic coaches who tend to present the most well-known voices of the school. This, then, would seem be the crux of what Burke seems to be insinuating when he criticizes Majerus. Majerus' expression of his views is problematic not only because of his religious affiliation, but also because he is a well-known voice that represents the school. The problem is not so much that the employee of a Catholic institution ought not hold these views privately. Rather, the problem is that the coach is closely associated with the school, whether he is acting as an official representative or not.
Be the first to comment on this story