Monday, March 26, 2007

Religion and Organization Leaders

Last week Indianapolis Colts head coach Tony Dungy appeared as the keynote speaker at a banquet for a group called the Indiana Family Institute. The Indiana Family Institute is a highly conservative group whose objective is , according to their website, "To preserve pro-family policy already within State Government and push for additional policies that will strengthen Indiana families." Controversy arose among some because Dungy expressed his support for the group's efforts to amend the Indiana Constitution to define marriage as being only between one man and one woman. Those upset by his comments state that the people which make up the Colts' fan base are many and diverse in nature and that as the face of an NFL franchise, he should keep his religious beliefs to himself. Supporters of Dungy cite the freedom of speech and religion and praise him for standing up for what he believes in. While Dungy has every right to express his opinions, my question is whether or not anyone thinks he has an obligation to act in the best interest of the Colts as an organization? If so, I would have to say that appearing at an event like this - which could potentially alienate the organization's customers (the fans in this case) - would certainly not be in their best interest.

6 Comments:

Blogger Jenny Rubenstein said...

While Tony Dungy's public comments may not be in the best interest of the Colts as an organization, he definitely has the right to express his personal religious opinions. As a representative of the Colts, you would think that he would use better judgment, but then again it can also be argued that Dungy's comments should not be viewed as representative of the organization's views overall.

7:25 PM  
Blogger Vaughn Ganiyu said...

Tony Dungy has every right to voice his own opinions under the first amendment, and I don't think his views should be taken as representative of the Colts organization. While he was giving his keynote speech, Dungy could easily eliminate this problem by stating that his opinions do not reflect the overall view of the Colts organization. This topic also reminded me of the recent controversial statements by one of the generals about homosexual soldiers in the U.S. Army. He said he believed homosexuality was immoral and had no place in the U.S. Army, when asked a question about the "Don't ask, Don't Tell" policy adopted by the U.S. Army. Since there is a specific policy endorsed by the government, the general in this case was wrong to express his own opinions on the subject, and he should have just commented on the policy itself.

11:12 PM  
Blogger Professor Prenkert said...

I find it interesting that these comments are coming from the same class that was willing to accept the notion that an employee gives up her privacy interests when she takes a job.

(Okay, in fairness, I can't remember what Jenny's position was on that question and I do remember that Vaughn tended actually to argue the opposite, so these comments are necessarily indicative of an inconsistency for these particular commenters.)

At any rate, recall that the Colts is not a public (i.e., government) organization. Therefore, Coach Dungy's first amendment rights are not implicated vis a vis any action the Colts would take against him in reponse to his public comments. Dungy, unlike most employees, has a contract that is not at-will. It may or may not have limitations on (or guarantees of freedom about) to whom he can speak or what he can talk about.

But his rights under the first amendment are not relevant to any adverse employment action the Colts might impose upon him for his comments.

9:29 AM  
Blogger Professor Prenkert said...

Oops. I mistyped a part of that parenthetical comment. It should read:

"so these comments are NOT necessarily indicative of an inconsistency for these particular commenters."

Sorry for the confusion.

9:31 AM  
Blogger mel said...

In law, a public figure is distinct from a normal individual. Following this thought, I think that when individuals choose to become public figures, they waive certain rights. I think when they represent a company, or job, or country that they represent in a role of public figure, they should be obligated to act in the best interest of the group at the sacrifice of their own personal beliefs. There is of course a line as to how far they should go or how much they should sacrifice, but I think the larger and more important the group represented, the larger the sacrifice. Perhaps it is this thought that makes me think it would be terrible to be famous, ha.

7:52 PM  
Blogger mel said...

As a disclaimer, I suppose you could make the argument that not all public figures chose to become so, and in that case I guess I don't feel the same way.

7:53 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home