I hope he sues the hell out of them, too. But I doubt that will happen.

The First Amendment means nothing anymore.
Amy P. | 05.29.08 - 2:07 pm | #

The principal's name was Imad Fadlallah.

I don't know, but the name suggests that the principal could be Muslim, and, if so, the case for religious discrimination would take on a more explosive angle.
Peter Sean Bradley | Homepage | 05.29.08 - 2:17 pm | #

I assume this is a public school? The article calls it a "Predominately Muslim School", but I guess it's not a private school. I think that would have some bearing on the decision, but it doesn't seem to be the case.
Chris-2-4 | 05.29.08 - 2:24 pm | #

Well, I'm not sure the headline was correct.

First, he wasn't fired. His at-will contract was not renewed. According to the story, he actually "knew" the guy pretty well. It appears he knew the guy so well that the guy may have been either an actual or de facto wresting coach. That means the coach could be responsible for the actions of the guy he "knew" who was actign as an assistant.

If the de facto assistant wrestling coach at my son's public school attempted to evangelize my son, a member of the wrestling team, in an effort to convert my son to religion ________ (fill in the blank), I would indeed attempt to get the coach's butt fired.

More facts, please.
unapologetic catholic | 05.29.08 - 3:03 pm | #

Unapologetic:

The friend/assistant stated that he never tried to proselytize the students on the team, or during practices, etc.

The coach stated that he had never seen the friend/assistant speak about religion to team members.

There is not a shred of evidence to the contrary.

So, this coach has been fired for what the assistant/friend does outside his coaching activities. Activities, which, as I last understood, are protected by the 1st amendment. Or, even worse, the coach has been fired because of who his friend is.

This should disturb us all.
Fr. Rob Johansen | Homepage | 05.29.08 - 4:21 pm | #

His contract was not renewed because he knew a man who converted Muslim youths to Christianity outside of the School enviroment.

It's MY JOB as a parent to watch over my children outside of school(& to keep tabs on the School). It's not the school's job to watch my kid on none school time. If some clown on the street is trying to lure my kid from the Ark of Salvation which is the Catholic Church. It's MY JOB to nip that in the butt. The School can butt out!
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | 05.29.08 - 5:07 pm | #

Well his denial is not forthright:

"Hancock insisted that he never attempted a conversion as part of his work with the wrestling team, or on school grounds. But when asked if he understood the concerns of Muslim parents, he said, "I consider it my work to pastor to anyone who is within my reach."

That is not an unequivocal denial.

The coach also concedes: "He was aware for 10 years that Hancock's activities "might be a problem," but the clergyman never discussed religion with the athletes or students in his presence."

Neither of these is an unequivocal denial and both raise a number of questions. (What action did the wresting coach take to ensure the potential problems he did recognize did not become actual problems over the 10 year period?) (The pastor concededs wrestling students are within his reach-- exactly how does he pastor to them, espcially those who are not of his denomination?)

Oddly, people have been known to remember facts, not as what they were but as they wish they were. Oddly also, newspapers have been known to get the facts wrong form time to time.

For all the above reasons, I must consider the denials to be less than definitive.

Finally, we heard from not one werstlignstudent. Did any of them feel like they had been "pastored?"

For those reasons, the comment "There is not a shred of evidence to the contrary" is reckless.

That's why I withhold judgment and say again, "more facts please."

I am disturbed already, because somebody is clearly off base. I'm not sure it's the principal, however.

I have had my children "prostetelyzed," albeit gently, in settings where they were not in a position to object without consequences. When those situations were brought to my attention, I did react forcefully. I see indications the same situation occurred here.
unapologetic catholic | 05.29.08 - 6:34 pm | #

unapologetic catholic, you have a funny name.
cricket 2008 | Homepage | 05.29.08 - 6:48 pm | #

............"nip it in the butt" instead of "nip it in the bud." I may start saying it that way, it's a whole different mental picture!
Therese Z | 05.30.08 - 9:19 am | #

Peter Sean Bradley and Chris-2-4:
Yes, this is a public school in a predominantly Muslim suburb of Detroit.
Okay, I'll admit--I don't know if it's predominantly Muslim or they're just the noisy ones.
Here's more:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ a...sual_detro.html

It's more than just anti-Christianity.
Heather Price | Homepage | 05.30.08 - 2:53 pm | #

The coach stated that he had never seen the friend/assistant speak about religion to team members. There is not a shred of evidence to the contrary.

Just going on the facts of the article, there isn't even an allegation to the contrary. The allegation is 1) the coach hired a parent as an assistant coach, and 2) the coach has been known to try to convert other Muslims, including a girl in a divorce case. I have to think that if there was an allegation that he was trying to convert a wrestler, on or off campus, that would've been mentioned in the article.

First, he wasn't fired. His at-will contract was not renewed.

Sloppy headline writing, but still a probable violation of his rights. Even if the coach works on a series of 1-year contracts, if the school has given him a reasonable expectation of continued employment (as 35 years at the school would indicate), then he can't have his public school contract not renewed because he exercised his first amendment right to free association.

Oh, and I loved this line from the article: "There is a clique involved in joint efforts with outsiders, including fanatical Christians, to squeeze Mr. Fadlallah out of Fordson High School," said Imad Hamad, regional director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Fadlallah lets a coach of 35 years go because the coach once hired a parent who also happens to be a pastor and tries to convert Muslim kids to Christianity, but Fadlallah is the victim of fanatical religionists???
Stephen | 05.30.08 - 3:06 pm | #

I thought we as Catholic Christians, as followers of the church Jesus established, were to go and teach the Gospel throughout the whole world? I don't understand what the problem is. It's not like these kids were forced by the point of a sword, had civil rights taken away, or made to pay a tax if they did not convert. All they had to do was walk away, just like I did when Evangelicals tried to "convert" me back in the 1980's.....
Confederate Papist | 05.30.08 - 4:18 pm | #

Fordson's student body is about 80% Muslim. And it's a particularly savory piece of irony when someone at CAIR gets his boxers in a wad about religious fanaticism.

Given that the objected-to conversion in question happened in Port Huron, which is about 90 minutes of bumpy interstate on a good day, I'm not so sure he was a clear and present danger to the Dearborn umma.

Then again, it's not remotely the job of someone being paid with tax dollars to evangelize while on the clock, or to knowingly let it happen under your nose. Especially--especially--in a school setting. Invert the religions of all involved and see how you feel about it then. If the coach turned a blind eye to this, then the school was not only within its rights to do this, it was the right thing to do.

But if the principal chose not to renew a contract that had been routinely renewed for 35 years because of the coach's association with someone who evangelized Muslims off the clock--hello, lawsuit.
Dale Price | Homepage | 05.31.08 - 8:49 am | #

First, he wasn't fired. His at-will contract was not renewed.

Was the coach an employee or an independent contractor? If he was an employee, then the distinction between firing on the one hand and non-renewal of his at-will contract on the other is truly a distinction without a difference. Most of us have at-will employment contracts, and if our employer decides not to renew it (i.e., keep us on the payroll any longer), then we've been fired. It may not be a firing for cause (which means we can collect unemployment benefits), but it's still a firing.
Seamus | 06.03.08 - 11:57 am | #