The collegial Saints protest

Knee jerk political reactions rarely end well, but State Rep. Kenney Havard’s recent brainstorm to defund the Saints not only endangers the NFL team remaining in New Orleans; his reasoning actually legally justifies the very action which the Louisiana legislator criticizes.

Ten Saints players joined 150 NFL players nationwide in refusing to stand during the playing of the national anthem. Their silent pregame protest in Charlotte led this Louisiana House of Representatives member to propose ending all state appropriations for the New Orleans Saints.

In a radio interview, Havard said, “I have a bunch of state workers in my district that I represent and they can’t participate, in any way, in any political function—go to a party, or any of those things, because they are state workers and are receiving state tax dollars. So why in the world should we allow state subsidized sporting events, for people who are ultimately ending up with that money, to use it for a political platform?”

Rep. Havard seemingly forgets that every week, Louisiana subsidizes sporting events on government facilities where political speech is not only allowed, but encouraged. Unlike civil servants, the beneficiaries do not receive a direct salary from the general fund, but certainly enjoy extensive financial benefit from the state.

They are called college athletes. Nor are their “bosses” penalized for expressing political opinions or supporting those of their students, despite the Louisiana Treasury subsidizing their salaries. They are called coaches and professors.

The state university example tremendously parallels the quasi-public status of our NFL team. Louisiana does not actually write a check to the Saints (though at one stage the Treasury actually did). Instead, the state contribution involves use of public facilities, i.e. the Superdome, as well as surrendering the vast majority of revenues derived from naming rights, concessions, and ticket sales at that facility. And, thanks to an “unrelated deal negotiated by Gov. Bobby Jindal, Louisiana pays ‘top of the market’ rates for rental space for state offices in Benson Tower. Regardless, absent the Saints, this office rent still would have to be paid at another building, though perhaps at a lower cost to public purse.

Whether these state handouts constitute a ‘good deal’ for the Louisiana taxpayer remains a question which our editors often ponder. Nevertheless, without them, the Saints would undoubtedly decamp to another state when their contract ends, as so many peripatetic NFL teams have demonstrated.

However, inherent in Havard’s logic rests a greater danger. Should members of any organization that receives public money prohibit their employees’ First Amendment rights?

Imagine this example extended to the state’s bastions of free speech—universities. State College campuses are mostly underwritten by private tuition, and their sporting events by ticket sales. Nevertheless, public universities still operate within the state-owned facilities and enjoy (increasingly meager) budgetary appropriations. Just because Louisiana chips in a percentage of the Higher Ed operating budget, would Rep. Havard insist that professors and coaches express no political opinion, and their students should be equally quieted?

Such a demand would undermine the very constitutional guarantee of free expression. Saints players are not state employees. Like professors, coaches, and students, they operate in a quasi-public/private realm, but that doesn’t mean that they should be silenced – especially when their protest was silent.

This article originally published in the October 2, 2017 print edition of The Louisiana Weekly newspaper.