Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SATURDAY, September 2, 1995                   TAG: 9509050065
SECTION: VIRGINIA                    PAGE: A-1   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: JAN VERTEFEUILLE STAFF WRITER
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

NCAA BOWS TO LIBERTY ON END-ZONE KNEELING

Faced with a lawsuit by Liberty University and publicity that made it look anti-prayer, the NCAA on Friday clarified its new policy on player conduct to allow brief kneeling in the end zone during games. In response, Liberty agreed to withdraw its suit.

U.S. District Judge James Turk, who had been asked by Liberty to issue a temporary restraining order forbidding the NCAA from enforcing the policy, declared the motion for the order moot.

Liberty hosts its season opener tonight against West Virginia Tech.

Kneeling briefly at the end of a play will not be penalized, the NCAA said, "if in the judgment of the official the act is spontaneous and not in the nature of a pose." That makes the rule's interpretation still somewhat subjective, but Liberty officials said they were satisfied. Its lawyers said they would monitor the NCAA's enforcement of the policy.

The controversy stemmed from an NCAA videotape distributed to schools explaining how the three-year-old rules would now be interpreted.

Last Saturday, the Liberty Flames saw the video, which said kneeling in the end zone after a touchdown would constitute a "delayed, excessive or prolonged act" and would be penalized. Most students at the school consider themselves born-again Christians and some players kneel to pray in the end zone after a touchdown to "give glory to God."

"We're not talking about five-minute prayer meetings in the end zone," said Ann-Marie Amiel, special litigation counselor for The Rutherford Institute. "I think they realized they'd gone too far."

The Rutherford Institute is a Charlottesville-based religious liberties advocacy group known for its swift legal responses to cases of alleged religious discrimination. The group represented Liberty, and sent out a news release Friday claiming credit for seeing that "prayer in college athletics has been restored."

That's an overstatement, but the NCAA was stung by the characterization that it was trying to ban prayer.

In a memo drafted Friday to all NCAA conferences, Vince Dooley, chairman of the football rules committee, said, "Prayer has always been and remains permissible under the rules. However, overt acts which may be associated with prayer, such as kneeling, may not be done in a way that is delayed, excessive or prolonged in an attempt to draw attention to themselves. Players may pray or cross themselves without drawing attention to oneself. It is also permissible for them to kneel momentarily at the conclusion of a play, if in the judgment of the official the act is spontaneous and not in the nature of a pose."

Liberty was suing under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids "public accommodations" - such as restaurants, theaters and hotels - from discriminating against individuals on the basis of, among other things, religion. Liberty argued that its stadium was a public accommodation.

After a hearing Thursday, Turk said he would not rule on a temporary restraining order until he satisfied himself that he had jurisdiction over the NCAA under the "public accommodation" provision. Friday's actions take the matter out of the court's hands.

Kent Willis, executive director of the Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said he thought the public accommodation argument would have been a hard battle to win because the NCAA is a private organization.

"I think the NCAA made the right decision, but legally, as a private association, it has broad authority to determine the rules of the game," he said. "I'd have been surprised if a federal judge in Virginia tried to limit that authority."

In the end, bad PR may have been more of a threat to the NCAA than a lawsuit.

The football rules committee "is concerned about reports it has `banned prayer' from football," Dooley's memo said. "The committee is emphasizing an existing rule against acts that by their timing or duration draw attention to an individual and ignore the contributions of the entire team."