Jesus vs. ‘The Star’

Two former editorial writers are suing The Indianapolis Star, claiming they were forced out because of their Christian beliefs, which include a biblical stance on homosexuality.

Lisa Coffey (left) and James Patterson are suing 'The Indianapolis Star,' claiming they were fired for their Christian beliefs.

James Patterson, 51, also says his age and race as an African-American factored into his firing on May 5. Lisa Coffey, 46, says she was demoted from the editorial board because of her views, leading to her resignation in October of 2003.

Patterson worked at The Star for 16 years, Coffey for 14. They filed their suit against the paper and its owner, Gannett Co., on June 13 in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis.

Long known as a conservative newspaper, The Star still includes a Bible verse, II Cor. 3:17, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty,” under its nameplate on Page One. Tim Swarens, editor of the editorial page and Patterson’s and Coffey’s former supervisor, often writes about his Christian beliefs. In a May 2, 2002, column about scandals in the Catholic Church, Swarens included himself among the many who “claim the cross of Christ as our own.”

Executive Editor Dennis Ryerson — who, like Swarens, wasn’t able to comment for this story — wrote in a 2003 column: “I want my newspaper, and my community and state, also to respect and appreciate different beliefs and values.”

Yet, Patterson and Coffey claim that Ryerson, who has never written directly about his religious views in The Star, couldn’t tolerate their “moral stance on homosexuality and things like that” and forced both of them from the paper’s editorial board because of this.

“If you express religious beliefs around there or don’t fall in step with their approach to some of the issues of the day such as homosexual matters, then you are not acceptable,” says John Price, attorney for Patterson and Coffey. “I know they are not the only two to encounter this. It’s pervasive.”

Even though employee turnover was widespread at The Star following Gannett’s takeover in 2000, Patterson and Coffey say they enjoyed their positions on the editorial board. “It was a conservative paper, we were all Christians,” Patterson says. But they say the climate changed “the day Dennis Ryerson walked in the door” in March of 2003.

Patterson says he was immediately on Ryerson’s radar because of an editorial that appeared in the paper four days before Ryerson took over. Patterson wrote the editorial titled “Pray for peace in this time of war” as an invocation of sorts, telling readers: “Let us pray for the safety of our soldiers …”

Patterson saw nothing controversial about the editorial at the time: “Eighty percent of the American people believe there is a creator,” he says. “So anybody can relate to that ‘pray for our troops.’”

But, according to Patterson, Ryerson wasn’t so accepting. “Dennis Ryerson said he was deeply offended by that editorial. And that’s what started the whole ball rolling. He told Andrea Neal [then the editorial page editor], ‘I don’t ever want to see an editorial like that again.’”

Soon, Patterson claims the screws began to tighten. Numbers dropped on his performance evaluations, his writing was scrutinized, he became the only writer forced to submit his column ideas for prior management approval. “It was terrible to go in there. Every day, I dreaded it,” he says.

After 16 years at the paper, Patterson was escorted out immediately after his firing, only able to return after hours to pick up his belongings. All of this happened because of his beliefs, Patterson says. “Dennis can hate Christians and hate Christianity all he wants. But, under Title XII [of the 1964 Civil Rights Act], he isn’t able to precipitate adverse actions against employees because of that animus.”

Patterson’s lawyer says his clients weren’t the only ones experiencing a different Indianapolis Star after Ryerson’s arrival. “Anybody who’s worked around there will be happy to tell you they’ve completely changed,” Price says. “They do not want, at the rarified level of the editorial board, persons who have strong religious positions. And they either fired them or weeded them out.”

Ryerson and his boss, Publisher Barbara Henry, have been silent since news of the lawsuit broke last week. All interview requests are directed to Vice President of Human Resources Ali Zoibi, who says the paper “stands by its statement” and that no other questions will be answered. The paper’s brief, unsigned e-mail statement calls the allegations “inaccurate and misleading” and states that The Star “does not discriminate” and will “vigorously defend our record against the spurious and unfounded allegations raised by this lawsuit.”

It also points to a June 5 commentary by Swarens supporting prayer in the Indiana Statehouse as an example of the paper’s “respect for Christian views if not outright backing of those views.” But Patterson and Coffey dismiss Swarens as a token Christian kept around to please “a demographic.”

“They had to have somebody. They had to say, ‘You’re our guy. You’ve got this façade that you’re a Christian, you’re an elder in your church.’ They’re covering their flanks,” Patterson says.

The Star’s released statement also noted that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission “quickly dismissed each of the former employee’s cases.” But this finding, according to the EEOC paperwork, “does not certify that the respondent [The Star] is in compliance with the statutes. No finding is made as to any other issues that might be construed as having been raised by this charge.”

“The EEOC rarely, on their own, goes after a company. But the fact that they do or don’t go after a company doesn’t really mean anything,” says Price, a former Republican candidate for governor who often represents high-profile cases involving conservative Christian issues. “All it really is is a gate you have to go through before you can sue for discrimination.”

Coffey’s problems with Ryerson came to a boiling point when he pulled the plug on her plan for a series of columns about sodomy. She says she hoped the columns would shed light on the risks and costs of anal sex. Instead, Ryerson refused to run them.

“I just wanted to get the facts out. And it was just a shame. I was really grieved by that because I felt like I could save lives with that,” Coffey says. “The decision to censor something based on political correctness just isn’t right.”

During this time, Coffey claims the two had heated e-mail exchanges concerning religious beliefs. While Coffey deleted Ryerson’s “enraged” response in a momentary huff, she saved the one she wrote provoking it. Here are excerpts: “One night I literally got knocked out by the Holy Spirit, Dennis. He’s real. … He lives inside born-again believers, and his role is to reveal the Son to us and to empower us to heal and help others. … Dennis, read II Cor. 3:17 under our nameplate on Page One. Those words aren’t metaphorical or poetical. They are literal.”

Shortly after this incident, Ryerson sent Coffey to work on the paper’s copy editing desk, a move she saw as an unacceptable demotion. “I told [Ryerson] about my Christian beliefs and he was enraged,” she says. “Because I told him about the Holy Spirit see, and he didn’t know about that. He didn’t know about the reality of God.”

While Patterson and Coffey haven’t minced words in the days following the announcement of their lawsuit, they both say The Star’s lack of openness about its intentions created this problem. “They would have been a lot wiser to say, ‘We are going to have a pro-gay editorial board, an anti-Christian editorial board. It’s our paper, we can do whatever we want. If you don’t like it you can quit,’” Coffey says. “Instead, they put up this façade of Christian tolerance then said, ‘We’re sorry, we’re transferring you and we’re firing you.’”

The lawsuit states that Patterson and Coffey want to be reinstated to their former positions — as well as be paid lost wages, benefits and be reimbursed pain and suffering damages. But both say they wouldn’t want to return to a newspaper with an “anti-Christian” atmosphere as “hostile” as this one.

Ultimately, with the lawsuit, they say they are primarily interested in shining light on what they see as a troubling turn for the city’s remaining daily newspaper. “We want people to know what they are supporting,” Patterson says. “Do they really want to support a paper in which the executive editor of the paper is offended by an editorial asking people to pray for our troops?”