Bobby Knight in '04?

Bobby Knight in '04?
by Radley Balko

I've had it. Finally Bob(by), Mr., Hizzoner, Professor, Coach, His Majesty, Most Noble, whatever it is he wants to be called, Knight, is fired. Finally, he's gone. And now I have to listen to conservative pundits tell me how it's all the work of liberal PC-types who couldn't handle Knight's dedication to discipline, his "tough love" tactics, his refusal to curtsy to academic society.

They're all wrong. The insufferable Sean Hannity, who's never had an opinion that wasn't first dictated to him by Rush Limbaugh, waxed angrily and ignorantly for a good deal of the three hours he guest-hosted Rush's radio program last September 12th about what a raw deal Knight got. I realize Mr. Hannity is no authority on college basketball, or on Indiana basketball in particular (he admitted as much). So perhaps I shouldn't be so harsh on him. But then, if his knowledge on the subject is thin, why harp on it on a national radio show?

Hannity went on about how the latest incident, in which Knight grabbed a 19 year-old freshman by the arm and lectured him after the student greeted him with "Hey, what's up Knight," was just a matter of the coach giving one of today's raucous, disrespecting kids a lesson in manners and civility.

Wrong. First, the notion of Knight, a man who's temper erupts more reliably than Old Faithful, a man who once said that if rape is inevitable, "you may as well sit back and enjoy it," the notion of this man giving anyone a lesson in civility is preposterous. Second, no university administrator, coach, professor or employee is ever justified to touch a student in anger. Particularly one under a "zero tolerance" policy.

Second, Mr. Hannity is painfully ignorant of Knight's past. Bob Knight's history shows the behavior not of a decent, practicing conservative, but of a temperamental time bomb who respects no authority other than his own.

What, pray tell, is conservative about striking a law enforcement officer, as Knight did in Puerto Rico while coaching America's Pan Am Games team? What is conservative about a man who not only disrespects, but assaults his superiors, as Knight has done with IU athletic director Clarence Donningner (and many, many others)? What is conservative about calling a long-time female university receptionist a "bitch" and smashing a vase on the wall above her head? What's conservative about embarrassing your country by pulling your squad off the floor in the midst of a "friendship game" against the Soviet national team during the Cold War -- because you were upset with the referees?

Writing in National Review On-Line, the American Enterprise Institute's Michael Ledeen says Knight's firing was all about politics. He further argues that "virtually every big-time coach, in college or professional sports, could have a dossier compiled on him every bit as damaging as the one on Knight."

Wrong again. First, Knight was fired not for his politics, but because he's an embarrassment to the University. Had any IU professor kicked, head-butted or choked a student (Knight's done all three), addressed national media figures with contempt and disrespect (as Knight does regularly), or refused to abide by the chain of command (as Knight did until they day he was fired), they'd have been canned quicker than the elapsed time between Knight's on-court expletives. If politics are what got Knight fired, why has he been there for twenty-nine years?

If anything, the University has let this drag on far too long, due in part to politics of a different pursuasion. That is, IU feared the wrath of alumni and big-time donors, most of whom are staunch Knight supporters.

Second, you'd be hard pressed to find any public official, save for maybe Bill Clinton, with a dossier of disrespect lengthier than Bob Knight's. Ledeen points to one occasion in which he saw Wisconsin head coach Dick Bennet rip into players during an intense sideline rabble at the Final Four. Big deal. On-court misbehavior is only one gun in Bob Knight's multi-faceted assault on civility.

Scour the pasts of any of college basketball's big-time coaches. Roy Williams? Dean Smith? Mike Krzyzewski? Denny Crum? Gene Keady? All can be stern. All can be dour, even profane. None of them has approached Knight's more notable transgressions.

Knight disrespects subordinates, peers, players, press, superiors (of which he believes there are none), and, most importantly, fans. Knight once stuffed an LSU fan into a hotel lobby trash can. When he berated and kicked his son and player Pat during a game several years ago, IU fans behind the bench were astounded. They booed him. He told them to f*** off. When Knight tossed a chair onto the floor in a game against Purdue some years back, he narrowly missed a section of wheelchair-bound IU boosters.

As his interview with ESPN showed, Knight to this day believes he's done nothing wrong. Ever. "I wouldn't change a thing," he said.

Sean Hannity likens Knight's popularity with his players, his more loyal coaches and his fans to the affinity boot camp plebes develop for a drill sergeant. I'd suggest it's more like Stockholm Syndrome, the affinity hostages harbor for their captors. Or, perhaps more accurately, it's similar to the unquestioning loyalty cult leaders harvest from the suckers they brainwash.

How else to explain the death threats to the high-caliber players who transfer? How else to explain that Murray Sperber, an IU English professor and vocal Knight critic, had to move out of state for fear of his safety? How else to explain that Kent Harvey, the kid whose arm Knight tugged, has his face plastered on fliers around Bloomington with the words "Wanted: Dead" emblazoned across the top?

It's disappointing that conservatives like Hannity, Ledeen, and the American Spectator's Wlady Pleszczynski feel the knee-jerk requisite to defend a sociopath like Knight. If ever there was a figure in the sports world akin to Bill Clinton, it's Bob Knight. Both are men of great intellect and obvious talent who can't control the most primal of urges. For Clinton it's sexual imperialism. For Knight it's rudimentary rage. Both men surround themselves with fiercely loyal yes-men. Neither hesitates to destroy the credibility of those few victims with the courage to come forward. Both have befuddling majority support from their constituents.

Bob Knight appeals to conservatives because, like them, he values discipline, hard-work and individualism. He also purportedly subscribes to their politics. When it comes to at least recruiting and academics, he plays by the rules. Like conservatives, he has contempt for the media and shuns political correctness. He's a hunter and a history buff. He's a straight shooter.

But Bob Knight's demeanor is anything but conservative. If you think the reported and largely fact-backed stories of his exploits are troubling, try living in Indiana long enough to hear the unreported stories. The man's never discovered an act, obscenity or gesture too crude to incorporate into his arsenal.

I lived in Indiana for twenty-two years. I've followed the state's basketball teams all of my life. I went to Indiana University for my undergraduate degree. As a libertarian, I also share a fair amount of philosophy with conservatives. Advice to them: you don't want Bob Knight on your side.