Misconduct.org

Disclaimer

Anti-Christian Discrimination

At Indiana University

A Comparative Analysis

of

The Standards That Robert Knight Violated

(That Myles Brand Used to “Justify”

Ending Robert Knight’s Coaching Career)

vs.

The Standards That Myles Brand Violated

(In Ending the Young Christian Student’s Academic Career)

Part One

Introduction

Indiana University’s controversial President Myles Brand (Jewish) claimed Robert Knight (religion unknown) violated one set of standards when Brand ended Robert Knight’s coaching career.

Brand and senior Indiana University officials violated a different set of standards when they ended the Christian Young Lady’s academic career.

Background on the Knight Termination

Knight became Indiana University’s basketball coach in 1971.

Knight was successful. (more)

In the late 1990’s, Knight discomforted a feminine and wimpish minority with his aggressive masculine behavior. Knight’s most vocal critic was media personality Mark Shaw (religion unknown). Shaw’s the author of a book arguing that anti-American spy Jonathan Pollard (Jewish), who spied for the Jews, should be released from prison. (more)

In April 2000, a former player stated that Knight had “choked” him in a 1997 practice session. This allegation triggered Brand’s call for an investigation of Knight’s “misconduct.”

Brand’s Definition of “Misconduct”

In the Knight case, Brand’s definition of “misconduct” meant over a 29-year period:

· Displays of anger…usually but not always at a game or practice…including throwing a chair in 1985…shoving his own son on the sideline during a game in 1993…and grabbing the player by the neck but not choking the player in 1997.

· “Fighting” with the Athletic Director and with a (former) assistant coach…the provocation and duration of the “fights” are not known…no one filed police or University charges.

· “Attacking” a (former) sports information director…the provocation and nature of the “attack” are not known…no one filed police or University charges.

· “Threatening” an Athletic Department secretary…the provocation and nature of the “threat” are not known.

· “Publicly feuding” with the Athletic Director…The public seemed to be on Knight’s side since no one rioted, expressed great anguish, or sent thousands of disapproving emails when the Athletic Director left the University.

In Knight’s case, Brand’s definition of “misconduct” did not mean:

· breaking any Federal law,

· breaking any Indiana State law,

· breaking any written Indiana University policy (more),

· breaking any nationally publicized public statement signed by Indiana University’s President,

· breaking any written decree or representation made by Indiana University’s Trustees, President, or senior officials,

· breaking any written statement or representation made by Knight himself,

· denying any student the opportunity to continue taking advantage of any University program,

· denying any student the opportunity to continue working toward a degree, or

· discriminating against any student on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion.

Brand Creates “Zero Tolerance”

On May 15, 2000, Brand announced that based upon the results of an investigation of all past allegations, Knight would be retained as Indiana University’s basketball coach. Brand concurrently announced that Brand was placing Knight under a “zero tolerance” policy. Brand stated that any future conduct by Knight that violated the “zero tolerance” policy would be cause for Brand to fire Knight. Defying Western Legal Tradition, Brand reserved to himself the roles of Knight’s lawmaker, executive, judge, and executioner.

On September 10, 2000, Brand announced that he had fired Knight.

As part of the firing announcement, Brand made the incredibly contra-reasonable statement that Knight did NOT violate the still unwritten “zero tolerance” policy.

Brand’s Purported Reasons For Firing Knight

At first, Brand’s basis for the firing was new “misconduct” as defined by Brand. The new list of “misconduct” announced by Brand was:

Item One.

Mark Shaw’s stepson’s disrespectful overture toward Knight.

(Media personality Mark Shaw was Knight’s most vocal critic and was the author of a book arguing that anti-American spy Jonathan Pollard, who spied for the Jews, should be released from prison.)

The stepson had rudely called out to Knight when Knight was walking past the stepson. The stepson alleged that Knight grab him by the arm and started yelling and cursing at him. Coach Mike Davis (religion unknown) witnessed the entire scene and stated that the stepson’s allegations were “The biggest lie I ever heard in my life.” (A few days later, Indiana University hired Coach Davis, as Knight’s successor.)

Knight’s version was that the student called out, “Hey, what’s up, Knight?” Knight then briefly grabbed the student’s elbow and said “Son, my name is not Knight to you. It’s Coach Knight or it’s Mr. Knight. I don’t call people by their last name, and neither should you.” (End of event.)

[Notably, it took two years for Indiana University’s Administration to come around to Knight’s view of a student’s conduct toward others. In fall 2002, IU Chancellor Sharon Brehm (Roman Catholic) instituted the “Indiana Promise.” “I promise that…I will respect the dignity of others, treating them with civility and understanding.”]

No information is known of Brand criticizing or firing any other Indiana University faculty member for grabbing a student’s elbow or instructing a student on polite conduct.

Brand stated Knight’s conduct in this instance DID NOT violate Brand’s “zero tolerance” policy.

(more)

Item Two.

The Athletic Director’s continuing “feud” with Knight.

Allegedly, Knight failed to properly “defer” to the Athletic Director and failed to “work within the normal chain of command.”

No information is known of Brand criticizing and firing any other Indiana University Dean, Department Chairman or faculty member for “feuding” or failing to “work within the normal chain of command.”

Brand stated Knight’s conduct in this regard DID NOT violate Brand’s “zero tolerance” policy.

Item Three.

Knight’s failure to attend “Varsity Club” booster events in Bloomington (the home campus), Indianapolis (45 miles), and Chicago (200 miles).

These events were all during the summer, not in or near basketball season. For most boosters the focus is football during the summer, not basketball.

No information is known regarding Knight’s schedule conflicts or his historic attendance at these summer events.

No information is known regarding the absence of any of the dozens of other Indiana coaches.

No information is known of Brand ever criticizing or firing any other absent coach.

Brand stated Knight’s absence from these events DID NOT violate Brand’s “zero tolerance” policy.

Item Four.

Knight’s “verbal abuse” of a high-ranking female IU official.

[Here, Brand engaged in gender discrimination by implying that verbal abuse of a female is worse than verbal abuse of a male. Gender-based discrimination violates official Indiana University policy.]

The provocation, circumstances and nature of the “verbal abuse” are not known.

No information is known of Brand ever criticizing or firing any other Indiana University faculty member for verbally abusing another employee of Indiana University.

Brand stated Knight’s conduct in this instance DID NOT violate Brand’s “zero tolerance” policy.

Item Five.

Knight’s alleged “angry and inflammatory remarks about university officials” and attempts to embarrass Indiana University.

Details not known.

[Brand’s sincerity on this item must be weighed against (1) Brand’s total failure to be embarrassed by the anti-Christian “Corpus Christi” play in 2001 that caused 21 members of the Indiana General Assembly to file a Federal lawsuit against Indiana University-PUFW (more) and (2) Brand’s total failure to be embarrassed by his wife’s involvement in “cunt art” and other similar anomalous pursuits. (more)]

No information is known of Brand ever criticizing or firing any other Indiana University faculty member for “angry and inflammatory remarks about university officials.”

Brand stated Knight’s conduct in this regard DID NOT violate Brand’s “zero tolerance” policy.

Item Six.

Knight’s alleged lack of cooperation with the May 15, 2000 sanctions.

[Note: Brand’s allegation of “lack of cooperation” is so nebulous as to be meaningless since Brand concurrently stated that there were no violations of the sanctions.]

Details not known.

No information is known of Brand ever sanctioning any other Indiana University faculty member or criticizing or firing any other Indiana University faculty member for lack of cooperation with sanctions.

Brand stated Knight’s conduct in this regard DID NOT violate Brand’s “zero tolerance” policy.

Item Seven.

Knight’s failure to cancel a prepaid vacation trip.

This is related to item one…the episode involving Mark Shaw’s rude stepson.

The incident with Mark Shaw’s rude stepson occurred on a Thursday.

Media personality Mark Shaw (the stepfather) produced a media event on Friday morning where Knight’s purported outrageous conduct and screaming and cursing were alleged. Knight spoke with Brand and held a press conference later on Friday where much different testimony was offered.

Brand wanted Knight to cancel Knight’s scheduled, prepaid vacation to continue discussing the incident over the weekend. Knight felt that there wasn’t anything more that needed immediate discussion. Knight left for his vacation.

[Alternatively, Knight may have anticipated that Brand and the Trustees may defy State Law by holding an illegal Trustee meeting. Knight couldn’t dare be near such illegal activity considering the high integrity standards imposed by the NCAA on coaches (as opposed to University Presidents, University Trustees and NCAA officers). (more) (more)]

No information is known of Brand ever requesting any other Indiana University faculty member to forgo a prepaid vacation or criticizing or firing any other Indiana University faculty member for failing to forgo a prepaid vacation.

[Additionally, the record shows that Knight’s refusal to rush the matter was correct. The haphazard secret activities of Brand and the Trustees over the next two days are monumental evidence against Brand’s hysterical rush to deal with Knight in a rash and precipitous manner. Hindsight proves that had Brand or enough of the Trustees had sufficient level headedness to address any complaints in a fair, orderly, legal manner…Indiana University would’ve been served much better.]

Brand stated Knight’s conduct in this regard DID NOT violate Brand’s “zero tolerance” policy.

In summary, Brand offered seven new examples of “misconduct.”

Brand publicly stated that not one of the alleged new examples of “misconduct” violated Brand’s “zero tolerance” policy.

Brand did not allege or suggest any “misconduct” by Knight that involved:

· breaking any written “zero tolerance” policy,

· breaking any unwritten “zero tolerance” policy,

· breaking any Federal law,

· breaking any Indiana State law,

· breaking any written Indiana University policy,

· breaking any nationally publicized public statement signed by Indiana University’s President,

· breaking any written decree or representation made by Indiana University’s Trustees, President, or senior officials,

· breaking any written statement or representation made by Knight himself,

· denying any student the opportunity to continue taking advantage of any University program,

· denying any student the opportunity to continue working toward a degree, or

· discriminating against any student on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion.

At the firing press conference, Brand was asked, in a round about way, the obvious question any third grader would ask: Why did you fire Knight if by your own admission Knight didn’t have a single violation of your “zero tolerance” policy?

Brand’s answer was that (1) Knight had a pattern of NOT violating the “zero tolerance” policy and (2) Knight could foretell that Knight was going to violate the “zero tolerance” policy in the future and that Brand’s expectation of a future violation sufficiently justified Brand’s pre-emptive firing.

Brand’s Standard For Firing Knight

The Standard that Brand used to judge Knight boiled down to:

1. “misconduct” that DID NOT violate any Federal law, any state law, any written University policy, any signed public statement, any written University decree or representation, or the unwritten and undefined “zero tolerance” policy,

2. a total absence of any meaningful physical or mental harm to anyone,

3. a total absence of any interference in any student’s academic career, and

4. a total absence of any type of discrimination against any student,

combined with:

5. Brand’s personal expectation that Knight would violate the unwritten and undefined “zero tolerance” policy in the future.

Two Important Issues

Two related issues are worth noting: “publication of the law” and “premeditated violation/skirting of the law.”

Publication of the Law

The first important factor in the entire Knight affair is a basic component of American fair play and justice: the requirement that a law must be put in writing and published before any individual can be found guilty of violating such law. The alternative is despotism. (“Rule of law” not “rule of men” and “no ex post laws.”)

In the Knight matter, neither Brand nor Indiana University’s “Code of Athletic Conduct Committee” had ever gotten around to producing either a written definition of “zero tolerance” or a list of reasonable conduct rules as of the date of Knight’s firing on September 10, 2000.

The lackadaisicalness of Brand and the “Code of Athletic Conduct Committee” was proven by their failure to create and publish the needed set of rules. Their lackadaisicalness was key to Brand’s firing of Knight. The lackadaisicalness of Brand and the others was used against Knight rather than against Brand and the other lackadaisical parties. This was injustice.

Knight was fired for NOT violating regulations that had not even been finalized and published. This flies in the face of everything American justice stands for.

“A law is not obligatory unless it be promulgated.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 2^nd Edition, 826 and Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Volume II, John Bouvier and Francis Rawle, 143.)

Spontaneous Acts

The second important factor in the entire Knight affair is the concept of spontaneous action versus premeditated action.

Generally, Knight’s so-called “misconduct” was simply one individual’s spontaneous responses to spontaneous situations…usually stressful, high-pressure situations. Knight’s purpose was never a premeditated defiant challenge to any law or regulation or “zero tolerance” policy. Everyone knows that in law a spontaneous reaction to a spontaneous situation is treated sympathetically relative to a premeditated action. “It is to the intention that all law applies. Law always regards the intention.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 2^nd edition, 70 and The Institutes of American Law, John Bouvier, 118.)

Brand’s and the Trustees’ Secret Conduct

Knight’s conduct must be contrasted with Brand’s and the Indiana University Trustees’ conduct in the termination of Knight.

The State of Indiana has a long-time, written, published State Law that regulates the holding of Indiana University Trustee meetings. This Law exists for the protection of the State of Indiana and all of its citizens. It was created after careful consideration and debate. This law is reaffirmed in the Indiana University Trustee By-Laws.

“Special Meetings of the [Indiana University] Board of Trustees to consider specific items of business may be called by the President of the Board or at the request of any five (5) members thereof. The Secretary shall provide public notice of special meetings as determined by the Indiana Code.”

State Law requires public notice of Indiana University Trustee meetings and open meetings…open to the citizens of Indiana. The purpose of this law relates to the public trust nature of Indiana University. Many decisions of the IU Trustees affect the State, the citizens of the State, the students, the alumni, and the employees of the University. Because the Indiana University Trustees hold positions of public trust and because great harm may result from improper decisions, the State of Indiana, in its wisdom, made mandatory the public notice and open meeting provisions.

This public meeting law is a published written law that is well known to Brand and each of the Trustees. Each of them also knows the Trustee By-Laws.

Despite the public meeting law and the Trustee By-Laws, Brand conducted an unusual meeting with Indiana University’s Trustees at his residence over the weekend of the Knight firing.

Politician Brand’s Number One Objective: Protecting His Own Career

Brand is an experienced politician who knows how power works. Brand knows that the wishes of the people can be repudiated when an agenda requires the violation of the public interest. (“The public be damned.”) Brand knew the ONLY people who counted in the Knight firing were the people in an institutional position (in this case the Trustees and the State judges) that could take legal or institutional action against Brand. Brand knew if he had a friendly judge and the agreement of sufficient Trustees, he could dismiss Knight without harm to his own career. The outrage of the injured parties…hundreds of thousands of students, alumni, and citizens…would simply blow away because the injured parties lacked any institutional forum to effectively defend their position and overturn the firing. The great Western Legal Tradition of Justice requires that “justice” must be free, full, and speedy, (Coke’s Institutes Number Two, Coke on Magna Charta and Old Acts, Sir Edward Coke, published 1628). The State court offered no possibility of free, full, and speedy justice in the Knight matter.

Brand was not going to destroy Robert Knight’s career if it meant Brand’s career would be jeopardized in the process. The secret Trustee meeting was necessary for one purpose and one purpose only: protecting Brand’s career.

If the purpose of the Trustee meeting was to obtain necessary Trustee approval of the Knight firing, then such Trustee approval would have necessitated a formal public Trustee meeting…public notice of the meeting…and a meeting open to the public. There was no need for the Trustees (or Brand for that matter) to rush the Knight firing. The decision could easily have been delayed for the time necessary to follow the State Law and the Trustee By-Laws with no harm to the University or the public. Brand and the Trustees did not do this.

The purpose of the secret Trustee meeting was for Brand to learn whether Brand’s career would be terminated if he fired Knight…especially in light of Brand’s dubious arguments purportedly supporting a Knight termination. The secret Trustee meeting was nevertheless of the utmost importance since it facilitated Brand’s firing of Knight. The facts make it absolutely clear that if Brand didn’t know how the Trustee would react, Brand would never have risked his own career by firing Knight.

Brand and the Trustees defied the law in order to act against the interests of the citizens of Indiana. Brand’s desired firing of Knight would have been much more difficult…if not impossible…to achieve had Brand and the Trustees needed to publicly argue and defend their anti-Knight allegations in a public pre-announced Trustee meeting.

Premeditated Acts That Were Purposefully Intended to Defy the Law

The secret Trustee meeting was not a spontaneous reaction of one individual to a spontaneous situation. Brand and the Trustees agreed at their leisure to purposefully, jointly, intentionally, and premeditatively either outright violate the State Law and the Trustee By-Laws or at least stretch the State Law and the By-Laws to their absolute limits…giving at the minimum the appearance of defiance of the law. Brand and the Trustees jointly agreed to purposefully defeat the protections the State had instituted to protect the people of Indiana…and individuals such as Robert Knight.

Six of the nine Indiana University Trustees at the time were lawyers.

Brand’s and the Trustees’ actions in the secret meeting involving Knight’s termination are the perfect proof of the need for the public notice and open meeting provisions. Decisions in secret meetings tend to harm…or greatly harm…the public interest, the public itself, and individual citizens.

(more)

Hundreds of Thousands Harmed by Brand’s Conduct

Hundreds of thousands were permanently harmed in one weekend by Brand’s firing of Knight versus the handful that were at worst temporary “harmed” by Knight over his 29-year career.

In their defense against a lawsuit, Brand and the University made the legal argument that Brand had sole authority to terminate Knight. This formal legal position taken in court by Brand and the University absolutely proves the contention that the purpose of the secret Trustee meeting was not to serve the interest of the State and University public, but rather was to protect Brand’s sole private individual interest in his own career. If Brand had sole authority to fire Knight, why bother the Trustees or seek their pre-approval?

Judge Cecile Blau ruled in July 2001 that Brand individually had the right to fire Knight. (Blau’s religion is unknown. There have been several famous Jewish Babylonian Talmud scholars named Blau including Julius Blau, the legal expert for the Jewish Agency for Palestine in the 1930’s who was one of the most important Jews involved in the massive migration of Jews into Palestine.)

Their alibi: Obremskey was in the Kitchen!

After the Knight firing, forty-six plaintiffs (not including Knight) sued Brand and the University contending they conducted an illegal Trustee meeting prior to the Knight firing. The Indiana University defense was the contention that purportedly for the meeting to have been illegal, a majority of the Trustees needed to be in the SAME room…but one of the Trustees, lawyer Peter Obremskey (religion unknown), stayed in the kitchen…so no violation according to Brand!

It’s only the self-serving testimony of Brand and his co-defendants…their “Obremskey stayed in the kitchen” claim…that preserves them (in their own minds) from a bona fide violation of an important State Law and the Trustee By-Laws.

Brand further attempted to justify the appropriateness of the “less than a quorum” defense to the violation-of-the-open-meeting-law charge by saying that sometimes a few Trustees meet privately in the process of developing the University budget. Brand neglected to state that his justification is fraudulent for the Knight case since (1) the proposed budget must eventually come before the Trustees for debate and vote in an announced open public meeting, (2) neither Obremskey nor any other Trustee hides in the kitchen during these budget discussions, (3) the Knight matter never came to a vote before the Trustees in a legal, announced open Trustee meeting, and (4) the University budget does not go into effect on the weekend of the private non-quorum Trustee budget discussions.

On the same weekend of the firing, (Sunday September 10, 2002), the then Indiana University Trustee Vice President, lawyer Frederick Eichhorn (religion unknown), publicly stated that “a large majority” of Indiana’s Board of Trustees supported Brand’s firing of Knight. How can lawyer Eichhorn possibly know on the day of the firing that “a large majority” of Indiana’s Board of Trustee supported the firing if there wasn’t an illegal vote on the matter during one or more illegal secret meetings over the weekend?

Further, in a January 23, 2001 speech, 135 days after the Knight firing, Brand made some revealing comments. Brand stated that he had “first-hand experience” dealing with a “celebrity coach.” Brand stated that when a celebrity coach is not in a state of “harmony and common purpose” with some undefined long-term interests of the university, the university “president must, with the concurrence of the governing board, act in the best long-term interests of the university.” Elsewhere in his speech, Brand stated, “Without support of board members, the president will not be able to initiate any meaningful change or make the hard decisions. The support of IU Board members was crucial to me in making the decision about Bob Knight.” With this speech, Brand practically shouts that he procured an illegal Trustee vote to obtain the Trustees’ concurrence prior to his firing Knight. (speech)

Justice Brand Style

There you have it: Brand and the Indiana University Trustees claim…

There was never a Trustee meeting because there was never a quorum…AND…a large majority of the Trustees supported Brand’s firing of Knight.

This is an example of “justice” Brand style…a process with at least the strong stench of civil defiance and illegality…a process totally lacking any sense of integrity…a process that ultimately ends up in injustice.

Can anyone ever believe or trust Myles Brand or the Trustees? The answer is no.

“These are the precepts of the law: To live honorably; to hurt nobody: to render every one his due.” (Institutes of Justinian, Flavius Anicius Justinianus [Justinian The Great], Book 1, Title 1, paragraph 3, (533); and Commentaries on the Law, Sir William Blackstone, 40.)

Brand’s Uncivil, Defiant and Unacceptable Conduct

In the process of making the public announcement of Knight’s firing, Brand characterized Knight’s behavior as “uncivil, defiant and unacceptable.” (more)

Although a common understanding of “uncivil behavior” is impolite or discourteous conduct, the primary and foundational meaning of the word relates to conduct in relation to the civil laws (as opposed to the criminal laws) regulating the community or society.

The word “defiant” reflects a clear, intentional challenge of authority or an adversary. This, in turn, presupposes some clear law or person that was defied.

“Unacceptable” means simply “not welcome” or “not pleasing.”

Does Knight’s conduct best fit the label “uncivil, defiant and unacceptable” or does Brand’s and the Trustees’ conduct best fit the label “uncivil, defiant and unacceptable?”

• Uncivil Conduct…Knight. Knight’s conduct may have been impolite, discourteous or overly masculine to a relative few over the years, but Knight never violated any civil law or regulation. Remarkably, Knight’s ultimate removal came about because he attempted to instruct a rude student about civil and decent conduct.

• Uncivil Conduct…Brand and the Trustees. Brand’s and the Trustees’ conduct was catastrophically impolite and discourteous to tens and tens and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Indiana citizens. Brand’s and the Trustees’ conduct either outright violated an important State Law and the Trustees’ own By-Laws…or at least came so close to violation that lawyers were needed to defend the “against-the-civil-laws” charge that righteously arose from the outraged public.

• Defiant Conduct…Knight. Knight didn’t break or defy any laws or rules…even including the unwritten “zero tolerance” policy. Brand may argue that Knight personally “defied” Brand when Knight was unwilling to forgo the prepaid vacation to continue discussing Mark Shaw’s stepson’s rude behavior…or “defied” the Athletic Director in some manner…or “defied” some others in some way.

• Defiant Conduct…Brand and the Trustees. Brand and the Trustees either outright defied the State Law and the Trustee By-Laws or, alternatively, intentionally challenged the State Law and the Trustee By-Laws to the maximum limit. Brand defied Indiana’s Legislature, Indiana’s citizens, Indiana University’s students, faculty, staff and alumni, Coach Knight, and the basketball team players and coaches when he fired Knight.

• Unacceptable Conduct…Knight. No one rioted over any Knight offense. Few, if any, disapproving emails or letters were sent in reaction to any Knight offense. Knight’s so-called “unacceptable conduct” had an effect on only a relative few anti-Knight agitators.

• Unacceptable Conduct…Brand and the Trustees. Thousands of people spontaneously burst into public protest in response to Brand’s conduct. Brand was burned in effigy in response to his conduct. Police were called out to suppress a riot in response to Brand’s conduct. Thousands of people sent derogatory emails in response to Brand’s conduct. The then current Trustee President, lawyer John Walda (religion unknown), later stated that Brand’s firing of Knight created “one of the most divisive and disruptive” crises in Indiana University’s 181-year history…in other words…Brand was and is individually guilty of arguably the most “not welcome” and “not pleasing” (also known as “unacceptable”) conduct in the history of Indiana University.

Whose conduct best fits the description of “uncivil, defiant and unacceptable?” Knight’s or Brand’s and the Trustees’? The answer is Brand’s and the Trustees’. Their conduct was and is the ultimate example of “uncivil, defiant and unacceptable” conduct in Indiana University history.

“Words should be taken most strongly against him who uses them.” (Maxims of Law, Sir Francis Bacon, reg. 3; On the Grounds and Maxims of the Law, William Noy, 48.)

Summary of Brand’s Firing Knight

To summarize the Knight matter:

Knight injured no one…physically, mentally, or academically. Knight caused no one to suffer any loss. Knight forced no one out of Indiana University. Knight broke no laws. Knight discriminated against no one. Knight denied no one the opportunity for a degree at Indiana University.

In fact, an exceptionally strong statement can be made that some number of young people…perhaps a great number…earned an Indiana University degree because of Robert Knight’s exceptional masculine role model status…this would include both players, as reflected by Knight’s team’s abnormally high graduation rates…and non-players, since Knight generated a great appeal and attraction for Indiana University that mostly likely motivated young people to attend IU who otherwise would have forgone college.

Knight dedicated his life to promoting the honor and fame and renown of Indiana University and its students. Knight dedicated his life to Indiana University!

For the above reasons, Jewish President Myles Brand misused his authority and fired Robert Knight.

Brand’s Victimization of the 16-Year Old Christian Young Lady

Now that you’ve analyzed the Standards that Knight purportedly violated and that were used to “justify” Myles Brand’s firing of Robert Knight, you need to analyze the Standards that Brand and other senior Indiana University officials violated in their conduct destroying the academic career of the 16-year old Christian student at Indiana University.

Go to Part Two. (click here)

All the 16-year old Christian Young Lady wanted was a fair chance

to continue working toward a degree at Indiana University

without having to compromise her Christian Faith.…

but Jewish President Myles Brand

and his senior Indiana University officials

would not tolerate this.