Misconduct.org

 

Disclaimer

 

Anti-Christian Discrimination

At Indiana University

 

Footnote

 

to

 

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)

 

 

 

The NCAA Holds Coaches and Students To A High Standard

 

 

 

 

The High Standard of Conduct For Coaches and Students

 

The NCAA states:

 

“It is the expectation of the NCAA that all student-athletes, coaches and athletic personnel will deport themselves with honesty and sportsmanship at all times so that intercollegiate athletics as a whole, their institutions and they, as individuals, shall represent the honor and dignity of fair play and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports.”  (NCAA statement)

 

Note:  the NCAA does not mention any expectation regarding the conduct of University Presidents, University Trustees, or NCAA personnel.

 

The NCAA is Tough When NCAA Honor and Dignity Are At Stake

 

The NCAA regularly cites and sanctions coaches for unethical conduct.

 

One such cited coach was an assistant men’s basketball coach at Purdue University.

 

Purdue University is about 90 miles away from Indiana University’s main campus where Robert Knight coached.  In addition, Purdue University is Indiana University’s “sister school” in that Indiana University and Purdue University jointly share a few branch campuses.

 

The NCAA Appeals Committee released its public report on the Purdue University basketball matter on January 25, 2000…less than nine months before Brand’s firing of Robert Knight.  The NCAA considered the assistant basketball coach’s offense to be a “major infraction.”  The offense had three components:  violations involving recruiting, extra benefits and ethical conduct.  (No State or Federal Law violations were alleged.)  (NCAA Public Report)

 

The NCAA cited the assistant coach for ethical misconduct because the coach “failed to deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized high standards of honesty normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics and violated the provisions of ethical conduct by his knowing involvement in violations of NCAA legislation…”

 

The specific offenses alleged by the NCAA but which Purdue University appealed as “clearly contrary to the evidence” were:

 

First Count.  An assistant basketball coach purportedly told a “prospect’s mother” that the “prospect’s” $3,379 preparatory school debt would be paid.  (The mother was in financial difficulty and couldn’t pay the debt.)  The assistant basketball coach told the “prospect” to contact a bank vice-president and a “representative of the university’s athletic interests.”  The bank then made a $4,000 loan to the “prospect.”  $3,379 was used by the “prospect” to pay his preparatory school debt and $621 was used by the “prospect” for his own expenses.  [The NCAA’s position was also that the loan was sub-standard and was not one available to equally poor credit risks in the general public...and that the loan was not paid off at the time of the NCAA ruling.  Purdue did not dispute these facts.]

 

It’s critical to note the position the NCAA took:  “The coach advised the prospect…that if the prospect came to Purdue he would be ‘well taken care of.’  This is a broad, general statement, and it is susceptible of being interpreted as promising improper inducements.  By making such an ambiguous statement, a coach takes the risk that where, as here, an improper inducement was, in fact, subsequently provided to the prospect after coming to Purdue, the prospect was justified in interpreting the statement as promising the improper inducements to him.”

 

Second Count.  An individual gave a  “student-athlete’s mother” a job as his housekeeper and paid the mother’s moving expense to move to Indianapolis, Indiana, from Tennessee.  The individual gave the mother “approximately two month’s” free rent in an apartment he owned and then cosigned a lease for her (as her employer) when she moved into a permanent apartment.  The individual provided the “student-athlete’s mother” “at least” thirteen round trips from her apartment to the team’s home games one season and “at least 12” round trips from her apartment to the team’s home games the next season.  (He apparently was attending the games himself anyway.)  (The “mother” was still the housekeeper several years after the “student-athlete” left Purdue University, which fact was known to the NCAA.)  The assistant coach had made telephone calls to both the individual and the mother about the time of the mother’s move and the University had given the individual “some” complimentary tickets.

 

It’s critical to note that:  the NCAA rules desire witness interviews to be tape-recorded.  The NCAA investigators did not tape record their interview with the mother because they felt she appeared nervous.  The NCAA investigators provided a written memorandum stating certain alleged facts.  The mother refused to sign the memorandum “denying that she made the statements attributed to her by the enforcement staff.”

 

 It’s critical to note the position the NCAA took:  The NCAA placed great weight on the circumstantial evidence that the individual in Indianapolis who gave the mother the housekeeping job had been given “some” complimentary tickets to Purdue University basketball games and that a Purdue University form said the reason for giving the complimentary tickets was “Jobs” [plural].  The NCAA stated that Purdue University had no record what jobs were referred to.  (Anything is thus possible…maybe he arranged with a friend for Ladies Bowling Team members to get summer jobs working as night watchmen on construction projects…who knows?)   Also the individual and the mother had both received telephone calls from the assistant coach near the time of the mother’s taking employment with the individual.  The NCAA took the Napoleonic “Guilty until Proven Innocent” attitude.  Because a person had hired a person as a housekeeper who was the mother of a basketball prospect…because that person did things an employer may reasonably be expected to do…because the same person had received some complimentary tickets…because the university didn’t have a document stating what jobs were meant on the complimentary ticket form…and because the assistant coach had made some telephone calls to the employer and the mother at about the time of the mother’s move…because of the preceding, the NCAA states “On the basis of this information, the finding against the university that the individual was a representative of the university’s athletics interests in arranging benefits for an athlete’s mother was not clearly contrary to the evidence, and is affirmed.”  In other words, all the NCAA needs to “hang” a school is circumstantial evidence.

 

Purdue University did not appeal the following additional allegations:

 

Count Three.  Four additional infractions were:  (1) a “student-athlete” gave a “prospective student athlete” a jacket; (2) the head coach gave too many complimentary admissions to the father of a “student-athlete”; (3) during a “quiet period” the assistant coach provided impermissible transportation to a “prospective student-athlete”; and (4) the head coach made 15 impermissible telephone calls to the home of the “prospective student athlete” who received the impermissible transportation (the calls were to the home, not necessarily to the prospect).

 

There was also the unethical conduct of the assistant coach who “failed to deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized high standards of honesty normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics” as previously stated.

 

No laws were broken in the above offenses…only NCAA rules were broken.  But, the NCAA has made paramount the honor and dignity of NCAA sports.  The NCAA defends at all costs and in all circumstances the spotless reputation of intercollegiate athletics…even going so far as accessing penalties based on ambiguous statements and circumstantial evidence.  And the NCAA imposes these penalties no matter whose toes…and whose university gets step on.

 

For the above offenses, the NCAA levied the following penalties against Purdue University:

 
  • Public reprimand and censure.

 
  • Forfeiting 24 completed games including games played in the 1996 NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Championship.

 
  • Return of 90% of the money the school received as its share for its participation in the 1996 NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Championship.

 
  • Two years of probation.

 
  • A reduction in the number of “athletic financial awards” by one “financial award” for each of two years.

 
  • A reduction in the number of expense-paid visits by prospects to the campus from 12 to 4 for two years.

 
  • A two-year prohibition of the assistant coach engaging in off-campus recruiting.

 
  • Restrictions on the assistant coach’s possible employment at other NCAA member institutions.

 
  • Disassociation of the two “representatives” involved in the offenses for four and two years respectively.

 
  • Requirement that Purdue University develop a re-education program including seminars, testing, and submission of reports.

 

Knight Did the Correct Thing By Not Continuing Discussions With Myles Brand Over the Weekend

 

Robert Knight could not help but be aware of the NCAA sanctions against the basketball coach at his “sister school” Purdue University.

 

Because of his high public profile, his vocal detractors, and the NCAA rules, Knight could never have afforded to come near any suggestion of involvement in illegal conduct.

 

Had Brand pulled Knight into an illegal Trustee meeting that violated State Law, the results could have been disastrous for Knight and Indiana University basketball.  Such an illegal Trustee meeting, if revealed, could easily have been twisted by Knight’s detractors into a meeting “requested” by Knight to secretively and illegally defend his position before the Trustees.  Had Knight become entwined in any illegal activity, he wouldn’t have been able to defend himself against detractors’ charges and NCAA ethics charges of participating in the violation of an important State Law.  Remember, at the NCAA, you’re “guilty until proven innocent” and ambiguous statements and circumstantial evidence prevail.

 

Looking at the matter with the benefit of hindsight, Knight acted not only wisely, but also in the only way that would have protected Indiana University basketball when he didn’t continue with weekend discussions as requested by Indiana University’s President Myles Brand.  Even had Knight successfully defended his position before the Trustees in their weekend meeting, the simple fact of an illegal Trustee meeting that violated State Law could have been used by the NCAA against both Knight and Indiana University basketball since Knight’s involvement clearly would have compromised the dignity and honor of NCAA athletics.