Letter from Bob Knight's attorney

Re: Coach Knight/Sept. 13, 2000 Letter of President Brand\nDear IDS:\nI am sure by now you have seen and read the letter dated Sept. 13, 2000, entitled "Dear Friends," authored by IU President Myles Brand. I wanted to take this opportunity to respond to the comments of the president, most of which are misleading, incomplete and wrong.\nOn behalf of my client, Coach Bob Knight, I believe that IU and its spokespersons should immediately discontinue their campaign of misinformation that is apparently intended to publicly justify the University's firing of Coach Knight without true cause.\nThe ongoing efforts of the University, and of those acting at its behest, serve no purpose other than to increase the damage already done to the reputation of a man who, for 29 years, served the University in a manner unprecedented in terms of accomplishments, and far beyond anticipation in terms of duties undertaken beyond the scope of his contractual obligations.\nFrom May 2000, until his termination on Sept. 10, 2000, Coach Knight was required to perform his duties with the threat of an undefined "zero-tolerance" policy dangling over his head. Because of the vagueness of the threat imposed by President Myles Brand, I personally recommended that Coach Knight discontinue certain activities that he had, in prior years, voluntarily performed for the good of the University. Specifically, I recommended, among other things, that Coach Knight:\n(1) Fulfill his contract but not go beyond that in making public appearances for the University;\n(2) Avoid unnecessary contact with people who could describe (and, in fact, in the recent past had described) their contact with Coach Knight however they wished; and\n(3) No longer perform a number of volunteer tasks that opened him to "zero-tolerance" allegations, among them, teaching a highly popular class that he personally, and literally hundreds of Indiana University students over the years, had richly enjoyed.\nIn his September 10 press conference and in letters, interviews and press releases, President Brand has turned Coach Knight's counsel-recommended wariness into a supportive cause for his firing. President Brand has consistently referred to a "pattern" of defiance, based on charges that he never raised for personal response or explanation from Coach Knight. The pettiness of these charges, which were never raised, illustrates how nebulous President Brand's own interpretation of "zero-tolerance" was, because if any one of the charges was indisputable and damaging, there would no doubt have been an immediate firing. This, using his own words from a widely disseminated letter and his Sept. 10 press conference, is the makeup of President Brand's "pattern" of defiance:\n(1)"A meeting in which Coach Knight verbally abused a female IU administrator with others present." This involved Coach Knight asking a University lawyer to leave his office if, as he and the University lawyer had agreed, their business for that day was done. Without raising his voice, Coach Knight asked the University's lawyer to leave so he could continue a discussion with another lawyer. This was the end of a meeting in which the University's lawyer was working out the details of the way to take $30,000 out of Coach Knight's pocket. I wonder how civil President Brand or anybody else would have been under similar circumstances? What a grand example of "spin." It is this administration, with its frequent championing of equality for women, that repeatedly stresses that this incident involved a "female lawyer." Apparently, this sought to make the offense more grave. Actually, it raised exactly the legitimate objection women of all fields have raised when their gender has been used to modify their standing.\n(2)"His continued refusal to work through the chain of command by reporting to Athletic Director Clarence Doninger." Coach Knight's contract, in effect for nearly 20 years, specifically states he has full charge of the basketball program and, therefore, there is no reason to "report" to the athletics director during the period. No matters arose which necessitated interaction between Coach Knight and the athletics director, except for one memorandum Coach Knight sent to Mr. Doninger, a reply to which never came! \n(3) "Angry and inflammatory remarks he made, in public and private, about University administrators and the board of trustees." When? Where? And, private? Has the whole spirit of academic freedom declined so sharply on this campus that private remarks ever would be raised against a critic of the administration?\n(4)"A lack of cooperation in fulfilling the sanctions handed down on May 15. It is important to note that the coach has agreed to fulfill these obligations, but has forced the university to go through a protracted, unpleasant and completely unnecessary process." The only matter between the University and Coach Knight since May 10 involved the University's inability to work out a system in which Coach Knight's $30,000 fine cost him $30,000, not the nearly $50,000 which the plan would have initially cost him under the terms of his contract. I agree that four meetings to work this out represented a "protracted" and "unnecessary" process, but the delay came because of the University's failure to work out fair and accurate terms, not because of any such intent or attempt on Coach Knight's part.\n(5)"His refusal to appear at previously scheduled pre-season Varsity Club events in Indianapolis, Bloomington and Chicago." This is a particular outrage, because it is demonstrably false. These were events that Coach Knight was solely responsible for creating in the first place, and none had been scheduled when he let it be known he could no longer do these things. These were direct casualties of the "zero-tolerance" threat, these and many, many other things he did unselfishly and voluntarily for the University over his 29 years. All those things together with the Indiana University Library fund drives, endowed chair solicitations, endowed scholarships, etc., raised millions of dollars over those years, maybe tens of millions. \nIs it truly "uncivil" and "defiant" to stop doing volunteer things, under the "zero-tolerance" threat? As I have stressed, he made those decisions upon my recommendation. The obvious intent was to minimize the risk of incidents that could bring baseless charges against Coach Knight. The advice could not have been substantiated better than by the "manners-correcting" incident with the young man in Assembly Hall. That fact compounds the irony of President Brand's using this very incident as the final act that completed the "pattern" of "uncivil, defiant and unacceptable" acts by Coach Knight since last May.\n"Uncivil, defiant and unacceptable" are words that much better describe this intolerable justification campaign than anything Coach Knight did while under President Brand's "zero tolerance" restraints.\nTo suggest that Coach Knight was disloyal to IU is preposterous. He has had a greater and more positive history with Indiana University than either Myles Brand or Christopher Simpson (vice president of public relations and government affairs) have or will ever have. \nPresident Brand seems agitated that Coach Knight had a press conference to refute the allegations of the (Kent) Harvey incident. In prior years Coach Knight has refused to rebut false, inflammatory and sometimes defamatory accusations against him. He has always turned the other cheek. As his counsel, we advised Coach Knight that he must rebut the false allegations because the press, for the most part, will not do any independent investigation, but will rely on an accusation as true, if not responded to by Coach Knight. We can no longer tolerate this conduct. \nHow many press conferences has Coach Knight had while coaching at IU since he began 29 years ago? Too many to list here or even remember. Never once has the University told him that he needed to receive prior approval before having a press conference. Never once. Now, however, that is cause to fire him? Unfortunately, the president spins the facts again in his favor.\nPresident Brand further stated in his letter that the University would protect the right of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Apparently, based on the president's comments regarding Coach Knight's press conference, this freedom of speech and freedom of assembly applies to everyone, except Robert M. Knight. It is also a somewhat disturbing comment from someone who deliberately met, in secret, with members of the trustees of the University and, apparently, intentionally circumvented the spirit, if not the letter, of the State of Indiana's open records act. If true, it is a shameful exercise at an attempt to stifle free speech, as well as Coach Knight's constitutional rights to due process. \nCoach Knight never had a chance to explain one single event of which the president speaks concerning his alleged misconduct between May 2000 and the termination date. How is that for due process? Then when he has a press conference to explain his actions, he is criticized by the president for exercising the same free speech rights President Brand is hell bent on protecting. At best, I suggest that position is disingenuous, at worst hypocritical! \nSuffice it to say, President Brand, as well as Mr. Simpson, based on our review of the facts and our investigation, have twisted the facts to suit the result they have long desired. \nPlease feel free to contact me at your convenience. Thank you.\nSincerely, \nRussell E. Yates\nRead the letter from Myles Brand.\nRead the story