As the reactions to the Knight firing continue, we hear from people closer to
home, this
time Matt Doherty who says people should focus on the positive aspects of
Knight's career. True in many ways, but the sharpness of the negative
forces it into view. This was the case for Jacques
Derrida of course, when it was discovered that his wartime activities
were nothing to be proud of (we're pretty sure that was Derrida, but if we
confused him with another annoying French critic, someone please let us
know). There's a great difference between a literary critic and a
basketball coach, and a huge difference between collaboration and anger control,
but the principal holds.
The negative in this case has gone beyond Knight and now the behavior of his
supporters is as much a part of the story as anything Knight has ever done or
been accused of doing. The death threats, the overly lofty place given to
basketball - it's totally out of hand. A lot of people, Doherty and, we
would think Coach K who has said similar things in the past among them, make the
argument that Knight's postives outweigh the negatives, and it's an argument
with merit and one you can maintain even as you maintain dismissal was
proper. But
there is no way to justify the behavior of people who have terrified Murray
Sperber, Kent Harvey and family (how would you like to be one of his identical
triplet about now?), and President and Mrs. Brand. There's just not.
We'd love to hear from someone who thinks they could explain it.
Knight, by the way, hasn't
ruled out coaching this season just yet, and this link suggests it could be
either in college or the NBA. It's very funny to think of Knight dealing with
Rodman, Sprewell, Jason Williams, Rod Strickland, or some of the other NBA
knucklehead millionaires.