Knight-mare Ends
Indiana coach needed self-discipline

Bob Knight certainly stretched the limits of decorum in his 29 years as the men’s basketball coach at Indiana University.

Whether it was hitting a Puerto Rican policeman at the Pan-American games, throwing a vase near an athletic department secretary or playing show-and-tell with his feces, Knight has always been the meanest bully on the block.

Knight, who will turn 60 soon, seemingly never learned how to tame his wild and often savage temper tantrums. And so, after the university instituted a “zero-tolerance policy” for his behavior in May, Knight was fired Sunday for grabbing a freshman student by the arm and, possibly, cursing at him.

The president of the university, Myles Brand, said Knight was dismissed for being “uncivil, defiant and unacceptable.” Certainly, Knight had exhausted the wiggle room for zero tolerance. In the end, he was axed for being disrespectful to someone he perceived as being disrespectful to him.

Yes, Knight won three national championships and four national coach of the year awards. Sure, he graduated most of his players, steered clear of NCAA violations and gave back lots of money to the school.
But the problem was this: Knight was out of control and tolerated by Indiana’s administrators simply because he won championships.

If a dean of students or a history professor or any other school administrator acted as Knight had during his tenure, he or she would have been pink-slipped long ago.

Knight and his supporters have often said he doesn’t tolerate bad behavior, and that he is merely a disciplinarian. But it seems that Knight and others like him would be better served by disciplining themselves.

Can anyone remember the last time they went to the movies and actually had a truly enjoyable experience? When I say “enjoyable,” I’m not just talking about the film itself, I’m talking about the audience as well.

Over the past decade, movie audiences have become more and more unruly. Before I get accused of stereotyping, I’ll admit that not everyone in the audience acts like a jerk, but the number of people who do is growing exponentially.

Take for instance the people that bring their cell phones into the theater and do not turn them off. While in some cases I am sure the owner simply forgets, there are other times when people actually carry on a conversation during a film when they receive a call. I’ll never forget the delightful individual back at one of my hometown theaters that received a call halfway through a film, and proceeded to talk about the weather and the day’s events. This guy was talking in a normal conversational tone and when the caller asked what the man was doing, he responded that he was “watchin’ TV.”

Cell phones ringing are not the only problem with modern day audiences. At least one student on this campus is well aware of my great distaste for parents who allow their babies to scream at the top of their lungs in a movie theater. I have witnessed such an experience more than once, and mostly at R-rated features.
There is just something inherently wrong with parents who feel it is acceptable to keep a baby up that late at a midnight R-rated show. Interestingly enough, back in the early ‘90s, AMC Theaters had a policy of barring all children less than eight years of age from R-rated features after 7 p.m. After having lived through the joys of a baby screaming through a film I saw last year, I went and spoke with the theater manager and asked him why AMC no longer enforces such a policy? He frankly answered that a parent threatened to sue the theater chain unless the policy was revoked.

When I heard this, my blood began to ignite like the fires of a thousand burning Kuwaiti oil fields! Evidently, the sue-happy parent’s major complaint was that she could not afford a baby-sitter for that evening. Forgive me if I am wrong, but it is only common sense that if you are so financially strapped that you cannot afford a baby-sitter, blowing $20 to $40 at a movie theater just defies plain logic.

In addition to the crying babies, there is, of course, that despicable breed of moviegoer known as the talker. The talker takes on a wide range of shapes and forms, ranging from your good friend to the obnoxious patron in the front row. I can recall numerous times some genius a row or two in front or behind me, standing blindly in the face of courtesy, talking at the top of his or her lungs during a movie.

However, I also remember going to the movies with my mother back when I was much younger. In those days, rarely did I, or anyone else, utter anything beyond a whisper while the feature was playing.

What has happened to movie audiences since then? Why has our society facilitated the growth of moviegoers like the cell phone fanatics, the parents with upset babies, and the loud chatterers?

Although some may dismiss him due to his controversial radio antics, Howard Stern, in his 1993 autobiography Private Parts, actually made an excellent commentary on the whole movie theater-audience situation when he essentially said people should quit treating the theaters like it was their living room at home.

I fervidly agree with him on this issue. I have always been an advocate for people doing what they want in the privacy of their own homes (as long as it does not involve the harm of others), but when you are in a public place like a multiplex, act like you have some dignity — even if you don’t.

Robert Davis is a senior computer science major from Garland.
He can be reached at (r.d.davis@student.tcu.edu).

Often when someone uses the word “dogma” or “dogmatic,” their minds will automatically think “limiting,” “restrictive” or “repressive,” which is then followed by negative thoughts and impressions about the role of dogmas.

The reason this happens is because of American culture’s emphasis on free-thinking; and such concepts as dogmas are seen as anathema to a society that embraces freedom of thought and expression. What this often shows, however, is a lack of understanding of the role of dogmas.

Space constraints do not allow a discussion on either Catholic theology or dogma, so instead I will use a mathematical analogy to illustrate the role a dogma serves for the believer. I will use the math problem 5 + 7 = 12 to represent a certain dogma. Five plus seven equals 12 is true, and it is absolutely true, that is, it is beyond debate, discussion or the sway of political influences. Five plus seven always equals 12 could be seen as repressive, restrictive or limiting, but what good would it do you to resist? Imagine trying to tell others, for instance, that 5 + 7 = 57.

What if you are absolutely convinced that 5 + 7 = 57 and persist in saying so? Do you think that accolades for rebelling against the “mathematical establishment” are just around the corner, or is it more likely that others will think that you not know your math and you are probably nuts as well? Perhaps, if you’re lucky, they will at least take pity on your persistent ignorance.

Dogmas are a set of truths that have to be as absolutely true as 5 + 7 = 12 is true. Granted, dogmas may not always seem as clear cut as this math problem, but it does not change the fact that they are still unalterably true. Some math problems are a lot more difficult than 5 + 7, but just because they are difficult to understand doesn’t mean that there is no solution for the problem.

For instance, let’s take 5 + 7(403 -77). Most of us can’t do that in our head as quickly as 5 + 7, but there is still a solution to it. If you blurted out any answer, it would be harder for others to disagree with you until they could check it out for themselves. The complexity of 5 + 7(403 -77), however, does not take away from the fact that there is still only one solution. It will just take a little longer to figure it out.

So it is with dogmas. They may not always be understood in one sitting like 5 + 7 would be, but it doesn’t mean that they aren’t true. Indeed, some dogmas require much meditation and contemplation before they can be understood, but the reward for understanding is often well worth the effort to find out.

Bashing dogmas because you don’t understand them, is not freeing yourself from their “restrictive and repressive” influence. Instead, it is like deciding that 5 + 7 = 57 simply because it seems so much more logical to just put the two numbers together as the solution rather than changing them into the number 12.
Deciding that 5 + 7 = 57 may at first seem to free you from “repressive thinking,” but ultimately it does not. All that happens is that you jump from one form of ignorance to another.

So next time, before jumping into the dogma-bashing bandwagon, look before you leap. You could be saving yourself a world of embarrassment.

John P. Araujo is a master of liberal arts major from Fort Worth.
He can be reached at (j.araujo@tcu.edu).