The day Indiana University, Bloomington, officials announced their decision to retain Bob Knight as head basketball coach, despite documentable abuse of a former student and threatening behavior directed toward an athletics department secretary and the athletics director, television ratings jumped, late-night TV hosts reveled in the comic possibilities, and sports media had a substantial controversy to cover. Of course, another message was created upon the momentous occasion of the retention of Mr. Knight, a profound message that should send a chill down the spines of academics, public policy makers, athletics personnel and parents everywhere.

For those unpersuaded that the corruption in big-time college sports does not translate into the corruption of the ideals of higher education, pause long on this event because it serves as a clarifying moment. There can be no doubt in this case that athletics accomplishments, including three NCAA championships, 24 NCAA tournament appearances, five Final Four appearances and their attendant attachment to power and money, have trumped the courage of a former student who was grabbed by the throat and choked during a practice three years ago.

In accordance with the model of sin and redemption, so much a part of the manner in which high-profile sports figures are permitted to renegotiate their lives after undeniable wrongdoing has been proven, an appeal for Knight to be given another chance has apparently been successfully made. Tellingly, as some sports media writers cast about for points of comparison that provide defensible grounds upon which Knight's retention can be justified, the only examples they reference emanate from the professional sports realm -- the P. J. Carlisemo/Latrell Sprewell incident when they were employed with the Golden State Warriors, the Darryl Strawberry saga with the New York Yankees, etc. This action has no basis in the academy. As Murray Sperber, professor of English and American studies at Indiana and longtime critic of big-time college sports noted on ESPN recently, a faculty member who had been found to engage in the same kinds of behaviors would have been dismissed years ago.

Notably, the persons involved in the Indiana situation appear to have taken copious notes from the professional sports manual on crisis management. On the Saturday before the official announcement that Knight would continue in his position, he issued a 390-word apology that offered no apology to the former student-athlete. The university, in turn, had clearly made the transition to the pros, meting out "punishments" that are as hollow as the Knight apology. As in the Wizard of Oz, not only are we not in Kansas anymore, we are nowhere near higher education in this scene. We are smack dab in the land of Darwinian Survival of Fittest mores and unchecked American capitalism where the lowest class is expendable and the producers maintain their positions, despite otherwise intolerable behavior. And for what? A college basketball program?

Message to students

As I witnessed this situation unfold, lo these many weeks during the university's investigation, a question formed in my mind as to the kind of lesson that would be imparted to my students here on a small Division III campus. I did not need to wait long nor probe to find the answer, and it haunts me. Unsolicited, I received a visit from one of my students who stopped by the office with the express purpose of talking about his impressions of the Indiana situation.

In graphic detail, the student interpreted for me his belief that the university's stance would be perceived by some college athletes as justification for physically acting out against coaches who frustrated them. The logic he used to sustain his argument was based on the pattern established by the Indiana situation, specifically that if those who were responsible for setting acceptable standards of behavior in an institution of higher education could tolerate a coach choking a player, than it seemed reasonable to expect those same individuals could tolerate a player choking a coach.

To reinforce his point, this young man observed, "The leadership on this was taken by the members of a university's Board of Trustees. What student judicial process could rule otherwise if the people who set the moral tone on a campus give permission for their coaches to behave in this way?"

When I quizzed the student about his views on whether the "zero-tolerance policy" and "code of conduct" the university was implementing as a result of this incident would undermine the logic he had mapped out, the student responded with "Come on, Dr. S., don't you think it's strange that they haven't had a zero-tolerance policy all along? This is nothing but p.r."

What does this reveal about the lessons my student gleaned from this example? Based on our exchange, this young man learned the lessons intended. He learned that:

* A university of considerable reputation valued athletics success over the sacred duty of the academy to protect the rights of students;

* The educational missions of academic institutions are compromised in a quest for the revenue generation and media exposure associated with athletics prestige and prominence;

* A man, if powerful enough, is immune from meaningful sanction and accountability even when the abuse is directed at the raison d'etre of an institution of higher learning, that being students;

* Abuse between coach and player can be expected, mildly acknowledged and excused.

Symptomatically, the inertia, hypocrisy and hopelessness evidenced in the Indiana decision mirrors the inertia, hypocrisy and hopelessness administrations and faculty evidence in our collective failure to deal with the central issues that plague college sports nationwide.

This decision marks a moment when those in higher education will either concede too much by tacitly allowing the welfare of students to be compromised once again in shallow service to bowl games and "the Big Dance" without comment or this moment will provide a long overdue call to action for faculty and administrators to stand up, with all of the moral conviction and commitment to educational integrity at their disposal and proclaim that enough is enough. Given the conversation I had earlier in the day with my own student, I hope and pray that it is the latter.

Ellen J. Staurowsky Associate Professor of Sports Sociology Ithaca College