BAD BLOOD : Seeking Truth? Look at the Lies

Jim Harrick is receiving the love and support, now that he doesn’t have the job coaching UCLA basketball, that he didn’t get when he did have the job. Ain’t life ironic?

I hope Jim enjoys that, if indeed he can enjoy anything with the taste that must be in his mouth. Harrick is still reeling from the action taken by his UCLA superiors, of which his attorney, Robert Tanenbaum, vividly exaggerates, “For double parking, they sentenced him to life imprisonment with no parole.”

Having had a few days now, to think about what happened--useful concept, thinking--I don’t necessarily

feel smarter or better informed, but maybe I can answer a few questions:

What is the real reason Harrick was fired?

OK, this is the big one, the conspiracy-theory one, the ulterior-motive one, the there-must-be-something-more one.

My firm belief is that Jim Harrick lost his job for one reason and one reason only, that being that he lied to the university chancellor’s face.

Charles E. Young pointedly used descriptions such as “knowingly furnishing . . . false or misleading information” and “misled the university,” in both his spoken and prepared statements. (A copy was sent to potential UCLA players and their families.)

A more damning quotation was this: “Harrick . . . encouraged misrepresentation by another member of the basketball program.”

Ask yourself, what would your boss do? You have done something wrong. It’s serious, but borderline as to whether it qualifies as a “fireable” offense.

But you lie. (“On more than one occasion,” Young noted.)

Then you urge someone else to back your story. (This is UCLA’s position.)

Would your boss let you off with a reprimand? Remember, this isn’t punching someone else’s time-clock. This is face-to-face deceit. Employee to employer.

Jim Harrick did not get fired because he took too many basketball players to dinner.

Was his punishment excessive?

In my opinion, yes.

I do not depend on the kindness of strangers, but I do depend on the kindness of people who know me. I would have wanted my boss to take into account years of distinguished service by suspending or censuring me, rather than throwing me out on the street. After all, I didn’t commit a crime.

Harrick’s supporters say, “It was a first-time offense.” “Coaches do this sort of thing all the time.” “We all fib on expense accounts.” “He messed up and he apologized.”

Young’s supporters say, “How much should we tolerate?” “The man is a coach and a role model.” “He is a faculty member at a state-funded university.” “Would we make an exception for someone who wasn’t our basketball coach?”

Once again, the bottom line was the lie.

The chancellor specifically stressed that “we might have responded less severely”--i.e., not fired him--had the coach told the truth. It wasn’t the action. It was the deception.

What was the big hurry?

That’s what Harrick wants to know.

He says he was given no notice that Tuesday’s summons, after practice, from about 5:45 to 6:30 p.m., regarded his dismissal. According to Harrick, “They said you’ve got until 10 o’clock in the morning to resign or be terminated. If you resign, you get five months’ pay. If you’re terminated, you get nothing.”

Harrick asked to bring a lawyer. He says Young said no, as UCLA did not intend to bring its lawyer.

Tanenbaum still wants to know, “Why the rush to judgment? Let’s talk. At least give us a chance for a hearing.”

Harrick wouldn’t resign, believing it an admission to something more.

Is there something more?

I can’t say, but I can say this:

Everyone, please, quit blurting this “sexual harassment” question, at least until there is an actual charge. Otherwise, we are perilously close to a Richard Jewell-like persecution again.

I have heard this powder-keg of a phrase uttered publicly on no fewer than four occasions now--at two packed news conferences and on two radio interviews with Harrick--with no justification, other than it was something people have “heard.”

Heard where? Be specific.

If there is knowledge of someone being formally accused of sexual harassment, questions can and should be raised in public. Until then, to do so is unspeakably vicious, if not downright slanderous.

Is the coach suing the school?

At this point, no.

“It’s not a lawsuit Jim Harrick seeks,” says Tanenbaum, intimating that the school should either afford Harrick a hearing with legal representation, discuss a fair settlement or, best-case scenario, reinstate him as coach.

If there’s a lawsuit, then UCLA does bring its lawyer.

Charges and counter-charges. Does either side want more of that?

What will Harrick do next?

“I’m going to be fine,” he says. “I’m a better man, better coach and better human being today for my experience at UCLA.”

It is too late to land a coaching job now. Too soon for new offers. Too much confusion now, as people wait to see what happens next. But if Jerry Tarkanian can coach again, Jim Harrick surely can.

Sympathy is an interesting thing.

While he was coaching, people were calling for Harrick to be fired. Now that he has been fired, people are calling to praise his coaching.

Who will coach UCLA next?

Harrick is out, as UCLA’s Young vows “to be vigilant in enforcing high standards of conduct.”

But before Harrick was in, UCLA approached two coaches, Larry Brown and Jim Valvano, whose programs were not squeaky clean.

The temp, Steve Lavin, rates a look. (Steve Fisher stepped in cold, in similar circumstances, and took Michigan to two NCAA title games.)

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar rates a consultation. (No coaching experience, but complete integrity, a UCLA background and a magnet for recruits.)

Phil Jackson rates a phone call. (He’s on a one-year deal. Might be tired of pro ball, or certain Bull stuff. Smart and studious.)

Be nice if the Bruins could find a nice, clean college coach.

Of course, they did that last time.