The Author's Response

As part of my review of the book And the Walls Came Tumbling Down, by Frank Fitzpatrick, I offered to upload any response the author provided on the review. The author did contact me, not in response to the invitation in the review, but to harass me for stating my opinion against the book on the Barnes and Noble web site. After some very juvenile emails, he finally agreed to provide what he apparently considered a "response."

Below is the response along with the exchanges which went on to lead up to it.

Initial Emails

From Frank Fitzpatrick:

Subject: (no subject)
 Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 16:46:05 EST
 MIME-Version: 1.0
 From xxxTemporarilyRemovedxxx@aol.com Thu Dec 02 13:56:17 1999 
 Received: from [198.81.17.2] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id MHotMailBA1033A1002AD820F3DEC65111020E6A4; Thu
 Dec 02 13:46:18 1999 
 Received: from xxxTemporarilyRemovedxxx@aol.comby imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id i.0.62f7eed5 (4358) for ;
 Thu, 2 Dec 1999 16:46:05 -0500 (EST) 
 Message-ID: <0.62f7eed5.2578429d@aol.com> 
 X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 

Mr. Scott:
 I am sorry you did not like the book. You seem to be a lone voice in
the
wilderness. I would like to take your criticisms seriously, but anyone
who
would recommend "Basketball's Biggest Upset" deserves no serious
consideration. That book quite simply is an embarrassment to anyone who
can
read -- or think. There are better written supermarket ads.
 Adolph Rupp's behavior was entirely indefensible. You'd have to be
blind or
a bigot yourself to suggest otherwise.
 Frank Fitzpatrick
 P.S. Just a wild guess, but I'll bet you were (A) born below the Mason
Dixon
Line and are (B) over 45. The world has changed. Deal with it.

My Response:

You wrote:

>  I am sorry you did not like the book. You seem to be a lone voice in the
>wilderness. I would like to take your criticisms seriously, but anyone who
>would recommend "Basketball's Biggest Upset" deserves no serious
>consideration. That book quite simply is an embarrassment to anyone who can
>read -- or think. There are better written supermarket ads.
>  Adolph Rupp's behavior was entirely indefensible. You'd have to be blind or
>a bigot yourself to suggest otherwise.
>  Frank Fitzpatrick
>  P.S. Just a wild guess, but I'll bet you were (A) born below the Mason Dixon
>Line and are (B) over 45. The world has changed. Deal with it.

Frank,

Thanks for replying. To answer you, 1.) no I wasn't born below the Mason-Dixon line and 2.) no I am not over 45 and in fact am not even close to that age. I am simply someone who is interested in a lot of topics, which unfortunately for you include Kentucky basketball, history, race relations and the integrity of the media along with their ability to conduct research. You can say these interests kind of coalesced on this topic.

From the look of your email, it appears you haven't seen my web page detailing all the inaccuracies of your book. It is located at

http://www.ukfans.net/jps/uk/walls.html

Feel free to comment on it. I will be happy to post your response on-line for the whole world to see.

Of course since you did such "thorough and professional" research for your book, you surely know that I have a page on this whole Rupp issue which has been on-line for a number of years now. It is at

http://www.ukfans.net/jps/uk/rupp.html

I would also be interested in your comments on this and maybe you'll even decide to include some of the references you used for a change.

I also have to say that I found your characterization of Lexington as a bastion of racism and segregation and your attempt to put its resident down to be interesting, considering that you state in your book that you live out in West Chester PA. That's a really well integrated place, isn't it ?

Look forward to hearing back from you !

Jon

PS, I could care less if I'm a lone voice in the wilderness. I'd rather be a searcher of the truth any day than be swept up in a wave of popular (or should I say simple-minded ?) myth making.

Also, I hope you don't mind if I forward this to a few fellow UK fans. They would certainly be interested in seeing this.

Frank Fitzpatrick Responds:

Subject: Re: And the Walls Came Tumbling Down
 Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 18:52:21 EST
 MIME-Version: 1.0
 From xxxTemporarilyRemovedxxx@aol.com Thu Dec 02 15:59:41 1999 
 Received: from [205.188.157.40] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id MHotMailBA1051E90022D820F3D9CDBC9D28BBEE4;
 Thu Dec 02 15:55:24 1999 
 Received: from xxxTemporarilyRemovedxxx@aol.comby imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id i.0.8429f66f (3845) for ;
 Thu, 2 Dec 1999 18:52:21 -0500 (EST) 
 Message-ID: <0.8429f66f.25786035@aol.com> 
 X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 

JON:
 I know who you are now. I found your website to be little more than an
apologia for a man who doesn't deserve one. But I will visit it again. I
must
say it's gratifying to share a place of dishonor with John Feinstein, an
outstanding journalist.
 Simply put, Rupp had an opportunity to make history and, for reasons
that
can't be excused, resisted. No amount of revisionist history will alter
that.
The man was a reactionary. I'm not going to change your mind about him,
and
you won't change mine. I'm surprised, though, that an obviously educated
man
like yourself can come to any other conclusion.
 FYI: West Chester is a very integrated community, a Quaker town that
served
as an Underground Railroad stop. Besides, my depictions of Lexington are
from
an era that most -- but apparently not all -- of us are glad is long
gone.
Thanks,
Frank Fitzpatrick

My Response:

You wrote:

>  FYI: West Chester is a very integrated community, a Quaker town that served
>as an Underground Railroad stop. Besides, my depictions of Lexington are from
>an era that most -- but apparently not all -- of us are glad is long gone.

Thanks for the information but I wouldn't describe the community I live in to be "very integrated."

Again, I encourage you to provide a response to my book review.

Jon

Frank Fitzpatrick Responds:

Subject: Re: And the Walls Came Tumbling Down
 Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 19:19:37 EST
 MIME-Version: 1.0
 From xxxTemporarilyRemovedxxx@aol.com Thu Dec 02 16:27:43 1999 
 Received: from [198.81.17.2] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id MHotMailBA1058580046D820F3BDC65111020B0D0; Thu
 Dec 02 16:22:48 1999 
 Received: from xxxTemporarilyRemovedxxx@aol.comby imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id i.0.166accf5 (3845) for ;
 Thu, 2 Dec 1999 19:19:37 -0500 (EST) 
 Message-ID: <0.166accf5.25786699@aol.com> 
 X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 

JON:
 That's a very impressive web site. Still, your attempts to excuse Rupp
are
ridiculous. It can't be done by a rational mind.
 My only response to your review is this: The reviews have been
overwhelmingly favorable. The only exceptions are yours and one by
fellow
Rupp apologist Billy Reed. Need I say more.
Frank Fitzpatrick
P.S.  I didn't understand your response to my West Chester comment. Do
you
live here too?

My Response:

You wrote:
>
>JON:
>  That's a very impressive web site. Still, your attempts to excuse Rupp are
>ridiculous. It can't be done by a rational mind.
>  My only response to your review is this: The reviews have been
>overwhelmingly favorable. The only exceptions are yours and one by fellow
>Rupp apologist Billy Reed. Need I say more.
>Frank Fitzpatrick
>P.S.  I didn't understand your response to my West Chester comment. Do you
>live here too?

If that is your complete reply to my book review, I will go ahead and post it. For your sake, you might want to take it a little more seriously though since your integrity as a professional journalist and author is going on display here.

Note I'm not taking issue with the broad impression you or I (or anyone else who's had the opportunity to weigh the evidence) have of the man. I'm taking issue with the details of how his image has been manipulated over the years by a handful of journalists, which now includes yourself. I'm looking for you to discuss the details, the facts, the evidence etc. that I have brought up in the context of the time that Rupp lived. To just say it is "ridiculous" is not useful to the discussion. Let me know if you want to hold off posting this until you can formulate a more serious response.

Jon

Frank Fitzpatrick Responds:

Subject: Re: And the Walls Came Tumbling Down
 Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:55:40 EST
 MIME-Version: 1.0
 From xxxTemporarilyRemovedxxx@aol.com Fri Dec 03 06:59:58 1999 
 Received: from [152.163.225.66] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id MHotMailBA1125940024D82197D498A3E14209C81; Fri
 Dec 03 06:58:30 1999 
 Received: from xxxTemporarilyRemovedxxx@aol.comby imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id i.0.838812f9 (4262) for ;
 Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:55:40 -0500 (EST) 
 Message-ID: <0.838812f9.257933ec@aol.com> 
 X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 


JON:
 If you have specific questions, I'll try to answer them.
Frank Fitzpatrick

The Questions

You wrote:

>  If you have specific questions, I'll try to answer them.
>Frank Fitzpatrick

Frank,

I am really expecting you to provide a detailed response to my review if you felt it important enough. I can't speak for you but I know that if I had written a book and had it dissected the way I did yours, I would certainly want to address it as best I could.

Again, the link to the review is at

http://www.ukfans.net/jps/uk/walls.html

But if you are adamant about not formulating any type of serious reply to the review, here are a few questions I will ask. (I haven't forwarded anything to anyone yet with your reply to date but if you're game, I'm sure there are quite a number of people who would probably also like to ask some questions. Through the years, I've come into contact with numerous people, from basic fans all the way up to people close to the UK program along with nationally known and respected sportswriters and media people.)

Questions:

1.) What is the exact source (Date and publication) of the magazine article you mention on page 102-103 about Rupp potentially recruiting Oscar Robertson.

2.) What is the exact source of the Atlanta Journal article where Rupp claims that he was looking to sign black players (page 88).

3.) Do you know whether Rupp coached only one black player when he was the coach at Freeport or did he coach more ? I have seen conflicting information. What kind of sources of information do you have about this ? Have you contacted the school to find more information ?

4.) Why did you go into such detail about how few black players Kentucky faced during the 1965-66 season, yet neglect to mention that UK played Michigan, a team with four black starters in the tournament along with Dayton, another well-integrated team ?

5.) Have you successfully been able to confirm that Rupp said something to the effect that "five blacks would never beat his Wildcats" the week leading up to the finals, despite the obvious fact that UK was scheduled to play Duke at the time ?

6.) What is your source that Don Barksdale didn't subsequently talk about his relationship with Coach Rupp during the Olympics ? As noted in my review and the Rupp page. He certainly did and had good things to say in the one reference I've seen.

7.) Did you know Rupp personally ? If not, why do you apparently believe it is valid to suggest what Rupp would have uttered in his dying moments, especially when even a casual Kentucky fan would know that he regretted more what happened in the 51 Scandals than anything else in his career ? Do you think it was fair to insert what you believe Rupp or Kentucky players etc. would have thought or said instead of just reporting what they actually did say ? Did it ever occur to you that your reliance on your own preconceptions about these moments (littered throughout the book) in lieu of any actual evidence is in itself a demonstration of the type of ignorance that you criticize Rupp for ?

8.) Did you put together the index or did the publisher ? Do you think the index was fair and accurate ? If so, please provide the exact text from each page in the book that prompted the indexer to list the entries for "Rupp, Adolph: integration resisted by".

9.) Do you believe Rupp would have been labeled a racist if he had coached at St. John's for example, and stayed through his career. Do you believe someone like a Frank McGuire would have necessarily integrated his teams by the 1965-66 season if he had become the coach of Kentucky early in his career and stayed in Lexington ?

10.) When you knew that I had criticized your book, you accused me of being a bigot and assumed things about where I was born and how old I was. You were wrong on all accounts. Is this the type of presumptuous attitude you use on a regular basis ? The assumptions you make in your book are very similar and is one of the major points of criticism I had of the book in the first place. Is this type of attitude appropriate for someone who is searching for facts when researching a non-fiction book ? Is this type of attitude something you believe is appropriate for a professional journalist to have ? Is this type of attitude something you would look for when hiring a prospective staff writer at the Inquirer ?

11.) You mention in one of your emails your admiration for John Feinstein as an "outstanding journalist". Would you please read the following web page

http://www.ukfans.net/jps/uk/detractors.html#feinstein

and if you still believe Feinstein to be an "outstanding journalist" to explain why what he has written about the University of Kentucky should not negatively impact that assessment. I should note that after over three years of that page being on the net, not one Duke fan has even attempted to defend Feinstein over his complete lack of journalistic integrity when it comes to the University of Kentucky. In fact, a number of Duke fans have told me privately that I am completely on-target about this issue. Even Feinstein himself has admitted this although he apparently doesn't see any problem with it.

12.) Your only counter to date against my review of your book is that I and Billy Reed are the only two who have criticized it, despite the fact that I have looked at this topic in great detail and Billy Reed actually reported on and knew Rupp quite well, while most people today only know what they've inferred over the years from the media. Do you believe that being on the "popular" side of an issue at a time when the entire set of facts is generally not known or provided to the audience at large constitutes sufficient validation of the quality of your work ?

Please respond to the above. Feel free to include any other comments you may have about the review or the Rupp page. I will post them when I have the time.

Thanks

Jon

The Response

Frank Fitzpatrick Responds:

Subject: repy
 Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 10:41:17 EST
 MIME-Version: 1.0
 From xxxTemporarilyRemovedxxx@aol.com Mon Dec 06 07:53:20 1999 
 Received: from [198.81.17.1] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id MHotMailBA1524B100B9D820F39AC651110113116; Mon Dec 06 07:43:49
 1999 
 Received: from xxxTemporarilyRemovedxxx@aol.comby imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id i.0.cbf05de7 (3845) for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999
 10:41:18 -0500 (EST) 
 Message-ID: <0.cbf05de7.257d331d@aol.com> 
 X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45

1.) What is the exact source (Date and publication) of the magazine article you mention on page 102-103 about Rupp potentially recruiting Oscar Robertson.

2.) What is the exact source of the Atlanta Journal article where Rupp claims that he was looking to sign black players (page 88).

JON:

1 + 2: I'm not going to go rooting through the boxes my wife finally
got me
to store in the basement. But I'm virtually certain both those
references
came from the Rupp clippings files at the UK Special Collections.

3. Yes, I contacted the school for the name of the player and was told
he
was the "only black Rupp coached". What does that matter anyway? It's
not
like the kid was recruited by Rupp. The fact that he coached him,
apparently
without incident, hardly makes him a William Lloyd Garrison.

4. I simply was stating the fact that Kentucky was not used to facing
black
opponents, and might have been less than comfortable. That was unlikely
to
change just because they finally met a well-integrated team three games
from
the end of their season.

5. No, but there are numerous references to it in the written record.
True
or not,  the TW players certainly accepted it.

6. I don't know what you're talking about here. The only references to
Barksdale/Rupp I can find, according to the index, are (A) that the two
co-existed peacefully throughout the Olympic experience and (B) that UK
called Lexington's black leaders to get him a rom before the exhibition
there.

7. That's called literary license. I don't say those WERE his final
words, I
merely suggest that they would have been appropriate. Rupp himself was
quoted
numerous times in the year or two before his death about how painful the
memory of the TW loss had become. Clearly, by then, it was beginning to
define the man and he didn't like it.
 I don't think he ever regretted the '51 scandals because I don't think
he
ever believed he could do anything wrong.
 I had no preconceptions about Rupp. I doubt I had spent 5 minutes
thinking
about him before this book. Whatever opinions I now hold about the man
were
shaped entirely by my research. Besides, this is not a newspaper story.
This
is a nonfiction book. The formula is straightforward: Soak up all the
facts
you can and tell your story in as compelling a fashion as possible.
 P.S. If you refer to the Associated Press Sports Editors award winners
for
1998, you'll find my name there under Investigative Journalism. Spare me
the
lectures.

8. The publisher did the index and it was their idea to not use
footnotes
(which I think was a good one). (I''m sensing the zealotry of a Brent
Bozell
disciple in these questions).

9. This isn't about labels. This is about facts. Adolph Rupp, for
whatever
reasons, resisted integration long after his school, his president and
his
state urged him to do so. Is that racism? I don't know. And I never
called
him a racist in the book. Through his own stupidity and stubborness,
Rupp
created his historical legacy. All I did was write about it and add some
kindling to the raging flames.
 Were all other coaches enlightened on race? Of course not. But I do I
think
that if  any of 100 other men had coached Kentucky in that era, 99 would
have
been smart enough to integrate long before Rupp did. He could have made
a
difference. He chose not to. In doing so, he reaped the consequences.
Rupp
didn't coach at St. John's. He was at Kentucky when the world began to
change. All your revisionist history can't alter that.

10. I don't have to accuse you of being a bigot. Your obsession with
defending Rupp speaks loudly to that point.

11.) You mention in one of your emails your admiration for John Feinstein as an "outstanding journalist". Would you please read the following web page

http://www.ukfans.net/jps/uk/detractors.html#feinstein

11. Why is it that only those who criticize UK "lack journalistic
integrity"? I would suppose you'd place the Herald-Leader writers who
uncovered the UK corruption in the same boat. I suggest you consider
Feinstein against any of the hundreds of sportswriters who you no doubt
believe covered UK athletics positively over the years. Most of them,
I'm
sorry to say, are little more than cheerleaders whose idea of a good
story is
to note that Joe Blow  is averaging one more assist this year than last.

12. You and Mr. Reed are entitled to your opinions. I just think it odd
that
the only two negative reviews came from an old Rupp crony and a UK
fanatic. I
don't think the countless positive reviewers had any similar axe to
grind.
 Thanks,
 Frank
 P.S. I'll be happy to answer other questions.

My Response

Below are my responses to Mr. Fitzpatrick's answers (or lack thereof) followed by some closing comments.

1.) What is the exact source (Date and publication) of the magazine article you mention on page 102-103 about Rupp potentially recruiting Oscar Robertson.

2.) What is the exact source of the Atlanta Journal article where Rupp claims that he was looking to sign black players (page 88).

1 + 2: I'm not going to go rooting through the boxes my wife finally
got me
to store in the basement. But I'm virtually certain both those
references
came from the Rupp clippings files at the UK Special Collections.

JPS Response: - I must say that it is extremely disappointing that you do not provide this information. Especially in light of the fact that one of the major criticisms I have of your work is that you provide absolutely no meaningful references to any of the information you obtained from newspaper or magazine articles. For you to still not feel it necessary to provide the information, even when the material has been directly requested, I can only attribute to unprofessionalism. Someday when you finally get around to it, I do hope that you provide me with this information. Tell your wife I'll be happy to take those boxes of your hands if they're such a burden. Let me know when you want to drop them off.

3. Yes, I contacted the school for the name of the player and was told he 
was the "only black Rupp coached". What does that matter anyway? It's not
like the kid was recruited by Rupp. The fact that he coached him, apparently
 without incident, hardly makes him a William Lloyd Garrison.

JPS Response: - The comment about being recruited is a complete non sequitur. Anyone who has played organized sports knows that on the high school level, the coach generally has complete authority over who makes the team and who plays. The reason it is important whether Rupp coached and played a black player is that it shoots a gaping hole through the entire thesis and tone of your book. If you can't understand that, then you've got bigger problems than I thought.

4. I simply was stating the fact that Kentucky was not used to facing
 black opponents, and might have been less than comfortable. That was unlikely
  to change just because they finally met a well-integrated team three games
 from the end of their season.

JPS Response: - From reading the book, it's obvious to me you were doing anything but simply stating a fact. You were trying to support a far-fetched theory and choosing the facts which supported it, while ignoring the facts which undermine it.

5. No, but there are numerous references to it in the written record. True
or not,  the TW players certainly accepted it.

JPS Response: - Whether the Texas Western players believed the story is not relevant to the question. The question has to do with whether you (who claims to have searched for "every written word about the game") were successful in verifying something which is widely attributed to Rupp (and often used as "evidence" that he was racist) but in actuality is more likely a fabrication on the Texas Western side designed to motivate the Western players. To say that there "are numerous references to it in the written record" is true but only because of the ignorance of sportswriters who repeat what they've heard without checking the facts or finding any original source. Going back and sorting out what is fact and what is repeated fiction is one of the strengths of my web page on Rupp, BTW. Your book is absolutely worthless in this regard. If you were genuinely interested in knowing the truth, I have to wonder why you didn't ask Haskins himself ?

6. I don't know what you're talking about here. The only references to
Barksdale/Rupp I can find, according to the index, are (A) that the two
co-existed peacefully throughout the Olympic experience and (B) that UK
called Lexington's black leaders to get him a rom before the exhibition
there.

JPS Response: - You can claim ignorance on this if you insist on avoiding this topic. To spell it out, I have one major article on Barksdale printed in the "Philadelphia Inquirer" in January 1984 entitled "Eventually, He Made it to the NBA," about Don Barksdale which quotes Barksdale himself and is actually very complimentary of Rupp. The information in that reference covers the material you provide in your book, except for the complimentary information of course. You insinuated on page 132 that Rupp and Barksdale MUST have had problems and claim that they never mentioned these problems. What you didn't say was that Barksdale never mentioned these problems because Barksdale was too busy praising Rupp in the article by saying, among other things, that Rupp "turned out to be my closest friend" during the Olympic games.

There are two possibilities with the way you handled this reference. 1.) You either don't have the reference and therefore are completely incompetent in terms of doing research. I shouldn't have to remind you that this article was published in the exact same newspaper you work for, during the time you claim you were employed there. 2.) The second is the most likely and that is you used the reference but completely skipped over the relevant parts which completely destroy your basic premise. You have in effect intentionally misled your audience.

This reference is mentioned on the Rupp page which you claim to have read, it's mentioned in the book review which you claim to have read and it is mentioned in the book review on the Barnes and Noble site which apparently prompted you to send your first pathetic email. To claim "I don't know what you're talking about" above is simply ignorant, more-so since you cite your index which is absolutely useless since it points to pages which contain NO references. I request once again that you provide the references you used for this passage of your book.

Also, above you say that "(A) that the two co-existed peacefully throughout the Olympic experience." Of course in your book, it is written as "If there were ever any problems between the ex-UCLA player and the coach, who had never had a black on his bench up to that point in his long collegiate career, neither man ever mentioned them and no one else noticed." This is the exact type of negative misinformation I criticized your book for in the first place. Trying to backtrack now is ridiculous, given that you still don't even admit the book is slanted in the first place.

7. That's called literary license. I don't say those WERE his final words, I
merely suggest that they would have been appropriate. Rupp himself was
quoted
numerous times in the year or two before his death about how painful the
memory of the TW loss had become. Clearly, by then, it was beginning to
define the man and he didn't like it.
 I don't think he ever regretted the '51 scandals because I don't think
he ever believed he could do anything wrong.
 I had no preconceptions about Rupp. I doubt I had spent 5 minutes
thinking
about him before this book. Whatever opinions I now hold about the man
were shaped entirely by my research. Besides, this is not a newspaper story.
This is a nonfiction book. The formula is straightforward: Soak up all the facts
you can and tell your story in as compelling a fashion as possible.
 P.S. If you refer to the Associated Press Sports Editors award winners
for
1998, you'll find my name there under Investigative Journalism. Spare me
the
lectures.

JPS Response: - For someone who admits that they don't have a good grasp of the man (Lexington Herald-Leader, February 28, 1999), it's simply ridiculous to go around putting words into the man's mouth. I can read your "literary license" and know exactly what is made up and what is not but the general reader doesn't have that luxury. This penchant of yours is what makes your book completely useless for anyone trying to determine what the facts are. You can claim that you soaked up all the facts, and maybe you did, but the product was to either ignore or dismiss out of hand any facts which counter your simplistic theories.

As for your claim that Rupp didn't regret the scandals because he didn't believe he did anything wrong, that is simply ridiculous. Regardless of whether you can comprehend it or not, people regret things all the time that they feel they had no part in. At the very least, I'm sure Rupp regretted not warning his players of the dangers. Dale Barnstable is quoted as saying that if they had known of the dangers, they wouldn't have even talked to gamblers.

8. The publisher did the index and it was their idea to not use footnotes
(which I think was a good one). (I''m sensing the zealotry of a Brent Bozell
disciple in these questions).

JPS Response: - If you don't want to answer the question about whether you believe the index was fair, then just say so. The question was obviously a trick question as it is impossible to actually link the index to anything which was actually said in the book an alarming number of times. The fact is that the index is so biased that it is one of the most outrageous parts of the book, quite a difficult feat I might add. As for it being a good idea to not provide any citations, that's certainly your right. It's now clear to me, based on your above non-answer to the Don Barksdale question, that the reason you don't provide citations is a deliberate choice to cover up all the inaccuracies you consistently rely on.

9. This isn't about labels. This is about facts. Adolph Rupp, for whatever
reasons, resisted integration long after his school, his president and his
state urged him to do so. Is that racism? I don't know. And I never called
him a racist in the book. Through his own stupidity and stubborness, Rupp
created his historical legacy. All I did was write about it and add some
kindling to the raging flames.
Were all other coaches enlightened on race? Of course not. But I do I think
that if  any of 100 other men had coached Kentucky in that era, 99 would
have been smart enough to integrate long before Rupp did. He could have made
a difference. He chose not to. In doing so, he reaped the consequences.  Rupp
didn't coach at St. John's. He was at Kentucky when the world began to change.
All your revisionist history can't alter that.

JPS Response: - You may never have explicitly said he was a racist, but that is the only conclusion one who didn't know any better could make from your book. You keep stating that Rupp resisted integration. How is recruiting black players throughout the 1960's resisting integration ? How is naming a black player to the Olympic games resisting integration ? How is coaching a black player in the 1920's resisting integration ? It is the answer to these questions that I am looking for even one of his critics to try to tackle.

The reason I brought up Frank McGuire should be obvious, since he was someone who integrated his teams while a coach at St. Johns in the early 1950's but didn't even recruit any black players while at North Carolina and failed to integrate South Carolina until the same year Rupp did. That is a fact. Was he racist ? I don't think so and in fact he's often hailed as a leader in integration of basketball, but by the simplistic logic you use to prosecute Rupp (ie he didn't have any players on his teams so he must have been racist) he must have been. Could it possibly be that he felt that he could integrate in a northern city like New York but not in Columbia South Carolina ? Could it be that Rupp was operating under the same pressures ? This is the type of discussion which I believe needs to be addressed by anyone who wants to take a serious look at this issue. Adolph Rupp coached a black player when he was coaching in the North. That supports the idea that Rupp had no problems integrating in a place where he believed it could be done. That is a fact that I believe you need to address if you want to continue with your character assassination. Maybe someday someone will be competent enough to address these questions. You obviously aren't.

And I must say I find it amusing that you suggest that those who disagree with your view of the past as practicing "revisionist history," yet it is you who are the one who is trying to avoid going through all the facts and discussing them in any meaningful way. Believe it or not, history is not, and should not be something which is set in stone, especially when the facts of what happened and why, are not all known and are still under debate If discovering facts about a past event, questioning the conclusions of those who may have based their opinions on incomplete information, or trying to understand the actions of past figures in the times they actually lived and breathed in is practicing "revisionist history" in your pedestrian view of things, then so be it.

10. I don't have to accuse you of being a bigot.
Your obsession with defending Rupp speaks loudly to that point.

JPS Response: - This response reveals to me just how dense and/or inattentive you really are. If you ever decided to actually read my pages, you might have realized that we actually agree on many things. We agree that Rupp was the best choice for integrating the SEC. We agree that Rupp did drag his feet when he should have taken the lead in integrating the South. We agree that Rupp did make a number of racially insensitive remarks which reveal his prejudices against blacks. We agree that his coaching legacy was ravaged by his inability to integrate his team in a "timely" manner (although I have also stated on my page that EVERY single program in the South deserves criticism as I don't believe ANY of them integrated quickly enough).

What we don't agree on is to perpetuate lies which are made about the man, to scapegoat the man to the exclusion of others at the time, to place today's social standards on him without understanding the standards with which he lived and to attribute things to the man which are based not on facts but on your own (self-admitted ignorant) preconceptions of the man. In effect, I don't agree on your piss-poor journalism. If you want to continue to accuse me of being a bigot because I criticize your work, I could care less. I understand it's just a calculated attempt on your part to avoid the issue of your journalistic incompetence.

Unfortunately, there have been many Kentucky fans in the past who either because they don't know all the facts or because they are afraid of being labeled with the same tag as you attempt to label me with above, avoid the whole subject of Rupp altogether and allow ignorance to reign supreme. This only serves to promote ignorance which IMO has flourished in the 1990's. I am glad to see that slowly change as, in some part due to my web page, many of these types of discussions on the internet are no longer filled with off-the-wall claims and factually challenged arguments (driven not by a desire to bring about racial understanding and harmony but by the desire to use race as a tool for denigrating one single coach in favor of others, something I find racist by itself) but are based on facts and contain constructive and enlightening discussions on the issue of race in America.

11.) You mention in one of your emails your admiration for John Feinstein as an "outstanding journalist". Would you please read the following web page

http://www.ukfans.net/jps/uk/detractors.html#feinstein

11. Why is it that only those who criticize UK "lack journalistic
integrity"? I would suppose you'd place the Herald-Leader writers who
uncovered the UK corruption in the same boat. I suggest you consider
Feinstein against any of the hundreds of sportswriters who you no doubt
believe covered UK athletics positively over the years. Most of them,
I'm
sorry to say, are little more than cheerleaders whose idea of a good
story is
to note that Joe Blow  is averaging one more assist this year than last.

JPS Response: - There are plenty of people who criticize UK, and most of them have no problems acting professionally. It's true I have taken issue with a handful of people over the years (most notably John Feinstein), but only those who I feel have allowed their various allegiances to overwhelm their journalistic integrity. For each of those, I have provided explicit details of what they wrote in comparison to what the facts actually were along with the original references to support my points. If you want to debate any of these issues with actual facts, feel free. Otherwise, you presume too much. (Something which is one of the original criticisms I have of your work in general.)

Also, I never suggested that a "lack of journalistic integrity" is relegated to those who criticize Kentucky. That problem (along with incompetence in general) certainly permeates throughout your entire profession. Thanks for reminding me of that.

BTW, your complete avoidance of answering the question regarding Feinstein is an all too familiar pattern of those who initially profess to admire the man, but when faced with the detailed evidence of how he has allowed his dislike of all things Kentucky to compromise his professional work, can't offer anything to support the man. The only difference being those who are mature enough that they can admit they were wrong and those who do anything they can to avoid the issue altogether. Guess where you landed ?

12. You and Mr. Reed are entitled to your opinions. I just think it odd
that
the only two negative reviews came from an old Rupp crony and a UK
fanatic. I
don't think the countless positive reviewers had any similar axe to
grind.

JPS Response: - As I mentioned, these countless "positive reviewers" haven't shown that they know all the facts about this issue. In fact, one of the reviewers on the Barnes and Noble site (Kirkus reviews) actually uses the old fallacy that Rupp didn't begin to recruit black players until after the 1966 game, something they would at least have known was NOT true if they actually read the book they were reviewing. You have failed to discuss in your book the many positive things Mr. Rupp did with regard to integration of blacks into basketball and, in my mind, purposely hidden the references which demonstrate how one-sided you chose to make your book so how can you expect these reviewers to know any better.

If "grinding an axe" means looking at ALL the facts and trying to understand and put it into the perspective of the time, then I'm guilty. If "grinding an axe" means rooting out incompetent journalists such as yourself by documenting their errors, then I'm guilty of that too. But I'm not the one trying to hide and run away from the facts. That's ignorance and that appears to be your domain.

Final Thoughts

From my background and experience, I am accustomed to the idea that when you present a theory or write a book or paper, that it is expected for you to be able to present your work (whether to a colleague, a class or to a roomful of international experts) and to be able to reply to their comments and defend your work if necessary. Providing references to your work, abstracts, reprints etc. to those who are interested is a standard courtesy. Having your work reviewed and questioned by your peers and/or experts is a normal expectation. When I wrote the book review which revealed many problems and biases, I would expect in response a reasoned attempt by the author to defend his work using the facts. There is certainly room for disagreement and different viewpoints which can be taken. But I must say I was not expecting the type of juvenile response which I have found with Mr. Fitzpatrick. This person claims to be a professional but his standard response to my criticism of his work seems to be to call me a bigot. I am still looking for a reasoned and open discussion on this topic which can further understanding for all, but I now know that Mr. Fitzpatrick is not capable of such a dialog. It appears that for now, he would rather hide behind some award he received from a group of journalists rather than to debate the facts before him.

When I wrote the review, I detected some strong undercurrents of negativity toward Adolph Rupp (and Kentucky in general) in the text and thought that most likely the author had some preconceptions which he intended to champion, regardless of the entire set of facts. After seeing first-hand the lack of logic and immaturity on the part of the author, I must say that not only was my review correct, it doesn't do it justice. This person champions the idea of the "end justifying the means" by not caring whether the claims made against Rupp were true or not, only that they support his theories. When facts go against him, they are either dismissed or avoided altogether. He perpetuates ignorance about the issue by not confronting what was true and what was not, and feels fit to inject his own conceptions of the man (someone he admits he has never met and didn't even have a good grasp of) by putting words into his mouth, often without letting the reader know that this practice is taking place.

The saddest part of all is that this man seems to be patting himself on the back about how "enlightened" he is compared to an elderly white man in the 1960's, using some antiquated idea of racial sensitivity based not on the individual, but on social class, or how old they are, or where they were born or live. My point about the fact that the author lives off the Main Line outside Philadelphia was to make light of the hypocrisy the author exhibits by grouping all those who live in a particular place with a particular point of view (as he did with Lexington, KY). The point that individuals, no matter where they live or how old they are or what race they are, can be enlightened or ignorant was completely lost on this person. As is the point that as times change, the old rules of what is acceptable and not acceptable with respect to race relations also changes.

What Adolph Rupp and others in the South did or did not do in the 1950's and 1960's is something to be considered and discussed, but it pales in importance to what we should be doing and not doing today and in the future to move forward. Embracing ignorance, as the author does, accomplishes nothing toward that end and in fact makes it more difficult for future generations to appreciate the sacrifices which were made and the obstacles which were overcome to gain a measure of racial equality during those times. If future generations believe that integrating the South and embracing the black athlete was simply a matter of having Adolph Rupp sign a black player, then the sweat and toil of an entire generation of black Americans could easily be overlooked. Yet those are the type of conclusions which people might make from reading Mr. Fitzpatrick's simplistic book. If for no other reason than that, this book and the idiotic logic he uses above demands the criticism it has received.

If you have any comments or suggestions, please mail me.

Return to Kentucky Wildcat Basketball Page.