Jury on Harrick Still Seems Split

Regarding Diane Pucin’s column in Monday’s paper entitled “Silent Treatment,” I agree with Jim Harrick Jr.’s comment that “I compare it to this, the same context as Kenneth Starr. Going after a man who was very successful at his job because he didn’t like him,” although I think he put it in the wrong context.

What he should have said is that Harrick broke the law, lied about it and got others to lie about it in an effort to cover it up, and disgraced the university. That would be the proper context!

JAMES EXTRACT, Valencia

*

As a longtime UCLA basketball fan and strong supporter of college athletics in general, I applaud your even-handed piece on Jim Harrick’s return to the Southland. Jim Harrick’s achievements on the basketball court should be, and will eventually be, undisputed. Very few coaches win national championships and no one else has done it in John Wooden’s shadow. But his much greater achievement is as an educator of young men and a great husband and father.

WILLIAM DAVID STONE, Beverly Hills