John Hitt, a Noble Man?

From Sentinel columnist Mike Thomas (emphasis mine):

Hitt should expedite the settlement. He should apologize to the family and apologize to UCF alumni.

And then he should fire Tribble, O'Leary and whoever was the top official at the athletics department who knew of Plancher's condition.

But don't expect that to happen. In an interview Wednesday, Hitt says he plans no shake-ups.

"I don't believe he has deliberately misled us," Hitt says of Tribble. "I think he got information from a variety of sources, and it didn't make us look good because some of it turned out not to be true.

"The record I built here and the record I want to be remembered for is that I do things the right way," he continued. "I won't be swayed by public opinion to take action just because it's convenient. I don't hang people out to dry for no reason."

That's a noble sentiment from a noble man. Unfortunately, though, his athletics department is hanging the university out to dry.

The sentiment wasn’t noble, it was self-preservation. If Hitt admits the obvious and fires O’Leary or Tribble, then Hitt will be implicitly admitting that he screwed up in hiring them – Hitt is not someone who takes blame and admits mistakes.

Hitt isn’t a “noble man.” He is petty, corrupt, and duplicitous – all characteristics inconsistent with nobility. But setting that aside, what characteristics does Hitt possess that are consistent with being noble? I’m sincerely trying to think of one thing that Hitt has done that could be interpreted as noble, and I can’t do it.

Thomas must have thrown in that nobility bullshit to soften the blow of a fairly devastating essay.