Discussion for article #222239
This is all pretty amazing. Donald Sterling is no more odious a person now than he was a week ago, but because he is on record expressing a racist position with regard to his sports property–“I do not want black people attending my team’s basketball games”–he’s suddenly as toxic as Hitler. He can’t even give his money to good causes.
However, UCLA is interested in V. Stiviano as a fund-raiser…
1 Like
Likely because they do not want to be associated with his name. The The Donald Sterling Center for Kidney Research has a certain ring to it.
We’ll know he’s in serious trouble when the shoe shine boy at his barber shop refuses his tips.
The V. Stiviano Center for Overbite Research?
So, to punish Sterling UCLA will punish medical research. Makes sense.
From what I’ve seen of his comments, he isn’t as bad as the thieving rancher Bundy, and while he made his money discriminating and ripping off people, that doesn’t make him much different than any number of right wing rich old white dudes.
Who cares what he thinks about people, really? What does he do, that’s what matters. He should have lost his fortune a long time ago when he first got busted for discrimination in housing, But he didn’t, so the time has come to take it now.
Take his money and give him no credit for it, and maybe the IRS won’t allow his charitable deduction too.
This is foolish. I’d be okay with them saying they won’t name anything after Sterling, but they should take his money.
4 Likes
Hopefully someone else will step up to replace the funding that will be lost.
Methinks the donation is attached to other stipulations like naming a building after him, it almost always is. These types of large charitable donations are always negotiated over and the giver is always given something in return. Also, part of the reason he was able to get away with this behavior for so long is because charities were willing to ignore his bad acts for the money. That was exactly what was going on at the LA NAACP chapter. I don’t blame them for wanting to find the money elsewhere than to help build the bullshit legacy of revolting man.
3 Likes
This is ridiculous, they should accept the money. It’s going to towards research. This is different from NAACP accepting money from Sterling.
If there are attachments to receiving the money then yes, they should refuse. However, if no attachments exist then they ought to accept it and put it towards their research.
1 Like
I suspect they would have accepted it if they had not agreed to name the center after him.
That’s the thing. I HIGHLY doubt there aren’t attachments. This is a guy who takes out big ads in the LA Times every time he so much as drops some change on a homeless person holding a sign. There’s no way he would make a donation of this size without structuring it so that he gets plenty of credit.
1 Like
The only problem is there are probably strings attached. These guys want the glory more than the tax break. When I worked for a college, a local tycoon structured a deal to name a college building after him for $2 million, but with many strings attached, including not getting any money until he dies. It’s been over 15 years, and I still see his smiling face on local PBS TV station as a sponsor. And his name remains on the building in all its glory.
2 Likes
It seems pretty clear that big business has decided they want nothing to do with Donald Sterling. That led to his banishment from the NBA. And it may well be that businesses are telling places like UCLA that they don’t want their money associated with him in any way.
He can give the money to me to do research.
The Center for How Many Beers Can I Drink In One Day IF I Did Not Have To Work.
Donations are tied with naming rights about 99% of the time at universities. I am assuming that is why they are returning the money.
1 Like
Just take his money for goodness sakes. In politics I can see how accepting donations from a horrible person can have the unintended consequence of association, but this is for cancer research. Denying research funds to make a point is unnecessary.
Frankly, this is likely more about UCLA’s problems with its own student diversity than Sterling’s comments. There have been complaints in the law school because only 33 students are black out of nearly 1,000 and that the 2013 overall enrollment black males made up 3.3 percent of 42,000 students, but two-thirds of those black males were athletes. My guess this is more about avoiding criticism of taking money from Sterling because it reinforces the image that the school likely agrees with his view despite what they say in their news releases.
See NAACP? This is how it’s done.
Sterling is trying to buy good graces. Thankfully it did not work. [quote=“PluckyInKY, post:8, topic:2503, full:true”]
Methinks the donation is attached to other stipulations like naming a building after him, it almost always is. These types of large charitable donations are always negotiated over and the giver is always given something in return. Also, part of the reason he was able to get away with this behavior for so long is because charities were willing to ignore his bad acts for the money. That was exactly what was going on at the LA NAACP chapter. I don’t blame them for wanting to find the money elsewhere than to help build the bullshit legacy of revolting man.
[/quote]
EXACTLY. Well said, Plucky.
1 Like
Of course you mean “The Donald F. Sterling Center for How Many Beers Can I Drink In One Day IF I Did Not Have To Work”!