IMO, that is seriously stupid on the part of UCLA.
I agree, if there were no “strings” attached, take the money.
There is a sensible rationale, though.
If other people refuse to donate because of Sterling’s donation, UCLA is potentially losing overall. And maybe more people hear about this act and decide to give them money because of the public repudiation. It depends on whether or not any potential lost donation revenue and extra revenue from good PR exceeds $3 million or not. Even if Sterling doesn’t attach strings himself, that’s a hell of a big potential string.
Whether or not it’s a good overall bet is one for the accountants and actuaries. Maybe it was a good economic move, maybe not. The mere fact they refused $3 million isn’t stupid in itself.
So - you think it’s a possibility that some (rich, I presume) people may think that kidney research is tainted with racism because Sterling gave money for it?
I have no clue if it actually happens. But I’ll admit it’s at least a possibility.
And there is the positive PR side of it to consider as well. If it drives up donations from people who would not have otherwise given, it only needs to drum up $3M to make the move worthwhile.
Again, whether or not it’s a good economic move is for the number crunchers. I just disagree it’s a bad economic move based only on the refusal.
ETA: I see the PR angle might have some teeth. Apparently, Sterling bought an ad in the Sunday LA Times that made it look like UCLA thanked him for the gift, and UCLA is making doubly sure nobody thinks they produced the ad. It’s in the bottom of the article you linked. The possibility of bad PR (and loss in donations) could easily have scared them off.
Some people have principles. Horrible, I know.
Does UCLA ascertain that every donor “shares their values”? Is there some kind of swearing on the bible ceremony, you think? And how exactly is “sharing values” relevant to kidney research?
Based on a bit more digging, the LA Times is reporting that Sterling bought the ad which claimed the Sterlings would get a “gold colored plaque” honoring them in a campus building and that they’d get a building named for them (none of this is true).
The stink from the bad publicity across the LA area was apparently more than the lawyers and accountants want to deal with. It’s not unreasonable they want to wash their hands of it and avoid losing donors by stating as publicly as possible they have nothing to do with honoring Sterling.
ETA: This article shows a picture of the ad. UCLA has apparently been fielding several calls about it. Again, whether or not it makes good financial sense is for the accountants, but that was potentially really bad PR and a dick move on Sterling’s part (or his PR team) to put words in UCLA’s mouth.
I wonder how the researchers who were set to receive those funds feel about this. In today’s tight funding climate, I don’t think you can afford to be this picky about large donations. Plus, as I saw noted on the Chronicle, kidney disease disproportionately effects African-Americans, so Sterling’s money would be helping those black people he so despises.
Holy crap. The balls on this guy to put an ad claiming it’s from another party thanking himself. Isn’t that illegal in some way?
I’m a fundraiser. You HAVE to weigh the potential impact to your public image may take when accepting major gifts from high profile donors. UCLA certainly hasn’t taken a poll, but they can be assured that there would be major backlash from their donor base by accepting that money. Rejecting the money (and the accompanying publicity for doing so) will almost assuredly raise the money from alternate sources by itself.
If Sterling was JUST donating $3 million, I think UCLA was foolish to turn it down.
On the other hand, if he was trying to get a building named after himself or if he was pushing for a big photo op to get himself some favorable publicity, then I suppose I’d understand UCLA’s directors saying, “We don’t want any part of that.”
By turring down the money, UCLA might be hurting people with kidney ailments, and Sterling is just going to spend the money on something else. If Sterling buys a new yacht instead of giving the money to medical research, who benefits?
Note the post above. That’s exactly what he did.
UCLA, in the long run. University donors are extremely particular about the actions their university takes, and who they associate with. Donations are given almost as tribute for reflecting the donor’s values. The more a university displays consistency in this regard, the more likely they are to raise money. Like I said earlier - it’s likely UCLA will reraise that $3 million in short order now that this is hitting the news.
Sterling may have “boasted” that he will get a plaque/building, but UCLA says it didn’t promise him anything like that. That is all they had to say, and keep the $3M for the research.
Because they don’t want to associate themselves with an asshole like Sterling. Why confirm his lies and reward him for dishonesty? I have no doubt they’ll make up the money.
Besides, one of the articles mentioned the 3 million would be spread over several years, not all at once.
UCLA returned the 425K they received this year.
I’ll bet USC will take it! 
Confirm what lies? UCLA said they didn’t promise him a plaque or a name on a building. That’s not “confirming”. That’s “contradicting”. And taking money from someone, without a quid pro quo (as UCLA confirmed) for research is hardly “associating yourself”.
Accepting the money is all the quid pro quo that Sterling is looking for, and UCLA is right for avoiding it at all costs. What are you confused by? If UCLA accepts this money, Sterling gets to say, “Yeah, I may be a racist asshole that the NBA just sanctioned, but I’m actually a good guy - UCLA just accepted $3 million from me for kidney research.” By taking the money, UCLA is giving him tacit approval for Sterling to associate his name with theirs - regardless of the fact that there isn’t a shiny plaque anywhere.
As has been repeatedly stated, UCLA will have zero trouble reraising this money.
In and of itself, I don’t think any charity should feel guilty or tainted by taking money from Sterling. As I said, if he DOESN’T give the money to charity, he’s just going to spend it on himself- I guarantee the local Ferrari dealership, the local Lear Jet seller, and the local yacht dealer won’t hesitate to take his money.
I’d wager a LOT of rich old men with guilty consciences have given a lot of money to churches, libraries, schools, museums and hospitals over the years. I don’t see any harm in that.
Again, in my mind, it would only be distasteful to take “dirty” money if:
-
The donor earned his money in some illegal or evil manner. Even if I ran a pediatric cancer or AIDS clinic that could really use money, I wouldn’t take donations from John Gotti or Pablo Escobar.
-
The donor was obviously trying to use me as part of a self-promotion campaign. Again, if I were running a pediatric AIDS or cancer clinic and Donald Sterling offered me money, I’d accept it, but only on MY terms. That is, I’d tell him, “We welcome your generous gift, but only if you donate quietly and with no strings. It’s great that you want to clear your conscience, or to make peace with God, or to try to make up for some of the harm you’ve done. We can help a lot of children with this money. But we’re not going to let you bring in paparazzi to photograph you with sick kids, to show the world what a swell guy you are.”
As this ancient rabbi used to say, “Never let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.” In this case, Sterling is entitled to be charitable, but not to be ostentatious about it. Let him donate all the money he wants privately and quietly.