So? “Yeah, I may be a racist asshole that the NBA just sanctioned, but NAACP has awarded me a lifetime achievement award. Twice!”
And the NAACP look like a bunch of idiots because of it, and their donations will likely take a hit because of it as well. I believe UCLA is operating under the assumption that they would prefer to NOT look like a bunch of idiots and not be in a position of damage control.
You missed the point. In order to counteract the “racist” thing, Silver has the NAACP awards. There is at least some kind of connection there. What in the world does kidney research have to do with racism?
It seems UCLA would like the answer to that question to be “nothing”
Donald Sterling would like the answer to be “If you’re a blatant racist, you can still look good by buying some kidney research”
Unless Sterling sets up his own research fund/organization, it looks like UCLA wins this round.
He really, really really wants to piss on African-Americans.
Hows that going for him?
wevets’ response covers that. This stuff happens all the time. The fact that it happened to someone noteworthy isn’t all that noteworthy. Trust me - the math and accounting is there. UCLA harms themselves much more in the long run accepting that check. The money will absolutely raise itself from this point forward.
About as well as referring to his donation to UCLA would. Which kinda proves my point.
I doubt it. Do you have any cite to show that that is how it works?
Nonsense. You stated that the NCAA gift “counteracts” his racism, which is completely ludicrous.
That isn’t how it typically works. But this is high profile enough that I have a hard time believing that UCLA’s development department won’t be able to spin this straw back into gold. Anyway, there are plenty of articles* on how to deal with a tainted donor, or an organization struggling with the decision to accept money from a controversial donor. It’s not a hard and fast rule - there are plenty of counter-examples of organizations accepting money from tainted donors as well. At the heart of it, accepting such a donation puts the integrity of your organization severely at risk, magnified by the size of the gift.
*That one’s actually a chapter in a book, written by the dean of the IU School of Philanthropy.
No I didn’t. I said that if he wanted to use “good deeds” to do that, he would use the NAACP awards, which are at least related to the racism. Not the completely unrelated UCLA donations.
I have a very hard time believing they will be able to.
I really don’t see how accepting money for research, without any quid pro quo, in any way compromises any integrity.
Well, you can lead a horse to water…
Yep. Teh stupid is catching.
So why is he, at this particular juncture in his career, donating to kidney research - and publishing ads about how great it is that he’s doing it?
It could be pure altruism of course. Or, he might have other motivations. What do you think?
AFAIU, he donated to UCLA (and others) before the scandal broke. So - what motivations do you suspect?
He wants to a) support kidney research and b) get kudos for it.
I didn’t realise the donation came before the scandal, but the self-financed “Thank you Donald Sterling” ad came out on Sunday. I don’t think - even if he originally planned to give anonymously - that there’s any question he intended this public broadcasting of his good deeds to have a positive affect on his reputation and persuade people that he wasn’t all bad.
UCLA had to decide whether they wanted to lend their good name to his public rehabilitation. They’ve decided that they don’t. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that they’ve thought about this issue at least as hard as we have, and that their assessment is probably based on more evidence about their ability to find a non-toxic donor of the same value than we can muster between us.
That’s just horrible. He really needs to be excoriated for such behavior. Support kidney research! How dare he!
All UCLA had to do was (as they did) state that there was no building to be named for Silver, and there was no plaque that was going to be placed. And that they are keeping the money for kidney research, which has absolutely nothing to do with racism.
You also have to consider the current climate at UCLA. There have been some racial tensions on campus recently. The administration is working hard to convince people that the university really is inclusive and diverse. The last thing they need right now is to have the name of the university tied to Sterling.
There is no such thing as a donation to a university with no strings attached. If a donation appears to have no strings attached, that just means that the donor has hidden them, or is going to attach them later. Like Sterling just did. And the string he attached is in no way, shape, or form remotely close to being worth 3 million dollars.
If that was all he was doing, more power to him. But he’s clearly now trying to use his association with UCLA to improve his badly damaged reputation. But while that association works really well for him, it doesn’t work so well for UCLA. How many of their current and potential donors want to be mentioned in the same breath as Donald Sterling? How much money would they put at risk by allowing this association to go forward? What’s the net impact over the next five years?
So you say. But Sterling has **already **demonstrated a willingness to boast and exaggerate - heck, flat out lie - about the association. They denied the most recent claims. Would they have to deny a new set next week? Next month? It’s unlikely that he would never mention his generosity again - he doesn’t have a lot else going for him right now. So the risk is that they enter a perpetual PR war to disassociate themselves publicly from him while “privately” accepting his money. It’s a toxic situation for them and one which will have a negative effect on future donations from other sources.
I don’t know who those sources are, and how they’d react to your plan of denying the story and keeping the money. Neither do you. But you know who might have a good idea? UCLA.
So if Sterling lies and says that UCLA kept the money, then UCLA is screwed?
One would hope that someone, perhaps a first year accounting student, thought to suggest that the university keep some sort of records of its finances.