Indeed. Perhaps, one might further note, that as a Publick Institution, the Universitie may be required to submit, from time to time, a report upon the various receipts and expenses of the Universitie for the public to review. Mayhap it shall be posted on a series of toobs.
If one were of the general sense of that heretic Bacon, one might even suggest a comparison of receipts from the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Fourteen with the previous year or the one prior to that, such that Mafter Sterling’s Contributione may be seen in the context of overall finances of the Institution. But that would stray into iconoclastic heresy of Empiricism, rejecting the romantic nature of the poor, trodden-upon racist who may not even donate money for such charities wille not Condescend to be associated with him.
They also keep records of named buildings and plaques. Yet I am told in this thread that Silver lying about it is a big problem. Why wouldn’t the lie about accepting his donation be?
Interesting that when multiple charities, all run by people whose job it is to understand how charities work, all take the same action, your response is “They much ALL be idiots!” and not, “Maybe they understand something about this field that I don’t.”
Donald Sterling has been putting ads in the LA Times for years, either advertising his rental properties or congratulating himself for winning various humanitarian awards or donating large amounts of money to charity. Back when I used to read the Times regularly, I recall days when about a quarter of the ads in the first section were about Sterling, for one reason or another. The Times is not going to say no to him when they, like so many other print newspapers, are desperate for advertisers.
Sterling. His name is Donald Sterling. Silver is the last name of the NBA Commissioner; the last name of the creepy racist lizard person for whom you feel so sorry is Sterling.
Who says that the major university made this decision for the fundraising-benefit reasons and not for stupid PC ones? If you think major universities don’t make stupid politically-correct decisions, I can provide some examples.
And I’ve provided literature from the field of study that says that it’s an ethical quagmire, and the likely best course of action is to avoid any appearance of impropriety or compromising your integrity for a short-term gain. Sure, no one at UCLA may have ever taken a single fundraising course, or read a single article on ethics, or ever been a member of a professional fundraising association where these issues are brought up on a regular basis, and are just simply acting out of stupid PC motivations. I guess that’s an option…
Terr clearly knows something about charity fundraising that I don’t, you don’t, no one at UCLA knows, nor anyone at Goodwill Southern California, nor anyone at A Place Called Home.
Why he won’t tell us what he knows that none of the people in the above paragraph know, I can’t say.
Eventually Sterling will find a charity desperate enough to take his money. Then perhaps we can compare that charity’s annual reports with UCLA’s to see what the difference is.
I looked at your links. The first two cite/discuss cases where donation money was rejected from criminals, or for reasons at least tangentially related to the donated-to-cause (like Smithsonian rejecting oil-industry donation for program on the world’s oceans). The third one proposes a code of ethics that deals with ill-gotten money and conflicts of interest - which is unrelated to the Sterling case here.
The second certainly is about cause-related scandal. But I don’t think you did all that great of a job reading (oh, sorry - “looking”) the first one. There are entire paragraphs related to donors with racist backgrounds under scrutiny by universities, and the ethical implications of the situation.
You’re correct - the third one does deal with ill-gotten money. It also deals with… well, let me just quote the book:
But seriously - great job “looking” at those links! Next time I run into Dr. Tempel in town I’ll mention he’s got a new fan.
You know, it’s funny. A week ago, I actually had a hard copy of this book, but my wife and I are getting the house ready to move, and we purged all the textbooks on the basis of “when the hell are we ever going to look at these?!” Anyway, it’s frustrating to read that whole chapter, since large portions are omitted every few pages. Regardless, page 77 has a decent summary of those guidelines.
Your problem is that you seem unable to accept that while racism and kidney research are unrelated, that’s not the only issue here. The issue is that Sterling’s money and association with UCLA is immediately detrimental to the overall mission and values of UCLA. If you continue to disagree with that point, I’m not sure what would satisfy you.
(And oddly enough, Tempel makes reference to the AFP code of ethics (which are cut off from the link), an association I’m a member of, but doesn’t seem to have anything on their website regarding unethical donations or donors of any magnitude. There are plenty of articles, and it comes up a lot in the literature - but nothing codified. He seems to think so - I’ll keep digging.)
By whose definition? If it’s just yours, that’s cool, but UCLA isn’t worried about what you think constitutes an association, they’re worried about what their *donors *will think constitutes an association. You might think those donors are idiots for caring about whether UCLA accepts money from racists, but the fact is that they do care, and that means UCLA has to care, too.
