UCLA has rejected a 3 million dollar donation for kidney research from LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling.
And in the process, they have just taken the coveted number 2 spot on my most hated colleges after Ohio State.*
Is it silly to root against a team of athletes because of a decision they had nothing to do with? Probably. But not nearly as silly as turning down that kind money from a guy who simply said some things most people find objectionable. You can read about the decision here:
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/04/ucla-donald-sterling-donation
There is absolutely no evidence that Donald Sterling made his money illegally, and if you're gonna call into question all the ethics of billionaires then no one would be accepting money from billionaires. You don't get that rich without underpaying someone, destroying some part of the environment, or just being a dick in general.
So Sterling doesn't want his girlfriend hanging out with black dudes. So what ?
Not quite Aryan, but produces really popular
spoken word albums.
Kidney disease is actually more prevalent in the African American community than it is in caucasians, so all UCLA is doing is potentially making less black dudes for her to hang around with. What kind of statement is that?
Donald Sterling spent a lot of his fortune for decades paying African Americans millions to not be very good at their job. To be fair, most Clippers, regardless of race, should have been on the Washington Generals, but the point is that some of that money benefitted the African American community. Nothing Sterling did or said--not once did I hear the dreaded, guaranteed to get your ass fired, middle of the alphabet epithet uttered--merits his money being turned down. I'm sure other philanthropists will step forward and cover the donation, but UCLA should have taken that money. In fact, my white "not-wanting-my-girlfriend-to-hang-out-with-anyone-better-looking-than-me-and-that's-a bunch-of-people" ass will go as far as saying UCLA could have taken that money conducted kidney research exclusively on African Americans and I would have applauded.
I was in a bar once (just once) when a guy punched a girl. In the ensuing melee, his wallet dropped out of his pants and someone who strongly resembles me used the money in it to buy drinks for the girl who got hit and for the rest of the bar. None of us liked or respected the guy, but we put the money to the best use possible at quarter to two.
UCLA already had the contents of Sterling's wallet. They never should have given it back.
* I can't even tell you who was number 2 before. It can't be MSU, because I root for them most of the time when they aren't playing Michigan. It was Nebraska after they shared the national championship with Michigan, but I've gotten over it. It can't be a college that rejected my application because that is too large a number to occupy one position on the chart.
And in the process, they have just taken the coveted number 2 spot on my most hated colleges after Ohio State.*
Is it silly to root against a team of athletes because of a decision they had nothing to do with? Probably. But not nearly as silly as turning down that kind money from a guy who simply said some things most people find objectionable. You can read about the decision here:
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/04/ucla-donald-sterling-donation
There is absolutely no evidence that Donald Sterling made his money illegally, and if you're gonna call into question all the ethics of billionaires then no one would be accepting money from billionaires. You don't get that rich without underpaying someone, destroying some part of the environment, or just being a dick in general.
So Sterling doesn't want his girlfriend hanging out with black dudes. So what ?
spoken word albums.
Kidney disease is actually more prevalent in the African American community than it is in caucasians, so all UCLA is doing is potentially making less black dudes for her to hang around with. What kind of statement is that?
Donald Sterling spent a lot of his fortune for decades paying African Americans millions to not be very good at their job. To be fair, most Clippers, regardless of race, should have been on the Washington Generals, but the point is that some of that money benefitted the African American community. Nothing Sterling did or said--not once did I hear the dreaded, guaranteed to get your ass fired, middle of the alphabet epithet uttered--merits his money being turned down. I'm sure other philanthropists will step forward and cover the donation, but UCLA should have taken that money. In fact, my white "not-wanting-my-girlfriend-to-hang-out-with-anyone-better-looking-than-me-and-that's-a bunch-of-people" ass will go as far as saying UCLA could have taken that money conducted kidney research exclusively on African Americans and I would have applauded.
I was in a bar once (just once) when a guy punched a girl. In the ensuing melee, his wallet dropped out of his pants and someone who strongly resembles me used the money in it to buy drinks for the girl who got hit and for the rest of the bar. None of us liked or respected the guy, but we put the money to the best use possible at quarter to two.
UCLA already had the contents of Sterling's wallet. They never should have given it back.
* I can't even tell you who was number 2 before. It can't be MSU, because I root for them most of the time when they aren't playing Michigan. It was Nebraska after they shared the national championship with Michigan, but I've gotten over it. It can't be a college that rejected my application because that is too large a number to occupy one position on the chart.
