[caption id=”attachment_85507″ align=”aligncenter” width=”512″] In this Dec. 19, 2010, file photo, Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling, right, and V. Stiviano, left, watch the Clippers play the Los Angeles Lakers during an NBA preseason basketball game in Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Danny Moloshok, File)
[/caption]
A decision by UCLA to refuse $3 million pledged by the Donald T. Sterling Foundation to fund kidney disease research is sparking controversy. The decision to forfeit the funds was made in protest the racist sentiments expressed by Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers.
In comments secretly recorded by Sterling’s girlfriend, the owner repeatedly offered incendiary comments regarding African Americans. A public outcry rightfully ensued immediately following release of the audiotapes. The NBA commissioner reacted swiftly by instituting a lifelong ban on Sterling from the league along with a $2.5 million fine. In addition, the NAACP rescinded plans to give Sterling a lifetime achievement award later this month. Numerous celebrities and pundits also rightfully condemned the racist remarks.
The nation demands that leaders in organizations featuring prominently in the public eye display a minimum modicum of civility and respect. The ugly practice of racial segregation persisted in the United States until just 50 years ago. Sterling’s comments tore at the scab of the still healing national wounds from racism. Considering this, the monetary fines, lifelong ban from the NBA and barrage of rebuke should not be unexpected.
Unlike the significant NBA penalties, UCLA’s forfeiture of the research grants fails to communicate the same level of moral outrage. In effect, UCLA is punishing victims of kidney failure by rejecting Sterling’s $3 million pledge towards kidney research.
Serious questions must be addressed.
Why should victims of kidney disease be subjugated to potentially avoidable pain simply because Sterling has been outed as a racist? Should hospitals apply this same logic to transplant procedures? Should all potential organ donors be pre-screened for holding of abhorrent views? What do you think a person in need of that transplant would say?
According to UCLA, “Mr. Sterling’s divisive and hurtful comments demonstrate that he does not share UCLA’s core values as a public university that fosters diversity, inclusion and respect.” The university’s statement fails to explain why UCLA should reject funds — in protest of racism — that could potentially help cure a disease that disproportionately affects those historically victimized by such racism.
Bitterly ironic to this discussion is the fact that African-Americans are more at risk from kidney failure than any other race in the United States. Nearly 1 in 3 kidney failure patients are African-American. UCLA’s misguided attempt to punish Sterling for his racist beliefs will disproportionately harm the African-American population.
UCLA should condemn Sterling’s racism while accepting the foundation’s gift.
