Connecting California

Donald Sterling Is Los Angeles

For 30 Years, the City Knew This Man Was a Racist. But Impunity Is Part of the Culture Here.

Late in Quentin Tarantino’s 1994 film Pulp Fiction, Marsellus Wallace—a criminal boss played by Ving Rhames—banishes prizefighter Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis) from Southern California. “You lost all your L.A. privileges,” Rhames says with lethal menace, and Willis quickly leaves the Southland on his motorcycle.

Thinking LA-logo-smaller

If only it were that easy to kick Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling out of L.A. But, alas, Tarantino’s film is pure fantasy. There is simply no person, institution, or network in today’s Los Angeles with the clout to force powerful Angelenos to repent their sins—much less drive them out of town.

The racism heard on the leaked tape may have been news around the country, but Sterling’s discrimination against renters in his apartment buildings, and his anti-black, anti-Mexican, and misogynist views, were well-known facts of Los Angeles life for 30 years. Over those decades, no one in L.A. sought to dislodge Sterling from his role as owner of a major sports franchise. And now, with his bigotry a national news event, Sterling has become an outrageous example of the inability of L.A. to police itself, and its elite.

Even after the public release of an audio tape of Sterling demanding his girlfriend stop associating with black people, no Southern Californian was able to pull a Marsellus Wallace and kick him out of L.A. The consequences he has faced so far—and will face in the future—are all coming from the outside: from the commissioner of the National Basketball Association (who suspended him for life on Tuesday), from Sterling’s fellow team owners (who could force him to sell), and from corporations that sponsor pro basketball (and have disassociated themselves from the Clippers).

Thank goodness for those punishments, because who here would have had the juice to force him to sell the team? Prominent business leaders? L.A.’s rich corporate types are more engaged nationally and globally than locally, and they don’t have the public profile, or leverage, to threaten Sterling or his team. City political leaders? L.A.’s charter keeps mayors and city council members from having too much power. Ironically, the mayor of Sacramento, former pro basketball star Kevin Johnson, has had more of a role than L.A.’s own mayor, since Johnson was retained by the players’ union for advice on dealing with Sterling. The town’s newspapers or TV stations? They’re mostly shrinking in ambition and staff.

In L.A., accountability almost always requires outside intervention. Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca had mismanaged the jail for years, but only resigned earlier this year after the federal government began investigating. When Dodgers owner Frank McCourt was sabotaging the team, it took the commissioner of baseball, in Milwaukee, to force the team’s sale. In the past generation, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Los Angeles Unified School District’s special education program, and the Los Angeles Police Department all have required forms of federal receivership.

Outside intervention, of course, is no panacea. But the alternative is unchecked defiance, the best current example being Brian D’Arcy, head of the biggest union of L.A. Department of Water and Power (DWP) employees. For months, he has refused demands from city leaders, the courts, and the media that he turn over financial documents on two nonprofits that received $40 million from ratepayers. Even as he stonewalled, D’Arcy served on the Los Angeles 2020 Commission, a group of distinguished L.A. citizens, as they issued a report complaining about a lack of accountability in city government. Did I mention that defiance is a close cousin of shamelessness?

In Sterling’s case, it’s unclear whether other powerful Angelenos would have moved against him—even if they could have. For one thing, he’s got the kind of hallowed, homegrown personal narrative—poor kid from the Eastside (Boyle Heights) who becomes a Westside titan (real estate)—that buys plenty of second chances here. And Sterling bought social status by becoming a major player in the phony, philanthropic Beverly Hills hotel chicken dinners that always make rich people look charitable and sometimes raise money for a good cause.

By handing out money to many different people and organizations across all lines of geography, cause, and ethnicity, Sterling incentivized much of Los Angeles to ignore his racism. Among those who looked the other way for years was the Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP, which was about to give him a second lifetime achievement award when the recent news broke. It didn’t hurt Sterling that he advertised his charitable exploits in the L.A. Times, a paper that has portrayed him more as creepy uncle than as unrepentant racist.

This particular moment has exposed the underbelly of Southern California’s open culture. Weak institutions and weak leadership free people here to do as they please and be who they are. But when someone powerful does real damage to Los Angeles and its reputation, there’s no one able and willing to protect us.

Sterling’s conversation with his girlfriend—who, as a 30-year-old multiracial gold digger, was the perfect companion for the wealthy 80-year-old Los Angeles racist—was offensive and nonsensical. But Sterling did say one thing that hit close to home. When his girlfriend asked why he wouldn’t stand against racism in the world, Sterling said on the tape: “We don’t evaluate what’s right and wrong. We live in a society. We live in a culture. We have to live within that culture.”

For all the criticism of Sterling that you hear from Angelenos now, he is decidedly the product of Los Angeles culture. He thrived here. Now, he defines us.

  • Gary Phillips

    Well done.

  • Danny Goodman

    Yes. One of the best articles I’ve read here. Agreed. Our leadership in this city is too “politically correct” in a backwards sense. No censure or consequences for the most aggregious acts and too much lip service to “understanding” which is really turning a blind eye. But hope this strong position can apply to all Zocalo pieces, not just this Sterling story. In the past some Zocalo articles seemed to display the same sort of “understanding” when eyeing broken L.A. forces.

  • “It didn’t hurt Sterling that he advertised his charitable exploits in the L.A. Times, a paper that has portrayed him more as creepy uncle than as unrepentant racist.”

    I love/hate every word of this article because it’s a credible interpretation of Sterling World.

    I used to write Teleprompter presentation/award acceptance remarks for Sterling and other luminaries, at several of their joint charitable dinner events. These were $25,000 per-table Beverly Hilton events. During one, I was crossing the dinner floor on my way backstage when I encountered Sterling throwing an ‘ol rich guy’s temper-tantrum. He was yelling at one of the shows producers, demanding that he be presented his award before a certain aging philanthropic C-lister. He’d paid for the evenings invitations –no small sum, I’m sure– but his check would be canceled if the switch wasn’t made. The awards themselves were manufactured hoo-ha given to a list of individuals who would eventually indicted, jailed, or shamed from their positions of business and power (from Mike Corona to Bernard Kerik), so, of course, Sterling got his way.

    While this example has nothing to do with our city’s leadership, during the calendar days filled with meetings related to writing three Sterling events, I witnessed enough of this man’s bottomless and formidable exceptionalism to fully agree with Mr. Matthew’s thinking here. Nice work. I ask only that you not forget how overjoyed we are –those of us on the lower rungs of L.A.’s golden letter– this week.

  • ModernPublius

    An adopted son of Los Angeles, Raymond Chandler, once noted “it is not a fragrant world, but it is the world you live in.” My departure from your point, however, is that Los Angeles serves as both maker and mirror of impunity for our culture at large.

  • Abelardo de la Peña Jr.

    Hate the headline, admire the well-thought out writing.

  • MisTBlu

    When I used to see those “look at me ain’t I swell” ads that Sterling placed in the LA Times I knew all I needed to know about the swell-headed man. Thank you, Mr. Mathews for this hard-hitting piece.

  • DB

    I picture Mr. Mathews finishing this piece, standing from his desk, holding out his hand, and dropping the mic. Boom. Well done sir.

  • Felix Schweizer

    Thank you Mr. Mathews, that is about the only thing about Sterling in the past few days that makes any sense! Now lets all put our head back in the sand….

  • EJojola

    Slam! But at least LA isn’t the deep South. (It has more infrastructure!)

  • abstract668

    Sterling’s “charitable” profile has always been pure puffery. To be featured in his weekly ads, most charities received $100,000 over 10 years, or $10,000 per year. No one would turn down a donation of that size, but the fawning required is not at all commensurate with the amount of the donation. It reminds me of the old Q & A—“Would you have sex with this old geezer for a million dollars?” answer: “Yes! I’d do almost anything for a million dollars!” “Would you have sex with him for 25 cents?” “No way!” Response: “Well you’re no better than a two-bit whore; we’re just negotiating the price.”

    The “philanthropy” game is one of the more disgusting institutions of capitalism. Instead of paying taxes to the government, where our elected representatives direct funds to democratically-determined priorities established through law-making, rich people get to direct their tax dollars to their own priorities. In the culture of the charity world, these fund-giving foundations demand a level of obsequiousness that is not at all deserved. Because of his giant weekly ads (which, if he paid for them, would cost more than the funds he donated to the charities) Sterling is only one of the most visible.

  • David Holtzman

    Great piece, Joe.
    I guess it was after you wrote it that, from *inside* LA, UCLA gave something like four hundred thousand dollars back to Sterling, and released him from his promise to give millions more. Serious pushback but expensive symbolism too. As an alum (of the law school there), I kinda wish UCLA had kept the down payment.