Why Media Lab thought it was doing right by secretly accepting Epstein’s money(vox.com)
vox.com
Why Media Lab thought it was doing right by secretly accepting Epstein’s money
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/9/11/20860717/mit-media-lab-joi-ito-epstein
71 comments
What Lessig's piece seemed to completely ignore (and what this seems to touch on but never quite state plainly) is that under the conditions of anonymity where someone can't use their donations to launder their reputation, someone like Epstein would have never made the sort of donation he made. The only thing that anonymity did here was to shield MIT from accountability; Epstein still got the benefits of such a large donation.
Cognitive dissonance at work. I really want to take the money, so I will come up with all sorts of rationalizations, and subconsciously I will adopt those beliefs strongly, because the alternative is not being able to face myself in the mirror.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
-Upton Sinclair
I think most people from the outside could see the problem in accepting donations from Epstein. People at the Media Lab (with some very notable exceptions) allowed their desire for money to get the better of their judgment.
-Upton Sinclair
I think most people from the outside could see the problem in accepting donations from Epstein. People at the Media Lab (with some very notable exceptions) allowed their desire for money to get the better of their judgment.
Arwa Michelle Mboya is an early and very notable exception: an example of a person at the Media Lab with good judgement. She called for his resignation on August 23, and wrote the guest column "Why Joi Ito needs to resign" published in The Tech on August 29.
Arwa Michelle Mboya - @RuMboya: The MIT @medialab was nicknamed “The Future Factory” by @60Minutes . We are supposed to reflect the future, not just of technology but of society. I’m fighting for the #FutureOfWomen when I call for Joi Ito’s resignation. 1:38 AM · Aug 23, 2019
https://twitter.com/RuMboya/status/1164683383815004160
OPINION GUEST COLUMN: Why Joi Ito needs to resign. We need to set a standard that ensures a safe future for women where money will never be seen as more valuable than their lives. By Arwa Mboya, Aug. 29, 2019.
https://thetech.com/2019/08/29/joi-ito-needs-to-resign
MIT Media Lab People: Arwa Michelle Mboya. Civic Media.
https://www.media.mit.edu/people/mboya/overview/
How Grad Student Arwa Mboya Helped Bring Down The Epstein Coverup At The MIT Media Lab
https://moguldom.com/225575/how-grad-student-arwa-mboya-help...
Ito’s resignation was necessary for the greater good, Mboya suggested. “This is not an MIT issue, and this is not a Joi Ito issue. This is an international issue where a global network of powerful individuals have used their influence to secure their privilege at the expense of women’s bodies and lives.”
After Ito resigned, Mboyo told The Washongton Post, “I feel vindicated, like I’m not crazy.” Ito is to blame for his actions, but others are to blame for allowing his actions to continue, she wrote in the guest column.
[...]
“We have a bad history of forgiving talented men who wield power,” Mboyo wrote. “If there is no accountability for the people who bolster men like Epstein, sexual violence against powerless people will continue.”
Mboyo is from Kenya. “I’m a young black woman (running the risk of being called ‘angry’ or ‘crazy’ for speaking up),” she wrote. “On the ladder of power, I am on a very low rung. That said, I am educated, I am smart, and I have a voice … I at least have the power to advocate for the girls and women who couldn’t speak out when they were raped and abused. I have the power to say no to a director who chose not only to ignore the accusations but to lie about his involvement as well. I can say that I am part of the #MeTooSTEM movement and will not be silent.”
Arwa Michelle Mboya - @RuMboya: The MIT @medialab was nicknamed “The Future Factory” by @60Minutes . We are supposed to reflect the future, not just of technology but of society. I’m fighting for the #FutureOfWomen when I call for Joi Ito’s resignation. 1:38 AM · Aug 23, 2019
https://twitter.com/RuMboya/status/1164683383815004160
OPINION GUEST COLUMN: Why Joi Ito needs to resign. We need to set a standard that ensures a safe future for women where money will never be seen as more valuable than their lives. By Arwa Mboya, Aug. 29, 2019.
https://thetech.com/2019/08/29/joi-ito-needs-to-resign
MIT Media Lab People: Arwa Michelle Mboya. Civic Media.
https://www.media.mit.edu/people/mboya/overview/
How Grad Student Arwa Mboya Helped Bring Down The Epstein Coverup At The MIT Media Lab
https://moguldom.com/225575/how-grad-student-arwa-mboya-help...
Ito’s resignation was necessary for the greater good, Mboya suggested. “This is not an MIT issue, and this is not a Joi Ito issue. This is an international issue where a global network of powerful individuals have used their influence to secure their privilege at the expense of women’s bodies and lives.”
After Ito resigned, Mboyo told The Washongton Post, “I feel vindicated, like I’m not crazy.” Ito is to blame for his actions, but others are to blame for allowing his actions to continue, she wrote in the guest column.
[...]
“We have a bad history of forgiving talented men who wield power,” Mboyo wrote. “If there is no accountability for the people who bolster men like Epstein, sexual violence against powerless people will continue.”
Mboyo is from Kenya. “I’m a young black woman (running the risk of being called ‘angry’ or ‘crazy’ for speaking up),” she wrote. “On the ladder of power, I am on a very low rung. That said, I am educated, I am smart, and I have a voice … I at least have the power to advocate for the girls and women who couldn’t speak out when they were raped and abused. I have the power to say no to a director who chose not only to ignore the accusations but to lie about his involvement as well. I can say that I am part of the #MeTooSTEM movement and will not be silent.”
Nobody should be trying to cover for the Media Lab in any way or form. If you're a professional and you take money in this way you are complicit, period.
An article claiming Epstein was a victim because pedophiles and rapists are "victims" would have been less vapid than what Vox focuses on in this article.
An article claiming Epstein was a victim because pedophiles and rapists are "victims" would have been less vapid than what Vox focuses on in this article.
Hey! I'm the article author, and I didn't write about what the Media Lab was thinking to give them "cover". As I put it in the article, the Media Lab's actions were so horrific that it brings into question the whole philosophy behind anonymous donations. So why take a close look at their justifications? Well, a couple reasons. Firstly, I think it's interesting when smart people argue themselves into incredibly bad decisions that anyone could've warned them against. It's an easy failure mode to fall into, and looking in gruesome detail at some cases where other people fell into it has taught me a lot about how these failures happen.
Secondly, I think that condemnation hits harder when it's the result of sincere engagement with someone's justifications. Yep, I listened to you when you said why you did it. And you were wrong. It's not always worth taking that step, of course, but in a big case like this, I think it is.
Secondly, I think that condemnation hits harder when it's the result of sincere engagement with someone's justifications. Yep, I listened to you when you said why you did it. And you were wrong. It's not always worth taking that step, of course, but in a big case like this, I think it is.
To me the danger sign is that, if you’re doing anonymous donations properly, it would be impossible to solicit them. I mean, you wouldn’t know who to talk to! If the donor visits the institution, it’s just some random person with no reason for special treatment.
If there was an arms-length “anonymous fund” that people could donate to without even the development department knowing who they are, that would be the only way to have truly anonymous donations. And then I think the moral argument would make perfect sense.
If there was an arms-length “anonymous fund” that people could donate to without even the development department knowing who they are, that would be the only way to have truly anonymous donations. And then I think the moral argument would make perfect sense.
[deleted]
I think the point for this particular case, which you did allude to, is that there was nothing anonymous about the relationship. Everyone knew about it, some of them implicated directly in the actual court case (Minsky). This is more about a completely corrupt and toxic culture at Media Lab. It would have been more interesting to look deeper into Joi Ito for example and the posturing of several key players when exposed, than wax poetic about the blanket of anonymity.
How do you know that culture inside Media Lab was "completely corrupt and toxic"? From my experience, it was (is?) a super cool place and most researchers didn't have any clue what was going on with the funding. I bet there are many universities where revolts would happen if true donors and their actions were revealed. You even have whole famous universities named after robber barons.
> a super cool place and most researchers didn't have any clue what was going on with the funding.
I don't know. I think witnessing the lab director giving tours to an old man accompanied by very young foreign women who raise suspicions that they might be victims of human trafficking, should make people at least consider that there is something shady going on with the funding.
I don't know. I think witnessing the lab director giving tours to an old man accompanied by very young foreign women who raise suspicions that they might be victims of human trafficking, should make people at least consider that there is something shady going on with the funding.
Apparently some people raise objections and were ignored, and some staff were convince of the possibility Epstein brought trafficked women with him when he visited. It's not like those people wouldn't talk to others, their friends there, etc., the frustration and disappointment simmering beneath the surface. Sure, not everyone may have felt it, but it doesn't mean it wasn't there.
Did you read the same article I did? I feel like the article said the opposite of what you are saying it did... the article pretty strongly says that Media Lab was in the wrong and the argument that the donations were anonymous and therefore ok were completely wrong.
Normally, organizations accept anonymous donations from people because of modesty or privacy -- the donors don't want their name on the wall or in the press. They have a mechanism for that called "anonymous donations", but the mechanism isn't meant to guarantee that no reputational benefits at all can be gotten by the donor.
In this case, several people knew he had donated to MIT and he invited professors to his dinners to show off to his friends, so there were substantial reputational benefits.
Lessig's utilitarian calculus doesn't convince me it's OK to take money anonymously from villains.
In this case, several people knew he had donated to MIT and he invited professors to his dinners to show off to his friends, so there were substantial reputational benefits.
Lessig's utilitarian calculus doesn't convince me it's OK to take money anonymously from villains.
Concur with this. According to friends who works in the university's development department, anonymous donations are often used by people whose kids will attend , or are attending the university. So it's the parents' way of being discrete w/o outing their kids as "undeserving".
Right, his identity may have been concealed from MIT's accounting department, but when it came to getting personal/social access to MIT professors, it's clear people were aware he was contributing to their program.
right. the veil of anonymity was torn apart in this case. this doesn't seem like a robust test case for Lessig's theory of anonymity.
Lessig's theory of anonymous donations seems to have been carefully developed for the sole purpose of exonerating Ito, who is Lessig's friend. It's not like there's some new revelation that's come out since Lessig wrote his piece.
I think no theory of anonymity works. A villain isn't going to keep their pinky-promise to not tell everyone that your prestigious institution took their money.
It’s not particularly difficult to make a donation anonymous in a way that the recipient genuinely doesn’t know who made the donation. Just have a neutral third party handle it. This could be a donor advised fund or a trustee, for example. I suspect this isn’t particularly rare.
But then the donor tells the recipient that they are the ones who donated all of that money. And so they get all of the benefits anyway.
I just gave you $10M. Can I have a private dinner?
Do you believe me? If an anonymous donation is done with some degree of care, you have no way to verify my claim.
Do you believe me? If an anonymous donation is done with some degree of care, you have no way to verify my claim.
If a $10M anonymous donation had just showed up in my account and I hadn't told anyone, then yes I would be inclined to believe you.
That would be part of handling anonymous donations sensibly. The transaction should be between the development office and whatever trustee or foundation gives the gift. The ultimate beneficiary shouldn’t be notified of the donation until, say, the end of the fiscal year, at which point all anonymous donations are aggregated.
> Lessig's utilitarian calculus doesn't convince me it's OK to take money anonymously from villains.
Meh. It's not OK, but it's not that bad either. Even if what Ito did was wrong, which at least with hindsight it clearly was, the guy is still a hero.
Even the allegations about him using his position to raise LP money for his fund is somewhat dubious, given that he's much more famous for being a venture capitalist than he is for running the media lab; it's literally why he was hired for that job in the first place. It was bad judgment, and maybe he deserved to get fired for it, but as scandals go it's fairly benign.
Meh. It's not OK, but it's not that bad either. Even if what Ito did was wrong, which at least with hindsight it clearly was, the guy is still a hero.
Even the allegations about him using his position to raise LP money for his fund is somewhat dubious, given that he's much more famous for being a venture capitalist than he is for running the media lab; it's literally why he was hired for that job in the first place. It was bad judgment, and maybe he deserved to get fired for it, but as scandals go it's fairly benign.
I would love to hear your perspective on why Joi Ito is a hero.
He’s someone who was famous for being famous, but then again he fit right in in the Media Lab, and it’s smoke-and-mirrors carnival as opposed to the serious research done at the AI Lab.
He was an early investor in Six Apart and Technorati, was one of the top 100 bloggers, and was one of the first to clearly articulate the ability of the Internet to change society. He was also on the board of Creative Commons, ICANN, Mozilla, etc.
Also his sister is one of the top Internet researchers, and iirc she has said that she became interested in the field because of his early entrepreneurial career.
Also his sister is one of the top Internet researchers, and iirc she has said that she became interested in the field because of his early entrepreneurial career.
>and was one of the first to clearly articulate the ability of the Internet to change society.
A few years ago, it would have been considered a given that the Internet’s ability to change society was a good thing. I don’t think people take that position as unequivocally as before.
So in judging Ito, you have “Hypes the Internet” vs “helps normalize the reputation a child rapist”
I am not so sure that the good outweighs the bad
A few years ago, it would have been considered a given that the Internet’s ability to change society was a good thing. I don’t think people take that position as unequivocally as before.
So in judging Ito, you have “Hypes the Internet” vs “helps normalize the reputation a child rapist”
I am not so sure that the good outweighs the bad
These are nice achievements. Impressive, even. But that's a very low bar for a "hero" imo.
If playing a key role in connecting everyone on earth doesn’t make someone a hero, what does? IMHO that seems like just about the greatest possible human accomplishment.
What? He was a VC who made some investments. He had a role in CC, which is actually above and beyond his job description, sure. But he doesn't hold a candle to Jon Postel or Vint Cerf or even John Perry Barlow.
He's another greedhead who got caught doing what he clearly did not want others to see him doing. He didn't even have the honor to get ahead of things; he tried to hang on until after he made the news.
That's an accomplishment he'll be remembered for.
He's another greedhead who got caught doing what he clearly did not want others to see him doing. He didn't even have the honor to get ahead of things; he tried to hang on until after he made the news.
That's an accomplishment he'll be remembered for.
Weird that of all the institutions of the 2000s tech scene, only BoingBoing.net comes out looking good.
Ito was the chairman of Creative Commons for the six years (2006-2012) and championed, among other things, Wikipedia adopting the CC license in 2009.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joi_Ito#Career
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joi_Ito#Career
To me that just says he agreed with some good ideas and was influential in their community, which is good. Doesn't read as "hero" though, it just tells me he maybe wanted to do good things. And good intentions are fine and all, but it seems like he got himself pretty dirty trying to further them. Good deeds don't always follow from good intentions.
[deleted]
You know what you should not do if you really believe "the money gets put to a better use, and they don’t get to accumulate prestige or connections from the donation because the public wouldn’t know about it."
> The financier would meet with faculty members, apparently to allow him to give input on projects…
(from the New Yorker article).
Also, if you know you are violating the policies of MIT's central fund-raising office, and you are taking active steps to HIDE it from them... you can say you just had a different philosophy of philanthropy than them, and this was so important to you that you were willing to violate MIT's policies and risk whatever consequences if found out...
...but come on, we all know it's just plain greed.
I don't think these are sincere philosophical beliefs about philanthropy, I think they are just the rationalizations that the powerful and greedy tell themselves to avoid admitting it's just about power and greed.
> The financier would meet with faculty members, apparently to allow him to give input on projects…
(from the New Yorker article).
Also, if you know you are violating the policies of MIT's central fund-raising office, and you are taking active steps to HIDE it from them... you can say you just had a different philosophy of philanthropy than them, and this was so important to you that you were willing to violate MIT's policies and risk whatever consequences if found out...
...but come on, we all know it's just plain greed.
I don't think these are sincere philosophical beliefs about philanthropy, I think they are just the rationalizations that the powerful and greedy tell themselves to avoid admitting it's just about power and greed.
The evidence it was all about greed is that Epstein gave Ito's investment funds $1.6 million, more than TWICE the amount of money than the chump change Epstein gave to Media Lab in exchange for highly discounted reputation and a cast of academic celebrities to parade at his parties.
Epstein bribed Ito with more than 200% commission to make the other cash-for-reputation deal, which they both knew they must covered up at all cost, because Media Lab would pay with its reputation when discovered.
Epstein bribed Ito with more than 200% commission to make the other cash-for-reputation deal, which they both knew they must covered up at all cost, because Media Lab would pay with its reputation when discovered.
There's an easy answer for this, although it's uncomfortable for the Epsteins of the world. Simply formalize the entire process. Have a dedicated system for handling not just Very Important People, but Very Rich Assholes. When VRAs want to give money, make it clear that the money will be marked as from "an anoymous piece of shit" rather than "a generous donor". When they want to walk around the lab, make it clear that they'll be wearing a nametag with "VRA" printed in big red letters.
Sure, take money from child slavers if you must, but don't glorify them or even give them the decency of polite society. Mark them for who they are, if you know it.
Sure, take money from child slavers if you must, but don't glorify them or even give them the decency of polite society. Mark them for who they are, if you know it.
I like this sentiment, but the lab's behavior is antithetical to Lessig's argument. For unsavory benefactors there should be no tours, no VIP badges, no meetings with senior staff, no visits or honor of any kind. An invitation to the campus degrades the university's reputation. His presence in the lab is offensive to decent people.
[deleted]
This is a much better article and interview with the whistleblower:
https://www.philanthropy.com/article/whistle-blower-tells-th...
Media Lab knew exactly what they were doing.
https://www.philanthropy.com/article/whistle-blower-tells-th...
Media Lab knew exactly what they were doing.
as did MIT if we are to believe ito:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/09/10/former-mit-medi...
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/09/10/former-mit-medi...
I wonder if Epstein ever sponsored any cryogenics research at MIT?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-...
"Mr. Epstein told this person that he wanted his head and penis to be frozen."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-...
"Mr. Epstein told this person that he wanted his head and penis to be frozen."
The article seems to imply at points that power and influence won't accrue much as a result of anonymous donations, which I think is wrong. You lose the public prestige, sure, but the powerful people behind the scenes know you donated, as with Media Lab, and that power and influence isn't much diminished. In fact it's the behind the scenes type of power that can be the most effective and, as we see with Epstein, most corrosive.
Anonymity may shield the recipient from reputational damage of associating with a bad actor, but doesn't take away all of the benefits to the donor.
Anonymity may shield the recipient from reputational damage of associating with a bad actor, but doesn't take away all of the benefits to the donor.
I saw another article like this about MIT recently. I have a really hard time taking the discussion as a whole seriously, because it kind of feels like bike-shedding as compared to "How are we going to grill some of the people who really, actually deserve it?"
On the list of priorities, reprimanding labs and schools for taking donations seems like it should not be coming first.
On the list of priorities, reprimanding labs and schools for taking donations seems like it should not be coming first.
I don't think violations should be ignored simply because more egregious ones exist. There's no reason both can't be pursued. For example you don't ignore muggings just because some people are commiting murder. In this case, Joi deliberately violated policy in accepting donations from Epstein. I agree the University shouldn't devote significant resources to policing donations that in all likelihood are legitimate in the vast majority of cases. But when something like this falls in their lap, there's no reason to ignore this just because other bad things happen, say a coach that might be taking million dollar bribes to get a student admitted.
I think that mentality is really easy to take advantage of. Essentially, anyone is allowed at any point to push something to the top your stack. If at any point your stack is topped with something they don't like, it's a simple matter of pushing more things.
I strongly urge anyone who cares about this Epstein case at all to not let the guards or schools take a higher position in the stack than the clients themselves.
I strongly urge anyone who cares about this Epstein case at all to not let the guards or schools take a higher position in the stack than the clients themselves.
The response needn't be serialized. That is to say, multiple actions may be popped off the priority queue at once, without waiting for the others to finish.
See also: the reason we are talking about this at all when there are still hungry children in the world.
See also: the reason we are talking about this at all when there are still hungry children in the world.
Hungry people are a growing and incredibly complex problem. Punishing even a single one of Epstein's clients seems much more manageable. And if we're going for impact-to-effort ratio queuing, this is likely a bit more of a gimme than world hunger.
The point is that society can address more than one problem (or more than one aspect of a problem) at once. The reasoning I responded to seemed to be following the tired cliche of dismissing any problem as not worthy of attention because children are still starving.
> The point is that society can address more than one problem
Can it? It often seems like nothing really ever get addressed fully, while there is a barrage of half baked debates.
Can it? It often seems like nothing really ever get addressed fully, while there is a barrage of half baked debates.
Isn't that the exact opposite of what the article says? The article is pretty clear that anonymity did not reduce his power at all, precisely for the reason you described.
It did suggest it might work if the recipient was not aware of who the money was from, but makes it clear that was not the case here.
It did suggest it might work if the recipient was not aware of who the money was from, but makes it clear that was not the case here.
I was going to say! That's precisely what Lessig's article says, but what this article deftly rebuts.
Maybe the grandparent had both tabs opened and was commenting on Lessig's article, because he's right in relation to that, and we're all in agreement about the point of the Vox article.
Maybe the grandparent had both tabs opened and was commenting on Lessig's article, because he's right in relation to that, and we're all in agreement about the point of the Vox article.
The episode of Curb, where Ted Danson donates anonymously!! If you look in my comment history, I’ve made the same exact point.
Then there is the whole question of whether Epstein was using his money to _direct research_ specifically to junk science like Euugenics.
I think Sarah Taber said it best though.
""" I think the best lens to understand what was going on here isn't just "reputation laundering."
The Media Lab's leadership catered to a superiority fetish in exchange for cash.
That's sex work """
https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/117193193908069171...
I think Sarah Taber said it best though.
""" I think the best lens to understand what was going on here isn't just "reputation laundering."
The Media Lab's leadership catered to a superiority fetish in exchange for cash.
That's sex work """
https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/117193193908069171...
Dang, I missed that whole 'subplot' about the food computer scam: https://gizmodo.com/mit-built-a-theranos-for-plants-18379682...
What a weird lab.
What a weird lab.
It's a department, and it's dedicated to the creation of media. Doing "cool nerd stuff" is strictly to support that mission.
Very postmodern and advanced if you think about it-- Most actual scientists are measured by how they produce papers (e.g. media). Which is also how the "replication crisis" and "p hacking" came to be. The Media Lab just recognizes it explicitly
Very postmodern and advanced if you think about it-- Most actual scientists are measured by how they produce papers (e.g. media). Which is also how the "replication crisis" and "p hacking" came to be. The Media Lab just recognizes it explicitly
So their objective was to create a media splash about 'food computers', rather than to actually advance ag technology? That somehow seems even weirder.
Epic twitter thread
Of all the people to take Epstein's money or endorse him with their reputation, of all the slimy people, of all the career politicians, we've decided to mainly just fixate and ruin the life of one well-intentioned nerd who wanted to use the money for research.
I hope everyone feels fuzzy and warm with their self-righteousness. Evil is defeated once more -- and you all helped -- with your brave internet shaming and directed anger. Truly, we live in marvelous times, where we can all gather together online and use the decentralized social networks to conspire and destroy.
Of course, no one here could hope to destroy those who are truly powerful and deserving, so instead every once in a while perhaps we can pick off one of the weaker ones.
But he deserved it! And that's why we write and focus on it, right? What else do people deserve? What else could we have done with this time and energy? Anything greater? If so, why didn't we? Perhaps it's because destroying people feels good -- it's fun.
I hope everyone feels fuzzy and warm with their self-righteousness. Evil is defeated once more -- and you all helped -- with your brave internet shaming and directed anger. Truly, we live in marvelous times, where we can all gather together online and use the decentralized social networks to conspire and destroy.
Of course, no one here could hope to destroy those who are truly powerful and deserving, so instead every once in a while perhaps we can pick off one of the weaker ones.
But he deserved it! And that's why we write and focus on it, right? What else do people deserve? What else could we have done with this time and energy? Anything greater? If so, why didn't we? Perhaps it's because destroying people feels good -- it's fun.
What makes you think he was well-intentioned? He deliberately hid his actions. They sent Epstein a Disobedience Prize orb!
What makes you think he was powerless? He was on the board of the MIT Media Lab, The New York Times, The MacArthur Foundation, The Knight Foundation among other things.
He's exactly the kind of person who should be held accountable for their actions.
What makes you think he was powerless? He was on the board of the MIT Media Lab, The New York Times, The MacArthur Foundation, The Knight Foundation among other things.
He's exactly the kind of person who should be held accountable for their actions.
You get to deflect and vilify academics, it's a twofer!
When Ito turns out to have covered for some of Epstein's "customers", or to have been one himself, will you stop defending him?
Respond to this comment if that happens, and I'll stop defending him and admit everyone was right, and I was totally wrong. I feel like there is only about a 5% chance that's the case, but who knows.
He took money from this guy after going to prison for rape, attended multiple events where underage prostitutes almost certainly were present... where do you get 95% confidence that his intentions were good?
Here’s a question: if we had a list of everyone who ever attended one of those parties, would you estimate 95% of them had good intentions?
Here’s a question: if we had a list of everyone who ever attended one of those parties, would you estimate 95% of them had good intentions?
I think this is some special pleading though, since you could make similar statements about any of the many many high-profile people who commingled with Epstein. Is it all one large conspiracy? Or were they all just chumps?
I feel quite certain there is a large conspiracy? Do you have some doubt that he was at the center of a large conspiracy?
"If a donation is anonymous, the theory goes — that is, anonymous to the public — the giver cannot accrue any prestige or social capital from it."
OTOH, it at least helps the anonymous 'givers' to feel a bit consecrated about their nefarious actions. Also it helps the prestigious 'takers', capable of ignoring the smell of it, to cloak their taint.
The rationalization that 'it's okay if noone knows' seems more like something for, say, a bank than for an academic institution. And the smell hangs around. It might lead to things like, say, rigged admissions standards. Or the unfortunate suicides of bright young stars.
OTOH, it at least helps the anonymous 'givers' to feel a bit consecrated about their nefarious actions. Also it helps the prestigious 'takers', capable of ignoring the smell of it, to cloak their taint.
The rationalization that 'it's okay if noone knows' seems more like something for, say, a bank than for an academic institution. And the smell hangs around. It might lead to things like, say, rigged admissions standards. Or the unfortunate suicides of bright young stars.
The question I have is this: how did Jeffrey Epstein get his money in the first place? And once he acquired it, how did people accept it from him knowing his behavior?