I think we're getting to the heart of the matter. By the way, I have a lot of respect for CMU as well. I have plenty of criticisms of MIT but very few with the

I think we're getting to the heart of the matter. By the way, I have a lot of respect for CMU as well. I have plenty of criticisms of MIT but very few with the Media Lab. MIT refused to divest from fossil fuels, has a building named after Koch, and develops military through Lincoln Labs. Just to name a few. The question still seems to be "Can you take money from an evil person to do good things?" I think we're both at the point of agreeing that it depends on the details of the situation. I think you make a couple of good points as to why this had a negative impact. Specifically, creating legitimacy for him and enabling him to expand his network of influence are both solid reasons as to why this was a bad idea for them to take the money. As for the positive impact, I point to the work the media lab does. This is why I think it's a tricky decision. As you point out, the amount of money he gave out was pretty small, $170K/year. He also didn't appear to get a lot out of MIT. It looks like he met with Media Lab Founders about 5 times. It seems like the donation wasn't well known or else I'm sad that we weren't compassionate enough in 2008 to make Epstein the pariah he should've been and avoided this situation altogether. If the optics had been as terrible then as they are now, the Media Lab probably won't have taken the money. I'm guessing the donation wasn't well-published or remained anonymous and they thought they could get the money without consequences. Now, their equation has changed so the Media Lab and Mount Sinai both have to signal a change of hearts. Both of these organizations choose to wait for the media scrutiny, instead of preempting it immediately after his recent arrest. I'm estimating the extent of Epstein's benefit from the Media Lab was very minor. He could pay to open most doors to meet influential people already (like many Democrats and the President). His donation to the Media Lab probably funded a grad student or two and maybe a couple of undergrads as well. I'd say it's probably worth it. But it's difficult to be certain. It's obviously not worth it now with all the scrutiny. I'm glad this scrutiny is happening. MIT should absolutely have to disclose who funds it and should be embarrassed when people find out whether it's the Koch brothers or Epstein. I still think Epstein should be able to donate money and charities, hospitals, and research centers should be able to accept it. I wouldn't ever advise anyone to ever be friends with him or do any sort of business with him, but charities, hospitals, school, and research centers are different. Maybe there's even a good way to accept the donations. Hypothetically, the Media Lab could have publically disclosed the donation at its start, denounced Epstein, and then publically declared the money for a couple of projects that help sex crime victims. Maybe we should pressure and encourage to do something like this or another idea to enable maximum funding to worthy organizations and ensure the criminal faces all the consequences of their crimes. I do believe there has to be some good solution that provides transparency, justice, and charity. Hopefully, these aren't too mutually exclusive. The real tragedy happened when he escaped real punishment in 2008. After that, he probably should've at least served the rest of his life. But he got out because America's justice system is a cash game. At least this time, his rich and powerful friends either killed him or he killed himself. Either way, he didn't escape this time. Maybe that's progress.