8 ms·

It strikes me as inappropriate to suggest that "Anyone seriously tainted by Epstein should step down". What does "tainted" mean? What does "seriously" mean?

It strikes me as inappropriate to suggest that "Anyone seriously tainted by Epstein should step down". What does "tainted" mean? What does "seriously" mean? If "seriously tainted" means "directly linked to Epstein's criminal activities," I'd be amenable to the suggestion. But I find it concerning that the writer feels no need to be specific (though he includes vague accusations that Ito visited Epstein's private residence). Frankly, the whole thing seems like a power play to me. Maybe I'm being cynical, but it seems to me that Ghiridaradas is exploiting the situation to raise his profile. Epstein had social relationships with many people who likely visited his private residences. We can't throw them all out because most of them are innocent. The failure point with Epstein was the justice system. What happened? Why was he allowed to walk? I want answers, but I'm skeptical of a witch hunt aimed at anyone who knew him.

jlebar 7y ago
> What does "tainted" mean? What does "seriously" mean? Did you read TFA? I think it's quite clear what "tainted" and "seriously" mean.
- johnmaguire2013 7y ago
  You're being downvoted because your comment breaks this guideline: > Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." Can you share what these words mean to you, or your impression of what they meant to the author?
  - jlebar 7y ago
    The article discusses at length a systemic cover-up of Epstein's involvement with the Media Lab. Multiple high-level people knew about it, knew that MIT had deemed that donations from him were not welcome, and tried to keep his involvement hidden. In other words, they knew they were doing something wrong, and they did it anyway. From this, it is clear that some people were "seriously tainted" by Epstein's involvement. Is there a question of where to draw the line? Sure. We don't have have all of the information, so clearly we can't draw a line. But when OP says It strikes me as inappropriate to suggest that "Anyone seriously tainted by Epstein should step down". What does "tainted" mean? What does "seriously" mean? the clear argument is that, because drawing a line is hard, we shouldn't call for any action against those who have stepped over it. That's an insult to his many, many victims and provides cover for his enablers. Honestly it's an affront to women everywhere.
    - nyxxie 7y ago
      > the clear argument is that, because drawing a line is hard, we shouldn't call for any action against those who have stepped over it. I think you're putting words in his mouth. He doesn't want to see no consequences whatsoever for those who were involved with Epstein, GP argues that people are drawing arbitrary boundaries with no clear repeatable definition and then taking action on them. He wants to understand what precisely being "tainted" entails and why a particular definition is deserving of the consequences such a label entails. In other words, he rejects arbitrary and subjective persecution for an objective approach to justice.
- leftyted 7y ago
  Yeah, well, I don't think it's clear (but please share if you do). I see people in this thread attacking Bill Gates for his relationship with Epstein. I've seen people attacking Steven Pinker for the same reason. To me it seems that certain people are using Epstein as a cudgel in order to remove obstacles from their path. I don't think it's reasonable to expect billionaires, public intellectuals, and the MIT Media Lab to prevent the rich, charismatic, and utterly amoral Epsteins of the world from getting around town. That's the justice system's job. They had him and they let him go. Blaming people who "enabled him" is post-hoc nonsense. I want to know: 1. Did Epstein (as some people have been murmuring) have a relationship with some nation's intelligence agency? 2. Why did the Justice Dept. let him go? 3. Did he blackmail someone? If so, who and how? 4. Did he throw his money around to get off? If so, in what ways exactly. 5. Did two cameras actually "malfunction"? Why was he taken off suicide watch?
  - danenania 7y ago
    Of course those are all important questions, but you are clearly presenting a false dichotomy. How about investigating the corruption that let him off the hook and shunning those with power and influence who minimized Epstein’s crimes by choosing to associate with him socially and professionally after the extent of his immorality was common knowledge? Can we not walk and chew gum at the same time? None of these people would have acted similarly if the person in question was someone like OJ Simpson or Bernie Madoff who had been disgraced for more ‘conventional’ reasons. So why did Epstein get a pass? Is it because many of these people secretly believe that what he did wasn’t so bad? That is, unfortunately, what their behavior appears to communicate.
    - leftyted 7y ago
      > Of course those are all important questions, but you are clearly presenting a false dichotomy. I don't think it's a false dichotomy. I think every ounce of moral outrage spent condemning those who associated with Epstein (and, in some cases, stripping them of their positions) is an ounce less to spend on uncovering how Epstein got off in the first place. Anyway, I suspect we'll be fairly successful at the former and not so successful at the latter.
save_ferris 7y ago
> Epstein had social relationships with many people who likely visited his private residences. We can't throw them all out because most of them are innocent. They all had to know that he had a vast criminal record involving prostitution and minors, and yet they continued to develop relationships with him. Would you feel comfortable developing a relationship with someone involved in a high-profile sex crimes case that had tremendous amounts of damning evidence? Epstein, for some reason, seemed to have a pretty active social life even after his trial. And it's striking how many around him downplay their relationships with him now, or actively tried to conceal his role in various activities, as MIT Media Lab did. > Peter Cohen, the M.I.T. Media Lab’s Director of Development and Strategy at the time, reiterated, “Jeffrey money, needs to be anonymous. Thanks.” The head of the media lab knew Epstein's donations needed to remain anonymous. > In October, 2014, the Media Lab received a two-million-dollar donation from Bill Gates; Ito wrote in an internal e-mail, “This is a $2M gift from Bill Gates directed by Jeffrey Epstein.” Cohen replied, “For gift recording purposes, we will not be mentioning Jeffrey’s name as the impetus for this gift.” They actively took steps internally to make sure Epstein's name wasn't on anything involving donations he directed from people like Bill Gates. So why did Bill Gates deny Epstein was even part of it? That doesn't add up. > Signe Swenson, a former development associate and alumni coordinator at the lab, told me that she resigned in 2016 in part because of her discomfort about the lab’s work with Epstein. She said that the lab’s leadership made it explicit, even in her earliest conversations with them, that Epstein’s donations had to be kept secret. Staff members knew what was going on, and in some cases, resigned over it. Peter Cohen clearly knew that Epstein was not be named anywhere in fundraising activities involving him, there was clearly culture at MIT Media Lab of obscuring his donation activities, and staff members resigned over it because they knew who he was. Hiding contact with a wealthy sex criminal and then lying about it doesn't look very innocent.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- hackinthebochs 7y ago
  >Hiding contact with a wealthy sex criminal and then lying about it doesn't look very innocent. "Contact" is vague and allows people to fill in the blank with a more sinister narrative. They took gift money that Epstein was "directing" (i.e. not his money), and decided not to mention Epstein in the record of the donation. I don't see a problem here.
hbosch 7y ago
“Seriously tainted” is implied to mean “if you knew about his past and continued to do business with him anyway”. Taking part in his crimes a level of evil that doesn’t even need to be mentioned — if you turned a blind eye to Epstein’s dark history while taking his money, than you are tainted, of course.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
bt848 7y ago
If a donor is on your institution’s fundraising blacklist and you covertly conspire to raise money from that person anyway it is clear that you are at a minimum tainted by association with that person.
PeterStuer 7y ago
I tend to agree with your pov. Most of us will have some dodgy people in their wider acquaintances circle. Going the extreme "guilty by association" seems a bit harsh to me. It is not like you have a clear cut info all the time on everyone you happen to meet. This is not to say that in the Ito case the info seems to be pretty damning, as at least from the way it is presented in the article there seems to be explicit collusion, but I would hesitate to broaden this to everyone who met Epstein or did business with him in some regard.
- rodgerd 7y ago
  Peter, if you think "most people" have some convicted child rapists in their circle, you have a very warped view of the world.
  - PeterStuer 7y ago
    Are you deliberately misrepresenting my comment? To what end?
roywiggins 7y ago
Knowingly taking his money after 2008, with full knowledge he'd pled guilty to soliciting a minor for sex, and was credibly accused of a lot worse? This doesn't seem that complicated.
erikpukinskis 7y ago
The people involved are executives responsible for the safety and development of minors. Bringing a known child predator in those spaces, and socializing with him in order to fund the institution is not ok. People at MIT, most notably Ito, have defended those decisions as innocent mistakes. You seem to agree, and you and anyone else who feels that way should enjoy MIT. There’s a lot there to enjoy. But the rest of us are saying, the institution has revealed itself as unfit to care for minors. And anyone who takes that mission seriously is right to resign. There are other schools which do take these concerns seriously.

jlebar 7y ago

> What does "tainted" mean? What does "seriously" mean? Did you read TFA? I think it's quite clear what "tainted" and "seriously" mean.

johnmaguire2013 7y ago
You're being downvoted because your comment breaks this guideline: > Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." Can you share what these words mean to you, or your impression of what they meant to the author?
- jlebar 7y ago
  The article discusses at length a systemic cover-up of Epstein's involvement with the Media Lab. Multiple high-level people knew about it, knew that MIT had deemed that donations from him were not welcome, and tried to keep his involvement hidden. In other words, they knew they were doing something wrong, and they did it anyway. From this, it is clear that some people were "seriously tainted" by Epstein's involvement. Is there a question of where to draw the line? Sure. We don't have have all of the information, so clearly we can't draw a line. But when OP says It strikes me as inappropriate to suggest that "Anyone seriously tainted by Epstein should step down". What does "tainted" mean? What does "seriously" mean? the clear argument is that, because drawing a line is hard, we shouldn't call for any action against those who have stepped over it. That's an insult to his many, many victims and provides cover for his enablers. Honestly it's an affront to women everywhere.
  - nyxxie 7y ago
    > the clear argument is that, because drawing a line is hard, we shouldn't call for any action against those who have stepped over it. I think you're putting words in his mouth. He doesn't want to see no consequences whatsoever for those who were involved with Epstein, GP argues that people are drawing arbitrary boundaries with no clear repeatable definition and then taking action on them. He wants to understand what precisely being "tainted" entails and why a particular definition is deserving of the consequences such a label entails. In other words, he rejects arbitrary and subjective persecution for an objective approach to justice.
leftyted 7y ago
Yeah, well, I don't think it's clear (but please share if you do). I see people in this thread attacking Bill Gates for his relationship with Epstein. I've seen people attacking Steven Pinker for the same reason. To me it seems that certain people are using Epstein as a cudgel in order to remove obstacles from their path. I don't think it's reasonable to expect billionaires, public intellectuals, and the MIT Media Lab to prevent the rich, charismatic, and utterly amoral Epsteins of the world from getting around town. That's the justice system's job. They had him and they let him go. Blaming people who "enabled him" is post-hoc nonsense. I want to know: 1. Did Epstein (as some people have been murmuring) have a relationship with some nation's intelligence agency? 2. Why did the Justice Dept. let him go? 3. Did he blackmail someone? If so, who and how? 4. Did he throw his money around to get off? If so, in what ways exactly. 5. Did two cameras actually "malfunction"? Why was he taken off suicide watch?
- danenania 7y ago
  Of course those are all important questions, but you are clearly presenting a false dichotomy. How about investigating the corruption that let him off the hook and shunning those with power and influence who minimized Epstein’s crimes by choosing to associate with him socially and professionally after the extent of his immorality was common knowledge? Can we not walk and chew gum at the same time? None of these people would have acted similarly if the person in question was someone like OJ Simpson or Bernie Madoff who had been disgraced for more ‘conventional’ reasons. So why did Epstein get a pass? Is it because many of these people secretly believe that what he did wasn’t so bad? That is, unfortunately, what their behavior appears to communicate.
  - leftyted 7y ago
    > Of course those are all important questions, but you are clearly presenting a false dichotomy. I don't think it's a false dichotomy. I think every ounce of moral outrage spent condemning those who associated with Epstein (and, in some cases, stripping them of their positions) is an ounce less to spend on uncovering how Epstein got off in the first place. Anyway, I suspect we'll be fairly successful at the former and not so successful at the latter.

save_ferris 7y ago

> Epstein had social relationships with many people who likely visited his private residences. We can't throw them all out because most of them are innocent. They all had to know that he had a vast criminal record involving prostitution and minors, and yet they continued to develop relationships with him. Would you feel comfortable developing a relationship with someone involved in a high-profile sex crimes case that had tremendous amounts of damning evidence? Epstein, for some reason, seemed to have a pretty active social life even after his trial. And it's striking how many around him downplay their relationships with him now, or actively tried to conceal his role in various activities, as MIT Media Lab did. > Peter Cohen, the M.I.T. Media Lab’s Director of Development and Strategy at the time, reiterated, “Jeffrey money, needs to be anonymous. Thanks.” The head of the media lab knew Epstein's donations needed to remain anonymous. > In October, 2014, the Media Lab received a two-million-dollar donation from Bill Gates; Ito wrote in an internal e-mail, “This is a $2M gift from Bill Gates directed by Jeffrey Epstein.” Cohen replied, “For gift recording purposes, we will not be mentioning Jeffrey’s name as the impetus for this gift.” They actively took steps internally to make sure Epstein's name wasn't on anything involving donations he directed from people like Bill Gates. So why did Bill Gates deny Epstein was even part of it? That doesn't add up. > Signe Swenson, a former development associate and alumni coordinator at the lab, told me that she resigned in 2016 in part because of her discomfort about the lab’s work with Epstein. She said that the lab’s leadership made it explicit, even in her earliest conversations with them, that Epstein’s donations had to be kept secret. Staff members knew what was going on, and in some cases, resigned over it. Peter Cohen clearly knew that Epstein was not be named anywhere in fundraising activities involving him, there was clearly culture at MIT Media Lab of obscuring his donation activities, and staff members resigned over it because they knew who he was. Hiding contact with a wealthy sex criminal and then lying about it doesn't look very innocent.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
hackinthebochs 7y ago
>Hiding contact with a wealthy sex criminal and then lying about it doesn't look very innocent. "Contact" is vague and allows people to fill in the blank with a more sinister narrative. They took gift money that Epstein was "directing" (i.e. not his money), and decided not to mention Epstein in the record of the donation. I don't see a problem here.

hbosch 7y ago

“Seriously tainted” is implied to mean “if you knew about his past and continued to do business with him anyway”. Taking part in his crimes a level of evil that doesn’t even need to be mentioned — if you turned a blind eye to Epstein’s dark history while taking his money, than you are tainted, of course.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

bt848 7y ago

If a donor is on your institution’s fundraising blacklist and you covertly conspire to raise money from that person anyway it is clear that you are at a minimum tainted by association with that person.

PeterStuer 7y ago

I tend to agree with your pov. Most of us will have some dodgy people in their wider acquaintances circle. Going the extreme "guilty by association" seems a bit harsh to me. It is not like you have a clear cut info all the time on everyone you happen to meet. This is not to say that in the Ito case the info seems to be pretty damning, as at least from the way it is presented in the article there seems to be explicit collusion, but I would hesitate to broaden this to everyone who met Epstein or did business with him in some regard.

rodgerd 7y ago
Peter, if you think "most people" have some convicted child rapists in their circle, you have a very warped view of the world.
- PeterStuer 7y ago
  Are you deliberately misrepresenting my comment? To what end?

roywiggins 7y ago

Knowingly taking his money after 2008, with full knowledge he'd pled guilty to soliciting a minor for sex, and was credibly accused of a lot worse? This doesn't seem that complicated.

erikpukinskis 7y ago

The people involved are executives responsible for the safety and development of minors. Bringing a known child predator in those spaces, and socializing with him in order to fund the institution is not ok. People at MIT, most notably Ito, have defended those decisions as innocent mistakes. You seem to agree, and you and anyone else who feels that way should enjoy MIT. There’s a lot there to enjoy. But the rest of us are saying, the institution has revealed itself as unfit to care for minors. And anyone who takes that mission seriously is right to resign. There are other schools which do take these concerns seriously.