8 ms·

This seemed inevitable after the New Yorker article yesterday detailing how Ito and his team hid Epstein's involvement from the university, which had disqualifi

This seemed inevitable after the New Yorker article yesterday detailing how Ito and his team hid Epstein's involvement from the university, which had disqualified Epstein as a donor. Taking money from a dirty source is one thing; hiding it from the university because they've blacklisted that person in particular is about as unforgivable a crime as you'll find in academia

jpmattia 7y ago
> Taking money from a dirty source is one thing; hiding it from the university because they've blacklisted that person in particular is about as unforgivable a crime as you'll find in academia TBH, I've never heard of a blacklisted donor at MIT, so I'm a little surprised (pleasantly, as an alum).
- nullc 7y ago
  I'm confused by the blacklisted donor thing. The first questions I had when reading about it was "when did he end up on this list?", "why did he end up on it?, and "how big is this list?" It doesn't seem like any of the journalists even asked. That sounds like a very interesting story in and of itself.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Yea, I suspect his prior conviction for “solicitation of prostitution involving a minor” may have played a part. But, the details could be interesting.
    - nullc 7y ago
      I wonder how that happens, like what would have caused them to take notice and add him to a list? In part, I wonder if it has any connection to Gregory Benford's description of Minsky's interaction with Epstein: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/ https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/
      - CydeWeys 7y ago
        I'm just spitballing here, but if someone is involved in delivering millions of dollars' worth of donations to you, it would be reasonable to perform a basic background check on them, just to guard against huge potential PR problems. I doubt that they do the same over, say, $500 donations from random people, but once you're into the millions of dollars, you really need to know who you're dealing with. Background checks are used in many situations involving much smaller amounts of money (like entry-level jobs), so why not here? And hi!!
        nullc 7y ago
        Hi. According to MIT Epstein donated ~800k over 20 years, looking into a sudden large donor makes sense, but AFAIK there wouldn't have been anything to find 20 years ago. Certainly possible, but it would be interesting to understand the timeline and reasons. The "keep this donation anonymous" would take on an entirely different meaning if it was prior to the prohibition, for example.
        azinman2 7y ago
        Except they hid millions as an anonymous donor per the nymag article. That’s whats so damaging.
        nullc 7y ago
        Gates denial on that looks pretty strong, but regardless the timeline is critical. Accepting millions from him in 2002 would be unremarkable.
        CrazyStat 7y ago
        The donations to the Media Lab under Ito, which are the issue here, were obviously post-criminal-conviction since Ito took over in 2011.
        nullc 7y ago
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - chrismaeda 7y ago
    The original New Yorker article says he was blacklisted after his 2008 felony conviction. I've been told that the CRM software used by university development offices is pretty phenomenal. It was hinted to me that it automatically annotates donor records with SEC stock transaction disclosures, and I wouldn't be surprised if it also annotates donor records with public criminal court proceedings.
    - CrazyStat 7y ago
      >It was hinted to me that it automatically annotates donor records with SEC stock transaction disclosures I assume this is so they can hit you up for money right after you sell a bunch of stock? Clever.
      - chrismaeda 7y ago
        And also so they can revise their estimates of your net worth so they know how much to ask for without making it awkward.
      - areyousure 7y ago
        It would be significantly more tax-efficient for the donor to donate (appreciated) stock.
  - malandrew 7y ago
    I’m also curious what eventbtranspired in the first place that lead to the creation of this list. What was the first name on this list, and why?
    - mcguire 7y ago
      It is possible (and likely) that there is no "list", rather that it falls under the general prohibition not to embarrass the organization.
asveikau 7y ago
I remember similar stories about people who took money from Harvey Weinstein, for example there was an AIDS nonprofit he gave millions to. It all highlights the difficult job facing people tasked with taking money from donors in this way. They won't always have 20/20 hindsight. They may learn about sketchiness after they already took the money. They may be so blinded by what they see as generosity and good will that they may be less able to see character flaws. I am not saying any of this happened here, but I would not like to be in a position to make these decisions.
- asveikau 7y ago
  Anyone care to explain the down votes? I am not defending anyone implicated, or claiming knowledge of specifics, but saying that vetting donors in a world where the category of "criminal-philanthropist" is a thing probably gets difficult.
  - CrazyStat 7y ago
    I didn't downvote you, but if I were to guess I would say people don't think discussion of the situation where a recipient might not be aware of the donors criminal activities is very relevant to this case. Epstein's felony conviction was public record and known to MIT.
  - acdha 7y ago
    You should read the article and https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-an-elite-university-research-center-concealed-its-relationship-with-jeffrey-epstein https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-an-elite-univer... and then ask yourself whether concerns about learning something retroactively are relevant to a situation where the problem was not just known in advance but established to the point that Ito had to circumvent MIT’s existing ban. Follow by considering whether bringing up generic distractions which don’t apply to this specific case is going to read like a good faith debate about the ethics of philanthropy or an attempt to distract or minimize.
    - asveikau 7y ago
bryanrasmussen 7y ago
The thing I don't understand is why, if you've been blacklisted as a donor, you would want to donate? Can you still declare it on your taxes?
- cjbprime 7y ago
  > “Have you managed to talk to many of my friends?” Epstein had been supplying me the phone numbers of important scientists and financiers and media figures. “Do you understand what an extraordinary group of people they are, what they have accomplished in their fields?" -- http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/ http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/ That's why.
- philwelch 7y ago
  People are complicated. It’s entirely possible that Epstein was simultaneously involved in child sex trafficking and also genuinely wanted to donate to research initiatives he considered important. People can be pretty horrible on aggregate and still have a few good intentions left.
  - DoctorOetker 7y ago
    or perhaps the much simpler explanation that it was hush money / hush salary for victim(s) studying, PhD studying or working at Media Lab. What Ito received for himself was hush money to shut up about the hush money... so why would a smart person like Gates voluntarily pay someone else's hush money? why are we holding Gates (sponsoring his behaviour) to a lower standard than Ito (passing on hush money) if my hypothesis is correct? The official version in the media makes no sense to me: why would Gates finance Epsteins prestige through this so-called prestige-for-cash scheme? Why would Ito accept the money if the only way Epstein can enjoy the prestige is if everyone finds out about Ito? You can't publically associate while not publically associating with each other...
    - rowanG077 7y ago
      That's a bold statement. Do you have any proof to back it up?
fatbird 7y ago
Lawrence Lessig just asserted on Medium [0] (without specific evidence) that the anonymization of Epstein's donations was done at the direction of MIT. If true, that loops the Institute generally into the whole scandal, where previously they had an almost bulletproof defense. [0] https://medium.com/@lessig/on-joi-and-mit-3cb422fe5ae7 https://medium.com/@lessig/on-joi-and-mit-3cb422fe5ae7
- jackvalentine 7y ago
  The general argument of 'it's okay to take money from bad people as long as that money isn't blood money and you take it anonymously' is hard for me to sympathize with. At the very least it gives that person leverage over you in two ways: firstly by the threat of ceasing donations if you become dependent on them and secondly by the threat of revealing their involvement in your institution.
  - fatbird 7y ago
    Agreed, and I would that there's no such thing as "anonymously" except with respect to offical records. All the office staff knew it was Epstein. Donors outside the circle (like Bill Gates) knew Epstein was an agent of the Media Lab collecting donations. There's no meaningful sense of "anonymity", which makes Lessig's description of it as a shield almost comical.
    - jackvalentine 7y ago
      This whole sordid affair and some of the ways people are commenting and writing about it has been one of those situations where I'm taken aback by how differently some people see it to me. Just... don't deal with bad people if you can avoid it. Maybe your institute's endowment will have to remain at 16 billion dollars instead of increasing to 16.02. If MIT (and the MIT media lab) don't have FU money then who does?
  - euske 7y ago
    I just don't understand what he would gain from the anonymous donation. Tax deduction? Even for the tax purposes the name of a donor has to be matched with a certain record, right? I probably sounds too naive but I want to know.

jpmattia 7y ago

> Taking money from a dirty source is one thing; hiding it from the university because they've blacklisted that person in particular is about as unforgivable a crime as you'll find in academia TBH, I've never heard of a blacklisted donor at MIT, so I'm a little surprised (pleasantly, as an alum).

nullc 7y ago
I'm confused by the blacklisted donor thing. The first questions I had when reading about it was "when did he end up on this list?", "why did he end up on it?, and "how big is this list?" It doesn't seem like any of the journalists even asked. That sounds like a very interesting story in and of itself.
- Retric 7y ago
  Yea, I suspect his prior conviction for “solicitation of prostitution involving a minor” may have played a part. But, the details could be interesting.
  - nullc 7y ago
    I wonder how that happens, like what would have caused them to take notice and add him to a list? In part, I wonder if it has any connection to Gregory Benford's description of Minsky's interaction with Epstein: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/ https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      I'm just spitballing here, but if someone is involved in delivering millions of dollars' worth of donations to you, it would be reasonable to perform a basic background check on them, just to guard against huge potential PR problems. I doubt that they do the same over, say, $500 donations from random people, but once you're into the millions of dollars, you really need to know who you're dealing with. Background checks are used in many situations involving much smaller amounts of money (like entry-level jobs), so why not here? And hi!!
      - nullc 7y ago
        Hi. According to MIT Epstein donated ~800k over 20 years, looking into a sudden large donor makes sense, but AFAIK there wouldn't have been anything to find 20 years ago. Certainly possible, but it would be interesting to understand the timeline and reasons. The "keep this donation anonymous" would take on an entirely different meaning if it was prior to the prohibition, for example.
        azinman2 7y ago
        Except they hid millions as an anonymous donor per the nymag article. That’s whats so damaging.
        nullc 7y ago
        Gates denial on that looks pretty strong, but regardless the timeline is critical. Accepting millions from him in 2002 would be unremarkable.
        CrazyStat 7y ago
        The donations to the Media Lab under Ito, which are the issue here, were obviously post-criminal-conviction since Ito took over in 2011.
      - nullc 7y ago
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- chrismaeda 7y ago
  The original New Yorker article says he was blacklisted after his 2008 felony conviction. I've been told that the CRM software used by university development offices is pretty phenomenal. It was hinted to me that it automatically annotates donor records with SEC stock transaction disclosures, and I wouldn't be surprised if it also annotates donor records with public criminal court proceedings.
  - CrazyStat 7y ago
    >It was hinted to me that it automatically annotates donor records with SEC stock transaction disclosures I assume this is so they can hit you up for money right after you sell a bunch of stock? Clever.
    - chrismaeda 7y ago
      And also so they can revise their estimates of your net worth so they know how much to ask for without making it awkward.
    - areyousure 7y ago
      It would be significantly more tax-efficient for the donor to donate (appreciated) stock.
- malandrew 7y ago
  I’m also curious what eventbtranspired in the first place that lead to the creation of this list. What was the first name on this list, and why?
  - mcguire 7y ago
    It is possible (and likely) that there is no "list", rather that it falls under the general prohibition not to embarrass the organization.

asveikau 7y ago

I remember similar stories about people who took money from Harvey Weinstein, for example there was an AIDS nonprofit he gave millions to. It all highlights the difficult job facing people tasked with taking money from donors in this way. They won't always have 20/20 hindsight. They may learn about sketchiness after they already took the money. They may be so blinded by what they see as generosity and good will that they may be less able to see character flaws. I am not saying any of this happened here, but I would not like to be in a position to make these decisions.

asveikau 7y ago
Anyone care to explain the down votes? I am not defending anyone implicated, or claiming knowledge of specifics, but saying that vetting donors in a world where the category of "criminal-philanthropist" is a thing probably gets difficult.
- CrazyStat 7y ago
  I didn't downvote you, but if I were to guess I would say people don't think discussion of the situation where a recipient might not be aware of the donors criminal activities is very relevant to this case. Epstein's felony conviction was public record and known to MIT.
- acdha 7y ago
  You should read the article and https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-an-elite-university-research-center-concealed-its-relationship-with-jeffrey-epstein https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-an-elite-univer... and then ask yourself whether concerns about learning something retroactively are relevant to a situation where the problem was not just known in advance but established to the point that Ito had to circumvent MIT’s existing ban. Follow by considering whether bringing up generic distractions which don’t apply to this specific case is going to read like a good faith debate about the ethics of philanthropy or an attempt to distract or minimize.
  - asveikau 7y ago

bryanrasmussen 7y ago

The thing I don't understand is why, if you've been blacklisted as a donor, you would want to donate? Can you still declare it on your taxes?

cjbprime 7y ago
> “Have you managed to talk to many of my friends?” Epstein had been supplying me the phone numbers of important scientists and financiers and media figures. “Do you understand what an extraordinary group of people they are, what they have accomplished in their fields?" -- http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/ http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/ That's why.
philwelch 7y ago
People are complicated. It’s entirely possible that Epstein was simultaneously involved in child sex trafficking and also genuinely wanted to donate to research initiatives he considered important. People can be pretty horrible on aggregate and still have a few good intentions left.
- DoctorOetker 7y ago
  or perhaps the much simpler explanation that it was hush money / hush salary for victim(s) studying, PhD studying or working at Media Lab. What Ito received for himself was hush money to shut up about the hush money... so why would a smart person like Gates voluntarily pay someone else's hush money? why are we holding Gates (sponsoring his behaviour) to a lower standard than Ito (passing on hush money) if my hypothesis is correct? The official version in the media makes no sense to me: why would Gates finance Epsteins prestige through this so-called prestige-for-cash scheme? Why would Ito accept the money if the only way Epstein can enjoy the prestige is if everyone finds out about Ito? You can't publically associate while not publically associating with each other...
  - rowanG077 7y ago
    That's a bold statement. Do you have any proof to back it up?

fatbird 7y ago

Lawrence Lessig just asserted on Medium [0] (without specific evidence) that the anonymization of Epstein's donations was done at the direction of MIT. If true, that loops the Institute generally into the whole scandal, where previously they had an almost bulletproof defense. [0] https://medium.com/@lessig/on-joi-and-mit-3cb422fe5ae7 https://medium.com/@lessig/on-joi-and-mit-3cb422fe5ae7

jackvalentine 7y ago
The general argument of 'it's okay to take money from bad people as long as that money isn't blood money and you take it anonymously' is hard for me to sympathize with. At the very least it gives that person leverage over you in two ways: firstly by the threat of ceasing donations if you become dependent on them and secondly by the threat of revealing their involvement in your institution.
- fatbird 7y ago
  Agreed, and I would that there's no such thing as "anonymously" except with respect to offical records. All the office staff knew it was Epstein. Donors outside the circle (like Bill Gates) knew Epstein was an agent of the Media Lab collecting donations. There's no meaningful sense of "anonymity", which makes Lessig's description of it as a shield almost comical.
  - jackvalentine 7y ago
    This whole sordid affair and some of the ways people are commenting and writing about it has been one of those situations where I'm taken aback by how differently some people see it to me. Just... don't deal with bad people if you can avoid it. Maybe your institute's endowment will have to remain at 16 billion dollars instead of increasing to 16.02. If MIT (and the MIT media lab) don't have FU money then who does?
- euske 7y ago
  I just don't understand what he would gain from the anonymous donation. Tax deduction? Even for the tax purposes the name of a donor has to be matched with a certain record, right? I probably sounds too naive but I want to know.