6 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoAnyone 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 agoI 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 agoYou 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 agoYou appear angry at me. I didn't argue anything in bad faith or attempt to distract anyone. Nor do I think the thing I said is totally irrelevant. There is a generic thing to be said about the "criminal-philanthropist" concept, it is a topic that many of us have not considered until stories in recent years, which seem to be a trend of more than one such offender, brought it to the forefront.
- acdha 7y agoNote that I said “read like” — nobody in this thread can know what you were actually thinking what I described is the most obvious way I saw that those comments would be interpreted in a down-vote worthy manner. It might be useful to clarify your intentions to avoid that, especially since there are a lot of people who feel betrayed right now.
- watwut 7y agoYou said this: > 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. It does not highlight that and no hindsight was needed. What was needed was to not go out of your way to conceal taking money you know you should not. You converted situation into completely different situation.
- asveikau 7y agoIn quoting me, you cut off my comments mid-paragraph. That is removal of context. I described several hypotheticals, the hindsight question being one. Yes we can point at the misdeeds of Ito and others and they are awful. But there is a nonzero amount of people here that could fall into similar traps if they were in a position to accept millions from shady characters, which most of us aren't. If Ito, as bad as his acts were, had full realization of consequences (as he now does in hindsight), do you think he would have done this? I don't know the guy, but I am guessing not. That is not to exculpate him or trivialize or distract. He screwed up majorly.
- 7y ago
- bryanrasmussen 7y agothe only thing I can figure is that in English vernacular the phrase "I am not saying any of this happened here" generally means "It may have happened, but we don't know" which is different than "obviously this didn't happen here but" which you evidently intended.
- lopmotr 7y agoWhat's wrong with a charity accepting donations from someone naughty? It doesn't make them complicit in their offences. Criminals often donate money to charities and victims in an effort to get reduced sentences, at least in my country.
- watwut 7y agoShould rich criminal have ability to buy lesser sentence then poor criminal?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- penguintester 7y agoShould children starve due to lack of charitable funds?
- JabavuAdams 7y agoLet's say I'm some really prestigious organization. By donating to me, a bad actor is in part increasing their own prestige by using my brand. By allowing them to do this I make it more likely that this bad actor can continue to be accepted by polite society and continue their crimes. There are red lines beyond which a person should be considered socially radioactive and ostracized.
- asveikau 7y agoNot to mention the prestigious organization could be doing worthy work and gets tainted by the bad actor, especially if the organization has been seen as knowing about it or concealing it. In my example of Weinstein, it remains a worthy cause to help people with AIDS, to prevent new infections, fund research, etc. But now maybe people hesitate to donate because of how they dealt with Weinstein. In the case of media lab, obviously there are people making their career there who have nothing to do with this Epstein controversy. Now they may experience a sense that they are also tainted. When such an organization turns a blind eye to this problem, they risk harm towards their stated goals and they do a disservice to employees, other donors, those who believe in them, etc.
- mcguire 7y agoMIT blacklisted him after his conviction in 2008. And Ito knew him well. Your hypothetical example is pretty thoroughly unrelated to the case here.