3 ms·

That's such a bizarre concept. Morality isn't something that can be inherited by accepting research contributions, in my book. Why taint the money, when it can

That's such a bizarre concept. Morality isn't something that can be inherited by accepting research contributions, in my book. Why taint the money, when it can help us learn, build, heal, and grow? Epstein, not the money he donated, is responsible for bad things he did. As an alum, I'm not surprised at the Institute's cowardice, but I'd like to see MIT stand up for someone, ANYONE in its community when under fire publicly, just once.

liability 7y ago
> Why taint the money, when it can help us learn, build, heal, and grow? Because when that much money is involved, there are strings attached. In this particular case, Epstein got to visit the lab and had people like Ito covering for him, pretending the situation was normal and on the level.
throwaway2048 7y ago
So what happens when Epstein wants special access? His entire trade was influence peddling (usually by means of inducing people to commit sex crimes), the dude is going to want access to people. He donates 2 million dollars, threatens to pull the funding when you don't let him visit. What happens? If you think its anything besides "welcome with full access" I don't what to tell you, because that's whats going to happen in 999/1000 cases. He was already on the MIT donation blacklist for this very reason. This is way beyond "the dude is evil, but his money isn't"
- totalZero 7y ago
  If Donald Trump can invite the Taliban to Camp David, I think MIT can have meetings with a donor who is a felon. As long as MIT doesn't engage in illegal activity, I don't see the problem. Public opinion of Epstein is the public's business, not MIT's.
gfodor 7y ago
As a thought exercise the only morally justifiable framework I can conceive of for this would be some kind of crypto or escrow based channel for anonymous donations that would be completely 'laundered' of the origin. For example, if a donor donates to this channel, there'd have to be some mechanism in place that even if they accurately stated publicly the amount and time they took the transaction, there would be no way to prove that claim. Then, if a blacklisted donor comes to you, decline their offer to donate in name but note the above channel exists In a situation where people are communicating and facilitating the donation with such a blacklisted person they are a) able to confirm the donation and b) are in a position to participate in some kind of quid pro quo -- this seems extremely hard to justify given the difficulty of disproving that no such quid pro quo took place. In this specific instance, it sounds like Epstein did receive material attention and visitation so safely assuming that this was a neutral transaction flies out the window completely.

liability 7y ago

> Why taint the money, when it can help us learn, build, heal, and grow? Because when that much money is involved, there are strings attached. In this particular case, Epstein got to visit the lab and had people like Ito covering for him, pretending the situation was normal and on the level.

throwaway2048 7y ago

So what happens when Epstein wants special access? His entire trade was influence peddling (usually by means of inducing people to commit sex crimes), the dude is going to want access to people. He donates 2 million dollars, threatens to pull the funding when you don't let him visit. What happens? If you think its anything besides "welcome with full access" I don't what to tell you, because that's whats going to happen in 999/1000 cases. He was already on the MIT donation blacklist for this very reason. This is way beyond "the dude is evil, but his money isn't"

totalZero 7y ago
If Donald Trump can invite the Taliban to Camp David, I think MIT can have meetings with a donor who is a felon. As long as MIT doesn't engage in illegal activity, I don't see the problem. Public opinion of Epstein is the public's business, not MIT's.

gfodor 7y ago

As a thought exercise the only morally justifiable framework I can conceive of for this would be some kind of crypto or escrow based channel for anonymous donations that would be completely 'laundered' of the origin. For example, if a donor donates to this channel, there'd have to be some mechanism in place that even if they accurately stated publicly the amount and time they took the transaction, there would be no way to prove that claim. Then, if a blacklisted donor comes to you, decline their offer to donate in name but note the above channel exists In a situation where people are communicating and facilitating the donation with such a blacklisted person they are a) able to confirm the donation and b) are in a position to participate in some kind of quid pro quo -- this seems extremely hard to justify given the difficulty of disproving that no such quid pro quo took place. In this specific instance, it sounds like Epstein did receive material attention and visitation so safely assuming that this was a neutral transaction flies out the window completely.