3 ms·

The Hill does a decent job of reporting this without sensationalizing it. Of note: They accepted money from him, but it was all prior to his 2008 conviction in

by parsimo2010 7y ago

The Hill does a decent job of reporting this without sensationalizing it. Of note: They accepted money from him, but it was all prior to his 2008 conviction in Florida. I don't fault Harvard for this, and I think this is just one of those tangential stories that pop up whenever the media sensationalizes something. Also note that this is Harvard, which is separate from the MIT Medial Lab story (which I kind of think is being blown out of proportion). Epstein donated to both schools, and I'll bet that he donated to others which we will find out about later. But what are these schools supposed to do? Give the money back? If you can take dirty money and turn it into valuable research, isn't that a good thing?

buu700 7y ago
Devil's advocate: why should they be selective about who they receive donations from? Obviously they shouldn't name a building or something after the guy, but, to give an extreme example, would it be a problem to take money with no strings attached from a serial killer or war criminal? Edit: Okay, this is a pretty good answer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20963945 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20963945. I mean maybe it could be an acceptable solution for them to make a public statement like "we hate this guy but we're taking his money anyway", but having no association whatsoever is probably safer.
- msghacq 7y ago
  I mention in another comment: Epstein cited his relationships with these schools (built through fundraising) repeatedly both to intimidate his victims into silence and convince authorities to let him go. This wasn't a case of him sending a check and walking away, he was extracting a lot of value for his predatory operation from these institutions. They should face the music for their role in what happened.
  - buu700 7y ago
    Ha, you beat me right before my edit.
derivagral 7y ago
The primary difference is that the MIT institution took money from him despite being internally barred from doing so. As you mention, at least Harvard did this before the original trial. As far as your last comment, there's been a lot of historic and present discussion around exactly that blend of science/ethics (WW2, milgram, etc.)
- asciident 7y ago
  Just wanted you to know that what you said is known to be false, "the MIT institution took money from him despite being internally barred from doing so" See http://news.mit.edu/2019/letter-preliminary-facts-0912 http://news.mit.edu/2019/letter-preliminary-facts-0912 "when members of [the MIT president's] senior team learned that the Media Lab had received the first of the Epstein gifts, they reached out to speak with Joi Ito. He asked for permission to retain this initial gift, and members of my senior team allowed it."
HarryHirsch 7y ago
but it was all prior to his 2008 conviction in Florida Donald Trump of all people went on the record in 2002, saying that Epstein prefers women "on the younger side". His strange proclivities were known even then. So Harvard was complicit in accepting Epstein money until they really really couldn't accept it any longer. That's plausible deniability.

buu700 7y ago

Devil's advocate: why should they be selective about who they receive donations from? Obviously they shouldn't name a building or something after the guy, but, to give an extreme example, would it be a problem to take money with no strings attached from a serial killer or war criminal? Edit: Okay, this is a pretty good answer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20963945 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20963945. I mean maybe it could be an acceptable solution for them to make a public statement like "we hate this guy but we're taking his money anyway", but having no association whatsoever is probably safer.

msghacq 7y ago
I mention in another comment: Epstein cited his relationships with these schools (built through fundraising) repeatedly both to intimidate his victims into silence and convince authorities to let him go. This wasn't a case of him sending a check and walking away, he was extracting a lot of value for his predatory operation from these institutions. They should face the music for their role in what happened.
- buu700 7y ago
  Ha, you beat me right before my edit.

derivagral 7y ago

The primary difference is that the MIT institution took money from him despite being internally barred from doing so. As you mention, at least Harvard did this before the original trial. As far as your last comment, there's been a lot of historic and present discussion around exactly that blend of science/ethics (WW2, milgram, etc.)

asciident 7y ago
Just wanted you to know that what you said is known to be false, "the MIT institution took money from him despite being internally barred from doing so" See http://news.mit.edu/2019/letter-preliminary-facts-0912 http://news.mit.edu/2019/letter-preliminary-facts-0912 "when members of [the MIT president's] senior team learned that the Media Lab had received the first of the Epstein gifts, they reached out to speak with Joi Ito. He asked for permission to retain this initial gift, and members of my senior team allowed it."

HarryHirsch 7y ago

but it was all prior to his 2008 conviction in Florida Donald Trump of all people went on the record in 2002, saying that Epstein prefers women "on the younger side". His strange proclivities were known even then. So Harvard was complicit in accepting Epstein money until they really really couldn't accept it any longer. That's plausible deniability.