4 ms·

So the upper echelons of MIT are all-in on playing the shadowy political game. Is there any hope for alumni + some combination of other interests to alter the

So the upper echelons of MIT are all-in on playing the shadowy political game. Is there any hope for alumni + some combination of other interests to alter the dim future of a once proud organization?

woofie11 6y ago
Dunno. A possible set of steps: 1) Being able to connect and discuss openly. Probably the largest community mailing list at MIT -- the ancient csail-related mailing list, whose roots date back to the AI Lab days is gone after a thread titled "What is CSAIL's stance on Marvin Minsky?" (Minsky was on Epstein's island once, and one of the Epstein girls was pressured to offer herself; by Minsky's wife's account, he didn't take her up on it). MIT killed the whole list -- probably a half-century old community mailing list with thousands of people. I'm not sure how to recover from that. Keep in mind that MIT emails were also mined for evidence to cover up (also not a secret; just a buried open fact -- part of the "Factfinding" process was finding evidence and getting ahead of it, and MIT was straightforward that MIT private emails were now under surveillance -- and I presume they're still monitoring). I'm not sure how nasty MIT will get if people start organizing. Higher-ups are well-connected. 2) Letting folks know what's up. Keep in mind that a lot of the MIT community trusts the administration implicitly. A lot of school pride. And public evidence is mixed. 3) Reform. Ideally, across elite schools. These issues aren't unique to MIT. MIT is a leader in corruption, as it is in so many areas, but other schools are neck-and-neck, and others will follow. Working to block funding, pending transparency reforms. No more NDAs and non-disparage agreements. Make universities subject to FOIA-style requests. Implement open governance measures. Etc. Ideally, that would go for alumni donations, government grants, and foundation funding. 4) Providing a face-saving out. Sad to say, lots of people at MIT illicitly made millions of dollars. They're powerful and connected. A direct fight is unlikely to be successful. They're less likely to block reforms they feel less threatened by. Whether the future is dim or bright is hard to say. MIT has a massive endowment, and professors are very comfortable. My major concern is that we need an MIT-classic: a pre-brand-obsessed, low-key institute where nerds can nerd, build need things, do credible science, etc. Ideally, that'd be MIT again, post-reform. Less ideally, we'd take another institute and run with it. If all alumni donations went somewhere new, that'd be an option too: pick a school, and pending transparency and anti-corruption checks-and-balances, build it up. But I don't really know if that would do it, or if that's reasonable. Thoughts?
- Scheherazade 6y ago
  Depending on how far up the ladder the people behind Epstein are, all education institutions in the US maybe are vulnerable as long as Washington has any control over them. Which would really mean every current and potential institution in the US would be at risk from asymmetrical shadowy maneuvering. i.e. if there truly were folks pulling Epstein’s strings through the CIA/Mossad/etc., then they will do anything to preserve and expand their capabilities including tolerating a boundless amount of corruption within academia. Since it’s very likely they’ve already been intimidating federal judges, offing journalists, undermining NIST, undermining the NSF, etc., disrupting newMIT would be peanuts compared to that. If all that turns out to be the case, the US won’t be able to support such a genuine organization without very powerful backers to shield it behind-the-scenes. Maybe if all the influential tech folks combined and really were motivated to resist those sorts of influences. For complete protection from a motivated Epstein+ level of intrigue from Washington, I can only think of Russia and China, which aren’t very promising either. They can hardly be expected to be more open to intellectual freedom this century, in practice, unless there were some geopolitical goals they could achieve through it. That leaves only a decentralized and anonymous option if you want to be able to completely ignore political maneuvering. Perhaps some sort of blockchain+ combined with some sort of trust network scoring to make anonymity workable. A neutral middle power option with a minimal amount of careful maneuvering is also possible. Though of course Canada/Australia/Japan/Norway/Switzerland/etc. are not immune to these things, they certainly increase the bar, at least from forces outside their borders, such that with only a bit of precaution and vigilance situations like this can be avoided without calling in favors from power brokers. As middle sized countries they don’t have nearly as motivation to play these shadow games themselves. In all likelihood a newMIT based in the US would need some seriously powerful backers to run proactive interference if the wrong crowd really wants to undermine it. Which suggests why current MIT may have fallen into the quagmire they’re in. In this light the decision makers at MIT, of those at any of the big research schools, are tragic actors; they have no hope without playing the same game, or reforming the whole of society.
  - woofie11 6y ago
    I care less about national-level conspiracies and the deep government as I do about my alma mater. Harvard, as far as I can tell, was pretty straightforward. MIT lied and covered up. Whatever dynamics apply to MIT certainly apply to Harvard. That culture extends way beyond Epstein. If a well-connected researcher fakes research, everyone signs an NDA and moves on too. That has no national level dynamics. I'd just like an honest MIT back. And I'd like to be able to trust all the elite schools. Yes, once in a while, man in black suits might sweep in and classify something, but that shouldn't be the modus operandi. And in this case, I don't think MIT was nearly important enough to have been bullied by anyone. As far as I know, MIT was protecting its senior officials, not anyone else.

So the upper echelons of MIT are all-in on playing the shadowy political game. Is there any hope for alumni + some combination of other interests to alter the dim future of a once proud organization?

woofie11 6y ago

Dunno. A possible set of steps: 1) Being able to connect and discuss openly. Probably the largest community mailing list at MIT -- the ancient csail-related mailing list, whose roots date back to the AI Lab days is gone after a thread titled "What is CSAIL's stance on Marvin Minsky?" (Minsky was on Epstein's island once, and one of the Epstein girls was pressured to offer herself; by Minsky's wife's account, he didn't take her up on it). MIT killed the whole list -- probably a half-century old community mailing list with thousands of people. I'm not sure how to recover from that. Keep in mind that MIT emails were also mined for evidence to cover up (also not a secret; just a buried open fact -- part of the "Factfinding" process was finding evidence and getting ahead of it, and MIT was straightforward that MIT private emails were now under surveillance -- and I presume they're still monitoring). I'm not sure how nasty MIT will get if people start organizing. Higher-ups are well-connected. 2) Letting folks know what's up. Keep in mind that a lot of the MIT community trusts the administration implicitly. A lot of school pride. And public evidence is mixed. 3) Reform. Ideally, across elite schools. These issues aren't unique to MIT. MIT is a leader in corruption, as it is in so many areas, but other schools are neck-and-neck, and others will follow. Working to block funding, pending transparency reforms. No more NDAs and non-disparage agreements. Make universities subject to FOIA-style requests. Implement open governance measures. Etc. Ideally, that would go for alumni donations, government grants, and foundation funding. 4) Providing a face-saving out. Sad to say, lots of people at MIT illicitly made millions of dollars. They're powerful and connected. A direct fight is unlikely to be successful. They're less likely to block reforms they feel less threatened by. Whether the future is dim or bright is hard to say. MIT has a massive endowment, and professors are very comfortable. My major concern is that we need an MIT-classic: a pre-brand-obsessed, low-key institute where nerds can nerd, build need things, do credible science, etc. Ideally, that'd be MIT again, post-reform. Less ideally, we'd take another institute and run with it. If all alumni donations went somewhere new, that'd be an option too: pick a school, and pending transparency and anti-corruption checks-and-balances, build it up. But I don't really know if that would do it, or if that's reasonable. Thoughts?

Scheherazade 6y ago
Depending on how far up the ladder the people behind Epstein are, all education institutions in the US maybe are vulnerable as long as Washington has any control over them. Which would really mean every current and potential institution in the US would be at risk from asymmetrical shadowy maneuvering. i.e. if there truly were folks pulling Epstein’s strings through the CIA/Mossad/etc., then they will do anything to preserve and expand their capabilities including tolerating a boundless amount of corruption within academia. Since it’s very likely they’ve already been intimidating federal judges, offing journalists, undermining NIST, undermining the NSF, etc., disrupting newMIT would be peanuts compared to that. If all that turns out to be the case, the US won’t be able to support such a genuine organization without very powerful backers to shield it behind-the-scenes. Maybe if all the influential tech folks combined and really were motivated to resist those sorts of influences. For complete protection from a motivated Epstein+ level of intrigue from Washington, I can only think of Russia and China, which aren’t very promising either. They can hardly be expected to be more open to intellectual freedom this century, in practice, unless there were some geopolitical goals they could achieve through it. That leaves only a decentralized and anonymous option if you want to be able to completely ignore political maneuvering. Perhaps some sort of blockchain+ combined with some sort of trust network scoring to make anonymity workable. A neutral middle power option with a minimal amount of careful maneuvering is also possible. Though of course Canada/Australia/Japan/Norway/Switzerland/etc. are not immune to these things, they certainly increase the bar, at least from forces outside their borders, such that with only a bit of precaution and vigilance situations like this can be avoided without calling in favors from power brokers. As middle sized countries they don’t have nearly as motivation to play these shadow games themselves. In all likelihood a newMIT based in the US would need some seriously powerful backers to run proactive interference if the wrong crowd really wants to undermine it. Which suggests why current MIT may have fallen into the quagmire they’re in. In this light the decision makers at MIT, of those at any of the big research schools, are tragic actors; they have no hope without playing the same game, or reforming the whole of society.
- woofie11 6y ago
  I care less about national-level conspiracies and the deep government as I do about my alma mater. Harvard, as far as I can tell, was pretty straightforward. MIT lied and covered up. Whatever dynamics apply to MIT certainly apply to Harvard. That culture extends way beyond Epstein. If a well-connected researcher fakes research, everyone signs an NDA and moves on too. That has no national level dynamics. I'd just like an honest MIT back. And I'd like to be able to trust all the elite schools. Yes, once in a while, man in black suits might sweep in and classify something, but that shouldn't be the modus operandi. And in this case, I don't think MIT was nearly important enough to have been bullied by anyone. As far as I know, MIT was protecting its senior officials, not anyone else.