https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-an-elite-university-research-center-concealed-its-relationship-with-jeffrey-epstein
According to the article, MIT apparently knew about Epstein's behaviour for the past 10 years but still took them money, recording it as "anonymous" because they knew the guy was shady as sh!t.
Some of our universities take oil money, etc. Where do we draw the line as researchers in where our funding comes from?
Curious how this will all fall out at MIT: Ito has resigned today. https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/27/20835696/mit-media-lab-joi-ito-apology-petition-jeffrey-epstein
It is a reasonable question, and when you look a layer deeper there is a lot of fraught ground. What criteria are appropriate?
People who have enough money to give millions to universities generally accumulated that money in ways that most faculty find morally questionable or worse. Their private lives are filled with privilege and sometimes debauchery.
One option is to refuse their money and sacrifice the good works that we could have done it. MIT makes the argument that they did better things with the money than Epstein would have.
If you don't take the money, they might spend it on prostitutes and politicians that want to defund research and education. In that case, what is the better avenue?
If they are spending for public absolution, they might instead go for a nice children's hospital or similar. If it is for status among peers, they might spend it at an art auction or boat builder.
I don't have a good answer, but these are some of the questions that come up. I don't believe it is possible to be a faculty member who lives a life of pure virtue and also accomplishes a lot of good. But some people use that as the expectation.
I'm glad I don't make decisions on behalf of a center... personally, I'd have zero ethical issues with taking Epstein's money as an anonymous donation. It'd do much more good for society advancing research that can ultimately help people than whatever else he had been spending it on.
The fact that it's recorded as "anonymous" also means he doesn't get a public PR victory out of it. He does get (and had) access to prominent researchers privately... but so what? I have no problem stroking someone's ego for an hour when it funds work that may lead to tens of thousands of people getting vaccinated against deadly diseases, develops technologies that help people with disabilities handle daily challenges, etc. It beats spending 100 hours on a $50,000 grant proposal that may still get rejected because some snarky reviewer doesn't like the idea.
Quote from: pigou on September 07, 2019, 10:29:08 PM
I'm glad I don't make decisions on behalf of a center... personally, I'd have zero ethical issues with taking Epstein's money as an anonymous donation. It'd do much more good for society advancing research that can ultimately help people than whatever else he had been spending it on.
The fact that it's recorded as "anonymous" also means he doesn't get a public PR victory out of it. He does get (and had) access to prominent researchers privately... but so what? I have no problem stroking someone's ego for an hour when it funds work that may lead to tens of thousands of people getting vaccinated against deadly diseases, develops technologies that help people with disabilities handle daily challenges, etc. It beats spending 100 hours on a $50,000 grant proposal that may still get rejected because some snarky reviewer doesn't like the idea.
But you're talking about taking money from men who rape children. The money is blood money. You're really OK with that?
Quote from: pedanticromantic on September 08, 2019, 06:28:00 AM
Quote from: pigou on September 07, 2019, 10:29:08 PM
I'm glad I don't make decisions on behalf of a center... personally, I'd have zero ethical issues with taking Epstein's money as an anonymous donation. It'd do much more good for society advancing research that can ultimately help people than whatever else he had been spending it on.
The fact that it's recorded as "anonymous" also means he doesn't get a public PR victory out of it. He does get (and had) access to prominent researchers privately... but so what? I have no problem stroking someone's ego for an hour when it funds work that may lead to tens of thousands of people getting vaccinated against deadly diseases, develops technologies that help people with disabilities handle daily challenges, etc. It beats spending 100 hours on a $50,000 grant proposal that may still get rejected because some snarky reviewer doesn't like the idea.
But you're talking about taking money from men who rape children. The money is blood money. You're really OK with that?
What should happen to the money if it was accumulated by people who do loathsome things?
Many people who have money are not particularly pleasant people or at least their ancestors who built the family fortune were not fine, upstanding citizens who obeyed all of today's most woke sensibilities.
For example, should we tear down all the Carnegie libraries because of how that money was originally accumulated? As someone who has benefited greatly from public libraries, I vote no. If more loathsome people want to contribute huge sums of money to libraries/schools/fire departments/police departments, I would personally go take that money and thank them for it.
Quote from: pedanticromantic on September 08, 2019, 06:28:00 AM
But you're talking about taking money from men who rape children. The money is blood money. You're really OK with that?
Am I okay with his child prostitution ring? Of course not. The alleged actions, which seem quite likely to be true, are reprehensible and abhorrent.
Am I okay with taking money from him? Sure. It spends just as well as anyone else's money... and most people who write checks in the millions probably have some skeletons in their closets.
None of my business: I'm not looking to become personal friends with them or vouch for their character. The best way to do that seems to be to either take all money or none of it. And my research isn't directly connected to their interests, so there's no way I'd have a conflict of interest as a result.
Quote from: pigou on September 08, 2019, 08:39:26 AM
None of my business: I'm not looking to become personal friends with them or vouch for their character. The best way to do that seems to be to either take all money or none of it. And my research isn't directly connected to their interests, so there's no way I'd have a conflict of interest as a result.
This is the point that matters to me; from what I've read, it's not clear the he had any influence over what they did with the money. Even if the source of the money is questionable, if it's not being used for nefarious purposes then I don't see a big problem. (Contrast it with Cabmbridge Analytica, etc. - apparently the money was "clean", but what it was
used for was highly problematic.)
As Vespasian said, "Pecunia non olet."
The discussion so far has discusses how dirty money can be and still be acceptable. Some of us have argued that it all has some dirt, so you have to put a line somewhere. And that the line allows for the donor to be a rat as long as you don't facilitate the rat behavior.
There is some more information in IHE article (https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/09/09/mit-media-lab-director-steps-down-following-publication-epstein-emails). It shows that Ito was across the line.
Quote from: IHE[Ito] had attempted to conceal donations from the late sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein. Ito had previously apologized for accepting money from Epstein for the lab and for his own personal ventures. But the newly disclosed emails show he ... ordered that Epstein's donations be listed as "anonymous" going back years, as Epstein had been disqualified as a donor following his 2008 conviction for soliciting sex from a minor.
One of Ito's emails reportedly says that Epstein directed a $2 million gift to the lab from the philanthropist Bill Gates, but the Gates Foundation has denied any business connection to Epstein.
If the institution has declared a donor to be disqualified, you just don't go there. Laundering the money through a qualified donor is not in any way appropriate.
Those are clear lines on the other side.
Quote from: Hibush on September 09, 2019, 12:46:21 PM
The discussion so far has discusses how dirty money can be and still be acceptable. Some of us have argued that it all has some dirt, so you have to put a line somewhere. And that the line allows for the donor to be a rat as long as you don't facilitate the rat behavior.
There is some more information in IHE article (https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/09/09/mit-media-lab-director-steps-down-following-publication-epstein-emails). It shows that Ito was across the line.
Quote from: IHE[Ito] had attempted to conceal donations from the late sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein. Ito had previously apologized for accepting money from Epstein for the lab and for his own personal ventures. But the newly disclosed emails show he ... ordered that Epstein's donations be listed as "anonymous" going back years, as Epstein had been disqualified as a donor following his 2008 conviction for soliciting sex from a minor.
One of Ito's emails reportedly says that Epstein directed a $2 million gift to the lab from the philanthropist Bill Gates, but the Gates Foundation has denied any business connection to Epstein.
If the institution has declared a donor to be disqualified, you just don't go there. Laundering the money through a qualified donor is not in any way appropriate.
Those are clear lines on the other side.
What I found odd from the article is that it wasn't clear if/how Epstein's involvement influenced
what the lab did. If a serial killer gives money to a charity that builds wells in a developing country, why is it better to not have the money and have fewer wells built? I'm baffled that the fact that it was "dirty" money seems to be all that matters, regardless of whether there's any question of whether the work that was funded was ethical and valuable to society. (And other than as a possible tax write-off, is there any evidence Epstein personally
benefited in some way? Again, nothing seems to indicate that.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 09, 2019, 01:34:50 PM
Quote from: Hibush on September 09, 2019, 12:46:21 PM
The discussion so far has discusses how dirty money can be and still be acceptable. Some of us have argued that it all has some dirt, so you have to put a line somewhere. And that the line allows for the donor to be a rat as long as you don't facilitate the rat behavior.
There is some more information in IHE article (https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/09/09/mit-media-lab-director-steps-down-following-publication-epstein-emails). It shows that Ito was across the line.
Quote from: IHE[Ito] had attempted to conceal donations from the late sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein. Ito had previously apologized for accepting money from Epstein for the lab and for his own personal ventures. But the newly disclosed emails show he ... ordered that Epstein's donations be listed as "anonymous" going back years, as Epstein had been disqualified as a donor following his 2008 conviction for soliciting sex from a minor.
One of Ito's emails reportedly says that Epstein directed a $2 million gift to the lab from the philanthropist Bill Gates, but the Gates Foundation has denied any business connection to Epstein.
If the institution has declared a donor to be disqualified, you just don't go there. Laundering the money through a qualified donor is not in any way appropriate.
Those are clear lines on the other side.
What I found odd from the article is that it wasn't clear if/how Epstein's involvement influenced what the lab did. If a serial killer gives money to a charity that builds wells in a developing country, why is it better to not have the money and have fewer wells built? I'm baffled that the fact that it was "dirty" money seems to be all that matters, regardless of whether there's any question of whether the work that was funded was ethical and valuable to society. (And other than as a possible tax write-off, is there any evidence Epstein personally benefited in some way? Again, nothing seems to indicate that.)
Where to draw the line is indeed the question. If the donor gets some sort of personal private satisfaction out of the connection to an esteemed institution, then the money can be pretty dirty. But there is a limit. It they get a public association, then the standards are higher. If they get congratulated for being a wonderful human being, then the standards are far higher. (Few big donors are all-round wonderful human beings. For example, Bill Gates was reviled as the most rapacious businessman in the 1980s and now is revered as a high minded supporter of research and education through his philanthropy.) Most donors are probably looking for some form of validation or absolution.
With the MIT story, we don't know exactly what caused Epstein to be on the disqualified list. It could be that MIT admin knew more than was public, and disqualified him on that basis. If so, they would not be explaining it in public or to unit heads. On the other hand, it could be that they saw a PR issue and wanted to avoid that. They would not be explaining that rationale either. As a faculty member or unit head looking for donors, you just have to accept that they are disqualified for good reasons that you probably don't want to know.
The money was made by setting up children to be raped. There is no way anyone should accept that money, no matter what good they think they can do with it. It contributes to a proliferation of a system that thinks as long as it's "just" women or children being victims, it's perfectly OK.
I don't care if all the money went directly to victims: The money should have been refused: It's a stain on MIT.
Quote from: pedanticromantic on September 09, 2019, 06:42:59 PM
The money was made by setting up children to be raped. There is no way anyone should accept that money, no matter what good they think they can do with it. It contributes to a proliferation of a system that thinks as long as it's "just" women or children being victims, it's perfectly OK.
I don't care if all the money went directly to victims: The money should have been refused: It's a stain on MIT.
That's an easy assertion to make when one is not in the position to turn down the big money and isn't looking at, say, other children who are dying through no fault of their own who would be the beneficiaries of the research being done.
No, people shouldn't set up child rape rings to earn money. However, refusing to take the money for good causes does nothing to prevent the next person from setting up an immoral money-making opportunity to spend gobs of money on entertainment and frills. Indeed, turning away the big money from good causes makes more spending on bad causes the other choice. Do you really want someone to reinvest into the child rape ring or expand further into additional types of human trafficking because the money can't be given away to good causes?
Quote from: polly_mer on September 10, 2019, 05:47:14 AM
Quote from: pedanticromantic on September 09, 2019, 06:42:59 PM
The money was made by setting up children to be raped. There is no way anyone should accept that money, no matter what good they think they can do with it. It contributes to a proliferation of a system that thinks as long as it's "just" women or children being victims, it's perfectly OK.
I don't care if all the money went directly to victims: The money should have been refused: It's a stain on MIT.
That's an easy assertion to make when one is not in the position to turn down the big money and isn't looking at, say, other children who are dying through no fault of their own who would be the beneficiaries of the research being done.
No, people shouldn't set up child rape rings to earn money. However, refusing to take the money for good causes does nothing to prevent the next person from setting up an immoral money-making opportunity to spend gobs of money on entertainment and frills. Indeed, turning away the big money from good causes makes more spending on bad causes the other choice. Do you really want someone to reinvest into the child rape ring or expand further into additional types of human trafficking because the money can't be given away to good causes?
The issue is specifically the MIT Medialab, whose work is probably unlikely to help other poor children, and who frankly have no problem finding more people to give them millions of dollars. MIT has a billion per year in research expenditures, I am personally familiar with the Institute's finances. They didn't need child rape money.
I guess it's just a moral difference. I would rather die penniless and starving than take money from someone who earned it raping children. And before you claim that I can say that in my privileged position, I have been homeless in the past, and lived off less than $1 a day in food, and was able to make moral decisions then. I guess my moral compass is wound a little too tight for some people, but for me I would not accept it no matter how much good it might do.
There are other ways to get money.
I agree. MIT does not fit in the "Impecunious, needs money any way they can get it" category.
He was buying expiation in his own mind, I think.
M.
The narrow news sources I have read on the case imply that Epstein made money by exploiting his friends and acquaintances and spent money on his sex-trafficking operation. If that is accurate (a BIG if), then MIT was not taking profits from sex-trafficking, but less sleazy money. The distinction matters to many. We will learn more with time.
Raising philanthropic money is a rough business with a genteel image. Learning to navigate that world takes more candor than you usually find.
Being part of a money-laundering scheme, I believe, is being suggested in the WSJ today as a culpable offense that could cover this issue, too.
Or maybe not, I can't open the whole article...just the first 2 paras...
M.
Quote from: pedanticromantic on September 10, 2019, 09:53:52 AM
I guess it's just a moral difference. I would rather die penniless and starving than take money from someone who earned it raping children. And before you claim that I can say that in my privileged position, I have been homeless in the past, and lived off less than $1 a day in food, and was able to make moral decisions then. I guess my moral compass is wound a little too tight for some people, but for me I would not accept it no matter how much good it might do.
That's nice. However, this seems to fall into the category of the people who protest all defense efforts because somehow we all have to be vulnerable because their moral compass indicates that all deaths are wrong, the people who insist that all information should be freely available regardless of how our enemies will use that information against us, and the people who insist that all software should be free to all users because individuals working hard to create the software aren't nearly as important as the masses.
My moral compass is wound so tightly enough that I can confidently walk past misguided protesters to do my job, which involves keeping people safe in a world filled with dangers. Some of those dangers can be ameliorated if we have enough money and resources to do the research and then roll out the results. My research matters every day because of how we're helping ameliorate the dangers. No one should commit crimes to give us money, but we're absolutely taking money that is freely offered.
Quote from: mamselle on September 10, 2019, 09:56:10 AM
He was buying expiation in his own mind, I think.
I think this explains most large scale charitable giving. Many people who make large amounts of money feel (surprisingly?) guilty about it... and it's a win-win to schmooze them over and show how they can improve the lives of thousands of people by donating to your hospital/museum/village/research.
As for MIT having more than enough money... I don't know a single place where that's the case. Any kind of funding usually comes with restrictions on how it's used and there's a "grant review" process even for internal funding. That sucks up time and if you realize half way through that you need to hire a programmer, you're out of luck. And you can't just use some of the money to send your grad student to a statistics workshop or pay for their conference travel. Unrestricted gifts are nice exactly because they don't restrict what you can do with them.
Quote from: mamselle on September 12, 2019, 05:43:06 AM
Being part of a money-laundering scheme, I believe, is being suggested in the WSJ today as a culpable offense that could cover this issue, too.
Or maybe not, I can't open the whole article...just the first 2 paras...
M.
I'm curious how
giving works as money laundering; doesn't "giving" mean it only goes one way? And doesn't "laundering" require some way to
exchange "dirty" money for "clean" money? I don't see how the "clean" money comes BACK from MIT in this case.
One of the things that gives me pause, in addition to the human-trafficking and sexual abuse of minors (as if that weren't bad enough) is Epstein's fondness for eugenics. Even if we can set aside the sex-trafficking (and that's a REALLY BIG IF), how does taking money from someone who openly espouses these views (see the NYT article that details his fascination with AI & genetic engineering https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-eugenics.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-eugenics.html), in which he is quoted discussing his plans to "seed the human race with his DNA") not compromise the integrity of anyone claiming to be a scientist or tarnish the reputation of scientific labs or institutes?
Quote from: pink_ on September 12, 2019, 08:33:12 AM
One of the things that gives me pause, in addition to the human-trafficking and sexual abuse of minors (as if that weren't bad enough) is Epstein's fondness for eugenics. Even if we can set aside the sex-trafficking (and that's a REALLY BIG IF), how does taking money from someone who openly espouses these views (see the NYT article that details his fascination with AI & genetic engineering https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-eugenics.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-eugenics.html), in which he is quoted discussing his plans to "seed the human race with his DNA") not compromise the integrity of anyone claiming to be a scientist or tarnish the reputation of scientific labs or institutes?
There are organizations which serve to "anonymize" charitable donations. They are aimed at people who don't want to get on mailing lists, etc. so you can give them money, get the charitable receipt, but to the charity the gift will be completely anonymous. Should organizations refused these "anonymized" donations because of the
possibility that the money is not "clean"?
Quote from: pink_ on September 12, 2019, 08:33:12 AM
One of the things that gives me pause, in addition to the human-trafficking and sexual abuse of minors (as if that weren't bad enough) is Epstein's fondness for eugenics. Even if we can set aside the sex-trafficking (and that's a REALLY BIG IF), how does taking money from someone who openly espouses these views (see the NYT article that details his fascination with AI & genetic engineering https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-eugenics.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-eugenics.html), in which he is quoted discussing his plans to "seed the human race with his DNA") not compromise the integrity of anyone claiming to be a scientist or tarnish the reputation of scientific labs or institutes?
What's your view of Planned Parenthood? The founder had ties to the Eugenics movement (free abortion -> fewer poor/black children). Many family planning nonprofits today target poor people in developing countries, where the idea is that fewer children is a good thing for economic development. Mind you, there's a case to be made for promoting fertility choices that doesn't rely on Eugenics or racism... but should these organizations launch an inquiry into the political views of each of their donors? Because some of them might care more about "fewer black people" than they do about the fertility choices of poor, black women.
Unrelated, but just odd:
Quote
Another scientist cultivated by Mr. Epstein, Jaron Lanier, a prolific author who is a founder of virtual reality, said that Mr. Epstein's ideas did not amount to science, in that they did not lend themselves to rigorous proof. Mr. Lanier said Mr. Epstein had once hypothesized that atoms behaved like investors in a marketplace.
Stock prices are modeled as Brownian motion with upward drift and stock prices are determined by investors in a marketplace. Auction theory also borrows from astrophysics to create practically useful things like the FCC wireless spectrum auctions (which raise billions of dollars for the federal government). Whether any insights from finance in turn could inform physicists (since the quote seems to imply the other direction)... well, all depends on how smart you think the MIT Physics PhDs who end up working at hedge funds are. I wouldn't file it under "crackpot science."
Similarly, the morality of gene editing isn't that clear-cut either. You could argue that forcing a child to go through life with a disease that could have been prevented is unethical, too. And in fact there are deaf parents who purposefully select deaf children. In any case, funding research into gene editing doesn't seem an outrageous ethical violation -- and that's why there are federal grants for it, too.
He wasn't just "into" eugenics. He had some crazy super villain sci-fi dystopian plan to seed the human race with his DNA https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-eugenics.html
Refusing dirty money does happen. I don't want to disclose too much info (to remain anonymous) but in my state, a person who makes their millions off the private immigration concentration camps was asked to resign from non-profit boards and told their money was no longer good at at least one major non-profit. And these non-profits have no direct connection to immigration issues.