MIT Media Lab taking money from Epstein

[pedanticromantic]

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

[Hibush]

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.

[pigou]

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.

[pedanticromantic]

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?

[polly_mer]

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.

[pigou]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.)

[Juvenal]

As Vespasian said, "Pecunia non olet."

[Hibush]

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. It shows that Ito was across the line.

[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.

[marshwiggle]

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. It shows that Ito was across the line.

[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.)

[Hibush]

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. It shows that Ito was across the line.

[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.

[pedanticromantic]

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.

[polly_mer]

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?

[irhack]

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.

[pedanticromantic]

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.