
Why Media Lab thought it was doing right by secretly accepting Epstein’s money - anjakefala
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/9/11/20860717/mit-media-lab-joi-ito-epstein
======
tlb
Normally, organizations accept anonymous donations from people because of
modesty or privacy -- the donors don't want their name on the wall or in the
press. They have a mechanism for that called "anonymous donations", but the
mechanism isn't meant to guarantee that no reputational benefits at all can be
gotten by the donor.

In this case, several people knew he had donated to MIT and he invited
professors to his dinners to show off to his friends, so there were
substantial reputational benefits.

Lessig's utilitarian calculus doesn't convince me it's OK to take money
anonymously from villains.

~~~
HillaryBriss
right. the veil of anonymity was torn apart in this case. this doesn't seem
like a robust test case for Lessig's theory of anonymity.

~~~
tlb
I think no theory of anonymity works. A villain isn't going to keep their
pinky-promise to not tell everyone that your prestigious institution took
their money.

~~~
amluto
It’s not particularly difficult to make a donation anonymous in a way that the
recipient genuinely doesn’t know who made the donation. Just have a neutral
third party handle it. This could be a donor advised fund or a trustee, for
example. I suspect this isn’t particularly rare.

~~~
nardi
But then the donor tells the recipient that they are the ones who donated all
of that money. And so they get all of the benefits anyway.

~~~
amluto
I just gave you $10M. Can I have a private dinner?

Do you believe me? If an anonymous donation is done with some degree of care,
you have no way to verify my claim.

~~~
evancox100
If a $10M anonymous donation had just showed up in my account and I hadn't
told anyone, then yes I would be inclined to believe you.

~~~
amluto
That would be part of handling anonymous donations sensibly. The transaction
should be between the development office and whatever trustee or foundation
gives the gift. The ultimate beneficiary shouldn’t be notified of the donation
until, say, the end of the fiscal year, at which point all anonymous donations
are aggregated.

------
ineedasername
The article seems to imply at points that power and influence won't accrue
much as a result of anonymous donations, which I think is wrong. You lose the
public prestige, sure, but the powerful people behind the scenes know you
donated, as with Media Lab, and that power and influence isn't much
diminished. In fact it's the behind the scenes type of power that can be the
most effective and, as we see with Epstein, most corrosive.

Anonymity may shield the recipient from reputational damage of associating
with a bad actor, but doesn't take away all of the benefits to the donor.

~~~
seph-reed
I saw another article like this about MIT recently. I have a really hard time
taking the discussion as a whole seriously, because it kind of feels like
bike-shedding as compared to "How are we going to grill some of the people who
really, actually deserve it?"

On the list of priorities, reprimanding labs and schools for taking donations
seems like it should not be coming first.

~~~
partialrecall
The response needn't be serialized. That is to say, multiple actions may be
popped off the priority queue at once, without waiting for the others to
finish.

See also: the reason we are talking about this at all when there are still
hungry children in the world.

~~~
seph-reed
Hungry people are a growing and incredibly complex problem. Punishing even a
single one of Epstein's clients seems much more manageable. And if we're going
for impact-to-effort ratio queuing, this is likely a bit more of a gimme than
world hunger.

~~~
partialrecall
The point is that society can address more than one problem (or more than one
aspect of a problem) at once. The reasoning I responded to seemed to be
following the tired cliche of dismissing any problem as not worthy of
attention because children are still starving.

~~~
seph-reed
> The point is that society can address more than one problem

Can it? It often seems like nothing really ever get addressed fully, while
there is a barrage of half baked debates.

------
jrochkind1
You know what you should _not_ do if you really believe "the money gets put to
a better use, and they don’t get to accumulate prestige or connections from
the donation because the public wouldn’t know about it."

> The financier would meet with faculty members, apparently to allow him to
> give input on projects…

(from the New Yorker article).

Also, if you know you are violating the policies of MIT's central fund-raising
office, and you are taking active steps to HIDE it from them... you can say
you just had a different philosophy of philanthropy than them, and this was so
important to you that you were willing to violate MIT's policies and risk
whatever consequences if found out...

...but come on, we all know it's just plain greed.

I don't think these are sincere philosophical beliefs about philanthropy, I
think they are just the rationalizations that the powerful and greedy tell
themselves to avoid admitting it's just about power and greed.

~~~
DonHopkins
The evidence it was all about greed is that Epstein gave Ito's investment
funds $1.6 million, more than TWICE the amount of money than the chump change
Epstein gave to Media Lab in exchange for highly discounted reputation and a
cast of academic celebrities to parade at his parties.

Epstein bribed Ito with more than 200% commission to make the other cash-for-
reputation deal, which they both knew they must covered up at all cost,
because Media Lab would pay with its reputation when discovered.

------
msghacq
This is a much better article and interview with the whistleblower:

[https://www.philanthropy.com/article/whistle-blower-tells-
th...](https://www.philanthropy.com/article/whistle-blower-tells-the/247113)

Media Lab knew exactly what they were doing.

~~~
nyolfen
as did MIT if we are to believe ito:

[https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/09/10/former-mit-
medi...](https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/09/10/former-mit-media-lab-
fund-raiser-says-was-following-university-
rules/OnnyCWT9t0I5AQW6OeeXwN/story.html)

~~~
DonHopkins
I wonder if Epstein ever sponsored any cryogenics research at MIT?

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-
epstein-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-
eugenics.html)

"Mr. Epstein told this person that he wanted his head and penis to be frozen."

------
natalyarostova
Of all the people to take Epstein's money or endorse him with their
reputation, of all the slimy people, of all the career politicians, we've
decided to mainly just fixate and ruin the life of one well-intentioned nerd
who wanted to use the money for research.

I hope everyone feels fuzzy and warm with their self-righteousness. Evil is
defeated once more -- and you all helped -- with your brave internet shaming
and directed anger. Truly, we live in marvelous times, where we can all gather
together online and use the decentralized social networks to conspire and
destroy.

Of course, no one here could hope to destroy those who are truly powerful and
deserving, so instead every once in a while perhaps we can pick off one of the
weaker ones.

But he deserved it! And that's why we write and focus on it, right? What else
do people deserve? What else could we have done with this time and energy?
Anything greater? If so, why didn't we? Perhaps it's because destroying people
feels good -- it's fun.

~~~
bbanyc
When Ito turns out to have covered for some of Epstein's "customers", or to
have been one himself, will you stop defending him?

~~~
natalyarostova
Respond to this comment if that happens, and I'll stop defending him and admit
everyone was right, and I was totally wrong. I feel like there is only about a
5% chance that's the case, but who knows.

~~~
erikpukinskis
He took money from this guy after going to prison for rape, attended multiple
events where underage prostitutes almost certainly were present... where do
you get 95% confidence that his intentions were good?

Here’s a question: if we had a list of everyone who ever attended one of those
parties, would you estimate 95% of them had good intentions?

~~~
natalyarostova
I think this is some special pleading though, since you could make similar
statements about any of the many many high-profile people who commingled with
Epstein. Is it all one large conspiracy? Or were they all just chumps?

~~~
erikpukinskis
I feel quite certain there is a large conspiracy? Do you have some doubt that
he was at the center of a large conspiracy?

------
8bitsrule
"If a donation is anonymous, the theory goes — that is, anonymous to the
public — the giver cannot accrue any prestige or social capital from it."

OTOH, it at least helps the anonymous 'givers' to feel a bit consecrated about
their nefarious actions. Also it helps the prestigious 'takers', capable of
ignoring the smell of it, to cloak their taint.

The rationalization that 'it's okay if noone knows' seems more like something
for, say, a bank than for an academic institution. And the smell hangs around.
It might lead to things like, say, rigged admissions standards. Or the
unfortunate suicides of bright young stars.

------
cwyers
What Lessig's piece seemed to completely ignore (and what this seems to touch
on but never quite state plainly) is that under the conditions of anonymity
where someone can't use their donations to launder their reputation, someone
like Epstein would have never made the sort of donation he made. The only
thing that anonymity did here was to shield MIT from accountability; Epstein
still got the benefits of such a large donation.

------
fmajid
Cognitive dissonance at work. I really want to take the money, so I will come
up with all sorts of rationalizations, and subconsciously I will adopt those
beliefs strongly, because the alternative is not being able to face myself in
the mirror.

------
jdkee
The question I have is this: how did Jeffrey Epstein get his money in the
first place? And once he acquired it, how did people accept it from him
knowing his behavior?

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends
upon his not understanding it!”

-Upton Sinclair

I think most people from the outside could see the problem in accepting
donations from Epstein. People at the Media Lab (with some very notable
exceptions) allowed their desire for money to get the better of their
judgment.

~~~
DonHopkins
Arwa Michelle Mboya is an early and very notable exception: an example of a
person at the Media Lab with good judgement. She called for his resignation on
August 23, and wrote the guest column "Why Joi Ito needs to resign" published
in The Tech on August 29.

Arwa Michelle Mboya - @RuMboya: The MIT @medialab was nicknamed “The Future
Factory” by @60Minutes . We are supposed to reflect the future, not just of
technology but of society. I’m fighting for the #FutureOfWomen when I call for
Joi Ito’s resignation. 1:38 AM · Aug 23, 2019

[https://twitter.com/RuMboya/status/1164683383815004160](https://twitter.com/RuMboya/status/1164683383815004160)

OPINION GUEST COLUMN: Why Joi Ito needs to resign. We need to set a standard
that ensures a safe future for women where money will never be seen as more
valuable than their lives. By Arwa Mboya, Aug. 29, 2019.

[https://thetech.com/2019/08/29/joi-ito-needs-to-
resign](https://thetech.com/2019/08/29/joi-ito-needs-to-resign)

MIT Media Lab People: Arwa Michelle Mboya. Civic Media.

[https://www.media.mit.edu/people/mboya/overview/](https://www.media.mit.edu/people/mboya/overview/)

How Grad Student Arwa Mboya Helped Bring Down The Epstein Coverup At The MIT
Media Lab

[https://moguldom.com/225575/how-grad-student-arwa-mboya-
help...](https://moguldom.com/225575/how-grad-student-arwa-mboya-helped-bring-
down-the-epstein-coverup-at-the-mit-media-lab/)

Ito’s resignation was necessary for the greater good, Mboya suggested. “This
is not an MIT issue, and this is not a Joi Ito issue. This is an international
issue where a global network of powerful individuals have used their influence
to secure their privilege at the expense of women’s bodies and lives.”

After Ito resigned, Mboyo told The Washongton Post, “I feel vindicated, like
I’m not crazy.” Ito is to blame for his actions, but others are to blame for
allowing his actions to continue, she wrote in the guest column.

[...]

“We have a bad history of forgiving talented men who wield power,” Mboyo
wrote. “If there is no accountability for the people who bolster men like
Epstein, sexual violence against powerless people will continue.”

Mboyo is from Kenya. “I’m a young black woman (running the risk of being
called ‘angry’ or ‘crazy’ for speaking up),” she wrote. “On the ladder of
power, I am on a very low rung. That said, I am educated, I am smart, and I
have a voice … I at least have the power to advocate for the girls and women
who couldn’t speak out when they were raped and abused. I have the power to
say no to a director who chose not only to ignore the accusations but to lie
about his involvement as well. I can say that I am part of the #MeTooSTEM
movement and will not be silent.”

------
lidHanteyk
There's an easy answer for this, although it's uncomfortable for the Epsteins
of the world. Simply formalize the entire process. Have a dedicated system for
handling not just Very Important People, but Very Rich Assholes. When VRAs
want to give money, make it clear that the money will be marked as from "an
anoymous piece of shit" rather than "a generous donor". When they want to walk
around the lab, make it clear that they'll be wearing a nametag with "VRA"
printed in big red letters.

Sure, take money from child slavers if you must, but don't glorify them or
even give them the decency of polite society. Mark them for who they are, if
you know it.

~~~
raisedbyninjas
I like this sentiment, but the lab's behavior is antithetical to Lessig's
argument. For unsavory benefactors there should be no tours, no VIP badges, no
meetings with senior staff, no visits or honor of any kind. An invitation to
the campus degrades the university's reputation. His presence in the lab is
offensive to decent people.

------
olefoo
Then there is the whole question of whether Epstein was using his money to
_direct research_ specifically to junk science like Euugenics.

I think Sarah Taber said it best though.

""" I think the best lens to understand what was going on here isn't just
"reputation laundering."

The Media Lab's leadership catered to a superiority fetish in exchange for
cash.

That's sex work """

[https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/117193193908069171...](https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/1171931939080691713)

~~~
partialrecall
Dang, I missed that whole 'subplot' about the food computer scam:
[https://gizmodo.com/mit-built-a-theranos-for-
plants-18379682...](https://gizmodo.com/mit-built-a-theranos-for-
plants-1837968240)

What a weird lab.

~~~
xkcd-sucks
It's a department, and it's dedicated to the creation of media. Doing "cool
nerd stuff" is strictly to support that mission.

Very postmodern and advanced if you think about it-- Most actual scientists
are measured by how they produce papers (e.g. media). Which is also how the
"replication crisis" and "p hacking" came to be. The Media Lab just recognizes
it explicitly

~~~
partialrecall
So their objective was to create a media splash about 'food computers', rather
than to actually advance ag technology? That somehow seems even weirder.

------
algaeontoast
Nobody should be trying to cover for the Media Lab in any way or form. If
you're a professional and you take money in this way you are complicit,
period.

An article claiming Epstein was a victim because pedophiles and rapists are
"victims" would have been less vapid than what Vox focuses on in this article.

~~~
nosseo
Hey! I'm the article author, and I didn't write about what the Media Lab was
thinking to give them "cover". As I put it in the article, the Media Lab's
actions were so horrific that it brings into question the whole philosophy
behind anonymous donations. So why take a close look at their justifications?
Well, a couple reasons. Firstly, I think it's interesting when smart people
argue themselves into incredibly bad decisions that anyone could've warned
them against. It's an easy failure mode to fall into, and looking in gruesome
detail at some cases where other people fell into it has taught me a lot about
how these failures happen.

Secondly, I think that condemnation hits harder when it's the result of
sincere engagement with someone's justifications. Yep, I listened to you when
you said why you did it. And you were wrong. It's not always worth taking that
step, of course, but in a big case like this, I think it is.

~~~
wyck
I think the point for this particular case, which you did allude to, is that
there was nothing anonymous about the relationship. Everyone knew about it,
some of them implicated directly in the actual court case (Minsky). This is
more about a completely corrupt and toxic culture at Media Lab. It would have
been more interesting to look deeper into Joi Ito for example and the
posturing of several key players when exposed, than wax poetic about the
blanket of anonymity.

~~~
bitL
How do you know that culture inside Media Lab was "completely corrupt and
toxic"? From my experience, it was (is?) a super cool place and most
researchers didn't have any clue what was going on with the funding. I bet
there are many universities where revolts would happen if true donors and
their actions were revealed. You even have whole famous universities named
after robber barons.

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
> a super cool place and most researchers didn't have any clue what was going
> on with the funding.

I don't know. I think witnessing the lab director giving tours to an old man
accompanied by very young foreign women who raise suspicions that they might
be victims of human trafficking, should make people at least consider that
there is something shady going on with the funding.

