
MIT Media Lab founder: I would still take Jeffrey Epstein’s money today - sahin-boydas
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614264/mit-media-lab-jeffrey-epstein-joi-ito-nicholas-negroponte-funding-sex-abuse/
======
AndrewKemendo
My question to the group here is, are you individually willing to research the
background of the people and funds you, as founders take as investors, and to
what extent? Said more bluntly, would you shut your company down if you
couldn't find other sources of financing?

I think the obvious answer is yes, but that's too obvious in some sense
because these things lie on a spectrum.

Epstein post revelations should be outcast, that much is obvious. What of less
egregious actors or associations? There are more than a few lecherous
investors with less public exposure of their acts and equally deep pockets,
wandering Sand Hill road.

Examples like the massive amount of Saudi national money [1] that is fueling
funds like Softbank and Sequoia, and directly to companies like Uber, call
into question where exactly the line is. You could replace Saudi with your
particular questionable investor de jure.

In fact, when I've had conversations like this in the past, most recipients
look at the question as pragmatic: "All money is dirty, and this was our best
option." Point noted, but that just means founders and CEO are drawing their
own arbitrary lines in the sand.

I don't have some kind of magic formula, but I think it's worth being
introspective about this.

~~~
MandieD
That spectrum would involve how much control over yourself and your work
you're giving to your funders, and how much you stand to lose by saying no to
them after you've accepted their money.

------
im3w1l
I'm trying to understand the ideology and thinking behind saying his money
should not be taken. This is what I came up with.

"The world consists of Good and Bad people. Everything that bad people do is
intrinsically bad, because it was done by a Bad person. Moreover the Bad can
rub off on anyone getting too close.

Even an act that is normally Good, such as funding science becomes Bad if done
by a Bad person. The scientists becomes tainted. The institute becomes tained.
Even the knowledge itself is suspect.

This is why it's important to keep convicts isolated, untouchable pariah even
after they have served their time. Their Bad needs to be quarantined."

It's probably a bit unfair but I can't think of anything else.

~~~
conscion
I think the argument against taking money from him centers around influence.

Taking money from someone is perceived as them gaining influence over the
opinions and actions of the person receiving it. When the person donating is a
"bad person" then they are a bad influence and taint the receivers actions
also.

~~~
im3w1l
I can see how this is sometimes true, like if big tobacco donated to research
on the safety of tobacco. Or if they took money from Epstein and used it to
research sexuality in children that would be a problem.

But I don't see how that concern applies in this case.

~~~
AndrewBissell
Epstein showed a lot of interest in all kinds of scientifically and ethically
dubious ideas like eugenics, and he actively prodded people in favor of these
ideas at the dinners, parties, and jet rides he hosted.

This was not a case of a guy just writing a check and receding back into the
woodwork. (Even if it was, I'd still say "trafficking children to be raped" is
a bridge too far on the path of "ethical violations which are sufficient to
refuse donations.")

~~~
jjeaff
I wonder how many pro-eugenecists realize that if their dream became a
reality, they might not make the cut...

------
8bitsrule
In another quote from the article:

"Negroponte pressed on: in the fundraising world, he said, these types of
occurrences were not out of the ordinary, and it shouldn’t be reason enough to
cut off business relationships."

Welcome to today.

~~~
AndrewBissell
"Look, man, do you know how hard it would be to raise money of any
significance if I just followed a blanket 'no taking money from pedophile sex
traffickers' rule?"

------
jdkee
Negroponte's quote, in light of the allegations and former conviction of
Epstein, is callous and unconscionable. Furthermore, it paints MIT in a poor
light, which as a former employee he should not have lightly done.

------
kerkeslager
So, honest question: what's the intended outcome of scientists refusing the
money? Is the hope that the money would somehow go toward making restitution
to his victims? In our legal system, is that a realistic hope?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone here, just trying to understand
the situation.

~~~
AndrewBissell
I think the hope is that the money could not be used to help Epstein rebuild
his reputation and prestige via association with respected scientists, and
also that they might have avoided any taint to their research from Epstein's
interest in junk science like eugenics.

~~~
MandieD
The most important reason to refuse the money is to refuse the possibility of
being influenced by such an awful person - Epstein wanted to hang around with
the scientists he supported.

------
jdkee
Doesn't look like this story is getting better for MIT.

[https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-an-elite-
univer...](https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-an-elite-university-
research-center-concealed-its-relationship-with-jeffrey-epstein)

------
gist
What I hate about articles and reporting like this is the emphasis (in the
lead) on that fact that some people were 'shocked'. You can always find 'some
people' that will force their point of view and unfortunately do it in way
that says 'there really isn't anything else to discuss about this issue it's
open and shut'.

Also important to realize that there were most likely people at that meeting
that agreed with what Negroponte said but were to afraid (for fear of
backlash) to say that.

Finally this: “It wasn’t until another woman yelled “Shut up!” twice that
Negroponte mumbled “Good grief,” and sat down.”" I am guessing that took
Negroponte by surprised and he might be kicking himself now for not pushing
back.

~~~
nkurz
> You can always find 'some people' that will force their point of view and
> unfortunately do it in way that says 'there really isn't anything else to
> discuss about this issue it's open and shut'.

> Also important to realize that there were most likely people at that meeting
> that agreed with what Negroponte said but were to afraid (for fear of
> backlash) to say that.

While I agree with you that at times a small minority can shut down
discussion, in this particular case I think an overwhelming majority of that
audience believed that taking Epstein's money was unconscionable. So while
there probably at least a few audience members who agreed with Negroponte, and
while those who agreed were probably afraid to publicly voice their support,
I'm doubtful there were actually that many of them.

But perhaps I'm wrong. Do you have a way of estimating what percentage of
people believe that accepting money from a convicted sex offender (and accused
pedophile) is ethically appropriate?

~~~
nitePhyyre
Well the article only mentions one person yelling at him to shut up. Out of
the entire audience.

The article also doesn't say that him being told to shut up was net with
applause, or anything like that.

And considering that slant in the article, if there was any hint more people
agreed, you know it would be in there.

~~~
jkestner
As a Media Lab alum, I know there are plenty of people who agreed. It takes
courage to interrupt the venerated founder, especially when your livelihood
depends on the person he's defending, and the people with whom they've built
relationships.

------
rowanG077
Great for him! I think it's quite ridiculous how we as a society structurally
deny progress in the name of social justice instead of letting justice be
dolled out by the government.

