Note that using interchangeably 'pedophile' and 'child sex abuser' is wrong.
First, it criminalizes actual pedophiles, who in most cases do not abuse children. Accordingly, most child sex abusers are not pedophiles.
Second, pedophilia is generally defined as a sexual attraction to prepubescent children, while many or most child sex abusers (including Epstein) abuse postpubescent children.
Did they offer him special donor benefits, like naming something after him or listing him as an honored donor? Did they adjust their research priorities to match Epstein's preferences?
I'd read it before commenting, and can't find the parts where Epstein received public accolades from MIT or changed MIT research priorities. (In fact, the treatment of him as an unmentionable "Voldemort" seems to indicate the opposite was true, and that the normal "love" offered to donors was not available to Epstein in the post-conviction era.)
Can you point out the incidents/paragraphs where you see those, if I've missed them?
> In the summer of 2015, as the Media Lab determined how to spend the funds it had received with Epstein’s help, Cohen informed lab staff that Epstein would be coming for a visit. The financier would meet with faculty members, apparently to allow him to give input on projects and to entice him to contribute further.
Meeting with researchers and giving input into their work is “special donor benefit”.
Thanks for the specific example! That on-site visit – a keystone anecdote of the article – was a potential avenue for untoward influence, worth discussing.
But it's not "naming something after him or listing him as an honored donor". A meeting with some willing subset of the faculty is a "donor benefit", sure, but far reduced from what a large donor normally gets, and not "special" to the point of "kowtowing" – the characterization to which I've objected.
Farrow even couches this implication of influence with the qualifier "apparently" – as in, "it appears this way but I'm not saying for certain". That single visit sparked arguments inside the Lab that likely swayed many against any of Epstein's priorities – spreading the understanding his
And, concerned staff separated Epstein from the "model" "assistants" who would normally accompany him into "any room" for the duration of the meeting(s), and spoke with those women to verify their welfare.
Again: that looks to me like the opposite of "kowtowing". The Media Lab set conditions for his involvement, to minimize any spillover benefits to Epstein, and Epstein – desperate as he was – agreed to their conditions.
The New Yorker piece mentions, among other things, that yes, they let Epstein adjust research priorities:
> the Media Lab ... consulted him about the use of the funds
As an example of Epstein deciding which research should continue:
> In September, 2014, Ito wrote to Epstein soliciting a cash infusion to fund a certain researcher, asking, “Could you re-up/top-off with another $100K so we can extend his contract another year?” Epstein replied, “yes.”
The Media Lab also kowtowed by allowing him to make contributions even though "Epstein was listed in the university’s central donor database as disqualified".
I don't see either of those excerpts as establishing any actual Epstein-driven changes in MIT Media Lab research priorities. The specific example of "soliciting a cash infusion to fund a certain researcher" suggests the exact opposite: Epstein gave to whatever the Lab requested. (If anyone's "kowtowing" to anyone else that anecdote, it's Epstein howtowing to Ito.)
Is your objection to the use of the word "kowtow"?
What word would you use to describe the examples given in the article?
"Kowtow" means to act in a submissive manner. Is your argument really that Epstein was so submissive to the Media Lab that he could not have refused to donate the money? Because that makes no sense.
Yes, my objection is about the word; that's why I put "kowtow" in quotes.
My argument about that specific anecdote, that Ito called Epstein & Epstein delivered $100k, on demand, for exactly the purposes Ito requested, is that it is more supportive of the idea Epstein did MIT's bidding than the other way around. (I'd still not use the word "kowtow", but the other posters brought that word & that anecdote up.)
And still, none of the details in this article (or others) suggest MIT Media Lab or Joi Ito were "kowtowing" to Epstein, by the definition of "kowtow". It's poor, misleading, derogatory word choice implying things other than what is in evidence.
(Unless, of course, someone can point out some cases where MIT people were "excessively subservient" or "worshipful" towards Epstein. I'd still welcome new information!)
Some peoples' attitude seems to be, "these people were bad, hence we can and should use derogatory exaggerations towards them, without concern for the details".
I think instead it's especially important to be precise & accurate when criticizing people, or assigning them a sticky "shunned"/"unethical" status.
