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.
