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.
Meh. It's not OK, but it's not that bad either. Even if what Ito did was wrong, which at least with hindsight it clearly was, the guy is still a hero.
Even the allegations about him using his position to raise LP money for his fund is somewhat dubious, given that he's much more famous for being a venture capitalist than he is for running the media lab; it's literally why he was hired for that job in the first place. It was bad judgment, and maybe he deserved to get fired for it, but as scandals go it's fairly benign.
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.
On the list of priorities, reprimanding labs and schools for taking donations seems like it should not be coming first.
See also: the reason we are talking about this at all when there are still hungry children in the world.
It did suggest it might work if the recipient was not aware of who the money was from, but makes it clear that was not the case here.
Maybe the grandparent had both tabs opened and was commenting on Lessig's article, because he's right in relation to that, and we're all in agreement about the point of the Vox article.
> 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.
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.
https://www.philanthropy.com/article/whistle-blower-tells-th...
Media Lab knew exactly what they were doing.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/09/10/former-mit-medi...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-...
"Mr. Epstein told this person that he wanted his head and penis to be frozen."
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.
What makes you think he was powerless? He was on the board of the MIT Media Lab, The New York Times, The MacArthur Foundation, The Knight Foundation among other things.
He's exactly the kind of person who should be held accountable for their actions.
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.
-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.
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
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
MIT Media Lab People: Arwa Michelle Mboya. Civic Media.
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...
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.”
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.
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...
What a weird lab.
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
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.
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.
If there was an arms-length “anonymous fund” that people could donate to without even the development department knowing who they are, that would be the only way to have truly anonymous donations. And then I think the moral argument would make perfect sense.
