>“I told Joi to take the money,” he said, “and I would do it again.”
Was that supposed to....help?
Did the Media Lab help Mr. Epstein rape more children in any way by taking the money? Probably not. Evil people can do good things. The world is complicated.
If people really want to start tracking the provenance of funding, perhaps we should start with investigating larger sums. No one in Silicon Valley seems to have any trouble taking money from Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund.
In 2008, Epstein should have been put in a cage and poked with sticks. The fact that so many of the great and the good were willing to continue to cooperate with him was disgusting.
Also: I agree with you about the Saudis, but whataboutery doesn't excuse the fact that taking Epstein's money was morally imbecilic.
I wish we lived in a world where all of Epstein's assets were seized and allocated to victims (both specific and general), educational institutions and whatever else seemed appropriate. I wish the Media Lab took Epstein's money in this way.
Honestly, it's really a philosophical question. It's the classic debate between consequentialism and deontology. I'd argue that the consequences of taking his money were positive. I'd assume you'd say the action is inherently immoral.
We could go back and forth, talking about the trolly problem among many other contrived examples. Tt's a tricky subject.
There's a lot of these situations out there like this Nazi anatomy book we still use: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49294861.
Ultimately, I think we could agree that there are worse people out there, deserving grave punishment, involved with Epstein. I'd rather see this energy be prioritized to identifying and convicting the worst people first. After, I think debating the Media Lab's funding less than 0.3% of its budget morally condemns it.
By accepting his money and continuing to work with him, you're basically telling Epstein that he's free to continue raping children — that as long as he can wriggle out of the legal stuff, he won't suffer any real professional or social consequences. And instead of helping to deter other would-be Epsteins, you're sending them a message that no matter how many children they rape, they'll still be greeted warmly.
I do think you hit a certain line with donations. Many of the charities and hospitals he also donated to probably don't have the luxury of deciding who their money comes from.
It's a tricky situation but I think you make a solid point.
We can trace all these things back in retrospect now, but it's a different situation than accepting money from someone in the moment without knowing what will happen to them in the future. Who knows what kind of person someone could turn into over time. For example, some world leader could donate a bunch of money to education at MIT and then commit genocide 10 years down the line. What happens then at the 10 years when the money is spent already?
Totally coincidentally, the Koch Cancer Research Center was wrapping up construction around the same time (https://ki.mit.edu/).
It turns out MIT isn't a morally guided institution (well maybe the professors and students are). It's run by a bunch of former investment bankers trying to maximize returns on a $16.5B endowment. There's a corporation and a university.
Yes it did. Epstein’s empire was built on high society connections which he established through his connections to influential and publicly visible leaders in science. Epstein’s support of the media lab allowed him to attract high profile pedophiles (royalty, presidents, more that we will probably never know) to his island parties where he developed the connections that protected him and kept him above the law.
That sounds ridiculous and needs explaining. "Oh, hi, fellow super rich pedophile, I wouldn't have contacted you, but then I saw you donated to the media lab... let's get together on your private island". No.