I don't understand this contemporary system of morality where if you something wrong without doing anything wrong yourself, you automatically get tainted with its sins. There's no consistency to this system either. People generally only care when someone they already hate is being "complicit."
>He obtained that with the help of people like Alan Dershowitz and Steven Pinker, both from Harvard.
These two people offered Epstein specialized services that let him off easy. I don't see the same clear connection to wrongdoing in this case. All Epstein got from it was an office and a web page thanking him for the large donation. If that's wrong, then Mcdonald's is also wrong for providing him calories required to operate.
If not, this is a dishonest argument.
That's my point. People shouldn't be angry at that, so they shouldn't be angry at this.
Even if McDonalds can identify Epstein at all their locations, there is still no reason to deny him service. It's not their duty to make up for the broken justice system nor should it be. Same goes for program director. Unless if there is evidence of a connection between the evolution center and his sex trafficking, then it's pointless to shut it down.
This is why you don't just accept any and all donations from anyone. And here the best option seems obviously to close the center and open something new that does not have the ties to Epstein hanging over it.
Example of an act. If someone uses a toilet and then doesn't wash their hands and someone shakes their hand, the person who shook the had go "зашквар" now and that's it, they are done. They'll get a whole in their metal plate they use for food, may be some special tatoos, etc, etc...
“Harvard closes evolution center after finding connections to Adolf Hitler”
And then let’s evaluate your comment in that context:
> If Hitler wasn't allowed to donate to Harvard, would that have somehow prevented World War 2? Would it have made the world a better place?
In our hypothetical situation, no, it wouldn’t have done either of those things. But first, Harvard could reasonably say “you know, that money just isn’t worth it.” They could also reasonably say “we don’t want the taint of that name on our institution, or to have to explain why we were OK keeping it.”
I don’t think anyone’s likely to honestly argue against the hypothetical school’s actions. In other words, we can agree that there are people so awful that you just don’t want anything to do with them.
Real world Harvard ran the moral calculus on Epstein and came to the same conclusion as the hypothetical one. The only discussion is whether Epstein should be elevated to the level of awfulness that the school should take these actions. Apparently Harvard felt so, and I think that was a fair and sensible decision.