[eesmith]

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".

[gojomo]

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.)

[eesmith]

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.

[gojomo]

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.