[FesterCluck]

Epstein was a horrific person. Joi Ito and MIT accepted donations from a wealthy donor. So what? They logged them as anonymous. They had no part in advertising any good will gained by Epstein. Epstein also helped broker other donations. This is a good move for any institution. I've yet to see any evidence of Epstein exerting control over the curriculum or management of MIT.

If Epstein was able to drum up press from his donations, where was the due diligence of those that reported on him? Why not bring up the accusations then?

The idea that no one had any idea about this until the court records were unsealed is utter nonsense, as is this attack on Ito. Before being at MIT he was an angel investor known for finding unlikely funding sources. He continued that tradition at MIT.

[eesmith]

"They had no part in advertising any good will gained by Epstein."

And as we've found out, they certainly did.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/09/13/meeting-with-ep... shows the donations were not anonymous, but "confidential", that many people knew about them, and that Ito asked staff to send Epstein presents and meet Epstein for dinner.

[eesmith]

"This is a good move for any institution."

MIT banned accepting donations from Epstein, so MIT disagrees with you.

"They had no part in advertising any good will gained by Epstein."

Years ago I heard a lecture by a famous British computer scientist. The UK had some of the early computers, but they weren't known to the public - Univac got the fame. As a young man he asked one of his seniors why. The response was "Those who needed to know, knew."

To make the statement "no part", we must assume that Ito never told anyone else about the contributions, even in private, to "those who needed to know."

Further, the claim isn't specifically that Ito participated in the advertising, but rather that MIT was used to "launder his image" simply by accepting the money.

The claims are backed by pointing to articles like the now-deleted Huffington Post article archived at http://archive.is/hJxT3 from 2017 where Epstein is praised for his private funding of scientists:

> “I have helped scientists for 20 years and I don’t really believe that you can say you fully understand a particular problem, unless your ideas can be tested against solid evidence,” Jeffery said. “But to tackle those problem you need resources, and if you have them the results can be marvellous. For example, in one simple and elegant equation, mathematics managed to describe the whole motion of the planets that alluded men for ages.”

"where was the due diligence of those that reported on him?"

It was obstructed through money and political contacts. These include reputation laundering methods, as described here, paying of witnesses (eg, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/12/jeffrey-epst... ) and smear campaigns against those who tried to report it (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/12/jeffrey-epst... regarding a 2015 claim).

[joelx]

I agree with you, if money is being used to do good the source does not matter.

[fortran77]

I tend to agree with you.