[fritzshizzle]

More like, Joi did deceive the integrity of the institute for one by entering such a deal.

For another there were at least 2 types of epstein donations made to him, one of which was for “personal usage”.

Dude, before vindicating folks u gotta read the entire story plot.

[azeotropic]

Does “deceive the integrity” have some specific legal meaning wherever you’re from? I can’t find any hits for the phrase in DDG. What are you trying to argue?

I was not vindicating Ito of anything except the narrow charge (made in Ronan Farrow’s New Yorker article) of attempting to hide the source of Epstein funds from MIT by marking them as anonymous. It’s clear now from Reif’s letter that this was actually done with MIT’s knowledge and at MIT’s request.

Both Ito and MIT decided to take Epstein’s money, knowing that he was a convicted sex offender.

[whysodumbdumb]

My engrish not very good, sorry and not related to first poster.

But any funding process has to ultimately be signed off by the administration.

This is usually President level, unless it is “personal usage”.

Ito received both cash envelopes. The one for mit had to be signed off via routine anonymous so to pass mit administration.

Whether the arrangement was explicit or implicit, if Epstein name is mentioned it can’t be signed. But I can approve as anonymous source. Also I don’t care if you receive ur own personal envelopes for your startup and other side investments.

[danielg6]

I think “deceive the integrity” means that the administration wouldn’t have been in the position in the first place to agree to anonymize the donation if not for Ito’s actions.

[azeotropic]

Except Ito wasn’t the only faculty member taking money from Epstein, and the Media lab wasn’t the only department. The thank-you letter to Epstein that Reif signed was for money Epstein gave to support Seth Lloyd — a professor in mechanical engineering and physics — and the earliest known money from Epstein after his conviction. The ‘if not for Ito’ reading doesn’t make sense.