I... kinda don't see what the big deal is? The article is kinda a mess and it's really hard for me to see what actual justification (or anti-justification) it's trying to push.
Yes, Epstein was a scumbag. Did Ito know he was a scumbag when he took the money? And even if he did, would taking the money put him, the Media Lab, or anyone who worked there in a compromised or awkward position in the future? Was the money itself tainted in some way, derived from scumbag activities? If not (I couldn't really glean whether or not this was the case from the article), then... so what? Money is money, and it's hard enough already to raise money for "out there" research, even with MIT's reputation. At the very least, you could know that a scumbag's money was being used to do something actually good.
There are several ways to approach the matter. Negroponte took the worst possible way to approach it after Ito made a long speech.
>“I told Joi to take the money,” he said, “and I would do it again.”
That statement implies he doesn’t care at all. There are other ways to handle it, like he does care, but there’s nothing he can do about it, or have an excuse that Epstein had no control over the use of the funds (if true), but to say something like “Yeah, big deal, I’d do business with the guy again” is tactless.
Not necessarily, he might care and weigh options and consequences and come to a different conclusion than you, me or most people. If he still comes to that conclusion today, "I would do it again" is the obvious answer.
That is the difference of being in a position of authority versus the opposite. When people look to people in authority, there are expectations, that they are somehow responsive to an organization’s needs, that they make the best possible decision based on the facts.
Negroponte took an action that proves he is unsuited for his position of authority, by making the worst possible statement and also by rejecting everyone’s opinion on the matter.
This was after Epstein’s 2008 guilty plea for child prostitution (not to mention several civil suits for child prostitution settled out of court). Rumors of Epstein’s large-scale child sex ring were widespread.
> would taking the money put him, the Media Lab, or anyone who worked there in a compromised or awkward position in the future?
Many researchers don’t want their paycheck to come from a child prostitution kingpin who made a career blackmailing rich pedophiles who had raped his child sex slaves.
Too late to edit at this point, but... damn. With all the recent news coming out, looks like Epstein was banned from any kind of donation to MIT due to his sex offender status, and Ito knew about everything at the time and did an end run around the ban in order to take his money. So yeah, nevermind, this is really bad.
Yes, Epstein was a scumbag. Did Ito know he was a scumbag when he took the money? And even if he did, would taking the money put him, the Media Lab, or anyone who worked there in a compromised or awkward position in the future? Was the money itself tainted in some way, derived from scumbag activities? If not (I couldn't really glean whether or not this was the case from the article), then... so what? Money is money, and it's hard enough already to raise money for "out there" research, even with MIT's reputation. At the very least, you could know that a scumbag's money was being used to do something actually good.