MIT Media Lab founder: I would still take Jeffrey Epstein’s money today

My question to the group here is, are you individually willing to research the background of the people and funds you, as founders take as investors, and to what extent? Said more bluntly, would you shut your company down if you couldn't find other sources of financing?

I think the obvious answer is yes, but that's too obvious in some sense because these things lie on a spectrum.

Epstein post revelations should be outcast, that much is obvious. What of less egregious actors or associations? There are more than a few lecherous investors with less public exposure of their acts and equally deep pockets, wandering Sand Hill road.

Examples like the massive amount of Saudi national money [1] that is fueling funds like Softbank and Sequoia, and directly to companies like Uber, call into question where exactly the line is. You could replace Saudi with your particular questionable investor de jure.

In fact, when I've had conversations like this in the past, most recipients look at the question as pragmatic: "All money is dirty, and this was our best option." Point noted, but that just means founders and CEO are drawing their own arbitrary lines in the sand.

I don't have some kind of magic formula, but I think it's worth being introspective about this.

I'm trying to understand the ideology and thinking behind saying his money should not be taken. This is what I came up with.

"The world consists of Good and Bad people. Everything that bad people do is intrinsically bad, because it was done by a Bad person. Moreover the Bad can rub off on anyone getting too close.

Even an act that is normally Good, such as funding science becomes Bad if done by a Bad person. The scientists becomes tainted. The institute becomes tained. Even the knowledge itself is suspect.

This is why it's important to keep convicts isolated, untouchable pariah even after they have served their time. Their Bad needs to be quarantined."

It's probably a bit unfair but I can't think of anything else.

In another quote from the article:

"Negroponte pressed on: in the fundraising world, he said, these types of occurrences were not out of the ordinary, and it shouldn’t be reason enough to cut off business relationships."

Welcome to today.

Negroponte's quote, in light of the allegations and former conviction of Epstein, is callous and unconscionable. Furthermore, it paints MIT in a poor light, which as a former employee he should not have lightly done.

So, honest question: what's the intended outcome of scientists refusing the money? Is the hope that the money would somehow go toward making restitution to his victims? In our legal system, is that a realistic hope?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone here, just trying to understand the situation.

Doesn't look like this story is getting better for MIT.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-an-elite-univer...

What I hate about articles and reporting like this is the emphasis (in the lead) on that fact that some people were 'shocked'. You can always find 'some people' that will force their point of view and unfortunately do it in way that says 'there really isn't anything else to discuss about this issue it's open and shut'.

Also important to realize that there were most likely people at that meeting that agreed with what Negroponte said but were to afraid (for fear of backlash) to say that.

Finally this: “It wasn’t until another woman yelled “Shut up!” twice that Negroponte mumbled “Good grief,” and sat down.”" I am guessing that took Negroponte by surprised and he might be kicking himself now for not pushing back.

Great for him! I think it's quite ridiculous how we as a society structurally deny progress in the name of social justice instead of letting justice be dolled out by the government.