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.

That spectrum would involve how much control over yourself and your work you're giving to your funders, and how much you stand to lose by saying no to them after you've accepted their money.

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.

I think the argument against taking money from him centers around influence.

Taking money from someone is perceived as them gaining influence over the opinions and actions of the person receiving it. When the person donating is a "bad person" then they are a bad influence and taint the receivers actions also.

I can see how this is sometimes true, like if big tobacco donated to research on the safety of tobacco. Or if they took money from Epstein and used it to research sexuality in children that would be a problem.

But I don't see how that concern applies in this case.

Epstein showed a lot of interest in all kinds of scientifically and ethically dubious ideas like eugenics, and he actively prodded people in favor of these ideas at the dinners, parties, and jet rides he hosted.

This was not a case of a guy just writing a check and receding back into the woodwork. (Even if it was, I'd still say "trafficking children to be raped" is a bridge too far on the path of "ethical violations which are sufficient to refuse donations.")

I wonder how many pro-eugenecists realize that if their dream became a reality, they might not make the cut...

Judging by the other responses, you nailed it. Not being unfair at all. Unfortunately.

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.

"Look, man, do you know how hard it would be to raise money of any significance if I just followed a blanket 'no taking money from pedophile sex traffickers' rule?"

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.

I think the hope is that the money could not be used to help Epstein rebuild his reputation and prestige via association with respected scientists, and also that they might have avoided any taint to their research from Epstein's interest in junk science like eugenics.

The most important reason to refuse the money is to refuse the possibility of being influenced by such an awful person - Epstein wanted to hang around with the scientists he supported.

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.

> 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.

While I agree with you that at times a small minority can shut down discussion, in this particular case I think an overwhelming majority of that audience believed that taking Epstein's money was unconscionable. So while there probably at least a few audience members who agreed with Negroponte, and while those who agreed were probably afraid to publicly voice their support, I'm doubtful there were actually that many of them.

But perhaps I'm wrong. Do you have a way of estimating what percentage of people believe that accepting money from a convicted sex offender (and accused pedophile) is ethically appropriate?

Well first I don't think the rightness or wrongness should be determined by a vote of either those in attendance or those on HN. If you asked kids if they like to take 3 less classes in high school they'd probably say 'sure sounds good to me'. People will make all sorts of decisions for the wrong reason.

Of course they might say taking Epstein's money was wrong after all it has no impact on them personally. Now if they were a college student and Epstein was paying for scholarships and they viewed that as a personal benefit to them they might be ok with it and look the other way. This is the way people are.

As far as taking money from a 'convicted sex offender' (the 'accused' makes zero difference and should) he did his crime and he served his time. He went through the criminal justice system. He should be given a 2nd chance. It's unclear to me why people are willing to give all sorts of criminal offenders 2nd chances but not for sex crimes. And make no mistake there are plenty of people who have committed crimes who have impacted far more people that nobody seems to care about that much after the fact and will allow a 2nd chance.

Well the article only mentions one person yelling at him to shut up. Out of the entire audience.

The article also doesn't say that him being told to shut up was net with applause, or anything like that.

And considering that slant in the article, if there was any hint more people agreed, you know it would be in there.

As a Media Lab alum, I know there are plenty of people who agreed. It takes courage to interrupt the venerated founder, especially when your livelihood depends on the person he's defending, and the people with whom they've built relationships.

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.