Yes! He used these donations to network with elites and manipulated those connections to shield himself. That's how, after being convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in 2008, he was given a brief sentence that included a 6-day-a-week 12-hour-a-day "work release" to his office, and a federal non-prosecution agreement. He obtained that with the help of people like Alan Dershowitz and Steven Pinker, both from Harvard.

If the rich and powerful can exploit the real justice system based on hard evidence, they can also exploit the mob justice system based on speculation to destroy their enemies. If this is normalized, then people like Epstein would have more ammunition that they can use for blackmail.

>He obtained that with the help of people like Alan Dershowitz and Steven Pinker, both from Harvard.

These two people offered Epstein specialized services that let him off easy. I don't see the same clear connection to wrongdoing in this case. All Epstein got from it was an office and a web page thanking him for the large donation. If that's wrong, then Mcdonald's is also wrong for providing him calories required to operate.

Do you honestly not see a material difference between McDonald's giving Epstein an office and putting up a webpage thanking him for his contributions to their business and McDonald's selling Epstein a hamburger? Do you honestly think that people would be angry at MIT for having allowed Epstein to eat in their food court without discovering his identity and forbidding him to eat there?

If not, this is a dishonest argument.

> Do you honestly think that people would be angry at MIT for having allowed Epstein to eat in their food court without discovering his identity and forbidding him to eat there?

That's my point. People shouldn't be angry at that, so they shouldn't be angry at this.

Even if McDonalds can identify Epstein at all their locations, there is still no reason to deny him service. It's not their duty to make up for the broken justice system nor should it be. Same goes for program director. Unless if there is evidence of a connection between the evolution center and his sex trafficking, then it's pointless to shut it down.

Thank you. I think these connections are not known enough.

The act of donating is not just something that happens in a vacuum, and having ties to Epstein just ends up leading to tons of questions. "Did someone exchange favors for sex? What caused Epstein to donate? Who was engaging in what sort of relationships with him and his associates?"

This is why you don't just accept any and all donations from anyone. And here the best option seems obviously to close the center and open something new that does not have the ties to Epstein hanging over it.

The whole thing reminds me more and more of subculture of Russian jails. By touching or interacting with something disgraceful, even in-directly, you'll acquire "зашквар" and will be put out-of-the-law (criminal law that is) and will be forced to do disgraceful things, provide sexual services, etc.

Example of an act. If someone uses a toilet and then doesn't wash their hands and someone shakes their hand, the person who shook the had go "зашквар" now and that's it, they are done. They'll get a whole in their metal plate they use for food, may be some special tatoos, etc, etc...

Yes, he used his connections to Harvard explicitly to pressure women and law enforcement. Multiple Harvard faculty are also accused of raping girls Epstein provided.

Let’s scale that to the absurd:

“Harvard closes evolution center after finding connections to Adolf Hitler”

And then let’s evaluate your comment in that context:

> If Hitler wasn't allowed to donate to Harvard, would that have somehow prevented World War 2? Would it have made the world a better place?

In our hypothetical situation, no, it wouldn’t have done either of those things. But first, Harvard could reasonably say “you know, that money just isn’t worth it.” They could also reasonably say “we don’t want the taint of that name on our institution, or to have to explain why we were OK keeping it.”

I don’t think anyone’s likely to honestly argue against the hypothetical school’s actions. In other words, we can agree that there are people so awful that you just don’t want anything to do with them.

Real world Harvard ran the moral calculus on Epstein and came to the same conclusion as the hypothetical one. The only discussion is whether Epstein should be elevated to the level of awfulness that the school should take these actions. Apparently Harvard felt so, and I think that was a fair and sensible decision.