Imagine you’re a university fundraiser charged with raising
millions of dollars annually to fund the work of your institution. How much do you want to know about the source
of a donor’s wealth, the use of that wealth, or for that matter the personal
life and mores of the donor? If you find disturbing information, will such
knowledge cause you to break the relationship with the donor or will you turn a
blind and perhaps rationalizing eye in favor of the support such money will
provide for your institution?
A recent case involving the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) brings this question into sharp and discomfiting focus. It has the elements of a drama with a
colorful cast of characters, and a plot centered on questions of cover-up, poor
judgment and the plain old fashioned chase for money.
The setting: The prestigious MIT and its illustrious Media
Lab program. The cast: The Lab’s star Director Joichi (“Jo”) Ito, MIT’s top administration,
its development department and the late financier and convicted sex offender
Jeffrey Epstein. Prominent Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Lessig plays a
small, but significant, role. In the wings, with possible walk- ons, are
Microsoft’s Bill Gates and finance wizard Leon Black. The plot and Mise en Scene is created by The New Yorker magazine’s investigative
journalist Ronan Farrow.
On September 6, 2019, the magazine published a piece by
Farrow entitled “How an Elite University Research Center Concealed its
Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.” The
Pulitzer Prize winner Farrow, the son of Mia Farrow and Woody Allen, has
developed a reputation of uncovering sexual abuse allegations of notable
figures, most prominently the movie producer Harvey Weinstein .
In the article Farrow
details how the MIT administration and its Media Lab star Jo Ito hid the
identity of Jeffrey Epstein as a major
donor to the Lab of $1.7 million, while knowing full well of his 2008 Florida
conviction for procuring an underage girl for prostitution. The article was so
damning that Ito resigned from MIT less than a day after its publication. He
also left positions on the boards of the MacArthur Foundation and The New York
Times Company and as a visiting professor at the Harvard Law School. During his tenure at Media Lab, described by The New York Times as “a sort of
academic skunkworks,” Ito had helped raise $50 million.
The brilliant Ito, described by The New York Times as a “tech evangelist and master networker,” allegedly
also brokered, through Epstein, a major donation to MIT from Bill Gates and
Leon Black. Throughout, MIT ‘s administration concealed the deep relationship
it had with Epstein.
Then, if the Ito resignation was intended to end the matter,
the waters were roiled again by a friend of Ito and Harvard Law School
colleague Professor Lawrence Lessig. Within days he published a 3500 word essay
on the blogging platform “Medium” in support of Mr. Ito. Lessig, noted as an expert on intellectual
property and industrial corruption, argued that MIT’s keeping Epstein’s donations
anonymous was good as it avoided “whitewashing” his reputation. Another storm
of protest ensued.
Lessig defended his position in a September 17 interview
with The New York Times: “ ..the
suggestion of the Ronan Farrows of this world that somehow there’s something
terrible about the anonymity – no! If you’re going to take the money, you damn
well better make it anonymous. “
That begs the question:
Should you take the money in the first place? On this matter Lessig provided in his essay a
provocative template as a guide. He outlines four donor types institutions
might encounter :
“Type 1: People like Tom Hanks or Taylor Swift, whose wealth
comes from nothing but doing good.
Type 2: Entities like Google or Facebook or people whose
wealth comes from those companies of ambiguous good.
Type 3: Criminals, whose wealth does not derive from their
crime, such as Epstein , who no one suggested that his enormous wealth was the
product of blackmail or sex slavery.
Type 4: People or entities whose wealth comes from clearly
wrongful or harmful or immoral behavior, such as the RJ Reynolds Foundation, the
Sacklers and the Kochs.”
Lessig believes universities have taken donations from all of
the aforementioned categories. The MIT case, however, presents an opportunity
for soul searching by university administrations, which should begin with an
analysis of the motivation for a gift. Is it to advance the work of the
institution or is there any evidence the donor is looking to cleanse a
reputation? Donor types in categories 3
and 4 above would be suspect if it is the latter. Lessig argues that such gifts must be declared
anonymous so that any whitewashing can be blocked. That was MIT’s and Ito’s intent
in accepting the Epstein money on that condition.
As he admits, that strategy “was a ticking time bomb.” And when it went off, the damage was
compounded. The Lab staff was reportedly traumatized by learning of Epstein’s involvement
with MIT, hidden by the MIT hierarchy and especially by their boss, Jo Ito.
Lessig’s essay is remarkable in its emotional honesty. He is
a close friend of Ito, had prior knowledge of the MIT-Epstein connection and
what’s more, was a victim of sexual assault himself. He had to post several
clarifications to deal with the backlash to the essay specifically the
implication that he condoned universities accepting contributions from Type 3
(criminal) donors. He asserted he does not,
but if a university decides to accept such gifts they should be listed as anonymous. Further uproar ensued, and, in the language
of today, Lessig soon “walked that back”
to declare such donations should never be accepted.
The tortured Lawrence Lessig saga should not been seen as a
sidebar to the MIT drama. At its core, it
lays bare a moral and ethical dilemma facing those responsible for raising
funds for nonprofits when confronted by offers of money from donors with
dubious backgrounds. Equivocation and rationalization are temptations when
faced by the bald-faced need for money . MIT hid behind donor anonymity as the solution,
with the rationalization that at least Epstein’s reputation would not be
enhanced by revelation of the gifts. But these days there are few secrets that
can be hidden.
The simplest solution: Don’t accept blood money regardless
of the need. But as Lessig points out in his last rejoinder postscript: tell that to the
development department, .
And then be prepared to expect resistance from that quarter.
If the university sets such a “Just Say No” policy regarding big bad donors, think of
how much grief it will avoid in having to explain away tainted donations if,
and when, they are revealed. Along the way it would also have to deal with the
public relations damage that could affect the attitude of lower profile donors,
such as devoted alumni- the bedrock of any university’s support. So “No" is the
way to go. Fund raisers - are you listening?
Comments on this post
and any others found in the archive to the left are welcome at: gplatt63@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment