This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 06:44, November 11, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
I don't know Ito, but this article gives me a bad impression. It's trite. It's sappy. It's a masterpiece of bloviation. It was worse before, and it is still nauseating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.164.197 (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of all this self-absorbed garbage about Joi Ito, lets compare another person's Wikipedia entry that is more appropriate, Craig Newmark. Factual. Brief. To the point. Not all of this bullshit we see in the Joi Ito article, 90% of which is useless crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.181.179 (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they will never marry ("yet"?)... what is the point of having her picture in his Article???? Other wiki article about notable persons usually do not have pictures of their partners?? Can we take this picture out, there is no relevance.
--SasiSasi (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it means BUSINESS partner, obviously.
No one's gonna put a picture of a GIRLFRIEND in an article like this!!
Right, I removed the picture and her first name.... I assume she has a surname(?), if we need her name in the article, it should be her full name.
--SasiSasi (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have provided no reason based on Wikipedia policy why this free image, relevant to the topic, should not be used in the article. Ito has confirmed above that the individual is his girlfriend. Unless there is a sound argument forthcoming, I am restoring the content to the article. Skomorokh08:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead... since this is MySpace and we should invite all living notable persons to post a picture of their girlfriend in their Article. Show me one other notable person article that contains a picture of the girlfriend.
--SasiSasi (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. It is a free, high quality image relevant to the text of the article, and you have declined to make any argument for removing it. Skomorokh09:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go...
"Wikipedia is not a social network such as MySpace or Facebook. You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages are not:
Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your resume, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account..."
Also:
"Autobiography
Avoid writing or editing articles about yourself, since most of us find objectivity especially difficult when we ourselves are concerned (however it is not impossible.). Contribute on the talk page instead. Feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself."
Its not "verifiable" and not "sourced" apart from the fact that Joi Ito has edited his own article, which is discouraged as per Wikipedia policy.
Also:
"Privacy of names
Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.
Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger. In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page."
I think the fundamental problem is that Joi has started editing his own article heavily, without his involvement we would not have a picture of the lady in the first place, and would not have a discussion about this. I fail to see how a picture of his girlfriend is relevant to the article (as he is notable in a professional capacity, not for his private life). Just because something is a free image does not mean we have to include it in Wikipedia.
--SasiSasi (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. You claim that " the fundamental problem is that Joi has started editing his own article heavily" when he has not edited the article since September 28, 2007. Your quote from WP:MYSPACE and WP:AUTO are thus irrelevant. A picture of the girlfriend of Joi Ito is relevant to this article because this article concerns Joi Ito. Notability of individuals on Wikipedia is all or nothing - statements like "he is notable in a professional capacity, not for his private life" are incoherent in a Wikipedia context. The image of Ito's girlfriend comes from his own Flickr account, so biographies of living people privacy concerns are scarcely relevant here. Skomorokh09:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We agree that we disagree on that one then. If you think that a encyclopaedia should include private pictures of non-notable girlfriends (only identified by their first name), that’s fine by me (thankfully this has not yet become the norm in Wikipedia).... I just hope Joi let us know when they break up (or finally marry), so we can update the article accordingly, it would be a shame if we or anybody else in the world should miss this absolutely relevant and important piece of information.--SasiSasi (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be the tiebreaker. Who the *bleep* CARES who he's dating?!
You led me to believe it was his BUSINESS partner. If it's just some babe he's shacked up with in Chiba, it doesn't deserve even a MENTION here!
If she is actively involved in his business and/or philanthropy (as, say, Melinda Gates), I would say a mention is in order. Not a photo. Unless it's a photo of them together cutting a ribbon or something. Or unless she is famous in her own right and you want to say "He's been linked to...".
But if she's just some nobody in the background -- as evidenced by the fact that we don't even know her FULL NAME (!) -- well then, let her remain in the "background"....
Well, well, I understand they have a meaningful relationship, its not just quick sex in Chiba! Why would we otherwise have to discuss her picture in his article at lengths.
Is there anyway we can refer this issue to an administrator, to get it settled??
At the very least put in her surname!!! I feel offended on her behalf that she is not even worthy of a surname, just a decorative picture (the fact that her surname is not provided may have something to do with the fact that people originally thought she was his wife). If we had her surname we might also be able to establish if she is noteworthy in her own right, than we can move that picture to her own article (after all this is the 21st Century and she might be more than just “the pretty girlfriend”).
--SasiSasi (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SasiSasi that there is no reason for the article to include a picture of only his girlfriend. If it were a picture of the two of them together, then that would be understandable, since free-use pictures are hard to come by. But his girlfriend is not independently notable, so there's no need for her picture to be there. ...discospinstertalk00:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
> the fact that her surname is not provided may have something to do with the fact that people originally thought she was his wife
i dunno about wife, but the fact that his SISTER has a nearly identical name and *IS* his business "partner" (in some ventures) led me to assume that was HER.
BTW, I checked Ted Turner's wiki (only entrepreneur I could think of offhand who's not married) and, surprise surprise, it has THIS note: "Turner is reportedly involved with several women, including the novelist and playwright Elizabeth Dewberry."
What?! Not a single photo?!
How odd. Surely we should have a full GALLERY of those "several women"...all of whom I suspect are more prominent than Madame Coffeeshop...I dunno...at least they might have SURNAMES.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.48.78.19 (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So just a few comments of clarification. I've lived with Mizuka for about 11 years I think and her mother lives with me as well. We are much closer than "girlfriend/boyfriend". In some countries we would be legally married under common law I think. That's why I usually introduce her as my "partner". Having said that, I don't really care either way whether her picture appears. You decide. ;-)
While "partner" is quite common in these situations, given all the BUSINESS connections being discussed in the article, it's just asking for confusion to use it here. I honestly thought the original line meant "business partner".
I dunno what else to offer. "Girlfriend" DOES sound a bit trifling, I agree with you, but no one wants to be called a "common law wife" either!! You're lucky she doesn't SLAP you when you propose that term!!!! ;->
I definitely did not put the photo of her up. I haven't edited the article in terms of substance for as far as I can remember, although I may have done something a long time ago when I was more ignorant. The edit that I did in September last year. was to fix some of the formatting in a citation/reference. Several Wikipedians told me that fixing formatting would be OK. However, since then, I've decided to stop doing even that. Everything substantive, I've basically posted on the talk page and NOT on the article. (See the Editing my own article section below) I also have discouraged people who I am related to or closely connected to from editing my page as well. --Joi (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will change the article to "his longterm partner Mizuka Kurogane", cant think of a more appropiate term than "longterm partner" in English, any alternative suggestions welcome.
--SasiSasi (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Longterm partner" does sound better than plain ole "partner", but I still think it sounds like a business partner in a bio like this. If someone refered to Bill Gates' "long-term partner", I would immediately think of Balmer et al.
I think one way to diffuse this would be to insert an OCCUPATION for Ms Kurogane: "...his longterm partner, actress Mizuka Kurogane" or "...his longterm partner, bank teller Mizuka Kurogane" etc.
LOL! I like your changes, but I *STILL* think it reads as "business partner" as it now sits.
BTW, can "home maker" be used for a non-wife? I myself lived w long-term girlfriend, and even during her longterm stretchs sans employment, I can't imagine calling her a "home maker".
I dunno if that's coz she was single (and in and out of employment, depending on where I got posted), or just a generational thing. Not sure I'd call ANYONE my age a "home maker"....
BTW, Joi-kun, while we have your attention...pls. explain what "On the long tail" means 2 sections down!!!! On ni kiru!
What is the politically correct way of referring to someone whose primary job/pride/focus is taking care of the home? --Joi (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually in older versions. Someone deleted it. For instance: [1] - I think someone doesn't like this fact. The original simple "Ito is Timothy Leary's godson" was replaced by some weird longer "Ito claims" comment. Not that it's not true, but... ;-) Anyway, I don't really feel like bickering over this sort of detail, but it is slightly annoying. If you need references, I think I can dig up letters or something from Tim with a reference. --Joi14:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious about this, pardon the language, bullshit. Isn't it obvious that there is a secular tradition of selecting godparents and godchildren? It's just not as documented a tradition... No need for this convoluted weirdness, Leary had simply taken Ito as his godson? (which I'd of course be personally interested in learning more about, but that's private not public). I'm gonna go poke at the Godparent talk page to see if someone can reflect the secular tradition as well. -- CarlJohanSveningsson (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been talking to some of the admins in the IRC channel and it is my understanding that I can edit my own article to clean up formating, grammar, etc. so I may do this from time to time. Although, I would rather have someone else do it. ;-P --Joi14:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked again at the article and thought about cleaning it up, but realized that it would introduce bias so decided against it. --Joi02:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind. I'm not going to edit my own article. Also, if you're a close friend or family, please do not edit my article. Personally, I think articles on the long tail like mine are kind of between a rock and a hard place where probably only the people who have a conflict are really interested in doing anything about the article. I suppose that's a lack of notability in a sense.
But I think there is probably a chunk of articles like mine that are probably notable enough to be worthy, but not notable enough to get attention from normal people...
Anyway, if it's OK with everyone, I'll post suggestions here and if anyone feels like adding them to the article or making the changes, please do so at your convenience. --Joi12:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the suggestions I will make will primarily be for the purpose of linking this article to other notable articles I find on Wikipedia to increase context and to provide references for unreferenced assertions. --Joi12:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to organise the material into sections. I think the main areas requiring attention are the long lead section, which is a list of posts rather than a succinct statement, and the presence of too many one line statements beginning Ito this... and Ito that..., which needed to be converted into joined up prose. William Avery13:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, just keep editing the article here, I'll incorporate the good changes into my version and finally merge it back. It's going to take a while since this article needs a lot of work. JACOPLANE • 2007-09-28 13:31
The sections helped a great deal, William Avery. Also a good third party source exists in Finland that could replace a string of external links in the lead so that is now in place (I removed the cleanup tag for now). -Susanlesch13:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rated Start (high start!) but there are quite a few good sources here. This could be a B class biography quite soon if not now I think. -Susanlesch14:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't want to add things directly to my page, but if someone could review the following references and add them to my article if it makes sense, that would be great. Thanks. -- Joi00:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page seems to be out of order date wise? No biggie, just sort of hard to follow. Also, in the info box, it has this persons schools listed with "drop out" in parenthases, is this standard? Cheers, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keio University, USC Annenberg Center and Machinima.com
I update it if Joi gets round to uploading some more photos :-) Davis Guggenheim is missing, if we get a photo of him I update his Profile as well.--SasiSasi (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
dont want to come across as demanding, but can we have a picture without baby...? Its a lovely baby, but I guess if we have a picture of it in his article we have to establish its name and occupation, and origin. So no pressure.
by the way, I have created an article for Kevin Werbach and have submitted his and Susan Crawford's selection to lead the FCC review on "did you know.." If the nomination goes through (dunno, let see) this info should be on the front page in next couple of days. Could you upload a picture of him for his article?--SasiSasi (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no vote, the article has to meet certain criteria (length and quality), and some random admin needs to be convinced that it is a worthy subject matter. A picture would not make a difference, but it is a nice touche.
The DYK hook has been approved, jipi, but dunno when its gona be on the front page, has to be in the next 3 to 4 days because the Werbach article was created on the 19th and the DYK articles on the front page can not be older than 5 days.--SasiSasi (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She is now Mizuka Ito. Which is unfortunately VERY similar to my sister's name, Mizuko "Mimi" Ito... hmm... IN Japanese their names are slightly more different however. 瑞佳 vs 瑞子--Joi (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you spoil us, this is far too easy now! are you not suppose to be on honeymoon or something like that... all the best for you two. --SasiSasi (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to add these myself, but if anyone has time, maybe add them to the references. I'll try to keep this section updated with stuff that isn't in the article.
I have just added archive links to one external link on Joi Ito. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Joi Ito. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Joi Ito. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 7 external links on Joi Ito. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on Joi Ito. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Joi Ito. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
This article is very difficult to edit today, however, I am attempting to limit the number of times the lead states allegations. It would be great if Wikipedians could stop to read first before adding more repetition. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Career section is very bad -- development is not described
There is a big gap in this article between 1985 and 1995 -- there is nothing that explains how Joi Ito's career got to the point where he became a board member of various organizations. There is almost no development described, just his later activities.
Ito resigned from his roles at MIT, Harvard, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Knight Foundation, PureTech Health, and The New York Times Company on September 7, 2019, following allegations of financial ties to sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Every coffee shop I've ever patronized has "financial ties" to my sordid life. But we don't hold this against them, because no patron with shirt and shoes and at least a superficial semblance of personal and civic hygiene is ever refused.
In The Emotion Machine, Marvin Minsky discusses suitcase words—words that contain a variety of meanings packed into them, such as conscience, emotions, consciousness, experience, thinking, morality, right, and wrong.
The word 'consciousness' is used to describe a wide range of activities, such as "how we reason and make decisions, how we represent our intentions, and how we know what we've recently done [p128]."
If we want to better understand the various meanings of consciousness we need to analyse each one separately, rather than treating it as a single concept.
"Financial ties" is not a suitcase word by this definition, but does belong to a nearby category I was inspired to create for myself of trombone words: words with a wide, unstated range of zeal. My financial ties to my local coffee shops fall at the low end of that range. Progressing upwards from there, the word encompasses fifty different shades of grey.
Absolutely critical to this article is to distinguish Ito as:
an administrative functionary acting on behalf of his institution, with normal oversight and approval
a rogue functionary explicitly side-stepping institutional controls
somewhere in between: an administrative functionary acting in part measure on behalf of his institutions, with also an element of rogue behaviour, and if rogue:
as freelance rogue, marching entirely to his own drum
with explicit but unrecorded permission under some institutional don't ask, don't tell cone of silence
somewhere in between: some explicit permission recorded, subsequent permission shrouded in fog
under extreme but deniable institutional incentives to engage in PR risk on the prospect of great career rewards if all goes well (no public controversy), or axed into a pit of spikes and alligators of institutional denial with surviving remains—if any—thrown under a bus should the risk explode into public view
operating entirely in his own capacity (e.g. entrepreneurial side-hustle)
We have strong evidence to home in on menu item 3.3 right from the outset here, because L. Rafael Reif is not even contesting his signature and oversight committee involvement in the original oversight process, after which point, Farrow's reportage shades to shameless:
The M.I.T. Media Lab, which has been embroiled in a scandal over accepting donations from the financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, had a deeper fund-raising relationship with Epstein than it has previously acknowledged, and it attempted to conceal the extent of its contacts with him.
Dozens of pages of e-mails and other documents obtained by The New Yorker reveal that, although Epstein was listed as "disqualified" in M.I.T.'s official donor database, the Media Lab continued to accept gifts from him, consulted him about the use of the funds, and, by marking his contributions as anonymous, avoided disclosing their full extent, both publicly and within the university.
Everyone involved knew of Epstein's criminal record as a sex offender, yet higher administration scheduled a meeting to discuss among themselves whether they might nevertheless take his money. If the "disqualification" list functions as Farrow wishes to imply—as the Eliot Ness of no-mess rectitude—that meeting never happens. (What every overburdened administrator craves is the opportunity to add another discussion point with no marginal upside to the agenda for their next airless assembly.)
Menu item 3.3 is an ever-popular institutional compromise. No sane individual wishes to go 100% rogue, so initial permission is sought on some kind of paper trail (it may be deeply buried paper trail stored in a nondescript warehouse beside the Ark of the Covenant, but it's secure enough to not accidentally die in a fire). But on the other hand, you never please your superiors by getting their hands dirtier than necessary, so the initial Rx is implicitly a bottomless cup with no in-built refill limit.
What we must not do in a BLP is allow the trombone phrase "financial ties" to implicitly suggest that Ito went rogue in his role as an administrative caretaker of the institution he represented. It's an entirely different crime to drag someone else into your muck unwittingly. What he did outside of MIT on his own account is an entirely different moral realm. For one thing, in this realm you can honourably fall on your own sword, without also being actively and aggressively tossed into a pit of alligators and spikes by your formerly trusting colleagues now racing to the exit to distance themselves from a bad smell. It's one thing to stain your own reputation, it's entirely another thing to stain the reputations of others, unwittingly.
At this juncture, Farrow could show up to double down: if Epstein is formally on MIT's no-fly list, and Ito is the PR face the MIT (he was), then he should have kept his private entrepreneurial life equally spick and span. (Almost inevitably, the hypocrisy involved in the moral calculus of guilt by association is thick enough to chew, but that's not immediately pertinent here.)
Only we know for certain that MIT was not Eliot Ness in their own administration of their own no-fly list. In fact, the "disqualified" annotation in M.I.T.'s official donor database might have been a hypocritical PR facade right from the get go. The film Belle de Jour puns on "belle de nuit" (lady of the night). We all understand that prostitution is an institution of the night: if you're doing it in broad daylight, you've jumped the shark. Raising money often degenerates into a form of prostitution: your success on the whole is inversely proportional to how much you care where it comes from. Squeaky clean money is hard to get. (And not just because squeaky clean billionaires are thin on the ground to begin with; the philanthropic impulse often burns brightest in the dankest corridors.)
Perhaps M.I.T.'s official donor database only thoroughly disqualifies Belle de Jours.
If that's the institutional context that Ito was operating within (why else would he even refer the question to committee?; why else would the committee even meet to discuss this?; why else would L. Rafael Reif now be distressed to confess his formal signature on a very embarrassing document?) then his subsequent minimal and perhaps evasive reporting standard is best viewed as institutional capture rather than outright rogue malfeasance.
Shouldn't the standards of BLP and innocence before proven guilty suffice to restrict our trombone insinuations to the right crime?
Ito's financial ties come in three stripes:
some with full institutional oversight at the highest level of administration
some less fulsomely disclosed within the institution, with ongoing implicit endorsement of that ongoing relationship yet shrouded in fog
some entirely on his own account, outside of MIT, and broadly outside the governance of MIT's "disqualification" list
But I'm too hot-headed right now about this to dive in myself, and I've said what I intended to say (if it falls on deaf ears, restatement will not rescue my point), and so I will now simply move along and leave this for the next editor to adjudicate.
Contrary to certain media reports, neither Epstein nor his foundations were ever coded as “disqualified” in MIT’s donor database. Further, designation as “disqualified” does not mean that a person or entity is prohibited from donating to the Institute; rather, the term refers to any donor who is inactive or no longer interested in giving to MIT.
