Analytical Framework Analysis

Analysis, Pages 6 (1392 words)

Views

133

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is one of the most prestigious universities in the United States. It is listed as #3 on U.S.New's best colleges. You can imagine my surprise when I read an article from The New Yorker highlighting the most recent scandal involving MIT’s media lab. In reading this article, I learned that MIT’s media lab accepted donations from Jeffrey Epstein, who is a convicted sex offender. Not only did the Media lab accept donations from Epstein, they, in turn, but also listed the donations as anonymous from the organization and the public (Farrow, 2019).

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get your custom essay on

“ Analytical Framework Analysis ”

Get custom paper

NEW! smart matching with writer

The Lab’s Director Ito was aware that Epstein was listed as a disqualified donor in MIT’s database and he continued to accept donations and consulted with him on the use of the funds (Farrow, 2019).

The entire Media lab staff were aware of Epstein’s donations, as multiple emails documented that the Epstein donations should be labeled as anonymous. Epstein visited the Media lab on multiple occasions for meetings with Ito.

An article in The New Yorker brought to light the truth regarding the donations and the role the senior leadership played in hiding the truth.

MIT’s media lab actions presented various ethical issues. The lab Director Ito documented his meetings with Epstein as VIP or J.E. on his calendar as various individuals had access to his calendar. Ito did not want everyone to know he was meeting with Epstein to discuss donations and the use of the funds (Farrow, 2019). Ito also directed his staff to ensure that Epstein’s donations were anonymous. While this is a common practice for some donors, the reason behind Ito’s request was due to Epstein’s conviction as a sex offender and that he was listed as a disqualified donor. MIT’s mission statement, which can be found on the MIT website, states “We seek to develop each member of the MIT community the ability and passion to work wisely, creatively, and effectively for the betterment of humankind”. Ito’s actions went against MIT's code of ethics. Accepting donations from a convicted sex offender is in violation of IS Principles 2 – Code of Ethics. Allowing Epstein to meet with Ito in an office filled with females proposed a series of ethical dilemmas. Ito was also not honest about his relationship with Epstein. He claimed that the lab received donations from foundations that Epstein controlled, when in fact he had met with Epstein on numerous occasions (Farrow, 2019). When Epstein arrived for meetings, he was accompanied by two women. The staff members in the office were worried about the well-being of these women due to Epstein’s convictions (Farrow, 2019). The dilemma of accepting donations from a disqualified donor not only goes against the code of ethics, but it also goes against the policies MIT has implemented. In MIT’s employment policy which can be found on MIT’s site, there is a section on dishonesty and states “Dishonesty is grounds for serious disciplinary action, up to and including discharge”. Ito did not act honestly in hiding these meetings from the organization and asking his staff to cover them up.

The MIT Media Lab’s mission is to “create technologies to make our lives safer, cleaner, healthier, fairer, and more productive”. Accepting donations from Epstein has tarnished the lab’s reputation and the good work that has been done thus far. The IS Principle 30 states “A charitable organization should adopt clear policies, based on its specific exempt purpose, to determine whether accepting a gift would compromise its ethics, financial circumstances, program focus, or other interests” (IS Principles, pg 40). Ito should have realized the ethical dilemma he would place the Media Lab in when accepting donations from Epstein. MIT is a prestigious university and the Media Lab turned its backs on doing the right thing. Arwa Mboya wrote a column in August of 2019, prior to the New Yorker article, requesting Joi Ito to resign. She was a student at MIT and was appalled by the actions taken by Ito. Mboya stated, “I am calling for the immediate resignation of MIT Media Lab Director Joi Ito because of his deep connections with Epstein, his lack of leadership explaining involvement, and the lack of transparency about the extent of his interactions with Epstein.” (Mboya, 2019). When reviewing IS Principle 30 – Ito was unethical in taking donations from Epstein as it compromised the Media Lab’s ethics. Ethan Zukerman leads the Center for Civic Media and in light of this scandal, has decided they will not work with the Media Lab (Mboya, 2019). The Media Lab’s involvement with Epstein has set off a chain reaction that will diminish the advances they have made in technology. It will take the lab quite some time to gain the public’s trust back.

When referencing the analytical framework, I perceived that Ito’s decision-making was based on a consequentialist framework. Ito’s goal was to raise money for the Media Lab in order to continue with research. Ito’s decision to work with Epstein impacted the staff, students, and research of the lab. Ito was well known in his field and the Media Lab is responsible for the disobedience award. The award honored the women who started the Me Too movement. As a female, I cannot imagine working for an institution that allows a sex offender to walk the halls. In Mboya’s column, she also stated that an employee was asked to send a Disobedience award to Epstein. Ito was not only unethical in his dealings, he was also hypocritical. Ito’s overall goal was to obtain funds however, he lacked the basic sense of what is right. He chose to ignore the women and girls that suffered from Epstein’s behavior. The appearance of impropriety is due to the fact that Ito was not transparent in his dealings with Epstein. When you consider the lengths Ito took to keep his relationship with Epstein private, one might assume that there was a personal connection there. IS Principle 3 – Conflict of interest highlights that senior leadership must act in the organization's best interest rather than their own personal interest. When the Media Lab raised the money it succeeded, and in turn, Ito became more successful. Ito prioritized the monetary value of the donations over what Epstein stood for as an individual. He ignored the mission behind his lab and jeopardized its reputation for years to come.

It is my belief that Ito and the Media Lab (as well as MIT as an organization) should not have taken Epstein’s donation. The media lab violated MIT’s code of ethics by working with a disqualified donor. The Media Lab’s and MIT’s name will now be associated with a sex offender. With each passing day, the Media Lab is under media scrutiny and various stories are being brought to the light of the unethical practices within the lab. Another interesting cavoite in this story is that the Whistleblower’s that came forward to Farrow from The New Yorker also gave this information to the NYTimes. However, the times did not go into details regarding Ito’s relationship with Epstein. This could be due to the fact that Ito was on the Board of Directors for the NYTimes (he has since resigned). This is a prime example of the competing interests that surrounded the Ito/Epstein scandal.

While Ito played a large role in this scandal, he is not alone. Ito’s actions mirror that of men in high power, who believe they can do whatever they want, without facing any repercussions. “Neither honesty nor integrity should be abandoned for personal gains or to achieve an advantage in any situation” (Gough Jr., 2013). The culture over the years has been to cover up the wrongdoings of powerful men. I was most impressed by Arwa Mboya’s column and her decision to speak out on the actions taken by Ito. Once the article by Farrow was released, Ito resigned. It is not enough. This scandal should be an example to all men in power as a tale of caution. It is my hope that Ito’s relationship with Epstein is investigated by MIT to see if there was any personal gain from Ito’s relationship. Institutions across the United States must hold their executives accountable for their ethical wrongdoings.