Last year I was introduced to Epstein as a potential @codeorg donor. I Googled him, saw he was a convicted sex offender, and ended talks. @MIT and @Joi should have done the same. Period.
Show this thread
-
Joi Ito’s resignation gives me mixed feelings.
@MIT leadership clearly failed in this case, no question.Show this thread
But choosing donors isn’t always so simple. Rejecting a convicted felon is easy. But what about a donor who is very unpopular, or who faces unverified accusations? At a time of division, mob judgement, and rampant misinformation, should a nonprofit be judge & jury of its donors?
-
-
At
@codeorg we published a donation policy a year ago for this very reason. We knew a donor would eventually bring us controversy.https://code.org/about/donation-policy …Show this thread -
Just because I rejected Epstein (and others too) doesn’t mean my every decision will be popular. We take funds from corporations and billionaires - inevitably one of my choices will be questioned.
Show this thread -
When that day comes, I hope my supporters realize that rejecting a donor’s gift is like taking $ away from education to give it to that donor. Taking $ away from children’s education is not at all easy.
Show this thread -
While I can’t promise my decisions will always be popular, they will never be secret like at
@MIT. Transparency is a core value at@codeorg, and our donors are public (unless *they* request anonymity).http://code.org/about/donorsShow this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm not so sure "rejecting a convicted felon is easy." This seems to imply there's no room for rehabilitation or second chances in life (or in philanthropy). I've worked with people who served time for murder and now are re-starting -- and am proud to do so.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.