Hadi PartoviVerified account

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?

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.

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.

How does this solve the problem? Didn’t @billgates request anonymity from MIT medialab as well as fact that Epstein was responsible for his donation? It doesn’t appear Epstein opposed having his own donations anonymous either.

There are generous families who have given us gifts anonymously to avoid the limelight of attention, driven by humility not secrecy. If a small donor has zero influence on our education decisions or direction, it's reasonable to respect their preference for privacy.

In my experience, small donors are less likely to ask for anonymity than large donors. If someone like @billgates asks to give you $1 million or more anonymously, you refuse to allow this?