Trump and Musk’s Unlikely Alliance Breaks Down in Rapid and Public Fashion; The New York Times, June 5, 2025

Tyler Pager and Theodore Schleifer , The New York Times; Trump and Musk’s Unlikely Alliance Breaks Down in Rapid and Public Fashion

[Kip Currier: In the words of fictional billionaire Logan Roy from TV's Succession, these "are not serious people." As George Dillard wrote in a 2024 "We Are Not Serious People" piece for Medium:

"There were a lot of memorable lines in Succession, but Logan’s line is the one I often find myself repeating in my head, because there are not a lot of serious people left in America anymore." 

https://worldhistory.medium.com/we-are-not-serious-people-00ca768240e3

These are not individuals of good character or emotional intelligence whom reasonable, thinking, morally-grounded people with sound judgment would want leading them, working for them, or in a relationship with any family member they care about.

Even more, Trump and Musk et al are not people you want with access to the nuclear codes or in charge of spacecraft and satellites your country depends upon. They care nothing about the well-being of anyone other than themselves and perhaps a tiny handful of people in their immediate oligarchic circles. They are rich in assets and bankrupt in any semblance of decency or dignity.

And yet...here we are. Remember this at election time in 2026 and 2028.]

[Excerpt]

"The sparring swiftly devolved into threats on their respective social media platforms, as Mr. Trump threatened to cut the billions in dollars in federal government contracts with Mr. Musk’s companies. For his part, Mr. Musk unleashed a tirade of attacks on the man he had once lavishly praised. He suggested it might be time to create a new political party, claimed there were references to Mr. Trump in government documents about the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and indicated his support for a post calling for the president’s impeachment."

For Jeffrey Epstein, MIT Was Just a Safety School; Wired, May 4, 2020

Noam Cohen, Wired; For Jeffrey Epstein, MIT Was Just a Safety School

"The MIT and Harvard reports are most illuminating when read together. They overlap in revealing ways and share certain observations...

In part, we can chalk up the difference to bad timing. Harvard came first in Epstein’s mind, which, I suppose, says something about its reputation among status-obsessed faux-intellectuals. When Harvard was accepting Esptein’s donations, it was dealing with a disreputable character; MIT, by contrast, was dealing with a convicted sex offender...

What remains is the hard-baked irony that MIT, which got relatively little from Epstein, drew the bad headlines; whereas Harvard, which took 10 times as much of Epstein’s money, could almost claim its hands were clean. MIT announced last year that it would be donating to a charity benefiting sexual-abuse survivors all of its Epstein monies ($850,000 collected before and after his conviction). Harvard on Friday announced that it would be donating to organizations that support victims of human trafficking and sexual assault exactly what was left over from Epstein’s multimillion-dollar donations: $200,937."

Harvard’s Epstein corruption deserves a full airing — even amid a pandemic; The Washington Post, May 4, 2020

Charles Lane, The Washington Post; Harvard’s Epstein corruption deserves a full airing — even amid a pandemic

[Kip Currier: Fortuitous to see this story -- and the call for this "cautionary" real world case study to be investigated  -- as I’ve included this as a case study in the syllabus for my new graduate course, The Information Professional in the Community, launching next week.

In one of the course’s weekly units, we'll be exploring Harvard's deeply concerning ties to the late disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein and, in columnist Charles Lane's parlance, "the cutting of ethical corners", within the broader context of critically examining Fiscal Considerations, Legal/Ethical/Policy Issues, and Risk Management in Collaborations and Partnerships.] 

"Such grotesque money-grubbing at the pinnacle of U.S. academia — a school, to be sure, that has positioned itself an ethical leader, especially in the movement against sexual assault and gender bias on campus — deserves a full airing, even amid the novel coronavirus pandemic...

It joins a lengthening list of cautionary tales of fundraising excess, such as the admissions-for-cash episode involving athletic teams at Yale, Stanford, the University of California at Los Angeles, the University of Southern California and Georgetown, among others...

The need for cash is probably at or near an all-time high, and so is the risk, reputational and otherwise, of cutting ethical corners to raise it.

Professors and administrators can ill afford the moral arrogance that characterized the dealings of some at Harvard with Epstein, or their sloppiness, or their cluelessness...

Not everyone at Harvard — much less everyone in higher ed — is to blame for this sorry episode. Every college and university can learn from it."

How an Élite University Research Center Concealed Its Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein; The New Yorker, September 6, 2019

Ronan Farrow, The New Yorker;

How an Élite University Research Center Concealed Its Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein

New documents show that the M.I.T. Media Lab was aware of Epstein’s status as a convicted sex offender, and that Epstein directed contributions to the lab far exceeding the amounts M.I.T. has publicly admitted.

 

"Current and former faculty and staff of the media lab described a pattern of concealing Epstein’s involvement with the institution. Signe Swenson, a former development associate and alumni coordinator at the lab, told me that she resigned in 2016 in part because of her discomfort about the lab’s work with Epstein. She said that the lab’s leadership made it explicit, even in her earliest conversations with them, that Epstein’s donations had to be kept secret...

Swenson said that, even though she resigned over the lab’s relationship with Epstein, her participation in what she took to be a coverup of his contributions has weighed heavily on her since. Her feelings of guilt were revived when she learned of recent statements from Ito and M.I.T. leadership that she believed to be lies. “I was a participant in covering up for Epstein in 2014,” she told me. “Listening to what comments are coming out of the lab or M.I.T. about the relationship—I just see exactly the same thing happening again.”"

He Who Must Not Be Tolerated; The New York Times, September 8, 2019

Kara Swisher, The New York Times;

He Who Must Not Be Tolerated

Joi Ito’s fall from grace for his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was much deserved. But his style of corner-cutting ethics is all too common in tech. 

"Voldemort? 

Of all the terrible details of the gross fraud that the former head of the M.I.T. Media Lab, Joichi Ito, and his minions perpetrated in trying to cover up donations by Jeffrey Epstein to the high-profile tech research lab, perhaps giving a pedophile a nickname of a character in a book aimed at children was the most awful.

“The effort to conceal the lab’s contact with Epstein was so widely known that some staff in the office of the lab’s director, Joi Ito, referred to Epstein as Voldemort or ‘he who must not be named,’ ” wrote Ronan Farrow in The New Yorker, in his eviscerating account of the moral and leadership failings of one of the digital industry’s top figures."

The Moral Rot of the MIT Media Lab; Slate, September 8, 2019

Justin Peters, Slate; The Moral Rot of the MIT Media Lab

"Over the course of the past century, MIT became one of the best brands in the world, a name that confers instant credibility and stature on all who are associated with it. Rather than protect the inherent specialness of this brand, the Media Lab soiled it again and again by selling its prestige to banks, drug companies, petroleum companies, carmakers, multinational retailers, at least one serial sexual predator, and others who hoped to camouflage their avarice with the sheen of innovation. There is a big difference between taking money from someone like Epstein and taking it from Nike or the Department of Defense, but the latter choices pave the way for the former."