Ignorance isn't usually a defense, but it seems difficult to blame someone in these kinds of cases. If my former college roommate is a nazi, that doesn't seem to reflect on me, even if we sometimes got donuts together.
Obviously this isn't the case when our theoretical Nazi is going around throwing up salutes and goose-stepping, but certainly no human can be judged for not being omniscient?
The saying is "ignorance of the law is no defense"--it's a real stretch to recast it in terms of "ignorance of the activities of an independent third party" don't you think?
In the strained analogy to Epstein, consider that this (now hypothetical) neo-nazi has been convicted of being a neo-nazi and now wants to give you a big pile of money.
They were accepting funding after Epstein's first conviction (and dodgy deal) in Florida. Moreover, Minksy, the lab founder, has emerged as a client of Epstein's.
This "apology" arrived only after high-profile researchers at the lab have started quitting.
> They were accepting funding after Epstein's first conviction
If the funding wasn't conditioned on naming things in Epstein's honor or giving him authority over how funds were directed, why would much, if any, diligence be due?
A VC investing in a business assumes risk of the others failing (potentially on behalf of others, if it's a VC firm with other people's money), which makes it so that diligence about factors relevant to that performance due.
But accepting a no-strings donation from a charitable foundation? What makes particular diligence about the foundation’s head due?
(I'm not defending Ito here as it seems like he was in a position beyond accepting donations where he reasonably should have known about Epstein's background; I'm just curious about why one would argue that accepting a donation creates an expectation of vetting the head of the foundation providing the donation.)
Obviously this isn't the case when our theoretical Nazi is going around throwing up salutes and goose-stepping, but certainly no human can be judged for not being omniscient?