Tim Jordan

In light of the affiliated nature of these transactions, in order for @MIT to have made these investments in Gorenberg’s wife’s non-profit, the MIT board or a subcommittee designated by the board would have had to approve this investment each year it was made. But why would they have approved this investment for the last five years and I suspect this year as well? The mission of MIT is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century. How is an investment in a non-profit that promotes DEI tools to corporations consistent with MIT’s stated mission? Why would MIT fund an increasing amount of money each year to a board member’s wife’s non-profit , let alone the Chairman’s wife’s company, when the organization does not appear to have gained any traction, let alone any other donors over the last five years? As someone who runs a foundation, I can tell you that it is a big red flag that this non-profit has not been able to raise any funds from other donors. The above raises a number of important questions: Did the board approve these investments for each of the last six years including 2023 for which the 990 has not yet been filed? Was the board provided proper disclosure about the affiliated nature of these transactions? Assuming the board followed a proper process and approved these annual grants, why did it do so? It seems incredibly poor judgment to have made these grants to a one-person company run by the wife of the chairman when the grants are not consistent with MIT’s mission. The size of the investments are de minimis relative to the MIT endowment. Why would the Chairman waste the board’s time and risk his and MIT’s reputation to make these investments in the first place? According to his bio published on MIT’s website, Chairman Gorenberg is a highly successful venture capitalist. Why did he need to ask MIT to fund his wife’s non-profit? Why didn’t he just write the check himself? One can reasonably assume that the fact that the non-profit had no outside investors other than MIT was due to the fact that it was unable to raise money from other foundations or philanthropists. Why is Parity.org a non-profit in the first place? It is ostensibly selling or trying to sell products or services to corporations. There are plenty of other DEI consultants that are for-profits that compete with Parity.org. It appears based on Parity’s lack of revenues for the last five years that it has been unable to sell its products or services. In other words, Parity.org is either making no sales or it is giving away its products and services for free. This of course calls into question the quality of the products and services it offers. In short, this does not look like a legitimate non-profit. Rather it looks like a sinecure for the wife of the Chairman of MIT. To survive, Parity.org relies on funds from MIT’s endowment that were in turn raised from MIT alumni and other donors who received a tax deduction for the contributions they made, which were in turn subsidized by other unaffiliated taxpayers. To make matters worse, the non-profit is a DEI organization, an ideology that has contributed to the outbreak of antisemitism on MIT’s campus. The @PershingSqFdn made a $750,000 grant to an MIT electrical engineer/neuroscientist this year. That’s about the same amount of money that went out the door last year to Parity.org. As a donor, this does not make me feel good. All of the above begs the following additional questions: How much did MIT give Parity.org in 2023? Does MIT make investments in any other non-profits affiliated with its directors or their families? If so, which ones and why? Why would MIT risk its reputation to be the only funder of a non-profit run by the wife of its Chairman? What is going on at MIT?