
Harvard admits to receiving $9M from Jeffrey Epstein - msghacq
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/461224-harvard-admits-to-receiving-9-million-from-jeffrey-epstein
======
parsimo2010
The Hill does a decent job of reporting this without sensationalizing it. Of
note: They accepted money from him, but it was all _prior_ to his 2008
conviction in Florida. I don't fault Harvard for this, and I think this is
just one of those tangential stories that pop up whenever the media
sensationalizes something.

Also note that this is Harvard, which is separate from the MIT Medial Lab
story (which I kind of think is being blown out of proportion). Epstein
donated to both schools, and I'll bet that he donated to others which we will
find out about later. But what are these schools supposed to do? Give the
money back? If you can take dirty money and turn it into valuable research,
isn't that a good thing?

~~~
derivagral
The primary difference is that the MIT institution took money from him despite
being internally barred from doing so. As you mention, at least Harvard did
this before the original trial.

As far as your last comment, there's been a lot of historic and present
discussion around exactly that blend of science/ethics (WW2, milgram, etc.)

~~~
asciident
Just wanted you to know that what you said is known to be false, "the MIT
institution took money from him despite being internally barred from doing so"

See [http://news.mit.edu/2019/letter-preliminary-
facts-0912](http://news.mit.edu/2019/letter-preliminary-facts-0912)

"when members of [the MIT president's] senior team learned that the Media Lab
had received the first of the Epstein gifts, they reached out to speak with
Joi Ito. He asked for permission to retain this initial gift, and members of
my senior team allowed it."

------
msghacq
There actually was a lot of Epstein news that dropped last night (presumably
with the idea that the Democrat debates would drown it out):

1\. This Harvard statement. "Money's gone, too bad".

2\. MIT President Rafael Reif admitted to signing an Epstein thank you note
and attending a meeting discussing Epstein's contributions. He also threw his
whole staff under the bus.

3\. Reid Hoffman admitted to arranging meetings with Epstein on Joi Ito's
request. He shockingly threw Ito and unshockingly MIT under the bus.

[2] [https://news.mit.edu/2019/letter-regarding-jeffrey-
epstein-a...](https://news.mit.edu/2019/letter-regarding-jeffrey-epstein-and-
mit-0822)

[3] [https://www.axios.com/reid-hoffman-jeffrey-epstein-mit-
donat...](https://www.axios.com/reid-hoffman-jeffrey-epstein-mit-
donations-206d7254-e4dc-4079-9974-631fbe669b3d.html)

EDIT:

This submission is now [flagged]. There's no flame war going on in here to
sink it so not sure why it would be removed.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
You seem up to date, has anyone figured out where Epstien got all the money
from yet?

~~~
msghacq
No, it's still a mystery. Right before he died, he moved it all into a trust
and named Bill Gate's advisor as his executor:

[https://nypost.com/2019/08/20/ex-bill-gates-adviser-
shocked-...](https://nypost.com/2019/08/20/ex-bill-gates-adviser-shocked-to-
be-named-one-of-jeffrey-epsteins-executors/)

Gates himself has a lot to answer for. The MIT emails show Epstein funneling
$2M from Gates to Media Lab. He also flew on Epstein's jet to Florida and
hasn't answered why.

~~~
derg
One day I will not be surprised at how deep the rot goes, but today is not
that day.

------
hn_throwaway_99
There is a huge difference with what Harvard did and what MIT's Media Lab did.
According to the article, Harvard didn't take any money from Epstein after his
conviction, while at the Media Lab they continued to take it _even after MIT
put Epstein on its donor blacklist_ , and tried to hide the source of the
funds.

~~~
nullc
> Media Lab they continued to take it even after MIT put Epstein on its donor
> blacklist,

Turns out this was a misrepresentation:

* [https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614299/mit-media-lab-jeff...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614299/mit-media-lab-jeffrey-epstein-joichi-ito-signe-swenson-disqualified-fundraising/)

Apparently "disqualified" status was a flag in their CRM essentially just
meant "don't bother trying to cold call this person", usually set after three
failed attempts to fund-raise from them. It in no way signaled any kind of
prohibition on fundraising, and only available to development staff in any
case. The whole tangent was essentially spurious and signified nothing except
that his donations weren't coming in through fundraising cold calls.

But the real shocker is:

* [https://president.mit.edu/speeches-writing/preliminary-fact-...](https://president.mit.edu/speeches-writing/preliminary-fact-finding-about-mit-and-jeffrey-epstein)

Media Lab's acceptance of donations from Epstein was known and approved by
senior staff in MIT administration, the president even sent a thank you
letter. The Media Lab had been directed by the administration to keep
Epstein's donation's anonymous to avoid him using MIT for publicity or to
enhance his own reputation.

So this whole idea that Ito was demonstrating mens rea by concealing his
actions from the administration appears to be completely false. I find it
shocking that MIT took a week to clarify this point.

Kinda sad that HN has had three front page stories repeating this allegation
that Ito hid the donations from MIT, but a submission of the link to MIT's
statement that the administration knew and directed keeping them anonymous is
totally buried. I could understand being burned out on the subject, but now we
have this Harvard thing at the top...

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
Thank you very much for posting it, this is an important piece of information
I was unaware of, but note your links are broken.

------
newsreview1
Good article that highlights how institutions review and vet donors. I'm
impressed that Harvard refused $$ from Epstein after his 2007 conviction. The
school shouldn't be punished for $$ it took before charges came to light.

------
spamizbad
Remember when MIT thought it was morally prudent to let the government throw
the book at Aaron Swartz because it could alienate their commercial partners?
They did that while actively courting a sex-trafficking pedophile.

Imagine valuing JSTOR's copyright more than human life and dignity.

------
tobtoh
As someone who works in the Advancement (fundraising) space for a university
(not in the US), Harvards behaviour is IMHO quite ethical.

Whilst institutions will do due diligence on major donors they are not geared
to be investigative units. So unknowingly accepting donations from a tainted
donor is not something I would hold against them nor would I expect them to
return the money or donate it elsewhere.

The key takeaway is that they refused donations from Epstein once his
activities were known. Absolutely the right course of action.

------
mytailorisrich
Whatever Epstein did, it's good that his money be put to good use like helping
education and research rather than being burned because he touched it.

Harvard has nothing to 'admit', they did nothing wrong, and there is no point
in them getting rid of the money they have left.

~~~
msghacq
Epstein cited his relationships with these schools (built through fundraising)
repeatedly both to intimidate his victims into silence and convince
authorities to let him go. This wasn't a case of him sending a check and
walking away, he was extracting a lot of value for his predatory operation
from these institutions. They should face the music for their role in what
happened.

~~~
howeyc
> They should face the music for their role in what happened

Harvard and MIT didn't play a role in Epstein's non-donation related
activities. They have nothing to answer for.

Next you're going to tell me anyone that takes any Bill and Melinda Gates
foundation money has to answer for Microsoft's monopolistic practices in the
90's.

This witch-hunt stuff needs to stop.

~~~
msghacq
They actually did play a role in his non-donation activities. Multiple
professors at both schools are credibly accused of participating in Epstein's
child sex trafficking. MIT allowed Epstein to bring girls to the campus
(Harvard hasn't released enough info to know if he did that there as well).
MIT _sent Epstein a Disobedience Prize orb_. MIT leadership worked to actively
conceal the donations.

There was a lot of very questionable things going on. They didn't just get a
check and call it a day.

------
acomjean
I work at Harvard. This is the letter referenced:

The Office of President

Dear Members of the Harvard Community,

All of us have been horrified by the revelations regarding Jeffrey Epstein,
and I write today to update our community on steps we are taking in view of
current information about his philanthropy to Harvard.

Let me start by emphasizing the obvious: Epstein’s reported criminal actions
were utterly abhorrent. They flagrantly offend the values of our society and
this institution, and we condemn them. We also recognize the profound pain
that Epstein caused to his victims and their families, and we commend their
courage in coming forward to bring his crimes to light.

Epstein’s connections as a donor to this University, and other institutions,
raise important concerns. With that in mind, two weeks ago I asked for a
review of his donations to Harvard. Our decentralization makes such a review
more complicated than it would be at some other institutions. I want to
emphasize that this review is ongoing. Our review to date indicates that
between 1998 and 2007, Epstein made a number of gifts to support various
faculty and institutional research activities across the University. The
largest of these was a $6.5 million gift in 2003 to support the Program for
Evolutionary Dynamics. The University received other gifts, which totaled
approximately $2.4 million, based on current information. Each of these gifts
from Epstein and his affiliated foundations to Harvard University predates his
guilty plea in June 2008. To date, we have uncovered no gifts received from
Epstein or his foundation following his guilty plea. Moreover, we specifically
rejected a gift from Epstein following his conviction in 2008. We have also
recently learned that Stephen Kosslyn, a former faculty member and a
beneficiary of Epstein’s philanthropy, designated Epstein as a Visiting Fellow
in the Department of Psychology in 2005. We are seeking to learn more about
the nature of that appointment from Dr. Kosslyn, who no longer works at the
University.

The majority of Epstein’s gifts were designated for current use, not as
endowed funds, and nearly all were spent years ago for their intended purposes
in support of research and education. Our ongoing review of these gifts has
identified one current use fund and one small endowment designated to the
Faculty of Arts and Sciences with a total unspent balance of $186,000. After
consultation with the Dean of the FAS, we have decided that the University
will redirect the unspent resources to organizations that support victims of
human trafficking and sexual assault. This is an unusual step for the
University, but we have decided it is the proper course of action under the
circumstances of Epstein’s egregiously repugnant crimes. The issue of the
gifts given to institutions by donors at Jeffrey Epstein’s suggestion, is also
one that has emerged in recent days, and we are looking into this as part of
our ongoing review.

Epstein’s behavior, not just at Harvard, but elsewhere, raises significant
questions about how institutions like ours review and vet donors. I will be
convening a group here at Harvard to review how we prevent these situations in
the future. I also hope to engage our peer institutions to consider how we can
collectively improve our processes. We can all learn from each other.

Let me end where I began. Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes were repulsive and
reprehensible. I profoundly regret Harvard’s past association with him.
Conduct such as his has no place in our society. We act today in recognition
of that fact. And we do so knowing that the scourge of sexual assault
continues to demand our close attention and concerted action.

Harvard is not perfect, but you have my commitment as president that we will
always strive to be better.

Sincerely,

Lawrence S. Bacow

------
Medicalidiot
This guy has his hands everywhere, it's insane.

~~~
dawhizkid
The Harvard connection was more widely known than the MIT one until recently.

~~~
JackFr
The importance vis-a-vis MIT is the dates. If this article is accurate Harvard
stopped taking the money once he was a convicted sex offender, MIT didn't.

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
\--- Well, MIT put Epstein on their donor blacklist, but Joi Ito specifically
circumvented that and tried to hide the source of Epstein's donations in 2013.
---

Edit: I stand corrected as nullc points out below (and why no strikethroughs
HN?)

~~~
nullc
> MIT put Epstein on their donor blacklist, but Joi Ito specifically
> circumvented

Turns out that is essentially false, see my other reply to you in this thread.

------
bowcoy
I would have commended Harvard and MIT for not taking Epstein's money, with
the reasoning that he was a scientific lightweight trying to buy academic
clout. As of now, it just sounds like damage control. It takes zero courage to
join the herd in saying that sex crimes are horrific.

The justice system means that -- after you committed a crime and done your
time -- you are supposed to rehabilitate and rejoin society. I feel the
horrific crimes cloud our judgment in this regard: Epstein paid the fine, did
the time, and came out on the other end. Again, I am not saying it is wrong to
forever brand someone as a persona-non-grata, but it is the easy and
predictable way out, distancing yourself to save face. Epstein was sick, paid
his debt to society, but we deem his crimes unforgivable, and in shutting down
society to rehabilitated criminals, we make sure they also do not get a chance
to turn their life around for good.

~~~
msghacq
He notoriously did not do his time for his crime. He got such a blatantly
corrupt sweetheart deal that Acosta had to resign due to it. The lawyer that
got him that deal? Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz. Also accused of sexually
abusing young girls with Epstein.

~~~
bowcoy
Then take it up with the justice system (or intelligence), don't blame Epstein
for taking the sweetheart deal, or use that deal to justify further
punishment. Similarly, when cops avoid jail time for shooting incidents,
society should stop referring to them as murderers when they are acquitted
(Zimmerman, Yanez, ...). Accept the decisions of the court, or work to improve
them. You have no right to play your own judge. Especially in the Epstein case
it is common to take allegations as facts, and this is ugly, since a judge has
not even rendered a decision (yet, here we are using allegations as
justification for societal excommunication).

~~~
msghacq
What is ugly is child sex trafficking. The justice system has failed here,
hence the public's anger.

------
msghacq
Why on earth did this get flagged?

~~~
echelon
I suspect flagging by alumnus or a desire by HN to avoid salacious topics.

------
75dvtwin
Epstein probably realized, that it is not difficult to buy influence at
institutions and individuals, that are already corrupt in their core.

Whether those institutions are politicians, educational facilities or other
organizations...

The litmus test keeps it real... Doesn't it?

