{shortcode-7e03d95a681dfc4d07bd1fc0fa75f5d599719be9}

Harvard’s greatest failure in its Epstein saga wasn’t accepting his money; it was the leadership who opened their doors to him and faculty who stayed silent.

Last month, the House of Representatives released documents detailing the relationships between Harvard affiliates and notorious sex offender Jeffrey E. Epstein. In response, the University has opened a new investigation into Harvard-Epstein connections.

Former Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers has rightly been the main target of criticism; his apparent confidant of choice was a certified creep. But he and the other professors personally associated with Epstein shouldn’t be the only ones examined; after Epstein’s 2008 conviction, other faculty said nothing as he waltzed around Harvard Square.

Harvard’s investigation should go beyond pure finances; it should interrogate the personal failures of faculty. Not everyone knew, but surely some did. So why did no one speak up?

Harvard’s 2020 investigation focused mainly on financial contributions from Epstein, with personal relationships mentioned only in passing. A review of the report notes the connection between Epstein and former Social Science Dean Stephen M. Kosslyn, but only because Kosslyn had received funding from Epstein and later recommended him as a Visiting Fellow. Likewise, Epstein’s relationship with professor Martin A. Nowak is addressed extensively, but mainly as it relates to Epstein’s financial support of Nowak’s work.

As has been revealed with Summers, the Harvard professors connected to Epstein didn’t just take his money; they were personally close with him. Some signed his infamous 50th birthday card, where former Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Henry A. Rosovsky’s signature appeared on a letter including a woman’s nudes. Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan M. Dershowitz even served as Epstein’s lawyer.

These professors opened Harvard’s gates to Epstein: According to the University’s report, Epstein visited the offices of the Nowak-run Program for Evolutionary Dynamics in Harvard Square over 40 times between 2010 and 2018, using these visits to connect with Harvard faculty. That isn’t a one-off mistake; it’s a moral failure of the faculty who participated.

The professors named in Epstein’s emails deserve the brunt of the criticism. But they likely weren’t the only ones who sustained Harvard’s relationship to the convicted sex offender. It was also those who granted him access to the PED building, and even gave him his own office, those who saw him — a convicted pedophile — with young women working as his “assistants.” Other Harvard affiliates had to have known, but no one spoke up.

The silence around Epstein seems to speak to a desire within Harvard’s leadership to stay connected to wealthy, high-status donors. Research funding often plays a role, but so does cultural capital — the luxury, the connections, the power. Nowak, for one, was “amazed” by the connections Epstein had in the scientific community.

The standards set by Harvard’s more influential figures may trickle down to other faculty. Given both Epstein’s personal relationship with professors and the millions of dollars he donated, protesting Epstein’s presence may have been shut down.

To be fair, after Harvard’s first investigation into its connection with Epstein, the University reformed its gift policy. Seemingly to prevent another Epstein case, Harvard adopted restrictions on certain gifts, including those posing “substantial risks” to the University because of the source or purpose of the funds.

These reforms will help root out some of the ethical concerns over donors, but they don’t address why faculty seemed to have stayed silent about Epstein. While Harvard has an anonymous reporting hotline, there’s still a risk of identity exposure in certain situations. Perhaps stronger identity protections would have encouraged faculty to speak out. But even then, a convicted sex offender effectively had an office at Harvard; surely someone thought his presence warranted an official complaint.

What’s more, Harvard has a history of turning a blind eye to unethical donors. Arthur M. Sackler, who cofounded Purdue Pharma and pioneered the aggressive marketing strategies that were then used to sell OxyContin after his death, donated $10.7 million to Harvard in 1985. The family who brought about the opioid crisis still has their name plastered on our buildings. Harvard accepted $20 million from Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud of Saudi Arabia — an absolute monarchy notorious for violating human rights. Meanwhile, either personally or via associated foundations, Leon Black, Les Wexner and Glenn Dubin — all members of Epstein’s circle — have donated millions to Harvard.

Given that Harvard chases millions of dollars from millionaires and billionaires, tainted money will likely find its way into the University’s bank account no matter what. But that’s why there needs to be serious change to Harvard’s culture of donations, not just its finances. Only with the commitment of faculty can unethical donors be called out.

Harvard may have scrubbed its bank account clean of Jeffrey Epstein, but its moral character remains dirty. Reforms to its donation policies will help, but the final stain remover will be a serious change to how it treats wealthy donors.

Luke D. O’Brien ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Social Studies concentrator in Eliot House.