Every year, as part of my volunteer efforts, I interview applicants to Harvard University, where I earned a masters degree in physics and a PhD in chemical physics. It’s an honour and a privilege, and I always look forward to meeting bright, passionate high-school students who share with me their vision for the future and their personal journeys. I leave each interview feeling optimistic about the future and grateful for an excellent education system.
But on Sept. 9, I resigned from my position. I could no longer interview on behalf of an institution that turned a blind eye toward the immense harm perpetrated by one of its donors.
At that point, it had already been reported that Harvard had a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the financier and convicted sex offender who was facing additional charges of sex trafficking of minors when he was found dead in his jail cell in August. In 2003, Mr. Epstein gave Harvard US$6.5-million to kick-start its new department of evolutionary dynamics. In 1990, Mr. Epstein facilitated the funding of construction for the Hillel building. Over the years, he gave money to a number of professors and hosted seminars near campus with prominent faculty. Former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz even helped negotiate an outlandish secretive plea deal that saw Mr. Epstein serve just 13 months in a work-release program when he was convicted of sex offences in 2008. In 2016, his charity, Gratitude America, donated US$50,000 to the school’s Hasty Pudding theatre group, as well as US$110,000 to a non-profit organization associated with Harvard professor Elisa New.
When Mr. Epstein was first charged with soliciting under-age girls in 2006, Harvard refused to return the donation, stating that his gift went toward important research. Then-interim president Derek C. Bok referred to his 1979 guidelines, which indicated that while contributions should be refused from donors who have earned their money immorally, the benefits of using the money “should overcome the more abstract, symbolic considerations” that might lead the university to turn down such offers. In a nutshell: if the money itself looks okay, take it.
Then more charges were issued against Mr. Epstein in July. The number of alleged victims ranges from dozens to more than 100. In a searing testimony on Aug. 27, 23 women described how Mr. Epstein had threatened, manipulated and sexually abused them when they were teens. Jane Doe No. 11 said she was raped by Mr. Epstein at 16, adding: "He promised me that he would write me a letter of recommendation for Harvard if I got the grades and scores needed for admission. His word was worth a lot, he assured me, as he was in the midst of funding and leading Harvard’s studies on the human brain, and the president was his friend.” After her horrific experience, she never did apply.
On Sept. 12, Harvard President Lawrence Bacow finally issued a statement condemning Mr. Epstein and announcing that an internal investigation of his Harvard contributions had started some two weeks prior. It emphasized that all donations unearthed so far predated the 2008 conviction. A mere US$186,000 remained, and would be directed to organizations that support victims of human trafficking and sexual assault. The university will also review how it vets donors. In closing, Mr. Bacow regretted Harvard’s past association with Mr. Epstein and vowed to fight against the scourge of sexual assault.
While this statement is a marked improvement from its earlier position, it is not nearly enough. Harvard must remit all of the donations, using its US$38-billion endowment to do so. It wouldn’t be merely a symbolic gesture. Mr. Epstein is alleged to have engaged in sex trafficking since 2002; the money accepted by Harvard after that year is still highly tainted.
Furthermore, Harvard should follow the lead of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which has called for an independent investigation of Mr. Epstein’s full dealings with the university. Mr. Bacow must issue a heartfelt apology to Mr. Epstein’s victims and recognize its role in raising his reputation. Harvard must send the message that it will not sell its name for an image makeover.
Finally, Harvard needs to make its donation-acceptance policies, which are currently shrouded in secret, more transparent, especially in how it deals with contributions from donors whose questionable behaviour comes to light after the fact. All the more so, given that Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig has argued for keeping donations from questionable donors anonymous to prevent whitewashing the donor’s reputation. Mr. Epstein isn’t the lone tarnished light on its donor list, which includes Saudi Arabia Prince Mohammed bin Salman and the Sackler family, who were behind the opioid OxyContin.
These are difficult questions for all universities. Alumni play an important role in framing the conversation and shaping ethical guidelines. But for my alma mater’s sake, I hope that my fellow alumni see this stark reality and push for the change needed.
Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.