How the MIT Media Lab Hid Its Relationship With Jeffrey Epstein
By Ronan Farrow, The New Yorker
07 September 19
New documents show that the M.I.T. Media Lab was aware of Epsteins status
as a convicted sex offender, and that Epstein directed contributions to the
lab far exceeding the amounts M.I.T. has publicly admitted.
The M.I.T. Media Lab, which has been embroiled in a scandal over accepting
donations from the financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, had
a deeper fund-raising relationship with Epstein than it has previously
acknowledged, and it attempted to conceal the extent of its contacts with
him. Dozens of pages of e-mails and other documents obtained by The New
Yorker reveal that, although Epstein was listed as disqualified in
M.I.T.s official donor database, the Media Lab continued to accept gifts
from him, consulted him about the use of the funds, and, by marking his
contributions as anonymous, avoided disclosing their full extent, both
publicly and within the university. Perhaps most notably, Epstein appeared
to serve as an intermediary between the lab and other wealthy donors,
soliciting millions of dollars in donations from individuals and
organizations, including the technologist and philanthropist Bill Gates and
the investor Leon Black. According to the records obtained by The New Yorker
and accounts from current and former faculty and staff of the media lab,
Epstein was credited with securing at least $7.5 million in donations for
the lab, including two million dollars from Gates and $5.5 million from
Black, gifts the e-mails describe as directed by Epstein or made at his
behest. The effort to conceal the labs contact with Epstein was so widely
known that some staff in the office of the labs director, Joi Ito, referred
to Epstein as Voldemort or he who must not be named.
The financial entanglement revealed in the documents goes well beyond what
has been described in public statements by M.I.T. and by Ito. The University
has said that it received eight hundred thousand dollars from Epsteins
foundations, in the course of twenty years, and has apologized for accepting
that amount. In a statement last month, M.I.T.s president, L. Rafael Reif,
wrote, with hindsight, we recognize with shame and distress that we allowed
MIT to contribute to the elevation of his reputation, which in turn served
to distract from his horrifying acts. No apology can undo that. Reif
pledged to donate the funds to a charity to help victims of sexual abuse. On
Wednesday, Ito disclosed that he had separately received $1.2 million from
Epstein for investment funds under his control, in addition to five hundred
and twenty-five thousand dollars that he acknowledged Epstein had donated to
the lab. A spokesperson for M.I.T. said that the university is looking at
the facts surrounding Jeffrey Epsteins gifts to the institute.
The documents and sources suggest that there was more to the story. They
show that the lab was aware of Epsteins historyin 2008, Epstein pleaded
guilty to state charges of solicitation of prostitution and procurement of
minors for prostitutionand of his disqualified status as a donor. They also
show that Ito and other lab employees took numerous steps to keep Epsteins
name from being associated with the donations he made or solicited. On Itos
calendar, which typically listed the full names of participants in meetings,
Epstein was identified only by his initials. Epsteins direct contributions
to the lab were recorded as anonymous. In September, 2014, Ito wrote to
Epstein soliciting a cash infusion to fund a certain researcher, asking,
Could you re-up/top-off with another $100K so we can extend his contract
another year? Epstein replied, yes. Forwarding the response to a member
of his staff, Ito wrote, Make sure this gets accounted for as anonymous.
Peter Cohen, the M.I.T. Media Labs Director of Development and Strategy at
the time, reiterated, Jeffrey money, needs to be anonymous. Thanks.
Epsteins apparent role in directing outside contributions was also elided.
In October, 2014, the Media Lab received a two-million-dollar donation from
Bill Gates; Ito wrote in an internal e-mail, This is a $2M gift from Bill
Gates directed by Jeffrey Epstein. Cohen replied, For gift recording
purposes, we will not be mentioning Jeffreys name as the impetus for this
gift. A mandatory record of the gift filed within the university stated
only that Gates is making this gift at the recommendation of a friend of
his who wishes to remain anonymous. Knowledge of Epsteins alleged role was
usually kept within a tight circle. In response to the university filing,
Cohen wrote to colleagues, I did not realize that this would be sent to
dozens of people, adding that Epstein is not named but questions could be
asked and that I feel uncomfortable that this was distributed so widely.
He wrote that future filings related to Epstein should be submitted only if
there is a way to do it quietly. An agent for Gates wrote to the leadership
of the Media Lab, stating that Gates also wished to keep his name out of any
public discussion of the donation.
A spokesperson for Gates said that any claim that Epstein directed any
programmatic or personal grantmaking for Bill Gates is completely false. A
source close to Gates said that the entrepreneur has a long-standing
relationship with the lab, and that anonymous donations from him or his
foundation are not atypical. Gates has previously denied receiving financial
advisory services from Epstein; in August, CNBC reported that he met with
Epstein in New York in 2013, to discuss ways to increase philanthropic
spending.
Joi Ito and Peter Cohen did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Ito, in his public statements, has downplayed his closeness with Epstein,
stating that Regrettably, over the years, the Lab has received money
through some of the foundations that he controlled, and acknowledging only
that he knew about gifts and personally gave permission. But the e-mails
show that Ito consulted closely with Epstein and actively sought the various
donations. At one point, Cohen reached out to Ito for advice about a donor,
writing, you or Jeffrey would know best.
Epstein, who socialized with a range of high-profile and influential people,
had for years been followed by claims that he sexually abused underage
girls. Police investigated the reports several times. In 2008, after a
Florida grand jury charged Epstein with soliciting prostitution, he received
a controversial plea deal, which shielded him from federal prosecution and
allowed him to serve less than thirteen months, and much of it on a work
release, permitting him to spend much of his time out of jail. Alexander
Acosta, the prosecutor responsible for that plea deal, went on to become
President Trumps Secretary of Labor, but resigned from that post in July,
amid widespread criticism related to the Epstein case. That same month,
Esptein was arrested in New York, on federal sex-trafficking charges. He
died from suicide, in a jail cell in Manhattan, last month.
Current and former faculty and staff of the media lab described a pattern of
concealing Epsteins involvement with the institution. Signe Swenson, a
former development associate and alumni coordinator at the lab, told me that
she resigned in 2016 in part because of her discomfort about the labs work
with Epstein. She said that the labs leadership made it explicit, even in
her earliest conversations with them, that Epsteins donations had to be
kept secret. In early 2014, while Swenson was working in M.I.T.s central
fund-raising office, as a development associate, she had breakfast with
Cohen, the Director of Development and Strategy. They discussed her
application for a fund-raising role at the Media Lab. According to Swenson,
Cohen explained to her that the lab was currently working with Epstein and
that it was seeking to do more with the financier. He said Joi has been
working with Jeffrey Epstein and Epsteins connecting us to other people,
Swenson recalled. She assumed that Cohen raised the matter to test whether
I would be confidential and sort of feel out whether I would be O.K. with
the situation.
Swenson had seen that Epstein was listed in the universitys central donor
database as disqualified. I knew he was a pedophile and pointed that out,
she said. She recalled telling Cohen that working with Epstein doesnt seem
like a great idea. But she respected the labs work and ultimately accepted
a job with them.
That spring, during her first week in her new role, the issue arose again.
Swenson recalled having a conversation with Cohen and Ito about how to take
money from Epstein without reporting it within the university. Cohen asked,
How do we do this? Swenson replied that, due to the universitys
internal-reporting requirements, there was no way to keep the donations
under the radar. Ito, as Swenson recalled, replied, we can take small gifts
anonymously.
In the course of 2014 and 2015, according to the e-mails and sources, Ito
and Epstein also developed an ambitious plan to secure a large new influx of
contributions from Epsteins contacts, including Gates, without disclosing
the full extent of the financiers involvement to M.I.T.s central
fund-raising office. The e-mails show that Epstein was the point person for
communication with the donors, including Gates and Black, the founder of
Apollo Global Management, one of the worlds largest private-equity firms.
In one message to Ito, Epstein wrote, Gates would like a write up on our
one science program for tues next week. In an e-mail from Cohen to Ito,
asking whether Black wished his contributions to remain anonymous, Cohen
wrote, Can you ask Jeffrey to ask Leon that? He added, We can make it
anonymous easily, unless Leon would like the credit. If Jeffrey tells you
that Leon would like a little love from MIT, we can arrange that too. . . .
Black declined to comment. A source close to him said that he did not intend
for the donation to be anonymous. Black has downplayed his relationship with
Epstein in recent months, describing it as limited and focussed on tax
strategy, estate planning, and philanthropic advice. He has declined to
answer questions about business dealings with Epstein that suggest a closer
relationship. Several years after Epsteins conviction, Black and his
children and Epstein jointly invested in a company that makes
emission-control products.
Although the lab ultimately secured the $7.5 million from Gates and Black,
Epstein and Itos fund-raising plan failed to reach the still larger scale
that they had initially hoped. Epstein had suggested that he could insure
that any donations he solicited, including those from Gates and Black, would
be matched by the John Templeton Foundation, which funds projects at the
intersection of faith and science. Ultimately, the Foundation did not
provide funding and a spokesperson said that the organization has no records
related to any such plan.
In the summer of 2015, as the Media Lab determined how to spend the funds it
had received with Epsteins help, Cohen informed lab staff that Epstein
would be coming for a visit. The financier would meet with faculty members,
apparently to allow him to give input on projects and to entice him to
contribute further. Swenson, the former development associate and alumni
coördinator, recalled saying, referring to Epstein, I dont think he should
be on campus. She told me, At that point it hit me: this pedophile is
going to be in our office. According to Swenson, Cohen agreed that Epstein
was unsavory but said were planning to do it anywaythis was Jois
project. Staffers entered the meeting into Itos calendar without including
Epsteins name. They also tried to keep his name out of e-mail
communication. There was definitely an explicit conversation about keeping
it off the books, because Jois calendar is visible to everyone, Swenson
said. It was just marked as a V.I.P. visit.
By then, several faculty and staff members had objected to the universitys
relationship with Epstein. Ethan Zuckerman, an associate professor, had
voiced concerns about the relationship with Epstein for years. In 2013,
Zuckerman said, he pulled Ito aside after a faculty meeting to express
concern about meetings on Itos calendar marked J.E. Zuckerman recalled
saying, I heard youre meeting with Epstein. I dont think thats a good
idea, and Ito responding, You know, hes really fascinating. Would you
like to meet him? Zuckerman declined and said that he believed the
relationship could have negative consequences for the lab.
In 2015, as Epsteins visit drew near, Cohen instructed his staff to insure
that Zuckerman, if he unexpectedly arrived while Epstein was present, be
kept away from the glass-walled office in which Epstein would be conducting
meetings. According to Swenson, Ito had informed Cohen that Epstein never
goes into any room without his two female assistants, whom he wanted to
bring to the meeting at the Media Lab. Swenson objected to this, too, and it
was decided that the assistants would be allowed to accompany Epstein but
would wait outside the meeting room.
On the day of the visit, Swensons distress deepened at the sight of the
young women. They were models. Eastern European, definitely, she told me.
Among the labs staff, she said, all of us women made it a point to be
super nice to them. We literally had a conversation about how, on the off
chance that theyre not there by choice, we could maybe help them.
Swenson and several other former and current M.I.T. Media Lab employees
expressed discomfort over the labs recent statements about its relationship
with Epstein. In August, two researchers, including Zuckerman, resigned in
protest over the matter. In a Medium post announcing the decision, Zuckerman
wrote that M.I.T. had violated its own values so clearly in working with
Epstein and in disguising that relationship. Zuckerman began providing
counsel to other colleagues who also objected. He directed Swenson to seek
representation from the legal nonprofit Whistleblower Aid, and she began the
process of going public. Jeffrey Epstein shows thatwith enough moneya
convicted sex offender can open doors at the highest level of philanthropy,
John Tye, Swensons attorney at Whistleblower Aid, told me. Joi Ito and his
development chief went out of their way to keep Epsteins role under wraps.
When institutions try to hide the truth, it often takes a brave
whistle-blower to step forward. But it can be dangerous, and whistle-blowers
need support.
Questions about when to accept money from wealthy figures accused of
misconduct have always been fraught. Before his conviction, Epstein donated
to numerous philanthropic, academic, and political institutions, which
responded in a variety of ways to the claims of abuse. When news of the
allegations first broke, in 2006, a Harvard spokesperson said that the
university, which had received a 6.5-million-dollar donation from him three
years earlier, would not be returning the money. Following Epsteins second
arrest, in 2019, the university reiterated its stance. Many institutions
attempted to distance themselves from Epstein after 2006, but others,
including the M.I.T. Media Lab, continued to accept his money. When such
donations come to light, institutions face difficult decisions about how to
respond. The funds have often already been spent, and the tax deductions
already taken by donors. But the revelations about Epsteins widespread
sexual misconduct, most notably reported by Julie K. Brown in the Miami
Herald, have made clear that Epstein used the status and prestige afforded
him by his relationships with élite institutions to shield himself from
accountability and continue his alleged predation.
Swenson said that, even though she resigned over the labs relationship with
Epstein, her participation in what she took to be a coverup of his
contributions has weighed heavily on her since. Her feelings of guilt were
revived when she learned of recent statements from Ito and M.I.T. leadership
that she believed to be lies. I was a participant in covering up for
Epstein in 2014, she told me. Listening to what comments are coming out of
the lab or M.I.T. about the relationshipI just see exactly the same thing
happening again.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page
