MIT's partnership with Jeffrey Epstein

The following four paragraphs of the MIT Jeffrey Epstein report are my favorite in the entire report. It's like the opposite of an Agatha Christie mystery: all the main characters are gathered together in a crumbling mansion, skulduggery is afoot, but the report authors want to make you believe that nothing is going on.

So let's play along. Read the brief 4 paragraphs for yourself and let's meet up again on the other side to discuss.

e. The Epstein Donations May Have Been Mentioned At A Senior Team Meeting in Early 2015.

Ruiz, one of the decision-makers in accepting the Epstein donations, told us that he had second thoughts over the holiday break in late 2014. In an email to Morgan on January 5, he said “I would also like to talk about the gifts to the Media Lab by a specific donor, but as STM [Senior Team Meeting] is only an hour, maybe you, Julie [Lucas] and I can talk briefly and decide how to raise my issues.” He told us that he subsequently asked for updated Epstein gift activity, development reports, and information, which he received by email on January 9, and then brought the question of Epstein’s donations to the entire Senior Team at their retreat in January 2015. But no such discussion is reflected in either the agenda, or the high-level notes of the meeting prepared by then-General Counsel Morgan. Ruiz recalls that he described the information he received about Epstein and his growing reservations. The only other Senior Team member who recalls that Epstein donations were ever discussed at or in connection with any Senior Team meeting is Lucas. But she does not recall the specific discussion at this January 2015 retreat. (1) She also told us that, whenever the Epstein donations were mentioned, it was only briefly, as an off-agenda item, and no provocative terms like “sex offender” or “pedophile” were ever used that might have alerted the rest of the Senior Team to the nature of Epstein’s crimes.

Other members of the Senior Team, including President Reif, have no recollection of a discussion of Epstein at any Senior Team meeting. But they do not rule out the possibility that such a discussion of a controversial donor could have occurred, albeit briefly. Given the passage of time and imperfect memories, there is simply a lack of clarity regarding the nature and detail of any discussion of Epstein at this meeting. The fact-finding indicates that Ruiz intended to bring up the issue of Epstein’s donations at a Senior Team Meeting and that he may have done so briefly, but, if so, in a manner that was inadequate to inform the Senior Team of the serious nature of Epstein’s crimes. Numerous members of the Senior Team who were not part of the decision-making group on the acceptance of Epstein donations told us that, while they do not recall whether a discussion of Epstein occurred, they are confident that, if there had been a discussion of donations from a convicted “sex-offender” or “pedophile,” they would have remembered it. (2) There also is no evidence that any materials regarding Epstein, his prior crimes, or his donations were ever circulated to the Senior Team at this time or in connection with the retreat. (3) In short, even if Epstein was briefly discussed at the retreat, the issue was not presented in a way to permit the kind of discussion and debate that was warranted.

On the same evening of the January 13 Senior Team retreat, Ruiz emailed Ito to ask “[d]o you have time for a conversation about the gift discussion we [had] before the break? We have had a chance to discuss the nuances in light of the most recent news and would like to share Rafael [Reif] and others perspectives with you.” Ruiz told us that he does not actually recall President Reif speaking on this subject at the Senior Team retreat; Ruiz suggested that his reference to “Rafael[’s]” perspectives was meant to convey President Reif’s implicit acceptance of the group consensus, although he also recalled that Chancellor Barnhart may have objected to accepting Epstein’s donations. As noted above, like numerous other members of the Senior Team, President Reif told us that he would have remembered if there had been a discussion of a donation from a convicted sex offender. Ito followed up with Ruiz the following morning and noted that, “[a]ctually, the gift discussion is deferred and isn’t really imminent. Let me know if you still need to speak. Maybe it’s better for us to schedule a meal or something to discuss this and other issues in a more leisurely way.” Ruiz responded that there was no need to speak urgently, and he reported to us that the conversation with Ito never happened. Ito could not recall whether he and Ruiz ever had the conversation.

In addition, there is evidence that Epstein’s name was mentioned at or in connection with a Senior Team Meeting in April 2015. Specifically, President Reif wrote “Epstein – Joi Ito” on his copy of the agenda for the April 28, 2015 meeting. At his interview, President Reif could not recall why he made this note on his copy of the agenda. None of the other Senior Team attendees could recall a discussion of Epstein at that meeting, though the meeting notes did include a mention of Ito in the context of a discussion of the Media Lab Digital Currency Initiative, which, coincidentally, was of interest to Epstein. (4) Again, the minutes of the meeting did not reflect any conversation about Epstein or Epstein donations. (5) As with the January 13 Senior Team retreat, we conclude that, if any discussion of Epstein did occur at the meeting, it must have been cursory at best, possibly focused solely on issues relating to the Digital Currency Initiative, and did not adequately alert the other members of the Senior Team to Epstein’s crimes or to the significance of accepting donations from Epstein.41

Footnotes

1. While she does not recall a specific discussion at this particular January 2015 Senior Team retreat, Lucas told us that she recalls at least one, maybe two, discussions of Epstein donations at or in connection with a Senior Team meeting, and that one of these discussions occurred in 2015.
2. Indeed, it is worth noting that several members of the Senior Team, including Chancellor Barnhart, are focused on campus sexual assault, sexual harassment, and Title IX compliance.
3. For instance, unlike the Senior Team members (Morgan, Newton, and Ruiz) who made the original decision to accept Epstein donations in 2013, there is no evidence that the other Senior Team members who attended the retreat had the benefit of the Wikipedia post or the detailed information contained therein.
4. As noted above, Lucas told us that she believes that Epstein’s donations were discussed at or in connection with a Senior Team meeting in 2015, but she has no specific recollection of the date, and she believes that any such discussion was brief, an off-agenda item, and did not reference provocative terms like “pedophile” or “convicted sex offender.”
5. On August 11, 2019, after the media began to focus on Epstein donations, Ruiz emailed President Reif stating that Epstein’s donations to MIT had been discussed at Senior Team meetings, while noting that “information surrounding these decisions [was] clearly incomplete.” President Reif responded: “I remember the STM conversations” but noted that “my recollection was that Joi [Ito] had already accepted the money and we were discussing what to do. Of course, my recollection is probably faulty... ” Notably, earlier in the same email chain, it is clear that President Reif believed that MIT had never approved the Epstein donations. During his interviews, President Reif stated that while he believed that the concept of controversial donors may have been discussed at certain Senior Team meetings, including at relatively recent meetings in 2019, he did not recall any detailed discussions of Epstein, and certainly no explanation that he was a convicted sex offender or pedophile. Consistent with this, on August 26, 2019, President Reif noted in an email to Vice President and Secretary of the Corporation Suzanne Glassburn, “I don’t remember anyone saying anything about what JE [Epstein] was convicted for and served prison for . . . . I certainly remember nothing being said about minors I have never heard of the guy and his reputation before, and even after, until he got back in the news a few months ago . . . .” In sum, the August 11 email does not alter our conclusions stated above that any discussion of Epstein at a Senior Team Meeting did not adequately alert the other Senior Team attendees, including President Reif, about the nature of his crimes or the significance of accepting his donations.

Some questions and observations to get the conversation started.

OK, you've read what I consider to be the critical section in the MIT Jeffrey Epstein report. I'm curious to know your thoughts. Hear are some of mine.

1. Well, my biggest question is, What was Israel referring to in his email to Joi Ito when he said, "...in light of the most recent news..." What recent news?
2. Did you notice how each participant is allowed their own individual experience and memory, and the authors make know attempt to discuss conflicting accounting?

• Israel Ruiz is allowed to have second thoughts about dealing with a pedophile, but the there is no actual evidence. "Ruiz...told us that he had second thoughts over the holiday break in late 2014."
• Preposterously, Ruiz is allowed to say that he mentioned the Epstein donations at the January Senior Leadership Retreat, and everyone else is allowed to say that they don't recall it being mentioned, that surely they would have remembered if anyone had brought the question of accepting money from a pedophile.

There is no investigation, no fact finding of any kin going on here. The two Goodwin Procter lawyers are providing alibis for the leadership team, just as they were told to do when they were hired.

Now, let's talk about that "recent news."