A Review: Farrow Reveals Financial Truth, M.I.T. had Ongoing Relationship with Epstein
- Tiffany Cooke
- Sep 12, 2019
- 4 min read
Updated: Sep 13, 2019
Farrow, R. (2019, September 6). How an elite university research center concealed its relationship with Jeffery Epstein. The New Yorker. Retrieved from
The investigative article, “How an elite university research center concealed its relationship with Jeffery Epstein, written by Ronan Farrow exposes the M.I.T. Media Lab for their ongoing relationship with Epstein, including hidden and disguised monetary donations and visits to the campus. Farrow provides documents from M.I.T. that were obtained by The New Yorker, including emails, and notes specific instances of donations and how they were discussed to be covered up. Farrow argues that the university did not unveil their true, close relationship with Epstein, and is able to prove this information through a series of interviews from workers at the Media Lab. While M.I.T. did admit to taking funds from Epstein, Farrow exposed the accurate amount of money received and the relationship behind the financial entanglement that went beyond just taking donations. Though controversy on the Epstein issue has faded, Farrow addresses another issue that arose from Epstein, bringing new attention to the topic and the damage done by both Epstein – in general – and the university that wrongly and untruthfully receive contributions.
This investigative article revealed that while Epstein was listed as a “disqualified donor” at M.I.T., the institution continued to accept money from him. In fact, Epstein was credited with securing at least $7.5 million in donations for the lab including donations made in his behest or from Gates and Black. These donations, however, were not listed as coming from or and the Epstein directed gifts were not recorded as having any affiliations with Epstein in the public records. In many instances, M.I.T officials like Ito and Cohen discussed how they could keep the donations hidden and warned their employees that the relationship was to remain private. Swensen, a former employee, spoke to Farrow on the issue. Swenson resigned from her position because of a discomfort regarding the Epstein situation and a lack of acknowledgement from Ito and Cohen about Epstein’s history and status. Aside from accepting donations from Epstein and hiding the name from the public and many of the employees, the university also maintained a relationship with Epstein. When they needed favors, Ito and Cohen reached out to Epstein and kept in touch with him regarding in anonymity. Further, the M.I.T Media Lab scheduled an appointment with Epstein to discuss what should be done with the funds from his donations. For this appointment, Epstein met with faculty members to give his input on projects while others convinced him to continue to donate. The problem, however, was that Epstein, the convicted sexual assaulter, came onto a college campus for this meeting. Because scheduled calendar meetings were viewable to the public, the event was marked as “V.I.P visit,” again keeping the relationship hidden.
Though Epstein is now dead and much of the talk about his wrongdoings has faded, this article addresses the larger impact of Epstein and exposes a truth that needs to be heard. I think that Farrow presented strong research and sources to argue that M.I.T. was dishonest to the media and the public regarding the donations and relationship. His work was thorough, including many numbers, documents, and quotes from people within the institution. Farrow investigated a topic that matters to the public, not just because of Epstein’s relevance, but because it exposes unprofessional and untruthful behavior from a respected, well-known university lab. Farrow contributions in providing accurate information about the M.I.T and Epstein relationship permits the public to know the truth about the university so they can consider rather or not to invest or attend. While this issue could have easily been ignored and statements from M.I.T. could have been accepted, Farrow went beyond to uncover what he thought to be true, then share his discoveries, backed with evidence and personal accounts, to the rest of the public.
Throughout the article, Farrow avoids bias by including specific stories from employees and officials and numbers from the records he obtained. While it is clear to the reader that Farrow likely finds M.I.T.’s behavior unacceptable, this assumption is based clearly on the sources within the article, not Farrow’s writing. I stumbled across this article on Twitter and had no intention of reading such an exposing story. Because of this, I think that Farrow was right to reveal all the information that he did, as it might have otherwise gone untold. Farrow accurately and honestly portrayed the situation, and answered questions about Epstein, M.I.T., and how the problem came into existence.
Farrow’s article is an important one to be read, as it unveils the truth about a university and their poor decisions in recording donations and who they should interact with for these donations. Those I the public who have read the story of Epstein and/or know anything about M.I.T. should read this article, as it argues that Epstein’s scandal went beyond sexual assault. It affects employees, students, donations, and trust.
Comments