Opinion: Columbia’s relationship to Epstein highlights a broader failure of donor accountability at elite institutions

As newly released Epstein documents prompt renewed federal scrutiny, Columbia University’s ties with Epstein have led to questions surrounding how elite institutions manage powerful donor relationships. The investigation — alongside faculty action at Barnard — highlights growing demands for transparency and accountability when institutional prestige collides with misconduct.

Photo by Claire Cenovic/The Barnard Bulletin

By Sitara Reganti

March 24, 2026

Following the release of recently unsealed Epstein files, elite universities are facing intense scrutiny over how donor relationships intersect with institutional responsibility. Columbia University has emerged as a focal point in this renewed examination, as House Judiciary Committee Democrats investigate whether Jeffrey Epstein used his financial and social ties to the University to facilitate and conceal years of sexual abuse.

Elite institutions depend heavily on major donors. That reliance can translate into influence — over admissions, access, and institutional decision-making. A recent congressional inquiry into Columbia offers a concrete example of how that power may have played out.

On January 14, 2026, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-M.D., sent a letter to Columbia University Acting President Claire Shipman requesting records related to Epstein’s relationship with the University. In the letter, Raskin stated that survivors provided committee Democrats with evidence that Epstein used his connections at Columbia to grant them admission and pay their tuition in exchange for silence.

Raskin emphasized that these promises were credible precisely because of Epstein’s institutional ties. “This twisted promise to facilitate college admission for his sex trafficking victims was not an idle one,” he wrote, citing Epstein’s longstanding financial and social relationships with elite universities.

Public records, such as College of Dental Medicine’s donor reports and files released from the Department of Justice, confirm that Epstein’s foundation donated to Columbia University and the College of Dental Medicine multiple times, including after his first conviction in 2008. These donations show that institutional ties continued after Epstein was convicted, raising questions about how universities assess reputational risk when it comes to donors. These records situate Columbia within a broader pattern of scrutiny surrounding how elite universities have managed donor relationships and transparency.

Columbia is not alone in facing questions about its relationship with Epstein. Harvard revealed they received about $9.1 million in gifts from 1998 to 2008 but nothing else following Epstein’s conviction. Additionally, Harvard’s former president and current professor Lawrence Summers has announced his resignation following proof of communication with Epstein until 2019. These communications included economics, politics, and relationships; in one exchange, for instance, Epstein and Summers discuss a woman Summers was involved with at the time. At Yale, computer science professor David Gelernter has been barred from teaching for communication with Epstein between 2009 and 2015.

Furthermore, Columbia is not the only university to accept donations from Epstein post-conviction. According to a 61-page report released by MIT, the school accepted $850,000 between 2002 and 2017. MIT states they had “no formal, written policy addressing when to accept donations from controversial donors or what processes to use in considering them,” pointing to broader gaps in institutional oversight. 

These examples reveal a troubling pattern: elite institutions often maintain relationships with wealthy donors long after warning signs emerge. While universities may not have had direct knowledge of exploitation, their continued engagement with controversial benefactors raises questions about how rigorously institutions scrutinize the sources — and consequences — of their funding.

The House Judiciary Committee has requested records dating back to 1990 involving Epstein and several associates, including Ghislaine Maxwell, Darren Indyke, and Richard Kahn — individuals whom survivors say personally coordinated tuition payments and other expenses. The request includes correspondence, donation records, documentation of internal reviews, and a breakdown of Epstein-linked payments, along with the number of students whose tuition or fees were paid in whole or in part by Epstein or affiliated entities. Raskin emphasized that all materials must protect survivor privacy.

The letter outlines multiple survivor accounts tied to Columbia. One survivor reported that Epstein paid for her to attend the University while abusing her over several years. Another said Epstein promised to arrange visits to Columbia to support her pursuit of a business degree. In a third case, Epstein allegedly paid tuition beyond required costs, resulting in refunds issued directly to the student.

The criticism higher institutions are facing is not only coming from the outside. Barnard faculty members have also pressed the administration to reevaluate donor involvement and governance roles. In an open letter signed by faculty across departments, professors called for the removal of Francine LeFrak’s name from the Francine A. LeFrak Foundation Center for Well-Being, along with her removal from Barnard’s Board of Trustees.

In regard to Epstein’s involvement with Columbia, the House Judiciary Committee requested that Columbia produce the records by January 28, 2026.

As the Epstein files continue to reveal new details, the inquiry highlights the question of when donor influence and institutional reputation are at stake, who ensures that accountability does not come last?