Which universities conducted internal reviews of Epstein donations and what did each report disclose?
Executive summary
Two major American research universities—Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University—commissioned public internal reviews of their relationships with Jeffrey Epstein; a third, Ohio State University, completed a separate review and released findings about past gifts [1] [2] [3]. The reports reached different specific conclusions: MIT’s outside counsel detailed $850,000 in gifts and administrative failures in vetting and oversight [1], Harvard’s review catalogued the university’s interactions while stating it did not accept donations after Epstein’s 2008 conviction and identified institutional shortcomings [2], and Ohio State’s audit identified roughly $336,000 tied to Epstein and concluded retaining those gifts would conflict with university values, prompting remedial steps [3].
1. MIT — a Goodwin Procter fact-finding that named $850,000 and “significant mistakes of judgment”
MIT engaged the law firm Goodwin Procter to conduct a thorough fact-finding into Epstein’s ties to the Institute; the review found ten gifts totaling $850,000 given between 2002 and 2017 and documented multiple campus visits by Epstein [1]. Goodwin Procter’s work concluded that three MIT vice presidents became aware in 2013 of both Epstein’s donations to the Media Lab and his status as a convicted sex offender, and that, in the absence of a formal controversial-gifts policy, those administrators operated an informal approval framework that permitted subsequent gifts [1]. The executive-summary and reporting around the release emphasized that the review found “significant mistakes of judgment” by administrators—language MIT amplified in its public statements—while stopping short of criminal findings and focusing on policy and governance failures [4] [1].
2. Harvard — an external counsel review that mapped donations, affiliations, and governance gaps
Harvard’s president published a report on the university’s connections to Epstein after engaging outside counsel to work with campus lawyers; the review addressed three core areas—Epstein’s donations to Harvard, his appointment as a Visiting Fellow, and his relationship with the Program on Evolutionary Dynamics—and concluded that Harvard did not accept donations from Epstein after his 2008 conviction [2]. The report acknowledged “principled decision-making” in parts but also catalogued institutional and individual shortcomings, recommending reforms and noting that the facts warranted corrective action and greater transparency [2]. Reporting summarized Harvard’s decision to redirect unspent donations and to reexamine donor-vetting processes, and the review precipitated scrutiny of how Epstein had access to programs such as the Program on Evolutionary Dynamics [5] [2].
3. Ohio State University — an EY audit, $336,000 identified and remedial donations made
Ohio State retained EY (Ernst & Young) to review giving connected to Epstein and the J. Epstein Foundation, and the university reported that the review identified $336,000 in donations and pledges tied to Epstein, primarily to the Wexner Center for the Arts and dating back at least two decades [3]. The university disclosed that while some pledged amounts could not be fully confirmed, it chose to make a donation to the Ohio Attorney General’s Human Trafficking Initiative equal to the larger figure of funds received or pledged and characterized retaining the original gifts as inconsistent with university values [3]. Ohio State also reported no real-estate or investment transactions with Epstein-linked entities after review [3].
4. What these reports converge on — governance failures, retrospective remediation, and differing scopes
All three reviews focused on cataloguing donations, tracing access or visits, and recommending stronger vetting and governance; MIT’s report was notable for its granular forensics into emails and interviews and its explicit finding of administrative error in accepting post‑conviction gifts [1], Harvard’s review emphasized institutional shortcomings even while noting it did not take post‑2008 donations [2], and Ohio State’s audit quantified small-dollar historic gifts and chose remediation through redirection and compensatory donations [3]. Each report’s scope and tone reflect institutional choices about outside counsel, transparency, and damage control: MIT released a Goodwin Procter fact-finding website and materials [1], Harvard posted an outside-counsel report and a president’s statement [2], and Ohio State issued a public statement with EY’s findings [3].
5. Limits of the public record and where reporting has stretched beyond available reviews
Several outlets and later commentaries have suggested wider university networks or larger sums tied to Epstein, and some aggregations list many institutions as recipients of his philanthropy, but those claims go beyond the three named internal reviews documented in the sources provided here and rely on additional reporting or databases not included in these reports [6] [7]. The sources at hand do not substantiate a comprehensive universe of internal reviews across all universities; therefore, definitive statements about other institutions’ internal investigations or undisclosed findings cannot be made without those specific reports [6].