The point is revelation outside MIT. The report is pretty clear that Epstein's presence was discussed frequently internally -- and okayed.

The amount of money he donated is infinitesimal by MIT's standards. They must have been convinced there was tons more to come.

I'm not denying the report is clear, as that wasn't written by MIT, but an independent 3rd party. The FAQ is written by MIT and I believe the first sentence is not clear to someone who isn't familiar with the history. The FAQ should stand on its own without the report or else what good is it.

The sentence reads:

> In September, in response to revelations about engagements between MIT and Jeffrey Epstein, President Reif and the Executive Committee of the MIT Corporation asked MIT's general counsel to retain a law firm to design and conduct a review of the facts surrounding those engagements.

It is the case that Goodwin Procter's fact-finding investigation began in September. And the report details interactions in 2012 and 2013, including who was aware of what at the time. You can read the report here: http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/files/MIT-report.pdf

I still don't understand. They knew in 2013. What exactly does "in response to revelations" mean then? What was the revelation? They've known. That sentences is bullshit and misleading at best.

MIT is not one person. The report details exactly who knew what, when. According to the report, the President of the institute (Reif) did not know until the reporting linking MIT with Epstein.

I'm not referring to the report. I'm talking about the FAQ. The answer is disingenuous and I believe purposefully written to make people unfamiliar with the details to believe MIT found out about the "revelations" in September or at some point around there. There was never a revelation. It was known.

> Senior members of the administration were aware of gifts the Media Lab received between 2013 and 2017 ... They knew in general terms about Epstein’s history – that he had been convicted and had served a sentence

Wasn’t one of the early findings of the investigation that Reif had signed a thank you note to Epstein for his donations, and had sat in the meeting where the institute decided faculty could take Epstein’s money as long as he donated anonymously?

According to Reif himself, he signed a "letter thanking Jeffrey Epstein for a gift to Seth Lloyd ... on August 16, 2012, about six weeks into my presidency."

So it would stand to reason that Reif knew about the relationship with Epstein, dating back to at least 2012.

You’re talking about basically a form letter that he probably signs approximately a zillion of. I even have one.

You're ignoring the part where Epstein was a hyper-wealthy socialite who had already made a six-figure donation before his 2008 conviction. MIT administrators have acknowledged that they knew about his crimes and that conviction. They took money from him anyway.

Epstein brought Bill Gates's money through the door. Don't pretend the administration was unaware of his donation history, or that he was just some everyday small-potatoes donor.

Reif had his eyes open, he said thank you for the money, and now he's throwing others under the bus to preserve his own career.