OPINION: If Lutnick’s Association with Epstein Has “No Direct Bearing,” What Does?

Content Warning: This article discusses sexual violence, including information related to Jeffrey Epstein. Reader discretion is advised.

Yesterday morning, President Wendy Raymond sent another email to the student body regarding the demonstrations that occurred during the February 1 campus event featuring journalist Haviv Rettig Gur. In the final paragraph of that email, explicitly introduced as being “unrelated to the campus event,” she acknowledged that recently released files from the U.S. Department of Justice related to the case against Jeffrey Epstein included “correspondence over a span of several years” between Howard Lutnick ’83 and Epstein. Almost immediately afterward, this message was followed by a second email containing only the text of the final paragraph.

Lutnick, one of the College’s largest benefactors, has given $65 million to the college over the past 35 years, including $25 million to renovate the library in 2014. He currently serves as the Secretary of Commerce in the Trump administration, a role that has already raised concerns from students on campus. After previously claiming to have cut ties with Epstein in 2005—prior to Epstein’s 2008 Florida conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor—Lutnick admitted during a February 10 Senate hearing that he had traveled to Epstein’s private island and had more encounters with him than he had previously acknowledged. Lutnick also lived next door to Epstein at his Upper East Side townhouse. 

For one of Haverford’s most prominent alumni, both globally and locally, given that many campus buildings bear his name or were supported by his wealth, to occupy a senior position in an administration that has repeatedly attacked healthcare and social services, weaponized military and law enforcement agencies against communities, and demonized entire populations, including but not limited to immigrants, BIPOC, LGBTQIA+ individuals, and women, is incredibly troubling. That concern only intensifies when placed alongside this administration’s documented history with sexual abuse.

President Trump alone has an extensive and well-documented record of predatory behavior. This includes the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape released during the 2016 campaign, in which he bragged about using his fame to grope and assault women, as well as the 2019 case brought by E. Jean Carroll, in which he was found liable, an outcome that continues to be distressingly rare in cases of sexual assault. Trump responded to Carroll’s allegations by dismissively stating that “she’s not my type.”

He is not an outlier within his administration. Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, paid $50,000 to a woman who accused him of sexually assaulting her in 2017. Linda McMahon, the Secretary of Education, has been named in a lawsuit ongoing since October 2024 alleging that she knowingly ignored child sexual abuse perpetrated by a World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) employee during her tenure as a company executive. This pattern of behavior establishes the moral and political context in which Lutnick operates and, by extension, the context in which Haverford continues to honor him.

Wednesday afternoon, the Haverford Survivor Collective, which I co-founded during my first year at Haverford, released a statement responding to the incremental release of the Epstein files. Among other topics, the statement addressed Haverford’s institutional ties to the case. As stated, students are being asked to learn, work, and live on a campus that bears the name of someone who has acknowledged communicating with a convicted sex offender and serial abuser. It emphasized that for many, especially survivors of sexual violence, reckoning with this reality is deeply distressing and exhausting, and that Haverford’s material and symbolic ties to Lutnick only compounded those feelings.

The statement concluded by calling on the College to reexamine these ties, asking: “At what point will the College confront its relationship with this individual? At what point will it say, unequivocally, ‘enough is enough’? At what point does a reluctance to do so extend beyond mere negligence into a moral failing?” Only one day later, those questions feel even more urgent.

The administration’s response is profoundly disappointing. Its language is steeped in a kind of corporate neutrality that fails to meaningfully engage with the gravity of this situation. Most disturbing is the characterization of Lutnick as “generous.” Acknowledging his financial contributions to the College is unavoidable; that reality is precisely what makes this situation so fraught. But to praise him as “generous” in the same line as acknowledging his correspondence with Epstein is reprehensible. There were countless ways to describe Lutnick’s relationship to the College without resorting to complimentary language that feels wildly inappropriate given the context. Was this simply careless phrasing or a deliberate attempt to soften the implications of the disclosure? Either possibility is alarming.

Beyond a brief acknowledgement that “association with Epstein raises ethical questions” and a vague reaffirmation of the College’s values, the email offers no recognition of the emotional weight of this news. There is no acknowledgment of potential emotional distress, no naming of harm, and no reminder of available resources.

President Raymond asserts that “Secretary Lutnick’s association with Epstein has no direct bearing on the College.” What, exactly, would constitute a direct bearing? Why does sustained social proximity to an individual who perpetrated unfathomable harm not qualify? If not as a reflection of institutional values, then surely as a matter of reputation? As President Raymond herself notes, Lutnick has been one of Haverford’s most substantial benefactors. How can the administration sit comfortably with such a reality?

Does Lutnick’s role in an administration that perpetuates violence not bear on the College? Does his acknowledged relationship with Epstein, and his prior minimization of that relationship, not bear on the College? What metric is being used to assess impact? Must there be a direct financial transaction tied to harm, a longer paper trail, or a more explicit admission?

The Board of Managers and the administration have offered little more than a promise to “monitor the situation.” That response is empty. It sidesteps the central question of “where is the line?” What level of involvement with such an individual is acceptable to Haverford College? How many students must express discomfort? How many alumni, staff, or faculty members must raise concerns before the College recognizes that its continued inaction is a moral stance in itself?

If you or someone you know has experienced sexual violence, support is available. Visit Haverford’s Title IX webpage, or contact the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) 24/7 hotline at 1-800-656-4673 or go to rainn.org.