Columbia University released a statement Wednesday, February 11, admitting that since 2019 it has known but not publicly disclosed information revealing Jeffrey Epstein’s money and influence allowed his girlfriend to gain admission to its College of Dental Medicine after initial rejection. The statement details removal of two implicated individuals from their roles, and a donation of over $200,000 to related nonprofits. The University has not yet responded to a congressional letter revealing survivor testimony that Epstein used promises of Columbia admission and tuition payments to further abuse trafficking victims.

In Columbia’s statement, they admit convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s influential network led to a student gaining admission to the dental school through “an irregular process, coinciding with fundraising solicitations by former academic and alumni leadership of the school.” While the College did not accept transfer students beyond the second year, they admitted Epstein’s then girlfriend to complete her final year of studies and graduate from Columbia. In the statement, Columbia claims these actions were not taken under the direction of medical school or University leadership, but rather by “then leadership of the dental school or individuals acting at their behest.” 

Wednesday’s statement comes after Harvard’s public investigation of internal ties to Epstein and the Department of Justice’s January 2026 release of hundreds of thousands of files related to Epstein. Columbia’s statement reveals its knowledge of $210,000 in donations related to Epstein. These donations were made in 2012, after Epstein’s initial conviction for solicitation of a minor for prostitution.

A January House Judiciary Committee report explains how Epstein used relationships with Columbia to lure and silence victims through promising them admission and payments of their tuition. On January 14, 2026, Representative Jamie Raskin sent letters to presidents of both Columbia and NYU in light of new evidence provided to Committee Democrats by survivors. The report alleges that Epstein used relationships with these institutions to the advantage of his sex trafficking operation. Raskin details this in a letter to Acting President Claire Shipman, claiming “Mr. Epstein and his co-conspirators promised victims that he would ensure they were admitted to Columbia, then paid for their classes.” He then asked Columbia to assist the Committee’s investigation by providing all records related to Epstein and his efforts to use Columbia in his “conspiracy to lure victims and silence survivors.” The letter then gives the example of two survivors who attended Columbia between 2002 and 2009 and had their tuition paid by Epstein.  

Columbia’s statement names seven individuals related to Shuliak’s admission through Epstein’s influence, two of whom were only removed from their roles today. The disclosure however raises more questions, particularly around why Columbia stayed silent on this information for seven years. The incident also casts doubt on Columbia’s oversight regarding donations, transparency around admissions, and lack of safeguards. It is not clear if Columbia has undertaken the same comprehensive Epstein related review done and made public by Harvard. 

Emails between Epstein and various college administrators reveal a pattern of correspondence after his 2008 conviction and prison sentence. Communications between Epstein and then Dean of the Dental School Ira B. Lamster detailed how the dean provided for the special entry of Epstein’s then girlfriend Karyna Shuliak, where Lamster assured that the admission would be handled. She was the last person Epstein spoke to before his death in 2019, and inherited over $100 million through his will. In addition to having her tuition paid by Epstein, her connection to him allowed her to receive guidance for the entrance exam, including study guides and a personalized plan of study for after she gained admission. According to the New York Times, Dr. Lamster had no further knowledge of Epstein’s crimes than what he encountered in news reports, and believed Epstein had “paid his debt to society”. In a statement to Spectator, Lamster claimed “there was no quid pro quo,” though he acknowledged “the optics were not ideal”. Shuliak was rejected in February 2012, admitted by May after Lamster’s intervention, and Epstein donated $100,000 three months later.

Emails also reveal Epstein sought admission help for business contacts’ children, including the daughter of Ariane de Rothschild, a billionaire European banker. Epstein had contacts with many scientific figures, including those at Columbia such as Nobel laureate Richard Axel. An email to Epstein from Axel writes “I have spoken with columbia admissions and she is good but not strongest candidate. I am pushing”. The daughter ultimately was not admitted and attended NYU. 

The University’s statement details action it took to remove implicated individuals from their roles, as well as contributions it will make to “organizations supporting survivors of sexual abuse and human trafficking. Columbia will donate $210,000, matching Epstein’s known contributions, to two New York-based nonprofits supporting survivors. Columbia will also undertake a review of the dental school’s admissions processes to ensure “integrity and consistency with Columbia policies.” 

Narrowly focusing on one incident regarding dental school admissions, the University’s statement leaves critical questions unanswered. The Raskin letter to President Shipman describes survivors who attended Columbia as undergraduates between 2002 and 2009, with tuition paid by Epstein. The statement also ignores documented contacts between Epstein and prominent Columbia scientists. While there’s no evidence these figures were involved in Epstein’s sexual crimes, their presence of his network consisting of favors and quid pro quos raises questions about institutional oversight and donor vetting that the statement doesn’t address. 

When similar revelations emerged at Harvard, the university conducted a comprehensive investigation examination of all donations, contacts, and policy failures that allowed Epstein to use Harvard’s status and resources to his advantage. The resulting report was made public, with specific recommendations for institutional reform. Columbia admits it has known since 2019 that Epstein’s influence altered admissions processes, yet it seemingly stayed silent for seven years and took no action until forced by DOJ disclosure. Even now, its review is limited to current admissions processes at one school, instead of a full accounting of past failures across the institution’s various components.

Columbia’s statement answers some questions while raising others. The university has disclosed $210,000 in Epstein donations, and removed implicated individuals from their roles. This, along with their donation matching to nonprofits is an appropriate measure. But its limited statement has not explained seven years of silence, addressed congressional survivor testimony about undergraduate admissions, or committed to the comprehensive investigation Harvard conducted.

Whether the dental school case represents the full scope of Epstein’s Columbia connections remains unclear. The university has not responded to the congressional records request or announced plans for an independent review.

Image via Bwarchives