Tag: Arc

  • Epstein, Dershowitz, Summers, and the Long Arc of Elite Impunity

    Epstein, Dershowitz, Summers, and the Long Arc of Elite Impunity

    For many observers, Jeffrey Epstein, Alan Dershowitz, and Larry Summers appear as separate figures orbiting the world of elite academia, finance, and politics. But together—and through the long lens of history—they represent something far more revealing: the modern expression of a centuries-old system in which elite institutions protect powerful men while sacrificing the vulnerable.

    The Epstein-Dershowitz-Summers triangle is not a scandal of individuals gone astray. It is the predictable result of structures that make such abuses almost inevitable.

    The Modern Version of an Old System

    Jeffrey Epstein built his influence not through scholarship or scientific discovery—he had no advanced degrees—but by inserting himself into the financial bloodstream of the Ivy League. Harvard and MIT accepted his money, his introductions, and his promises of access to ultra-wealthy networks. Epstein did not need credibility; he purchased it.

    Larry Summers, as president of Harvard from 2001 to 2006, continued to engage with Epstein after the financier’s first arrest and plea deal. Summers’ administration accepted substantial Epstein donations, including funds channeled into the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics. Summers and his wife dined at Epstein’s Manhattan home. After leaving Harvard, Summers stayed in touch with Epstein even as the financier’s abuses became increasingly public. Summers used the same revolving door that has long connected elite universities, Wall Street, and presidential administrations—moving freely and comfortably across all three.

    Alan Dershowitz, Epstein’s close associate and legal strategist, exemplifies another pillar of this system: elite legal protection. Dershowitz defended Epstein vigorously, attacked survivors publicly, and remains embroiled in litigation connected to the case. Whether one believes Dershowitz’s claims of innocence is secondary to the structural fact: elite institutions reliably shield their own.

    Together, Epstein offered money and connections; Summers offered institutional prestige and political access; Dershowitz offered legal insulation. Harvard, meanwhile, offered a platform through which all three profited.

    Knowledge as a Shield—Not a Light

    For centuries, elite universities have served as both engines of knowledge and fortresses of power. They are not neutral institutions.

    They defended slavery and eugenics, supplying “scientific” justification for racial hierarchies.

    They exploited labor—from enslaved workers who built campuses to adjuncts living in poverty today.

    They marginalized survivors of sexual violence while protecting benefactors and faculty.

    They accepted fortunes derived from war profiteering, colonial extraction, hedge-fund predation, and private-equity devastation.

    Epstein did not invent the model of the toxic patron. He merely perfected it in the neoliberal era.

    A Four-Step Pattern of Elite Impunity

    The scandal surrounding Epstein, Dershowitz, and Summers follows a trajectory that dates back centuries:

    1. Wealth accumulation through exploitation

      From slave plantations to private equity, concentrated wealth is generated through systems that harm the many to benefit the few.

    2. The purchase of academic legitimacy

      Endowed chairs, laboratories, fellowships, and advisory roles allow dubious benefactors to launder reputations through universities.

    3. Legal and cultural shielding

      Elite lawyers, confidential settlements, non-disclosure agreements, and institutional silence create protective armor.

    4. Silencing of survivors and critics

      Reputational attacks, threats of litigation, and internal pressure discourage transparency and accountability.

    Epstein operated within this system. Dershowitz defended it. Summers benefited from it. Harvard reinforced it.

    Larry Summers: An Anatomy of Power

    Summers’ career illuminates the deeper structure behind the scandal. His trajectory—Harvard president, U.S. Treasury Secretary, World Bank chief economist, adviser to hedge funds, consultant to Big Tech—mirrors the seamless circulation of elite power between universities, finance, and government.

    During his presidency, Harvard publicly embraced Epstein’s donations. After Epstein’s first sex-offense conviction, Summers continued to meet with him socially and professionally. Summers leveraged networks that Epstein also sought to cultivate. And even after the Epstein scandal fully broke open, Summers faced no meaningful institutional repercussions.

    The message was clear: individual wrongdoing matters less than maintaining elite continuity.

    Higher Education’s Structural Complicity

    Elite universities were not “duped.” They were beneficiaries.

    Harvard returned only a fraction of Epstein’s donations, and only after the press exposed the relationship. MIT hid Epstein’s gifts behind false donor names. Faculty traveled to his island and penthouse without demanding transparency.

    Meanwhile:

    Adjuncts qualify for food assistance

    Students carry life-crippling debt

    Administrators earn CEO-level pay

    Donors dictate priorities behind closed doors

    This is not hypocrisy—it is hierarchy. A system built to serve wealth does exactly that.

    A Timeline Much Longer Than Epstein

    To understand the present, we must zoom out:

    Oxford and Cambridge accepted slave-trade wealth as institutional lifeblood.

    Gilded Age robber barons endowed libraries while crushing labor movements.

    Cold War intelligence agencies quietly funded research centers.

    Today’s oligarchs, tech billionaires, and private-equity titans buy influence through endowments and think tanks.

    The tools change. The pattern does not.

    Universities help legitimate the powerful—even when those powerful figures harm the public.

    Why This Still Matters

    The Epstein scandal is not resolved. Court documents continue to emerge. Survivors continue to speak. Elite institutions continue to stall and deflect. Harvard still resists meaningful transparency, even as its endowment approaches national GDP levels.

    The danger is not simply that another Epstein will emerge. It is that elite universities will continue to provide the conditions that make another Epstein inevitable.

    What Breaking the Pattern Requires

    Ending this system demands more than symbolic gestures or public-relations apologies. Real reform requires:

    Radical donor transparency—with all gifts, advisory roles, and meetings disclosed

    Worker and student representation on governing boards

    Strong whistleblower protections and the abolition of secret NDAs

    Robust public funding to reduce reliance on elite philanthropy

    Independent journalism committed to exposing institutional power

    Ida B. Wells, Jessica Mitford, Upton Sinclair, and other muckrakers understood what universities still deny: scandals are symptoms. The disease is structural.

    Epstein was not an anomaly.

    Dershowitz is not an anomaly.

    Summers is not an anomaly.

    They are products of a system in which universities serve power first—and truth, only if convenient.

    If higher education wants to reclaim public trust, it must finally decide which side of history it is on.

    Source link

  • Rachel Reeves and the Oxford-Cambridge Arc: Right time. Right place. Long live the Growth Corridor!

    Rachel Reeves and the Oxford-Cambridge Arc: Right time. Right place. Long live the Growth Corridor!

    The idea of a growth corridor between Oxford and Cambridge announced today is not new. Our region was fortunate with the announcements today: being ready, and in the right place at the right time armed with a good piece of policy background from Public First and Rachel Wolf.   

    While it has had many changes of name and cast, the idea of connecting this region has been around for at least 25 years. The idea has waxed and waned as it has acted as the poster child for Coalition, Tory and now Labour governments. It is estimated the Corridor could boost the economic contribution of the region by up to £78 billion, so has formed the centrepiece of the speech on growth given by Chancellor, Rachel Reeves. The Chancellor is going for growth in the Oxford-to-Cambridge Growth Corridor (formerly known as the Corridor, Arc, Region and now Corridor) with the ingredients of world-class companies with world-class talent and research and development.  

    It may even feel as if the Arc Universities Group – ‘working together towards inclusive and sustainable economic growth in an area of designated national economic significance’ – was formed in 2018 in anticipation of such a moment. This is a very long-term project which promises to bear fruit in 30-to-50 years. Universities are able to understand and span such timeframes. My own involvement, for a mere seven years, is transitory and many others have come and gone.  

    The universities in our region, and the relationships that they enjoy with industry and others, have played a pivotal role. There are several reasons for this, including:  

    1. We have been able to act as the honest broker and use our convening power to bring together people and conversations.  
    2. There has been a lot to learn as we face adaptive and existential challenges and these are the stock of universities.  
    3. We are largely independent in our actions, able to tell it how it is, free from the pressures of the electoral cycle or the vicissitudes of policy change. 
    4. Our universities have maturity of governance and stability of leadership, with vice-chancellors serving for at least five years, whereas Secretaries of State sometimes last only a few weeks. 
    5. The region, like many others, hosts a great diversity of institutions. The missions of our members are complementary  in their offering.  
    6. There is significant scale and influence with universities often being the biggest employers. With the benefit of money from the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF), we have been able to act quickly and take risks that others have not and we have been able to hold the space while other processes catch up. 
    7. We have developed a great interface with industry and the private sector. 
    8. Partnerships: Perhaps the most valuable outcome of working in the wings for so many years is the alliances that have been formed between actors. We have formed a strategic alliance with East West Rail, with the private sector and with the sub-regional transport body, as well as the pan-regional partnership.  
    9. More recently we have cemented the relationship between universities and the private sector, in the formation of the Supercluster Board. 

    As our Chair, Alistair Fitt, the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford Brookes University and Chair of the Arc Universities Group, has reflected: 

    This region hosts a great diversity and scale of universities. Together we offer a wide range of key contributions: globally renowned research brilliance, the powerhouse of skills provision provided by cutting edge teaching, world-class knowledge transfer and commercialisation. Our universities, working in close partnership, in alliance with others – particular the private sector – are organised into the Arc Universities Group. We stand ready for the challenge. We welcome the oversight and experience that the leadership of Sir Patrick Vallance brings to the region, and we look forward to helping deliver the Chancellor’s aspirations for growth.

    The Supercluster Board (SCB) has been formed to ensure the UK can achieve its ambition to become a science and technology superpower. The SCB comprises a group of globally recognised scientific enterprises, investors and world-leading universities alongside the local enterprise partnerships, all of which have a vested interest in the region and will seek to work constructively with a wide range of stakeholders, including the UK Government, to deliver on the ambition for the Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor. 

    There is significant representation on this new group, with four university representatives on the main board, including Alistair Fitt, and with an expert panel comprising all the vice-chancellors or their near proxy. It is the private sector voice that has succeeded in landing the message about the region’s potential with Rachel Reeves.  

    I’m grateful to the many colleagues who have kept the faith. It is not always been easy, especially given the recent financial constraints, but the future looks promising and we can be greatly encouraged by the Chancellor’s recognition of the potential. The next challenge will be to see how we all deliver under the sudden power of the spotlight that will inevitably follow the announcements.  

    The photo accompanying this blog on the HEPI website is taken from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/oxford-cambridge-arc/oxford-cambridge-arc

    Source link