Harvard’s Martin Nowak Faces Fresh Scrutiny After Odd 2002 Email Surfaces
A startling line in a 2002 email from Harvard professor Martin Nowak to Ghislaine Maxwell crossed my desk today. In it, Nowak wrote, “i am so happy that i did not kill anybody.” The message appears in released files I reviewed. The context is unclear. The words are real and jarring, and they revive hard questions about Harvard’s past ties to Jeffrey Epstein, the rules that failed, and what must change now.
Nowak is a leading scholar of evolutionary dynamics. He led Harvard’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics in the early 2000s. That program received major funding from Epstein. In 2020, Harvard sanctioned Nowak. The university found he gave Epstein unusual access and privileges. Today’s material adds urgency to an old problem, accountability for who gets access to elite campuses and why.
The Email, The Facts, The Unknowns
I have reviewed the 2002 Nowak email to Maxwell. The line, “i am so happy that i did not kill anybody,” appears as written. The email also thanks Maxwell for hospitality. There is no obvious context for the line. It could be dark humor. It could be a private reference. It could be something else. We do not know.
What we do know is this. Epstein helped fund Nowak’s program in the early 2000s. Years later, Harvard found Nowak mishandled Epstein’s access to the program. That misconduct led to discipline in 2020. Fresh documents keep raising the same question. How did a convicted sex offender gain standing and space in academic circles for so long?
The existence of a strange line in an email is not proof of a crime. It is a governance red flag that demands context and answers.
Harvard’s Past Findings, New Pressure Today
Harvard has already admitted failures around Epstein. The university said Nowak gave Epstein unusual access to the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics. That meant privileges that a typical donor or visitor would not receive. Harvard took disciplinary action in 2020 for those lapses.
Recent reporting has widened the lens. Other Harvard affiliates, including a prominent professor and Harvard Hillel, had contact with Epstein after his conviction. Together, these facts show a pattern. Donor money and social reach gave Epstein influence he should never have had. That pattern is not only a moral failure. It is a policy failure.
The Law, The Policies, The Duty To Protect
Harvard is a private university, but it operates as a charitable organization. In Massachusetts, the Attorney General oversees charities. Boards have a legal duty to act with care and loyalty. That means strong vetting of gifts, clear conflicts rules, and real control over access to campus spaces. The law does not ban gifts from felons outright. But charity leaders must weigh risk, truthfulness, and the safety of people on campus.
Students and staff have a right to a safe environment. Federal civil rights laws, including Title IX, require schools to prevent and address sexual harassment. Donor prestige cannot outweigh safety protocols. Visitor logs, ID checks, and guardrails on private meetings matter. So do clear rules for faculty who host powerful guests. These are not optics. They are risk controls that protect people and the mission of the school.
Do not misread the 2002 line as evidence of violence. The point today is oversight, access, and accountability, not rumor.
What Must Happen Next
Harvard says it reworked its gift and access rules after 2019. Even so, the new material demands further steps, and not only at Harvard. Other universities face the same test. The public interest is simple. Who is allowed in, who decides, and under what rules. Sunlight and strict process protect institutions and the people inside them.
Boards and presidents should press for plain answers to four questions now:
- How are gifts screened for risk and reputation before acceptance
- Who can sponsor visitors, and what vetting and logs are required
- What conflicts disclosures are mandatory for faculty, staff, and units
- What is the plan to review and, if needed, return tainted funds
Students, staff, and alumni can ask their schools for the current gift policy, visitor rules, and conflict forms. Public universities must share many records on request. Private schools can still answer. Keep the pressure on. 🔍
The Bottom Line
The email is shocking. The context is murky. The core issue is clear. A university’s first duty is to people and truth, not to money or access. Harvard disciplined Martin Nowak for past failures with Epstein. The latest material should push Harvard, and all universities, to go further. Tighten the rules. Open the books. Name who decides. Then prove those promises with action that can be checked.
