I would take money from Satan if it permitted me to do God's work
After fifty years at the helm of Bard College, Leon Botstein has stepped down — not because he participated in wrongdoing, but because an independent review found he had rationalized a personal and financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein in ways that subordinated institutional ethics to fundraising imperatives. The departure of a 79-year-old president who once declared he would 'take money from Satan' for a worthy cause invites a broader reckoning with how institutions and their leaders weigh moral clarity against material need. His exit is less a verdict on criminality than a quiet acknowledgment that leadership carries obligations beyond the legal minimum.
- A fifty-year presidency unravels not through scandal in the legal sense, but through the slower erosion of credibility that comes when a leader is found to have misrepresented a relationship the public had every right to understand.
- Documents released by the Justice Department revealed a connection far warmer than Botstein had admitted — helicopter arrivals, opera invitations, a message of support sent to Epstein weeks after damning press coverage resurfaced his crimes.
- The WilmerHale review, commissioned by Bard's own board, drew a careful but damning line: no criminal complicity, but a pattern of misleading statements and a fundraising calculus that overrode ethical judgment.
- Botstein's retirement letter offered no direct reckoning with the findings, leaving the institution to carry the weight of accountability he declined to fully shoulder himself.
- Bard's board is now redirecting Epstein-linked funds to sexual abuse survivor organizations — a concrete gesture signaling that the college intends to move forward with its integrity visibly repaired.
Leon Botstein announced his retirement as president of Bard College on Friday, closing a fifty-year tenure that had grown increasingly difficult to separate from his documented relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The 79-year-old timed his departure letter to coincide with the release of an independent review by the law firm WilmerHale, commissioned by the college's board of trustees.
The review found no evidence that Botstein had participated in or enabled Epstein's crimes. But it concluded that he had been misleading about the nature of their connection and had allowed fundraising priorities to override ethical ones. What Botstein had described as a transactional relationship centered on donations was, by the evidence, something more personal — marked by repeated meetings, Epstein's helicopter visits to campus, an opera invitation, and a supportive message Botstein sent in 2018 just weeks after the Miami Herald's reporting had renewed public scrutiny of Epstein's past. In emails, Botstein referred to Epstein as a friend. In 2016, Epstein directed $150,000 toward Botstein, money he later said he gave to the college.
When a senior faculty member urged Bard to cut ties with Epstein, Botstein resisted, arguing that even a person convicted of sex crimes involving minors deserved the presumption of rehabilitation. He reportedly said he would 'take money from Satan if it permitted me to do God's work' — a phrase that came to define the review's portrait of his judgment.
In his retirement letter, Botstein acknowledged none of the review's findings directly. He will remain at Bard as a faculty member and musician. The board praised his transformative vision across five decades while conceding that recent concerns had been 'serious and deeply felt.' It announced that all funds connected to Epstein would be redirected to organizations supporting survivors of sexual abuse.
What the review ultimately established was not a question of what Botstein knew, but what he chose — and that the choice, made knowingly, was the wrong one.
Leon Botstein stepped down from the presidency of Bard College on Friday, ending a fifty-year tenure that had become shadowed by revelations about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The 79-year-old announced his retirement in a letter to the campus community, effective at the end of June, timing the announcement to coincide with the completion of an independent review into his ties to the convicted sex offender.
Botstein had long maintained that his contact with Epstein was transactional—centered on fundraising for the small liberal arts college in upstate New York. But an investigation by the law firm WilmerHale, commissioned by Bard's board of trustees, painted a more complicated picture. The review found that Botstein had not participated in or enabled Epstein's crimes against women and girls, but it concluded that he had been misleading about the nature of their relationship and had made decisions that raised serious questions about his judgment as a leader.
The scope of their connection emerged through documents released by the Justice Department. Botstein and Epstein had met multiple times over the years. Epstein sometimes arrived at the college by helicopter. In 2013, Botstein invited Epstein to attend the college's graduation ceremony and proposed they meet to see an opera together. In 2018, weeks after the Miami Herald published investigative reporting that revived scrutiny of Epstein's past crimes, Botstein reached out to him with a message of support, writing that he hoped Epstein was "holding up as well as can be expected." In emails, Botstein referred to Epstein as a friend. In 2016, Epstein had directed $150,000 toward Botstein, money the president later said he donated to the college.
When confronted by a senior faculty member who believed Bard should sever ties with Epstein, Botstein pushed back. According to the review, he argued that a person convicted of sex crimes involving minors deserved the presumption of rehabilitation, just as any other convicted person should. The review quoted Botstein as saying he would "take money from Satan if it permitted me to do God's work"—a formulation that crystallized his view that institutional need outweighed ethical concerns about the source of funds.
The WilmerHale investigation found that Botstein had not been fully truthful in his public statements about Epstein. He had minimized the relationship, characterizing it primarily as a fundraising matter when the evidence suggested something warmer and more personal had developed over time. The review determined that while Botstein broke no laws, his decisions reflected poorly on his leadership of the institution.
In his retirement letter, Botstein acknowledged none of this directly. He wrote only that he had decided to wait for the completion of the WilmerHale review before announcing his departure, suggesting he believed it prudent to let the investigation conclude first. He will remain at Bard as a faculty member and musician. The college's board of trustees issued a statement praising his transformative vision over five decades while also acknowledging that "concerns raised in recent months have been serious and deeply felt." The board announced that any funds connected to Epstein would be redirected to organizations supporting survivors of sexual abuse.
Botstein's retirement marks an institutional reckoning—not with Epstein's crimes, but with how a respected educational leader had rationalized a relationship with a man whose past was well documented. The question of what Botstein knew and when he knew it remains less important than what the review established: that he knew enough to make a choice, and he chose the money.
Notable Quotes
I believe it was prudent and in the best interest of Bard to wait until the Wilmer Hale review was complete to make this announcement— Leon Botstein, in his retirement letter
President Botstein minimized and was not fully accurate in describing his relationship with Epstein— WilmerHale review summary
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did Botstein wait until the review was finished to announce his retirement?
He wanted the investigation to speak for itself before he left. If he'd announced earlier, it would have looked like he was running from the scrutiny. By waiting, he could frame his departure as a response to the findings rather than an escape from them.
The review says he wasn't involved in Epstein's crimes. So what exactly was the problem?
The problem wasn't criminality—it was judgment and honesty. He maintained a friendly relationship with a convicted sex offender, accepted money from him, and then told people it was purely transactional. When confronted, he defended it by saying anyone deserves a second chance. The review found that wasn't quite true to what was actually happening between them.
He said he'd take money from Satan to do God's work. Does that explain his thinking?
It does. For Botstein, the college's financial needs were absolute. Everything else—ethical concerns about the source of funds, the optics, the message it sent—was secondary. That's a particular kind of institutional logic, and it's what the board ultimately rejected.
What happens to the money Epstein gave him?
Botstein donated it to the college at the time, so it's already part of Bard's endowment. Now the board is taking any remaining funds associated with Epstein and directing them to organizations that help survivors of sexual abuse. It's a way of trying to undo the moral weight of having accepted it in the first place.
Does his retirement feel like accountability or escape?
Both, probably. He's leaving a position he held for fifty years, which is real consequence. But he's also staying on as faculty, which softens the blow. The college gets to move forward with new leadership, and he gets to preserve some dignity. It's a negotiated exit.