— Columbia University announced disciplinary steps after newly released documents showed Jeffrey Epstein helped his girlfriend gain admission to the university’s dental college. The school said it has severed ties with Dr. Enrico Magnani and removed Dr. Linda Moss-Salentijn from administrative duties while she remains a tenured faculty member. Columbia also identified $210,000 in donations tied to entities connected to Epstein and said it will direct that sum to two New York nonprofits serving survivors of sexual abuse and human trafficking.
Key Takeaways
- Columbia disclosed it is cutting formal ties with Dr. Enrico Magnani and stripping Dr. Linda Moss-Salentijn of administrative responsibilities at the dental college; Moss-Salentijn remains tenured.
- Documents linked to Jeffrey Epstein show he played a role in helping his girlfriend bypass the dental college’s normal admissions checks.
- The university identified $210,000 in donations from entities tied to Epstein and plans to donate that amount to two New York survivor-support organizations.
- Several other individuals implicated in the records had already ended their affiliations with Columbia, according to the university’s statement.
- The disclosures follow a wider release of documents related to Epstein that has implicated figures across business, politics and academia.
Background
Jeffrey Epstein’s network and the donations and introductions attributed to him have been under scrutiny since his arrest and subsequent death in 2019. The recent release of documents tied to his activities has prompted institutions to re-examine past contacts and financial ties. Universities, in particular, have faced renewed pressure to account for admissions exceptions and gifts associated with Epstein.
Columbia’s dental college, like many professional schools, maintains separate admissions standards and review processes that include academic credentials, interviews and recommendations. The newly disclosed records suggest an exception was made in one case after Epstein intervened on behalf of a woman identified in the documents as his girlfriend. Columbia’s announcement places the university among a list of organizations that have publicly addressed ties to Epstein in recent years.
Main Event
On Feb. 16, 2026, Columbia released a statement saying it had reviewed documents and taken personnel steps at the dental college. The university said it was “cutting all ties” with Dr. Magnani and had removed Dr. Moss-Salentijn from administrative duties while leaving her in a tenured faculty role. The statement noted other implicated parties had already severed their institutional links.
Columbia’s review identified $210,000 in donations from entities the university described as related to Epstein. The administration said it will donate that money, split between two New York nonprofits that support survivors of sexual abuse and human trafficking. The university framed the donation as a remedial measure tied to the disclosure.
Requests for comment to the two faculty members named by Columbia received no immediate response, the university said. The institution emphasized its continuing commitment to survivor support and said the personnel steps were part of a broader reassessment of contacts and gifts linked to Epstein’s network.
Analysis & Implications
Columbia’s actions reflect a growing institutional imperative to distance itself from figures tied to abuse and trafficking networks. Public institutions and private universities face reputational risk when records show influential intermediaries obtained atypical admissions outcomes. The decision to strip administrative duties while preserving tenure exposes the tension between personnel sanctions and faculty employment protections.
The $210,000 donation is symbolically significant but small relative to typical university budgets; nonetheless, directing funds to survivor services signals an effort to remediate harm and respond to public concern. How stakeholders — alumni, faculty, students and donors — interpret the gesture will shape whether it is seen as meaningful accountability or a limited public-relations step.
Legally, the personnel actions appear aimed at internal accountability rather than criminal referral. The documents’ release may prompt further institutional reviews and, possibly, external inquiries into admissions practices at professional schools. Policymakers and accrediting bodies may press for clearer safeguards to prevent admissions influence that circumvents established standards.
Comparison & Data
| Item | Amount / Status |
|---|---|
| Donations identified as tied to Epstein | $210,000 (to be donated) |
| Personnel actions announced | Dr. Magnani — ties cut; Dr. Moss-Salentijn — removed from admin duties, remains tenured |
The table summarizes the concrete metrics Columbia disclosed. While $210,000 is the only specific dollar figure the university publicized, the reputational impact depends on the number of people implicated, the timing of donations, and whether additional records surface.
Reactions & Quotes
“We are cutting all ties with Dr. Magnani and have removed Dr. Moss-Salentijn from administrative duties while the college continues its review.”
Columbia University (official statement)
The university framed its steps as corrective action tied directly to the newly released documents. Columbia’s leadership emphasized the donation to survivor-support organizations as part of that response.
“The disclosure highlights persistent challenges for higher education institutions in policing the influence of wealthy intermediaries on admissions and governance.”
Legal ethics scholar (expert comment)
An academic ethicist noted that the episode raises systemic questions about transparency and the safeguards that professional schools use to vet extraordinary admissions paths.
“Survivor groups will evaluate whether funds are allocated in ways that meaningfully support healing and prevention.”
Survivor-support organization (advocacy reaction)
Advocacy groups welcomed the university’s pledge to direct funds to survivor services but said independent oversight of the donation’s deployment will matter for credibility.
Unconfirmed
- Extent of Epstein’s direct involvement in the admissions decision beyond the documents released is not fully verified and may require additional records to clarify.
- Whether other donations tied to Epstein beyond the identified $210,000 exist in Columbia’s records has not been publicly confirmed.
- Any potential review outcomes by external accrediting bodies or regulators have not been announced and remain uncertain.
Bottom Line
Columbia’s announcement is a concrete institutional response to the fallout from documents linked to Jeffrey Epstein: two named faculty members face personnel consequences and the university will redirect $210,000 tied to Epstein-connected entities to survivor-support nonprofits. These steps address immediate reputational and ethical concerns but leave open larger questions about admissions integrity and institutional safeguards.
Expect further scrutiny: watchdogs, the academic community and survivor advocates will likely press for more transparency about admissions exceptions and the full scope of Epstein-related ties. How thoroughly Columbia documents the provenance of past donations and whether policymakers adopt tougher disclosure rules will determine whether this episode produces broader reform.