The release of the Epstein files is turning into a witch hunt. Anyone who was in Jeffrey Epstein’s large social network is now suspected of moral turpitude, even if the person knew nothing about Epstein’s preying on young women.
But what about those who maintained a relationship with Epstein after his conviction in 2008 for soliciting a minor for prostitution, especially those who flew on his jet and were guests at his NY brownstone, the one with the bordello décor? Should their judgment and values be questioned?
One of them is Noam Chomsky, the Laureate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona in Tucson. Currently on leave, he joined UA in the fall of 2017, after being on the faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for 62 years.
What the UA glowingly says about Chomsky can be found here. Left unsaid is that he is a political activist and a doctrinaire leftist, even to the extent of agreeing with Karl Marx about capitalism.
Chomsky is not reluctant to enjoy the fruits of capitalism, however. As reported in a Wall Street Journal story on the Epstein files, the professor had accepted $270,000 from Epstein in 2018. That was 10 years after Epstein’s conviction. Chomsky claimed that it was his own money being returned by Epstein and not any kind of payment from the sex offender.
The next year, in 2019, Chomsky was continuing to correspond with Epstein via email, commiserating with him about the bad press the disgraced financier was getting, due to accusations that he had continued to sexually abuse women.
Epstein asked Chomsky for advice on how to handle the “putrid” press. Chomsky responded, “What the vultures dearly want is a public response, which then provides a public opening for an onslaught of venomous attacks, many from just publicity seekers or cranks of all sorts.”
He went on write: “That’s particularly true now with the hysteria that has developed about abuse of women, which has reached the point that even questioning a charge is a crime worse than murder.”
The professor would know, having spent a career in academia. Universities have a bad rap for railroading male students accused by coeds of sexual harassment or assault, automatically assuming that they are guilty and not giving them an opportunity to rebut the accusations. Of course, that wasn’t the case with Epstein, who had his day in court the first go-around, who could afford the best attorneys, and who committed suicide the second go-around rather than face a trial.
Is UA guilty of “hysteria” about the abuse of women, to use Chomsky’s word? Judging by the absence of local news stories in Tucson about male students being disciplined unfairly for sexual harassment or worse, the answer is no.
Certainly, the university has strict policies and training about such matters, as my son saw when he earned two degrees there and was active in campus life, including working as a residence hall assistant (proctor). Perhaps some might see the policies and their enforcement as overkill, but it would be hyperbole to label them as hysteria.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit would certainly not label them as either overkill or hysteria. It decided in 2022 that the UA had not done enough to protect female students. The court held that the university was liable for an incident that had happened off-campus, when student Mackenzie Brown was viciously abused by Orlando Bradford, a classmate and a football player.
Why was the university liable for abuse that happened off-campus? Because UA had been aware that Bradford had previously abused two other female students.
It can be dangerous to hang around college football players.
For example, in April of 2024, approximately 200 UA students were at a party celebrating the football team at a private house several blocks from campus. Some players were in attendance, and, naturally, there was drinking and whatever else is ingested by students. Aware of the party from it being “advertised” on social media, four teenage gangbangers drove by and fired more than 80 bullets into the house, killing one female sophomore and injuring three other students.
Football players can’t be blamed for that incident, but they can be blamed for what happened during the University of Washington’s 2000 football season. A dozen or so players for the Huskies were arrested for crimes, including in one case, rape. But due to the public’s obsession with football and lionization of players, local newspapers ignored or downplayed the crimes, and courts minimized the seriousness of the offenses.
This travesty of justice is detailed in the book, Scoreboard Baby: A Story of College Football, Crime, and Complicity. The author of Friday Night Lights called it “The most harrowing book I’ve ever read about college sports.”
In view of this and other damning stories about college football, one would expect the University of Arizona to be extra careful about associating football with bad behavior and misogynist attitudes. But in January, it hosted a bowl game named after rapper Snoop Dogg and his hit song “Gin and Juice,” which, among other disgusting lyrics, refers to women in the most vile and sexist language.
Some say that Snoop Dogg has redeemed himself in the years since the song was released, by means of charitable work and other positive activities. Still, does that warrant having a bowl game named after him?
For sure, it makes it difficult for UA to sever ties with Noam Chomsky over his relationship and correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein. It would smack of a double standard to treat him differently than Snoop Dogg.
Mr. Cantoni can be reached at [email protected].
Be the first to comment