Professor EXPOSED: Epstein Ties Shock Yale
Yale University placed a computer science professor on administrative leave after his name surfaced 563 times in Jeffrey Epstein files, revealing years of communications that included recommending students to the convicted sex offender.
Story Snapshot
- Professor David Gelernter relieved of teaching duties pending Yale’s internal conduct review of extensive Epstein correspondence
- Over 550 documented emails between Gelernter and Epstein from 2009-2015 exposed in recently released DOJ files
- Communications included Gelernter seeking investment for his son’s software company and recommending students to Epstein
- Yale Daily News investigation triggered university action after leadership learned of the extensive contact last week
Professor’s Extensive Contact With Convicted Sex Offender Revealed
David Gelernter, a Yale computer science professor and chief scientist at Mirror Worlds Technologies, maintained extensive email correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein spanning six years. The communications, numbering over 550 exchanges between 2009 and October 2015, came to light through DOJ files released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act signed by President Trump. Gelernter defended the contact as professional networking, explaining he sought investment opportunities for his son’s software company. The exchanges ended in 2015 after Epstein declined the investment pitch.
Yale Takes Action After Student Newspaper Investigation
Yale leadership in the School of Engineering and Applied Science became aware of Gelernter’s Epstein connections last week following an investigation by the Yale Daily News. The professor subsequently informed his students that he had been “relieved” of teaching duties pending the university’s review. Yale spokesperson Karen Peart confirmed Gelernter “will not teach his class” until the conduct review concludes. The university emphasized its commitment to classroom excellence and community respect, though officials have not specified what conduct violations are being examined or provided a timeline for the investigation’s completion.
Pattern of Student Recommendations Raises Serious Questions
The released communications reveal Gelernter recommended Yale students to Epstein for opportunities, raising alarming questions about judgment and student safety. This pattern demonstrates a troubling willingness to connect young people with a known predator, even if the professor claims ignorance of Epstein’s criminal activities at the time. For parents sending their children to elite universities, this case exposes institutional vulnerabilities where faculty connections can place students at risk. The review must determine whether Gelernter knew about Epstein’s background and what safeguards Yale had in place to protect students from inappropriate faculty referrals.
Broader Context of Epstein File Releases
The Gelernter case emerged from the massive release of approximately 30,000 Epstein files in December 2025, mandated by the Transparency Act amid ongoing political disputes over redactions and accountability. President Trump’s administration fulfilled its commitment to transparency by releasing these documents, which named numerous prominent figures. While Trump’s own name appeared over 3,000 times in files, those references were dismissed as unfounded business interactions. The releases drew criticism from figures like Representative Thomas Massie, who characterized delays as a smoke screen protecting elites. Gelernter’s 563 mentions relate to professional correspondence rather than criminal allegations, distinguishing his situation from more serious cases.
University Credibility and Student Impact
Yale’s handling of this review will set precedent for how elite institutions address faculty associations with notorious criminals exposed through document releases. Students enrolled in Gelernter’s computer science course face immediate disruption, while the broader Yale community watches whether leadership prioritizes reputation management over genuine accountability. The professor has not responded to requests for comment, with his email unanswered and phone disconnected. This silence, combined with the university’s careful public statements, suggests both parties recognize the reputational stakes. For conservative observers, this case illustrates how academic institutions often protect their own until public pressure becomes unavoidable.