Lindsay Son

Should Bowdoin continue to honor former Sen. George Mitchell by having Hawthorne-Longfellow Library’s Special Collections and Archives named after him?

My question is prompted by the University of Maine (UMaine)’s announcement last week that they are renaming all campus programs currently named after Mitchell. This decision followed the recommendations of a university-wide task force formed in February in response to revelations that Mitchell appeared hundreds of times in the Epstein files and maintained a friendly relationship with Jeffrey Epstein even after his conviction for child sex trafficking in 2008. Mitchell was also accused of sexual assault by at least one and possibly more individuals. UMaine’s task force consisted of university officials, faculty, staff and students. It deliberated for months, took input from the campus community and operated in a transparent and inclusive way.

At the February 2026 faculty meeting, I asked President Safa Zaki if Bowdoin was considering the question. If so, what would the decision-making process be and who would be involved? The College claimed to be “actively reviewing” the situation, but there has still been no decision.  This surprises me.

When questions arose in 2019 about former trustee Jes Staley’s close involvement with Epstein, the College set up an inquiry into his fitness to serve as trustee. The inquiry was conducted behind closed doors by the Governance Committee, a small group of trustees—many of whom knew Staley personally and chaired by President Clayton Rose. Staley was not only Rose’s friend and former colleague, but he also chaired Bowdoin’s 2015 Presidential Search Committee which appointed Rose. Riddled with conflicts of interest, the inquiry’s conclusion exonerating Staley looks more and more grotesque with each new revelation about Staley’s behavior and the depth of his involvement in Epstein’s sex trafficking operation.

One might think that, in the wake of that debacle, the Trustees would have established procedures to handle future cases in which honored individuals are discovered to have behaved immorally. But when I asked Zaki about Mitchell at last week’s October faculty meeting, she replied that progress had been slow because Bowdoin still has no process. With due respect to the Trustees, who I know care deeply for the College, that’s a ridiculous situation. The Board should institute a transparent, inclusive process to handle this and similar problems when they next arise, as they inevitably will.

As for renaming Special Collections, I think it’s difficult. Mitchell has made many contributions to the common good, including helping bring peace to Northern Ireland. He denies wrongdoing and has not been charged with any crime. Reporters have also found no evidence to corroborate the accusations made against him. On the other hand, given the almost-complete failure of authorities to properly investigate anyone associated with Epstein and the fact that Trump’s Department of Justice has only released about half the files, most of which were heavily redacted, I’d say that absence of evidence is certainly not evidence of absence. Legally, Mitchell is in the clear. Morally, I’m not so sure.

Rape, sexual assault and the misogynist culture which enables them are pervasive because too many men stay silent when they could intervene. At Cornell, several men allegedly raped a woman while others looked on. One participant sent a message to dozens of other men, inviting them to join. Not one of them did anything to stop what was happening.

Sexual predators operating on a scale as gigantic as Epstein get away with it for as long as they do thanks to this culture of complicity. They surround themselves with networks of powerful friends whose very presence frightens people away from speaking out. In turn, those allies pretend not to notice what’s going on in front of their eyes, and while that may be legal, it is both cowardly and shameful.

Mitchell was one of the few men influential enough to have made a difference in ending Epstein’s crimes. He could have publicly ended their association after Epstein had been convicted of child sex trafficking in 2008. If he and other powerful men had spoken out, it’s hard to imagine that Epstein could have maintained the influence-peddling his operation relied on. But Mitchell chose to look the other way. Worse, he maintained their friendship, knowingly allowing Epstein to use their relationship to burnish his own reputation as a man with powerful friends whom victims and whistleblowers were too afraid to cross.

I fault Mitchell most for what he didn’t do. He should have spoken out, but he chose silence. We owe it to Epstein’s victims to do better.

Henry Laurence is a professor of Government and Legal Studies at Bowdoin College.