Jason Locasale

Tax the rich? Start with the billionaires that call themselves universities.

They have tax-free multibillion-dollar hedge-fund operations and sprawling portfolios of prime real estate.

MIT will ignore criticism for as long as the money continues flowing.

Prominent donors give hundreds of millions of dollars because they want their names associated with serious science and institutions worthy of public trust.

Knouse works inside the Koch Institute and is supported by Koch philanthropy. She falsely accused David Sabatini of sexual harassment and sued him alleging rape. MIT concealed her central accusations behind the pretext of a “workplace culture” investigation and DEI survey. A jury found her liable for nearly $10 million so far.

The Koch family’s name and money now support a professor who made false sexual-assault allegations to destroy another scientist’s career.

Ragon is also a major donor. I am sure he wants scientific excellence to be the foundation of what he supports at MIT. I am not sure he wants his name associated with a thoroughly discredited institution that prioritizes virtue signaling and protecting its administrative class far more than advancing science.

A jury examined the evidence. MIT’s student newspaper responded by injecting the ambiguity MIT needs to protect itself.

This is not serious reporting. It is mostly after-the-fact public relations for a discredited institution. The Tech’s article is riddled with misleading framing and evasive language designed to preserve MIT’s narrative after a jury rejected Knouse’s claims and found her liable for defamation and tortious interference.

The most dishonest line may be its assertion that “no judgment was made as to the nature of her and Sabatini’s relationship.” That is profoundly misleading in context. The jury rejected Knouse’s sexual-harassment counterclaims after years of discovery and weeks of testimony. The court record also documents that she later texted Sabatini seeking to rekindle the relationship, while trial evidence showed her repeatedly pursuing him.

The article devotes extensive space to an anonymous student and Knouse’s losing trial lawyer, who now attacks the jury after choosing to put this case before it. It gives far less scrutiny to the damaging messages, contradictions, and other evidence those jurors actually saw.

MIT’s role is similarly sanitized. The article treats dismissed claims as though they erase MIT’s involvement, even though the verdict found interference with Sabatini’s MIT employment.

thetech.com/2026/11/06/sab…

MIT may not have known about Knouse’s BPD-like qualities and the full extent of the Fatal Attraction-like behavior revealed in her private messages and therapy records.

But it knew that dozens of people were happy working with David, that he had trained many outstanding scientists, including many women, and that his lab worked hard and produced exceptional science.

MIT decided that none of this mattered as much as projecting its DEI values. Sabatini’s record, talent, mentorship, and individual achievement became obstacles to the narrative the administration wanted to promote.

Their project required eliminating individual achievement, discrediting his talent, and reducing an exceptional scientist to a symbol the administrative class could destroy.

Knouse apparently meets the only standard MIT still enforces. Protect the administrative class and serve the approved narrative.

There is a reason public confidence in our universities is so low. Even when the written evidence speaks for itself, MIT lies through its teeth and expects the public to ignore what is directly in front of them.

Everyone who works inside places like this understands the real bottom line. Protect the administrators, protect the money, and protect the institution’s image at any cost.

The arrogance is beyond measure. MIT acts as though it can deceive people, destroy careers, and face no consequences whatsoever.