I recently spoke at the Cardozo Law School. The reactions of many law students to my talk made me worry deeply about the future of lawyers, law schools and the rule of law. My talk was about Israel. I generally favor a two-state solution and a ceasefire in return of all the hostages. When I arrived at the venue I was greeted by signs calling me a child rapist, pedophile and worse. I began my speech by explaining that the woman who had falsely accused me had since withdrawn all of her charges and had admitted that she may have confused me with someone else. The fact that I was totally innocent of false charges, didn’t seem to diminish the personal hate that many students directed toward me. I gave my speech and then opened it up to questions saying that I would prioritize negative questions. I was hoping they would be about the Israel-Hamas conflict but many of them simply repeated the false charges against me. I respectfully answered all of the questions and invited students to ask follow ups.
Some of the questions related to Antisemitism and its relationship to the diversity, equity and inclusion programs that exist in many schools including Cardozo. I strongly oppose DEI, because its definition of diversity excludes Jews and Asians; its definition of equity is exactly the opposite of individual equality; and its definition of inclusion explicitly excludes Jews and Asians. When I quoted Martin Luther King’s dream for a society where people are judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character – I was booed and many students walked out. That of course is their prerogative and an exercise of their freedom of speech. But it is remarkable that quoting MLK at Cardozo Law School has now become a provocation.
When I concluded the event, many students came up to me and said how important it was to hear my voice since their voices had been silenced at Cardozo and no one had spoken up on behalf Jewish and pro-Israel students. This is particularly surprising because Cardozo Law School is affiliated with Yeshiva University, which is a Jewish school.
Following the event Dean Melanie Leslie issued a statement implicitly condemning me for my opposition to diversity, equity and inclusion and insisting that “the community here respects and reflects” DEI. That of course is far from the truth. Many in the community, including many of the students who attended my lecture, believe as I do that the DEI bureaucracy has been an incubator for antisemitism. Many of the most antisemitic statements that followed the October 7th Hamas massacres originated from the DEI bureaucracy. DEI and its companion “intersectionality” divide the world into oppressors and oppressed, with Jews always being the oppressors. In practice, even if not in theory, the DEI bureaucracy is responsible for much of the antisemitism prevalent and growing on campuses today. That is why so many students including those at Cardozo “do not respect and reflect the bigotry of DEI.” They are afraid to express these contrary views for fear of reprisals. Requiring them to respect and reflect values with which they fundamentally disagree is a form of McCarthyism.
Dean Leslie then went on to say that “DEI efforts are not antisemitic.” She is wrong. Any empirical study of the DEI efforts will demonstrate its close connection to antisemitism.
A bit of history regarding Dean Leslie is appropriate here. Shortly after the October 7th Hamas massacres, Jewish students asked Dean Leslie to invite me to speak. She turned them down, claiming I was too controversial and that the school “is not ready for Dershowitz.” What an insult to the intelligence of her students. Her definition of diversity obviously does not include diversity of points of view, especially if they are pro-Israel and anti-DEI. I challenge Dean Leslie to debate me in front of her students on the virtues and vices of DEI and on whether it should be compelled and imposed on students who disagree with its values. I doubt she will accept because she obviously doesn’t want her students to hear diverse views on the subject.
In her letter the Dean did not explicitly condemn the students who defamed me and who tried to shout me down. Instead she condemned “recording people without their consent or sharing identifying information with malicious intent…” Let me be clear that I consented to my speech being recorded. Moreover students have the right to record public speeches of the kind I gave. As far as identifying students, I see nothing wrong with identifying students who publicly express antisemitic or other bigoted views. Law firms and their clients should know who they are hiring and clients have a right to know who is representing them.
Dean Leslie personifies the problem of universities today: imposed ideologies; intolerance for dissenting views; and tolerance for anti-Semitism.
