…The job of a criminal defense lawyer is like the job Abraham had in the Bible. The citizens of Sodom were mostly guilty. But what if there were some innocent among them? That’s how I see my role. What if there’s someone innocent on death row, or someone innocent in court? I want to make sure we uphold the principle that it’s better for ten guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be wrongly confined. That motto comes from the story of Abraham. He asked God, what if there are ten righteous people in Sodom? And God said, on behalf of ten, I will save them. But not for nine or eight. So the number ten comes out of that biblical story and has become a foundational principle in our common law…
I had the pleasure of talking with Professor Alan Dershowitz. Alan Dershowitz is a legal scholar whose six-decade career has straddled academia, courtroom litigation, and public debate, often placing him at the center of some of America’s most controversial legal and political conversations. A professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, where he taught for more than 50 years, Dershowitz has built a reputation as a formidable defender of civil liberties, a high-profile appellate attorney, and a prolific writer. Throughout his career, he has drawn both acclaim and criticism for his vigorous advocacy, especially in politically charged and ethically complex cases.
Born in 1938 and raised in Borough Park, Brooklyn, Dershowitz grew up in a modern Orthodox Jewish household. He has described his childhood as shaped by religious observance, traditional values, and a deep respect for rules and authority. Though he did not excel academically in his early years, he developed a talent for argumentation and debate, becoming captain of his high-school debate team. The courtroom, he has said, offered a natural venue for a mind drawn to logic, improvisation, and persuasion.
Dershowitz attended Brooklyn College before enrolling at Yale Law School, where he graduated first in his class and served as editor in chief of the Yale Law Journal. Despite his academic credentials, he faced barriers in private practice, encountering resistance from major law firms because of his Jewish background. He ultimately turned to teaching and was hired at Harvard Law School at age 25, becoming the youngest full professor in the school’s history.
He quickly developed a reputation as an energetic and unorthodox educator who brought the intensity of litigation into the classroom. He regularly involved students in moot courts and live case preparations, some of which influenced real-world legal outcomes. A key aspect of his teaching philosophy, he has said, was to challenge assumptions, provoke critical thinking, and maintain openness to argument, even when the subject matter was uncomfortable.
His national profile rose sharply in the 1980s, when he helped overturn the conviction of Claus von Bülow, who had been accused of attempting to murder his wife. The case became a media spectacle and laid the groundwork for his involvement in a series of high-profile defenses, including those of O. J. Simpson, Mike Tyson, and, later, Donald Trump. These cases often placed him in politically fraught territory and drew sharp criticism from both left and right. Dershowitz has long defended his choices by pointing to constitutional principles: even unpopular or controversial defendants are entitled to a vigorous legal defense, and civil liberties must be protected regardless of public opinion.
Over the decades, he has positioned himself as a vocal advocate for due process, freedom of speech, and the principle that the ends do not justify the means in legal prosecution. He has also been a consistent and sometimes controversial voice on matters related to Israel and antisemitism, arguing staunchly for Israel’s right to self-defense and critiquing both left- and right-wing manifestations of antisemitism. His 2003 book The Case for Israel was a bestseller and continues to be widely cited.
Dershowitz’s writings span both scholarly and popular formats, encompassing more than 55 books on law, politics, religion, and international affairs. Among his more recent works is The Preventative State, which outlines a theory of modern governance focused on preemptive strategies for dealing with terrorism, crime, and pandemics. The challenge, he argues, is to develop predictive and preventative tools without sacrificing core civil liberties, a tension that has become increasingly pronounced in the 21st century.
Beyond law and politics, Dershowitz frequently engages in public discourse on university culture, academic freedom, and what he sees as the declining role of meritocracy in American life. He has been an outspoken critic of campus speech codes and what he describes as ideological conformity in higher education, particularly around Israel, identity politics, and affirmative action. At the same time, he continues to mentor young lawyers and remains active in select cases, particularly those involving constitutional issues or government overreach.
Now in his mid-80s, Dershowitz remains active in writing, public speaking, and litigation. He lives in Miami Beach and New York City with his wife, Carolyn Cohen, whom he met in the early 1980s. He begins each day with a traditional Jewish prayer of gratitude and walks regularly for exercise. He maintains a routine of daily writing and continues to advocate on legal, cultural, and geopolitical fronts.
Yitzi: Professor Dershowitz, it’s a delight and an honor to meet you. Before we dive in deep, our readers would love to learn about your personal origin story. Can you share with us a story of your childhood growing up in Brooklyn?
Professor Dershowitz: I had a really blessed childhood. My parents were wonderful, great family, grandparents — people who came over from Europe at the end of the 19th century, beginning of the 20th century. I grew up in Borough Park, which was a modern Orthodox community. I went to a modern Orthodox Yeshiva. I was completely law-abiding. I never missed a day of tefillin, and I never ate an Oreo cookie if it didn’t have an OU on it.
The common word in my family was always “Mutturnisht” — you’re not allowed. And if I was told something was “Mutturnisht,” I didn’t do it. I was not a good student in elementary school, high school, or Yeshiva. I became a very good student when I went to college and law school.
I had a very good upbringing. I enjoyed my friends and still have some friends from the time I grew up in Borough Park. I have a group of people I grew up with — eight guys. One of them is gone, one is not well, but six of us are doing okay. We’re all in our mid-eighties, and we’re hoping that Hashem gives us the strength to continue our work.
Yitzi: Amazing. Can you share the story that brought you to this career in law?
Professor Dershowitz: There are a number of stories. I was very much inspired by the story of Avraham in Bereishit, where he turns to God and says, “Hashofet kol ha’aretz lo ya’aseh mishpat?” — arguing with God. I figured if Avraham can argue with God, I can argue with my rabbis.
I also remember vividly a situation where I was playing a game in the yard, and Vic Botnik, my classmate, put his leg under a bar and broke his leg. I got blamed for it, and my mother — who didn’t go to college — came and defended me. She did such a good job that I was inspired to become a lawyer.
Then my rabbi said to me, “You know, Dershowitz, you’ve got a good mouth on you but not a good brain. So there are two things you can consider doing. One, you could be a lawyer. The other, you could be a Conservative rabbi.” He couldn’t even pronounce the word Reform, but for him, Conservative rabbi was probably the biggest insult short of lawyer. I wasn’t smart enough to be a rabbi, so I had to become a lawyer.
Yitzi: You’re known for being an amazing arguer, someone who presents a strong case. Do you have a story from when you were younger, maybe in your teenage years, when you first discovered the thrill of arguing a case?
Professor Dershowitz: Yeah. I wasn’t a good student, but I was a champion debater. I was the captain of the debate team and I would win all my debates. That’s when I discovered I was a good arguer.
I think I have a very logical mind, and I also have a mind that can tear apart other people’s arguments. That’s what I think made me a good arguer and a good teacher. The key to my success as a teacher is the same as my success as a practitioner — it’s that I was both. I brought the courtroom into the classroom and the classroom into the courtroom. I was a much better litigator because of my classroom experience, and I was a much better teacher because of my courtroom experience. Combining practice and theory is very important.
Yitzi: Speaking of your teaching and your lectures, was there a particular class session that students still email you about decades later? Was there a particular exchange or moment that really stuck with them?
Professor Dershowitz: What I used to do, especially when I was preparing for an important Supreme Court case, was hold a moot court with my students. They would act as the judges and I would present the argument. I remember one case, a double murder capital case involving two young men who were sentenced to die. During the moot court, a student, Cynthia Hamilton, corrected me on something and pointed out an argument I hadn’t considered. I ended up using that argument, and it helped me win the case. That was meaningful. I’ve often won cases thanks to input from others.
Yitzi: You’re a very successful attorney. Which three character traits do you think were most instrumental to your success?
Professor Dershowitz: I think my ability to think quickly on my feet, to improvise, and to change direction instantly. I’m very quick at seeing the whole picture and deciding which way to go, and I’m very decisive about it. Once I make up my mind, I know how to follow through.
Another key trait is the ability to see through false arguments from the other side. And then there’s the ability to learn quickly and assimilate information. I often take on cases where I know nothing about the subject. I agree to do the case, then I dive in and learn everything I need to know. I always tell clients, if you have two choices — a really, really smart lawyer who doesn’t know the subject or a not-so-smart lawyer who’s an expert in the subject — go with the smart lawyer.
That’s how I see myself. I’m often the smart lawyer who doesn’t know the subject at first, but I learn it very quickly. I’m good at understanding science and technology, and when I step into a courtroom, I have to know more about the subject than anyone else in the room. I usually have to learn it myself, and I work very hard to do that.
Yitzi: Part of the reason you’re such a great trial lawyer is that you’re so fast on your feet. Do you have a story where, during a cross-examination, a witness forced you to improvise and you had to pivot on the spot?
Professor Dershowitz: Oh, I have many cases like that. I think the key to being a good cross-examiner is being willing to change and to have an overall plan, but not a script. I remember a case where I was cross-examining a policeman who was lying. I was able to fool him into thinking we had a tape recording of him contradicting himself. Because he believed there was a tape, he ultimately told the truth, and we won the case.
Yitzi: You probably have some amazing stories from your successful, storied career. I’m sure you’ve shared many of them, but can you share with our readers one or two stories from your professional life that really stand out in your mind?
Professor Dershowitz: Well, I’ve had so many, as you say. Going to the former Soviet Union on behalf of Anatoly Sharansky — who then became Natan Sharansky — and trying to save his life was really a highlight of my career. Representing President Trump on the floor of the Senate against what I believed was an unconstitutional impeachment was another high point.
But I’ve had probably 300 important cases in my life, and every one of them was important in its own way. Of course, one of the great days of my life was a morning in Boston in 1982. I was giving a speech for the Boston Jewish Federation, and I saw this woman in the audience. I immediately realized how smart and intelligent she was. After the speech, I got her name — but not her phone number. Her name was Carolyn Cohen. There were five Carolyn Cohens in the phone book, and I called them all. On the third try, I got her. I asked her to have dinner with me that night, and I’ve had dinner with her every night since. She is my wonderful, wonderful wife. So that was a great day in my life.
Yitzi: That’s great. I used to live in the Boston area. I lived in Sharon, one of the suburbs. I lived there for almost ten years.
Professor Dershowitz: Yeah, I know Sharon. I lived in Cambridge for 50 years and raised my three kids there. Now I live in New York, and it’s as if I never left. New York is a kind of parenthesis — I lived there the first 19 or 20 years of my life, then the last 11 years. And in the middle, I spent 50-something years at Harvard.
Yitzi: It’s often said that our mistakes can be our greatest teachers. Do you have a story about a funny mistake you made when you were first starting out as a professor, and what you learned from it?
Professor Dershowitz: I can tell you a story about a mistake I made on purpose to become a better teacher. I thought of it when I remembered a story — I think it’s from Rabbi Akiva, though I’m not entirely sure. You might know it.
Anyway, I was teaching criminal law. I was 25 years old, a young and brilliant professor, and the students were terrified of me because they thought I was some kind of genius. I had a hard time getting them to speak up in class and challenge me.
So, in the third or fourth class, I purposely made a mistake. I asked a student whether the jury instruction in a particular case was correct. But the case didn’t involve a jury, it had been decided by a judge. All the students said, “There wasn’t a jury, there was just a judge.” And I said, “Oh my God, I’m so sorry, I made a mistake.”
As soon as I did that, the students relaxed and became much more comfortable speaking in class. I repeated that mistake the next year, and the year after that. By the fourth year, someone had told the incoming students about it, so they were all waiting for it. After that, I had to stop using it.
I think it was Rabbi Akiva, or maybe another rabbi, who invited a prince or nobleman to a Passover Seder. The prince accidentally spilled wine on the tablecloth, and the rabbi deliberately spilled wine as well, saying, “Oh, how did you know it was part of our tradition to spill wine on the tablecloth?”
So, you see, sometimes making a mistake or showing your vulnerability can be a very positive thing.
Yitzi: Great story. We love hearing stories where someone who’s a bit further ahead opens a door or creates an opportunity that changes someone’s life trajectory. Do you have a story where someone did that for you when you were younger? And vice versa, can you share a story where you did that for somebody else?
Professor Dershowitz: I’ve done that for a lot of people. I was just yesterday talking to the parents of a young woman — I’m not going to disclose who she is — but she’s in a very, very prominent position. The parents told me that she was very shy and never spoke up in class. I saw that and deliberately called on her. She did very well, and I told the class that she did very well. The parents said that gave her a lot of self-confidence and inspired her, and she’s now in a very public role. They — and she — always credit me for that.
You know, it’s part of a teacher’s job to focus on the strengths of their students. I’ve always told my students that I don’t believe in a single concept of intelligence. There are multiple intelligences, and different people have different types. It’s important to know what you’re good at and what you’re not so good at, to work on the areas you’re weaker in, and to take advantage of your strengths. I’ve never believed in single-dimension intelligence tests. That’s why I don’t believe in IQ tests. I have a very high IQ myself, but that doesn’t mean I’m smart. It just means I can take a certain kind of test very well. I’m very good at some things and not so good at others.
Yitzi: Beautiful. What has been the most challenging project or role you’ve taken on, and why?
Professor Dershowitz: It’s still going on. The most challenging project is trying to see if, after 3,000 years of rampant antisemitism around the world, we can finally begin to put an end to antisemitism, anti-Zionism, and anti-Israel sentiment. So far, no one has succeeded. The only real break was between 1945 and maybe 1995. After the Holocaust, people felt so guilty that they suspended their antisemitism for a while.
But it’s back in full force now, and it’s even coming from within the Jewish community. There are so many self-hating Jews and so many who don’t seem to care about other Jews. That’s my life project, and I will pursue it to my last breath.
Yitzi: Professor Dershowitz, you have so much impressive work. What are the most exciting projects or new initiatives you’re working on now?
Professor Dershowitz: I’m working on so many. I’m working on a new book about what’s going on at universities. It’s called Defund or Defend: Who Will Win Trump’s War Against Elite Universities? I also just finished my most serious and important book after all these years. It’s called The Preventative State, and it summarizes my life’s work in the area of prevention — preventing crime, terrorism, and war. That’s my most current book. It’s just been published, and I’m hoping people will read it. It identifies what I believe is a new global trend.
I’m always writing. I write every single day. I don’t think a day goes by without writing. I try not to work on Shabbos, but six days a week — like the Bible says, “Six days shall you work” — I take that seriously. I work hard and try to write between 2,000 and 3,000 words a day.
Yitzi: That’s great. Is there a story from your book, the most compelling or powerful story, that you could share with us?
Professor Dershowitz: There are so many compelling stories. I’ve represented people on death row and fought to save their lives. I’ve defended innocent people and guilty people. People often ask me, how can you defend the guilty? Well, the majority of people charged with crimes in America are guilty. Thank God for that. Would we want to live in a country where most of the people charged with crimes were innocent? That’s Iran. That’s China. That’s other authoritarian regimes. That’s not the United States, or Israel, or Great Britain.
Most of the cases I deal with today are constitutional cases involving government violations of the Constitution. I’m deeply involved right now in a case where the government faked evidence. U.S. v. Raniere is a case of extreme and historic government malfeasance — confirmed by five former FBI experts, including nationally recognized forensic examiners, and an independent expert from Newsweek — and exposes a profound failure of due process. If fully pursued and brought to light, it could drive major reforms within the FBI and DOJ. I won’t rest until we get that hearing, because the last thing any democracy should allow is for people to be imprisoned based on tampered or false evidence. Ultimately, this threatens the inalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
The job of a criminal defense lawyer is like the job Abraham had in the Bible. The citizens of Sodom were mostly guilty. But what if there were some innocent among them? That’s how I see my role. What if there’s someone innocent on death row, or someone innocent in court? I want to make sure we uphold the principle that it’s better for ten guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be wrongly confined. That motto comes from the story of Abraham. He asked God, what if there are ten righteous people in Sodom? And God said, on behalf of ten, I will save them. But not for nine or eight. So the number ten comes out of that biblical story and has become a foundational principle in our common law.
Yitzi: I first became aware of you when I was maybe eight years old and you were famously on the O.J. Simpson defense team. Can you share with our readers why that story captured the world’s attention, and particularly America’s heart and mind? What was it about that case?
Professor Dershowitz: Here you had a star football player, someone beloved and admired, one of the few people who truly crossed racial lines. He was African-American, but he was also one of the most prominent figures in advertising — ads largely targeted to white Americans. He was a national hero.
Then suddenly, he was accused of the most heinous crime: murdering his wife and an innocent man in cold blood. Most Americans thought he was guilty. The evidence seemed overwhelming. But we were able to prove — and I played a significant role in this — that the evidence had been tampered with.
For example, the police poured O.J. Simpson’s blood on a sock that was found near his bed to make it seem like real evidence. We exposed that. Through scientific analysis, we showed that it was fake, and the jury agreed. They acquitted him.
Many people still believe he was guilty, but I think many others understand that the police acted improperly. And that raises deep concerns about the integrity of the justice system.
Yitzi: You were part of what they called the Dream Team. I remember you said it should’ve been called the Nightmare Team. Can you share a behind-the-scenes story about the creative chaos during the defense strategy meetings?
Professor Dershowitz: It wasn’t always creative. Sometimes it was just about whose ego was going to be satisfied. Johnny Cochran was a very good team leader because he always made sure the client’s interests came before the lawyers’ interests. But it was a team with a lot of internal controversy and conflict.
One of the biggest issues was whether O.J. Simpson should take the witness stand. I was adamantly opposed to him testifying. I believed we could only win the case based on the science. Ultimately, I persuaded O.J. not to testify, despite F. Lee Bailey’s strong belief that he should. I insisted it would be a mistake. And I was proven right — because in the civil case, when O.J. did testify, he was immediately found liable.
Yitzi: Later in my 30s, I read your book A Case for Israel cover to cover. And to this day, it’s the most articulate, step-by-step explanation for liberal Americans making the case for Israel.
Professor Dershowitz: I now have a little pamphlet that we’ve printed a million copies of to give out to college students all over the country. It’s called The 10 Big Anti-Israel Lies and How to Refute Them with Truth. Basically, it takes the case for Israel, modernizes it, and brings it up to date. It was 25 years ago that I wrote The Case for Israel, and this new pamphlet presents the arguments against the anti-Israel lies in a short format that people can carry in their pockets. A lot of students have been walking around with it and using it as a tool to refute the attacks on Israel.
Yitzi: That’s great. If I recall correctly, you argued in The Case for Israel that the goal is a two-state solution, but there’s no partner on the other side. So we’re stuck trying to find the right partner. The goal is still to eventually give the Palestinians their independence, but right now it’s just not possible. My question is, today — after what happened on October 7th — do you have a different perspective on that?
Professor Dershowitz: I do. The case for a Palestinian state is much weaker than it was. Remember, the Palestinians were offered a state in 1937, 1938, 1947, 1948, 1967, 2000, 2001, 2005, and 2007. They turned it down every time. And as Bill Clinton said, you can’t walk away from an offer like that and then expect it to be renewed. I think the Palestinians have waived their claim to an independent state.
Now, if there can be some kind of autonomy, that would be a good thing. But right now, you can’t have a Hamas-controlled Gaza and a West Bank controlled by the Palestinian Authority, because if there were an election, Hamas would win. So right now, there’s no possibility of a two-state solution. Israel has to maintain its strength and its military superiority.
There is a prayer that says, “Hashem — God — will give the Jewish people strength. Only then will the Jewish people be blessed with shalom, peace.” Peace through strength. That’s what has to be done today, especially because Israel isn’t getting a lot of support from the international community. We’re not even sure of the support from the United States. The only guaranteed support is from Israel’s own people and its military. Even American Jews often waver in their support for Israel.
Yitzi: Let’s move on to talk about the Constitution. You’re a constitutional scholar, famously. What would you say is the biggest threat to democracy today?
Professor Dershowitz: I would say the biggest threats to democracy today are universities and the media. Universities are suppressing free speech. They’re teaching students not to respect the Constitution, not to respect the law, but to focus only on outcomes and results. The media doesn’t report fairly on almost anything.
Thomas Jefferson once said, given a choice between a country without newspapers and newspapers without a country, he would choose the newspapers. By the way, after he was president, he changed his view on that because he didn’t like the newspapers very much. But I think the media is failing in its responsibility. Universities are failing too.
The Constitution will only survive as long as the spirit of liberty lives in the minds and hearts of Americans. And that spirit is dying in the very places that are supposed to protect it — universities and the media. So I think those are the two greatest threats.
No individual politician, no matter what you think of President Trump or President Biden or anyone else, can truly endanger democracy — not even a president. It has to be a much more systematic issue, and what we’re seeing now is a systematic attack on democracy coming from the universities and the media.
Yitzi: If you had the ability to implement reform, how could we revitalize the media so it can truly be the Fourth Estate and fulfill its potential?
Professor Dershowitz: I think one big change would be to abolish DEI — Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion — intersectionality, and all those woke, left-wing, fake ideas. We need to return to America as a meritocracy, where every job is filled based on merit, not race, gender, or age, but merit.
That’s how I became successful — because I worked harder and got better grades than others. I’m a strong believer in meritocracy in every aspect of life. And you can define merit broadly. Today, I was with the vice president of the Reichman Institute in Israel, a great university. They select students based entirely on merit. But merit there isn’t just about grades. For example, they include people who served in the military, who were heroes and accomplished great things. That’s part of their merit system.
You can define merit broadly, but once you’ve defined it, you can’t cheat. You can’t deviate from it. You can’t pick people based on race or gender if those qualities aren’t directly related to merit. And they’re not.
Yitzi: You’re making a fascinating point — that the decline of journalism and universities stems from people not being placed in those positions based on merit, but on other factors. That’s a fascinating idea.
Professor Dershowitz: Let’s expand on that a little. Universities and newspapers also hide the fact that they’re not using merit by abolishing grades and exams. If you eliminate all methods of evaluation, how can anyone prove you’re lowering your standards? They’ve made it impossible to demonstrate. But everyone who’s close to it understands that we’re seeing a tremendous decline in academic standards and quality of work. I saw it clearly over my 50 years at Harvard — without a doubt.
Yitzi: Let me ask you from a personal perspective. I’m in the media, and I struggle with this all the time. I’ll tell you a quick story. I wanted to do a series on being a successful publicist, and I put out a source request. We got about 100 pitches and did a big roundup with publicists sharing their insights. It turned out that most of them were white. Only three of the people who submitted were Black. Maybe there were a few others who were people of color, but basically only three were Black out of 100. And that’s just from the pitches we received. When we published the article, there was a big backlash — people said 3% isn’t representative of the U.S. population, that it should be closer to 12%. That experience burned me. Now I always go out of my way to include more people of color to make sure the result doesn’t end up looking like a sea of white people.
Professor Dershowitz: That’s a false narrative. If 22% had been Black, nobody would have objected, even though that’s more than five times the actual number who submitted. It has nothing to do with proportionality. Affirmative action simply means more Black people. That’s it.
Nobody demands it in basketball, where African Americans dominate. No one is asking for a proportional number of white players there. Affirmative action is only about increasing the number of Black participants. It’s not about morality or fairness or proportionality. If more Black people are included, it’s considered a success. If fewer are included, it’s a failure.
Until the NBA is governed by the same rules that used to govern universities, don’t talk to me about proportionality. It just doesn’t apply the way people claim it does.
Yitzi: So if you were me, you’d just push back and say, “This is what it is”?
Professor Dershowitz: Yeah.
Yitzi: Thank you. The narrative is that one of the greatest threats to democracy today includes things like the Electoral College and gerrymandering. Can you make the case for why the Electoral College is still important, even today?
Professor Dershowitz: Well, it’s part of a system, and you can’t just eliminate one part of a system without fundamentally changing the whole thing. The Senate, for example, gives disproportionate power to small states — Wyoming gets the same number of senators as California. And that also translates into a disproportionately higher number of electors in the Electoral College. But that’s part of the design. The filibuster is another part of it.
Democracy is made up of a lot of moving parts, and if I were drafting the Constitution today, as opposed to 225 years ago, maybe I wouldn’t include the Electoral College. The original idea behind it was to take power away from the general public and give it to thoughtful, intelligent electors.
The first major conflict with that concept came with Andrew Jackson, who revolted against it and ushered in what became known as Jacksonian democracy, where everything was decided by the majority. But even today, there are very few pure democracies. Parliamentary systems aren’t pure either. They have their own version of filtering the people’s vote — through parliament. So almost every democracy has some mechanism that tempers or filters direct popular vote. Ours happens to be the Electoral College.
Yitzi: Fascinating. There are efforts today to weaken the power of the Electoral College, like states agreeing to award their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. Do you think these methods have merit?
Professor Dershowitz: No, I don’t. I don’t think you should tinker with the system that way. I don’t approve of efforts to circumvent the Electoral College.
There are proposals saying that every state should give its electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote. That’s not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. If you want to change that, there’s a proper process — amend the Constitution. But I don’t believe in trying to go around what the framers intended.
Yitzi: How do you respond to the argument that now we only have battleground states, and the only votes that really matter are from people in those states? Because we live in New York, California, or Maryland, and our votes ostensibly don’t count. How do you respond to that?
Professor Dershowitz: California used to be a battleground state. New York used to be a battleground state. Florida may become a battleground state. Things change, and democracy is a flexible concept. Also, remember that we have a system of checks and balances, a separation of powers. We have the presidency, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the judiciary. Each has different processes for selecting members, and the system isn’t designed for efficiency. It’s designed to protect against tyranny. And I think, generally, it’s worked fairly well, with a few exceptions.
Yitzi: People also point to redistricting and gerrymandering as anti-democratic features. What would you say in response to that? Is there a way to address it?
Professor Dershowitz: Well, the courts do address it, particularly when it’s done for racial considerations. But gerrymandering is part of politics. The very concept comes from Elbridge Gerry, one of our Founding Fathers, who was one of the first to create districts in the shape of a salamander. The term “gerrymander” is a combination of his name and “salamander.” Districting issues have been with us since the very beginning. It’s not purely democratic, but we don’t live in a pure democracy. I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said, “It’s a republic, if we can keep it.” The word “democracy” was rarely mentioned during the debates about our Constitution. The framers were very wary of it, especially given what was happening in France during the French Revolution. So we created a different kind of system — a quasi-democracy — where the ultimate check is with the people in two-year and four-year election cycles. But it’s not a pure democracy.
Yitzi: If you were sitting at the original Constitutional Convention with the framers and the founders, would you have done anything differently?
Professor Dershowitz: Sure. First of all, I would have written a much better Constitution in terms of clarity and grammar. There’s a great cartoon — I think I have it here somewhere. Yeah, here it is. It shows the Founding Fathers standing around drafting the Constitution, and one of them says, “Just for fun, let’s make what is and isn’t constitutional kind of wishy-washy.” And they did. They made it quite wishy-washy. A lot of things are unclear. The Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, is not clear at all. The Fourth Amendment is not clear. Even the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law abridging,” and yet we do make certain laws. So the Constitution is not a model of perfect draftsmanship, but it’s endured over time and it’s done fairly well.
Yitzi: From a constitutional perspective, what are your thoughts about a federal judge from a lower court ruling against the president?
Professor Dershowitz: Federal judges should have the right to rule against the president. Throughout history, they have ruled against presidents, starting with Marbury v. Madison, through the Roosevelt administration, and up to current times. That’s the system of checks and balances. What concerns many people is that a single federal district court judge, in some obscure part of the country, can issue a ruling that binds the entire nation. The Supreme Court has just heard arguments on that issue, and we’ll have to wait and see how it decides.
Yitzi: Let’s move to the centerpiece of our interview. You’ve been blessed with a lot of success, and you must have learned a lot from your experiences. Looking back to when you first started, can you share five things you’ve learned that you wish you knew when you first became a law professor?
Professor Dershowitz:
- I think one of the great weaknesses that many of my colleagues have is they don’t want anybody to dislike them, so they’re prepared to say and do whatever pleases everyone on all sides. You have to commit yourself to a set of principles that you won’t change just to gain popularity. That’s something I’ve really learned over time. Once you start bending your principles, there’s no end to it. That’s number one.
- Number two, don’t count on other people having principles — because most of them don’t. The vast majority of people are utterly unprincipled and use “principle” as a cover for their self-serving arguments.
- Number three is, make sure you think before you act. There’s that Nike t-shirt that says “Just Do It.” I always wanted to make a t-shirt that says, “Don’t Just Do It — Think About It First.” Too many people just act without considering the consequences. So I’ve learned to pause and reflect on the impact of my conduct.
- Number four is related to that. The great Rabbi Hillel said, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am for myself alone, what am I?” Balancing self-interest with concern for others is one of the hardest things. We tend to overstate and overvalue our own preferences, and finding that balance is a lifelong struggle.
- Finally, I’ve learned that there’s no magic solution to any of this. I’m 86 and I hope I keep learning. For me, when I taught a class, I’d always come home and tell my wife, “It was a great class — I learned something from the students.” I always tried to be a good teacher, but I didn’t measure a class by how well I taught. I measured it by whether I learned something. And I’d say, probably half the time I did and half the time I didn’t.
Yitzi: A lot of people in the legal industry — and in other professional services — are nervous that AI might replace them in some capacity. What are your words of encouragement to future lawyers that AI won’t replace them?
Professor Dershowitz: Well, if you think AI will replace you, don’t become a lawyer. If you’re not creative enough or spontaneous enough, AI will replace a lot of lawyers. Lawyers who lack creativity or independent thinking are at risk. Really good lawyers will never be replaced by AI.
I had a rule in teaching for 50 years at Harvard: I never discussed subjects in class that students could learn just by reading a book. I only talked about things you couldn’t get from reading. That’s how I practice law too. I try to take on issues that aren’t subject to being solved by AI, Google, or just looking up cases.
If you’re a good lawyer, don’t worry about AI. And honestly, if you are worried about it, you probably shouldn’t be a lawyer — because you should already understand why it’s not a threat to you.
Yitzi: You’ve been blessed with good health, thank God. You’re vibrant, you’re in your mid-80s. Can you share with our readers the self-care practices that you do to help your body, mind, and heart to thrive?
Professor Dershowitz: Well, I’m not in perfect health. I’m 86. I have atrial fibrillation and I have to take a blood thinner every day. I have the typical ailments that an 86-year-old has. My mother lived until 95. My father died very young from Alzheimer’s, tragically, and I was lucky not to have been cursed with his gene.
I try to enjoy life very much. I get up every morning and the first thing I do is say Modeh Ani, which is a traditional prayer thanking God for waking you up. When you’re 86 and you wake up in the morning, that’s a blessing. A friend of mine who passed away a few years ago used to say — he was 80 — if you get up in the morning and nothing hurts, you’re probably dead. So when I get up, sure, I have a cramp here or there, but I thank God for waking me up. That He’s revived me again, and I can look forward to the day.
After I say the Modeh Ani, I think through my day, check my calendar, and plan how I’m going to spend my time. I always try to schedule a walk. I used to walk five or six miles a day. I’m now down to four, but I still try to walk as often as I can. My wife does too. I’m blessed to have a wonderful marriage and wonderful children and grandchildren — not enough of them, but quality counts more than quantity.
I don’t go out of my way to eat healthfully. I have too much ice cream. I don’t smoke or drink. I have a couple of glasses of wine a week, but I’m not a drinker. I’m a little overweight, but not overtly so — not obese or anything like that. I try to exercise, and I also do my best not to let things get to me.
I think mostly about the future rather than the past, although occasionally I have regrets. I made a decision recently that I can’t share with anybody, but I turned something down and wish I hadn’t. There are also times when I accept something and later wish I hadn’t. One of those decisions I truly regret is ever meeting or having anything to do with Jeffrey Epstein. As a result, I was falsely accused of having sexual contact with a woman I never met. I’ve had no sexual contact with anyone but my wife during the relevant time period. I don’t even hug people.
Yet I was falsely accused. The woman ultimately admitted she may have mistaken me for someone else, confused me with someone else. But in the meantime, she turned my life upside down and made things very difficult for me and my family. Thankfully, she implicitly admitted she may have been wrong and shouldn’t have accused me once she realized she may have misidentified me.
That was a low point in my life, but I fought back. A lot of people said I shouldn’t have, that I should have just let it disappear. That’s not who I am. I always fight back — and I did, and I was successful.
Yitzi: When I lived in Boston, I was friendly with Henry Katz. His father, I think, was a selectman of Sharon, and he was a lawyer. Henry told me that his father used to say he wished he could have been the defense attorney for Eichmann during the Eichmann trial, because then the world would know it was truly just. Yitzi: The sentiment of that story is, like you said, that sometimes defending people who aren’t innocent is actually in the best interest of justice. But would you say that about someone like Eichmann?
Professor Dershowitz: I always say I wish I had been the defense attorney for Jesus, because I would have gotten him acquitted. Then nobody could ever blame the Jews for killing him. That’s my hope, that I could have been a lawyer for Jesus, but I wasn’t old enough for that.
If Eichmann couldn’t get another lawyer… I mean, Eichmann killed some of my relatives, so I would have a conflict of interest. But as I’ve often said, if Hitler had invited me to his bunker in 1943 and asked me to represent him, I would have agreed to go into the bunker, and then I would have strangled him with my bare hands. Killing Hitler would have been a just thing to do. Killing Eichmann before he killed so many Hungarian Jews would have been the right thing to do. Killing him after it was all over — I would have defended him against the death penalty. I think it would have been better if Israel had not executed him. Maybe he would have turned in some other people. I don’t know. But I’m not in favor of the death penalty.
Yitzi: So, referencing the Holocaust and anti-Semitism… my grandparents are also survivors from Hungary. Would you say you’re optimistic about the fate of American Jews over the next 20 years?
Professor Dershowitz: You know, in Israel they say a pessimist is somebody who says, “Oy vey, things are so bad they can’t get worse.” An optimist says, “Yes, they can.” I think things could get worse, because our college students today are our future leaders. So we have a real challenge. And I think the Jewish leadership is not up to that challenge. We have the wrong leaders today. We have leaders in the Reform Jewish movement who are not supportive of Israel — people like the rabbis and the board of Temple Emanuel in New York, who are not friends of the Jewish people or of Israel. They invite people like Peter Beinhart to speak and pay him $35,000 to talk about how Israel shouldn’t exist, but they ban me from speaking. The same is true of the 92nd Street Y. There are a lot of Jewish leaders who are much more concerned about their own welfare and security than they are about the fate of the Jewish people. That was true in the 1930s, it was true in the 1940s, and it’s true today.
Yitzi: So would you encourage Jews to leave America to be safer in Israel?
Professor Dershowitz: No, I would encourage Jews to stay wherever they are happiest with their family and to fight back wherever they are. I think I would probably encourage Jews to leave South Africa, which is a racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic, and failed country. I worked very hard on behalf of South Africa and on behalf of Nelson Mandela. But the man who destroyed and ruined South Africa was Bishop Tutu, who really introduced racism and anti-Semitism into the South African frame of mind. Bishop Tutu deserves a special place in hell.
Yitzi: This is our final aspirational question. Professor Dershowitz, because of your platform and your amazing work, you’re a person of enormous influence. If you could spread an idea or inspire a movement that would bring the most amount of good to the most amount of people, what would that be?
Professor Dershowitz: Meritocracy. That Martin Luther King dream — I dream of a day when my children will be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin or by gender or by sexual orientation. If we could get back to an age of real meritocracy… we’ve almost never had it. I finished Yale Law School first in my class, editor in chief of the Yale Law Journal. I got turned down by 32 out of 32 law firms because I was Jewish. That was 1962. Now I’d be turned down because I’m white. There was a period of time, perhaps between 1965 and 1995, when maybe we were close to a meritocracy, and it was a golden age for America. So if I could do one thing, it would be returning to a real meritocracy. I say “return” — maybe we’ve never had it, but it’s something to aspire to.
Yitzi: Just to clarify, some people point to the situation at Harvard, where it was alleged that the university limited the number of Asian American students admitted because they didn’t want the student body to be, say, 30% Asian. How do you respond to that?
Professor Dershowitz: Well, they’re wrong. I don’t care if 90% of Harvard is Asian. The job of Harvard is to teach and to do research, and whoever the best researchers are should be the ones picked.
Now, it would be surprising to me if the majority ended up being from any one ethnic group. The former Dean of Harvard Admissions once said that if we went only by intelligence, the school would be too Jewish. That was before the concerns about Asian American representation.
If the school ended up being dominantly Jewish and Asian, and that’s what a true meritocracy produced, that’s fine.
Not too long ago, I needed a doctor for a specific issue. I asked around for the best person, and everyone gave me the same name: Carl Crawford. So I called Dr. Crawford. Based on the name, I pictured a 6’2″ WASP, maybe a Brahmin from Harvard.
He shows up to do the surgery, says hello, and he’s a 5’6″ African American guy from Brooklyn with a Brooklyn accent. And he was fantastic.
Here was someone who made it purely on merit. He succeeded despite any barriers, and he was the person I wanted for the procedure because he was simply the best.
True meritocracy produces diversity. It may not produce diversity in the exact numbers some people want, but the NBA is a great example of pure meritocracy.
You wouldn’t want to enforce a certain percentage of white players on the Knicks or the Celtics just to balance the team. Meritocracy in sports works, and it should operate in every area of life. That would be the biggest change, the biggest contribution. I believe it would also help reduce anti-Semitism as a byproduct.
Yitzi: Professor Dershowitz, how can our readers purchase your latest book?
Professor Dershowitz: Go on Amazon. It’s not expensive. It’s a good read and it’s not very long — about 220 pages. I think it will really give you some insights into the changes happening in our society. You need to be aware of those changes because they’re affecting every aspect of your life. So please read The Preventative State, and if you have any comments, write to me. I respond to everyone who writes. Thank you for the excellent questions in the interview, and thank you for helping me speak out on behalf of the Constitution and for a standard that doesn’t allow the government to cheat or tamper with evidence. That’s my goal, and I hope we can achieve it.
Yitzi: Professor Dershowitz, thank you so much for your time. Wishing you continued success, good health, and blessings. I hope we can do this again next year.
Professor Dershowitz: We will. And remember, the Torah says, Tzedek, Tzedek Tirdof! It doesn’t say “justice” once, it says it twice — Tzedek, Tzedek. So that means you have to have me back. We talked about justice once, now we’ll talk about justice a second time. It comes directly from Shoftim.
Yitzi: Thank you so much. I wish you an amazing day, a good Shabbos, and I look forward to sharing this with you and with our readers.
Professor Dershowitz: Great, thank you so much.
Professor Alan Dershowitz: Five Things I Wish I Knew When I First Started Practicing Law was originally published in Authority Magazine on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.