Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz tackled the legal and moral complexities of preventing harm while preserving essential liberties—a central theme of his latest book, The Preventive State. The conversation ranged from college campus antisemitism and government funding to criminal justice reform and the challenges of preemptive action in both domestic policy and international affairs.
The discussion began with new guidance from the Department of Justice that encourages using the False Claims Act against universities that accept federal funds while tolerating civil rights violations, including antisemitic activity and the imposition of gender policies that infringe on student rights. Dershowitz welcomed the development, citing recent cases at institutions like MIT and Harvard, where students misrepresented their intentions in order to use commencement speeches to denounce Jews and Israel. He argued that such bait-and-switch tactics constitute fraud and should carry real consequences, including loss of degrees and funding.
Dershowitz’s position is that universities should face “targeted defunding” for allowing environments hostile to Jewish students. While he said institutions like Harvard have pockets of excellence, he singled out several departments—like the Divinity School and the Kennedy School’s Carr Center for Human Rights—as centers of antisemitic activity. By contrast, he praised universities like the University of Chicago, Emory, and Vanderbilt for fostering free expression while refusing to tolerate antisemitism.
The conversation then pivoted to the broader theme of Dershowitz’s book: how to prevent serious harms without compromising core civil liberties. He emphasized the need for balance, citing historical examples ranging from Pearl Harbor to 9/11 and October 7th in Israel. In each case, he argued, intelligence existed that could have allowed for preemptive action, but a failure to act led to catastrophe—and often to overreactions afterward, such as mass internment or civil liberties crackdowns.
Domestically, Dershowitz weighed in on Illinois’ elimination of cash bail under the SAFE-T Act. He supported ending monetary bail, calling it ineffective and unfair, but warned that current reforms fail to provide a reliable replacement. Judges often lack tools to accurately assess risk, and when they err, the consequences can be devastating. He pointed to the promise of artificial intelligence as a way to improve risk prediction but stressed the need for safeguards to avoid a “Minority Report” scenario where people are punished for crimes they haven’t committed.
Dershowitz expressed frustration with judicial systems that release dangerous individuals while detaining those who pose no threat, simply due to outdated rules or fear of public criticism. He cited recent examples—including parents accused of killing their toddler being released before trial—as evidence that the system is out of balance. He noted that judges too often react to headlines or fear of mistakes, rather than clear data or common sense.
Throughout the conversation, Dershowitz returned to the idea that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. While he cautioned against overly broad preventive measures, he argued that targeted, well-reasoned action is both necessary and justifiable in a world where threats—ranging from violent crime to terrorism—can escalate quickly.
With over 60 years of scholarship behind him, Dershowitz said The Preventive State is the culmination of a lifetime of legal thought on how societies can responsibly navigate the fine line between protection and oppression. From bail reform to university policy, he urged policymakers and the public alike to think critically, act judiciously, and preserve liberty without sacrificing safety.