New College picked wrong guy for commencement speaker. Here are 5 better options.
I've written before that New College of Florida and its president, Richard Corcoran, have done some pretty smart things since the college's dramatic, controversial transformation to a conservative-oriented school in January 2023.
So why are New College and Corcoran continuing to do one thing that's just pretty dumb?
Why are they continuing to allow New College's name to be associated with figures who are generating some horrible optics for the school right now?
I mean, who can forget the fiasco of New College recently inviting Russell Brand – the controversial British comedian and actor – to be a speaker while Brand had a cloud of sexual assault allegations hovering over him?
You know, the invitation New College only postponed after Brand was formally charged with multiple counts of rape and sexual assault – mere days before his April appearance?
Why did it take current events to stir New College to act when common sense should have done so?
And who can ignore the ongoing mess regarding New College's hiring of former official Frederick Piccolo Jr., who has been arrested several times on charges of indecent exposure?
What kind of vetting system enabled Piccolo to even work at New College?
All of which raises yet another head-scratching question:
What in the world possessed New College to pick prominent lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who represented the late billionaire Jeffrey Epstein – a convicted sex offender who was facing numerous charges for sex-trafficking minors when he died in his jail cell in 2019 – to deliver the school's May 23 commencement address?
Seriously, who's running the Office of Self-Awareness at New College these days?
And if New College doesn't have that office, shouldn't it use what it was paying Piccolo to create it?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know.
It's true that Dershowitz is – as New College declared in announcing him as the commencement speaker – 'one of the nation's most influential legal scholars and defenders of civil liberties.'
It's true that Dershowitz is – as New College also proclaimed – 'a constitutional lawyer, Harvard Law professor emeritus and best-selling author' who has 'played a pivotal role in some of the most significant legal debates of our time.'
It's true that our Constitution protects the right of every individual, regardless of how reviled they are, to have legal representation.
And, yes, it's true that many other lawyers besides Dershowitz represented Epstein over the years.
But does New College really need a commencement speaker right now whose name can be mentioned, fairly or not, in the same sentence with 'Jeffrey Epstein'?
Who is Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire charged with sex trafficking girls as young as 14?
What's next?
An honorary fellowship for Harvey Weinstein, the disgraced movie mogul whose sordid actions launched the second wave of the #MeToo movement – and who Dershowitz also helped to represent at one point?
Nah, not the best look at the moment.
I know what you're thinking: 'OK, smart guy, so who should have been the commencement speaker?'
Glad you asked! Here is my 'Top 5 People New College Should Have Picked as Commencement Speaker Instead of Alan Dershowitz' list:
No, the governor is not the most dynamic speaker.
And you'd have worry about DeSantis yelling at the New College graduates, like he did those high school kids who dared to wear masks – amid a raging COVID pandemic – while standing next to him.
But, really, isn't DeSantis the daddy of the 'new' New College?
Isn't his name all over this birth certificate?
The school should have given "Big Daddy D" a chance to proudly gaze upon his offspring while giving the commencement speech.
Rufo could provide students with an inspiring tale about successfully pursuing your passion in life. After all, Rufo's passion appears to be obsessively, well, obsessing about race and gender – and boy, oh, boy, has he turned it into his own personal, successful industry.
Besides, it would be hilarious to see the TikTok mashups of every time Rufo uttered the word "woke" during his commencement speech. He'd end up sounding like a bawking chicken in those videos.
Yes, some elements of Meyer's coaching career are as oily as a mechanic's hands in a lube change shop.
And Meyer tried to ruin my NFL team – the Jacksonville Jaguars – during his brief time as head coach.
But the guy does own championship rings and he does live in Sarasota – and he would have been a fitting commencement speaker given New College's 'all in' approach to sports these days.
Ono, who just bolted the presidency at the University of Michigan – and is the sole candidate for the UF job – could provide students with a cautionary tale on sacrificing your dignity to get a gig.
Ono's abrupt reversal on the issue of diversity, equity and inclusion – which he once supported but now opposes in groveling fashion – is downright pathetic.
And for what? Just for the privilege of doing that silly 'Gator Chomp'?
Ugh.
Opinion: 12 reasons why I hate college football. Yes, the Gator Chomp is one of them.
Hey, Corcoran will be at the May 23 ceremony anyway – and he'll already be wearing suitable commencement regalia, right? Why not him?
Yes, I know: I'm totally guilty of presenting compelling evidence after the fact.
But one thing's for sure:
In the court of good judgment, New College deserves a "thumbs down" verdict for picking Alan Dershowitz as its commencement speaker.
Opinion Editor Roger Brown can be reached at roger.brown@heraldtribune.com. He's on X (formerly Twitter) at RBrown_HTOpin.
This article originally appeared on Sarasota Herald-Tribune: New College errs with Dershowitz as graduation speaker | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump to flex muscle with huge military parade
Donald Trump's dream of hosting a grand military parade in Washington will come true on Saturday when tanks, helicopters and thousands of troops rumble through the capital on the US president's 79th birthday. Long fascinated with military pomp, Trump has openly envied the military spectaculars seen in cities from Paris to Moscow and Pyongyang ever since his first term as president. The $45 million parade is officially being held to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the US army, which commander-in-chief Trump this week called the "greatest fighting force ever to walk the face of the Earth." But critics say the parade is more about Trump than the army. Protesters have pledged to rally on Saturday against what they call Trump's growing authoritarianism, at a time when he just ordered troops into Los Angeles after demonstrations against his immigration policy. So-called "No Kings" rallies -- named after the idea that America's Revolutionary War against the British was to free the country from monarchs and autocrats -- are planned in dozens of cities, including just outside Washington. But Trump is unrepentant. The president said on a visit to the Fort Bragg army base on Tuesday that "we want to show off a little bit" with the parade, and vowed "very big force" if protesters try to disrupt it. He made the comments in an extraordinary speech that breached the usual separation of politics and the military and saw Trump goad troops into jeering his opponents. - 'Big birthday party' - Trump's long-cherished parade plans are also rare for a country which has traditionally preferred to avoid displays of military might on its own soil. The parade will be the biggest in Washington since 1991 after the first Gulf War -- and before that for the inauguration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1949, the army said. Nearly 7,000 army soldiers will march past historic landmarks including the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument and the White House. Roaring overhead will be a fleet of more than 50 helicopters including Apache gunships, giant twin-rotor Chinook transport choppers and sleek Black Hawks. Around 150 military vehicles -- including 28 M1A1 Abrams battle tanks, 28 Bradley armored vehicles and 28 Stryker vehicles -- will rumble along the route. Following the parade, the army's Golden Knights parachute team will jump in and present Trump with a US flag. Troops have been moving tanks and other hardware into place throughout the week. "I think the reception here is going to be very warm," US army Colonel Kamil Sztalkoper told AFP during a media preview. "Who doesn't like a big birthday party when you're 250 years old?" - 'Believe in democracy' - But the display of American muscle is also a flex of Trump's own strongman image as commander-in-chief, at the start of a second term when he has been pushing US presidential power further than ever before. Trump has been obsessed with having a parade since his first term as president when he attended France's annual Bastille Day parade in Paris at the invitation of Emmanuel Macron in 2017. Back then he was put off by the huge cost, then estimated at $92 million, and warnings that heavy tanks could damage Washington's streets. This time, the army says metal plates will protect the roads. At the time it also sparked comparisons to similar events in autocratic countries like Russia, China and North Korea -- comparisons which have resurfaced in his second term. Peter Loge, director of George Washington University's School of Media, said the American aversion to such displays went back to the earliest days of US independence. "We were founded by a group of merchants and farmers who were tired of a standing army invading their streets in the name of keeping them safe," Loge told AFP. "We've always looked down on grand military parades in Russia across Red Square or in North Korea, because we're not like that. We're Americans, and we believe in democracy, not in military shows of force." Trump's show of US military might does however come at a time of mounting international tensions. Fears of a Middle East conflict are on the rise as talks on Iran's nuclear talks wobble and Israel threatens to strike its facilities. dk/jgc
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Nancy Mace said 'due process is for citizens.' Here's who it's really for
In early June 2025, Republican U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina wrote an X post (archived) that read: "Due process is for citizens." Her comment had been viewed more than 2.4 million times as of this writing and had amassed more than 6,500 likes. The same claim has appeared in multiple X posts. In a similar tone, in May 2025, another X user wrote: "Due process is for citizens, not invaders." (X user @NancyMace) In short, due process is the legal principle that the government must follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty or property. It serves as a safeguard against arbitrary actions by the state, ensuring that people are treated justly under the law. For a more detailed explanation, see our full breakdown in this article on former President Bill Clinton's 1996 immigration law. While Mace's post did not explicitly say that due process protections are, or should be, limited to only U.S. citizens, her replies below the post reinforced that interpretation. However, the U.S. Constitution protects all "persons," not just citizens, under the due-process clauses of the Fifth and 14th amendments. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that these protections apply to anyone physically present in the United States regardless of citizenship or immigration status. An MSNBC article on the topic similarly concluded that Mace's "implication … that noncitizens don't get that protection" was "incorrect." The South Carolina representative doubled down on her stance in the replies below her post, suggesting that noncitizens should not be entitled to due-process protections in the U.S. For example, when one X user wrote, "The Constitution doesn't say 'only citizens.' Due process applies to persons — that includes non-citizens. That's settled law," Mace replied by saying: "Skip due process coming in, don't expect it going out. Citizens first!" Other replies further suggested she believed only U.S. citizens should be entitled to such protections (archived, archived, archived). (X users @FJBIDEN_22 and @NancyMace) These exchanges were not the first time Mace commented on due process. In late May 2025, she weighed in on the principle in response to a federal judge's decision to block the deportation of eight noncitizens convicted of violent crimes. The day before U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued a 17-page order in which he emphasized that "the Court recognizes that the class members at issue here have criminal histories. But that does not change due process," Mace criticized the ruling, telling Fox News (archived): "They didn't want due process on their way in illegally, they shouldn't get due process on their way out." However, the representative's comments about due process contradicted remarks she made about the principle in the past. In February 2023, Mace wrote on X (archived): "Everyone deserves the right to due process. Even those we vehemently oppose." (X user @NancyMace) Snopes has reached out to Mace for comment on whether she maintains that due-process protections should apply only to U.S. citizens and how she reconciles that view with her 2023 statement. We will update this article if we receive a response. The U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process appears in the Fifth and 14th amendments, both of which state that no person should be deprived "of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." As shown, the language uses "person," not "citizen," with regard to due-process protections. Further, the Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted that due-process protections apply to everyone within U.S. borders regardless of citizenship or immigration status. In Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel Mezei (1953) the Court emphasized (Page 212) that "aliens who have once passed through [U.S.] gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness-encompassed in due process of law." Similarly, in cases such as Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) and earlier decisions dating back more than a century, the Supreme Court made clear that the government cannot detain or deport people arbitrarily. In the 2001 case, the Court underscored that "the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent." In simple words, noncitizens must be given fair procedures, such as notice or a "credible fear interview," before being deprived of their liberty. The Supreme Court expressed the same view in the case of Reno v. Flores (1993), stating: "It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings." This was not the first time Snopes addressed a claim regarding Mace. For instance, in late May 2025, we investigated a rumor that she ordered staffers to create burner accounts to promote her online. Meanwhile, earlier in June 2025, we also fact-checked a rumor about whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, signed by Clinton, allowed deportation without due process. "327K Views · 15K Reactions | Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) Responds to Arguments That Illegal Immigrants Convicted of Heinous Crimes Deserve Due Process after a Judge Blocks a Deportation Flight to South Sudan | 'They Didn't Want Due Process on Their Way in Illegally, They Shouldn't Get Due Process on Their Way Out.' Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) Responds to Arguments... | by Fox News | Facebook." 2022, Accessed 6 June 2025. "U.S. Constitution - Fifth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." 15 Dec. 1791, Constitution Annotated. "U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." 9 July 1868, Deng, Grace. "Did Nancy Mace Order Staffers to Create Burner Accounts to Promote Her Online? Here's What We Know." Snopes, 30 May 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. Dunbar, Marina. "Court Halts Trump Administration's Effort to Send Eight Men to South Sudan." The Guardian, The Guardian, 23 May 2025, Gabbatt, Adam. "Group Stranded with Ice in Djibouti Shipping Container after Removal from US." The Guardian, The Guardian, 6 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. " 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. "Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)." Justia Law, Rubin, Jordan. "Due Process Is Not Limited to Citizens, Contrary to Nancy Mace's Claim." MSNBC, 4 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. Wrona, Aleksandra. "Bill Clinton Did Not Sign Law in 1996 Allowing Deportation without Due Process." Snopes, 5 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. "Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)." Justia Law,
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
DNC votes to redo vice chair elections of Hogg, Kenyatta
Members of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) have voted to redo its vice chair election, teeing up two separate votes for the positions held by David Hogg and Pennsylvania state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta. The vote to redo the elections was 294-99. Oklahoma DNC member Kalyn Free, who ran for a vice chair position and lost, filed a challenge in late February over the way the vice chair election was conducted, alleging in her letter that it unfairly gave the male candidates an advantage over the female vice chair candidates. The DNC Credentials Committee determined last month it would move forward with the challenge and put the matter to a vote for the entire committee to see whether a majority of members believed the vice chair election should be conducted again. Now, the DNC will hold two separate virtual votes, one running between June 12 and June 14 for a male vice chair ballot and another running June 15 to June 17 for a vice chair ballot in which any gender candidate can run. Free's complaint over the February vice chair election is separate from a firestorm Hogg has ignited within the party over whether he should be involved in primarying members of the party while serving as a DNC officer. Those tensions came to a head earlier this week when leaked audio of a Zoom call with DNC officers showed Chair Ken Martin expressing frustration with Hogg, telling the gun control activist in part: 'I don't think you intended this, but you essentially destroyed any chance I have to show the leadership that I need to, so it's really frustrating.' While Hogg has sought to distance himself from the leaked audio, the ordeal has contributed to bubbling tensions between Hogg and DNC leadership. The controversy also prompted some members to rethink the way they were going to vote over the DNC vice chair election redo. Even if Hogg survives the challenge and is reelected as vice chair, his position within the DNC is far from certain if he continues to stay involved in primaries against incumbents as an DNC officer. Kenyatta quickly offered a statement saying he looked forward to making his case. 'I respect the vote of the DNC, and now we can almost bring this chapter to a close,' he said in a statement. 'I look forward to making my case to DNC members and our party as a whole on how we make life better and refocusing on Trump's attacks on our Constitution and working families.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
