In Speech, Trivers Derides Dershowitz

Robert Trivers, the Rutgers biologist noted for his public spat with Harvard Law School Professor Alan M. Dershowitz, made a Valentine’s Day visit to Cambridge yesterday. But it wasn’t candy hearts and flowers that he brought with him.

Speaking before a standing-room only audience at the Biology Labs, Trivers introduced the issue of self-deception, and then used it as a platform for comments about the false historical narratives that he ascribed to both Americans and Israelis.

But before delving into his speech, the award-winning biologist had some choice words for his most high-profile Harvard opponent, whom he called “a deeply dishonest organism, if there ever was one,” and cast as an impediment to free discussion in the face of “sensitivities” about Israel.

“At Harvard, I think we can do better than to follow the likes of Alan Dershowitz. Yes we can,” Trivers exclaimed, imitating the popularized campaign slogan of presidential candidate and former Law School student Barack Obama.

Trivers has alleged that Dershowitz was instrumental in the cancellation of a speech that he was scheduled to give at Harvard’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics last May. While Dershowitz suggested on Tuesday that he might protest the Trivers speech, he was not in attendance yesterday.

But his presence was evident. As Trivers began to talk, the audience passed around copies of a letter he had sent to Dershowitz.

“Let me just say that if there is a repeat of Israeli butchery towards Lebanon and if you decide once again to rationalize it publicly, look forward to a visit from me,” reads the message, which refers to Dershowitz as a “nazi-like apologist.”

Dershowitz has repeatedly insisted that the letter constituted a physical threat.

It was not clear who among the audience brought the copies of the letter or began to pass them around, but Dershowitz admitted yesterday to supplying a copy to someone who planned on attending the event.

“I was called and asked whether I could provide a copy of the letter and I did,” said Dershowitz, before detailing the security measures his office had taken in preparation for Trivers’ appearance on campus.

“My secretary, who is a karate expert, was standing guard at the door to make sure there was no violence,” he added.

The most controversial material in yesterday’s speech appeared not to be any reference to Dershowitz but rather the content concerning Israel.

On a slide entitled “False Historical Narratives: Israel,” Trivers called into question the claim by the Israeli people that they adopted “a land without people for a people without a land.” He said that the statement was belied by the hundreds of thousands of Arabs who became refugees when Israel was founded in 1948.

Trivers also questioned the legitimacy of the grievances cited by Israelis in their decision to take military action against Lebanon in the summer of 2006. His remark prompted a challenge from the audience following the talk.

“It’s just sort of hard as someone who came from that region prior to that conflict to have someone say that Israel should have made peace when someone had just attacked them,” said one questioner.

“Your description is inaccurate on its face,” replied Trivers.

“I don’t think that [the U.S] would level Mexico if some subgroup killed three and seized two,” he added.

Following the speech, one member of the audience, Anthropology Professor J. Lorand Matory, said he was not surprised that some seemed skeptical of Trivers’ speech.

“You know, to self-deceiving Zionists, all of that was a lie,” Matory said. “People produce quotations that this land [Israel] was unoccupied before they got there...some people learn this in Saturday school, and it’s a function of self-deception.”

Matory sponsored legislation this fall in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences that alleged that sensitivities about Israel have hindered free speech on campus.

Trivers noted after the speech that the audience—estimated at about 200 by the event’s host, Biology Professor David A. Haig—had been “extremely receptive and warm.”

He added that he had deliberately decided to minimize the number of references in his speech that concerned his feud with Dershowitz.

“I was taught as a youngster not to get into a pissing contest with a skunk, and I got in one with [Dershowitz], to my detriment,” he said. “But now I’ll save my urine for a better purpose.”

—Staff writer Christian B. Flow can be reached at cflow@fas.harvard.edu.