Columns

Delivering a university commencement address used to simply be a unique kind of honor. Speakers stand before a podium, wearing a traditional graduation cap and robe, and offer graduates life lessons and inspirational words as they enter the next phase of life.

(THE CONVERSATION) — Delivering a university commencement address used to simply be a unique kind of honor. Speakers stand before a podium, wearing a traditional graduation cap and robe, and offer graduates life lessons and inspirational words as they enter the next phase of life.

But today, speaking at a university commencement ceremony carries considerable risk, as Morton Schapiro, former president of Northwestern University, recently found out. Schapiro was scheduled to speak at Georgetown University Law Center’s graduation on May 17, 2026, but announced on May 6 that he would no longer appear at the event.

Some Georgetown law students had protested and petitioned to have Schapiro’s invitation rescinded, citing what they said were Schapiro’s “controversial, Zionist, and harmful opinions.” The students pointed to an op-ed that Schapiro wrote expressing support for Israel and Jewish people a few days after the Hamas attacks on Oct. 7, 2023, which killed 1,200 people.

Schapiro is in good company. There’s a reason why the free speech advocacy group FIRE calls the lead-up to college commencement’s disinvitation season.

Over the past two decades, colleges and universities across the country have withdrawn invitations to various commencement speakers after students protested their scheduled appearance. Or, in some cases, invited speakers have said they will no longer participate after students spoke out against their upcoming speeches.

As a political scientist who has written about the First Amendment and free speech on college campuses, I think Schapiro’s ill-fated Georgetown commencement invitation – and other instances like this one – show that intolerance for dissenting viewpoints lasts until the last diploma is handed out at graduation.

Some students only want people who hold similar views to address them at their graduation. They exercise what free speech law experts call a “heckler’s veto,” meaning when an audience’s reaction, or anticipated response, stops someone from speaking. Free speech then takes a back seat, and a graduation becomes just a performative moment of political correctness.

—————

It wasn’t always this way

The first university commencement in the U.S. took place in 1642, when Harvard College held a ceremony to honor its nine graduates. The students were joined by some of the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s most distinguished citizens, including Governor John Winthrop and his deputy, John Endicott, who observed the proceedings.

No one delivered a commencement address.

Instead, each graduate delivered an address and displayed the fruits of their classical education by speaking in Latin and English.

By the middle of the 19th century, university commencements drew well-known outsiders to college campuses to speak.

In 1837, for example, the poet and essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson addressed Harvard’s Phi Beta Kappa graduates and issued a stirring call for American students and scholars to end what he called “our long apprenticeship to the learning of other lands.”

In 1881, James Garfield became the first sitting American president to deliver a commencement address, when he spoke at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

Twenty-four years later, President Theodore Roosevelt spoke at the first graduation ceremony at Clark University, in Worcester, Massachusetts. He told his audience there, “I have always felt most strongly that it is true of a nation as of the individual that the greatest doer must also be a great dreamer.”

Since then, other presidents have used commencement speeches to announce major policy initiatives and agreements, including on foreign policy.

In 1963, President John F. Kennedy told the graduating seniors at American University that the U.S., the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union would start negotiations to ban the testing of nuclear weapons.

Two years later, President Lyndon Johnson announced at Howard University’s commencement that he would launch a major initiative to address socioeconomic disparities that disadvantaged Black people.

There was no controversy or protest about Kennedy, Johnson or other prominent speakers who delivered commencement addresses before a few decades ago.

—————

The commencement speaker as a lightning rod

But that was then. Times have changed.

FIRE estimates that between 2000 and 2024, there were 345 attempts to disinvite commencement speakers. Many of the scheduled speakers who faced pressure to not appear at the ceremonies backed out.

Examples of commencement speaker disinvitations have happened at small, private liberal arts colleges, as well as big public universities. Being uninvited from speaking at a graduation is often precipitated by petitions and protests, from both conservative and progressive activists.

For example, in 2019, former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey, a Democrat, withdrew as the scheduled commencement speaker at Creighton University. This followed the Nebraska Republican Party objecting to Kerry’s pro-abortion rights voting record.

In 2024, Dickinson College rescinded a commencement invitation for Michael Smerconish, an author and television commentator who focuses on politics. This decision came after a student wrote an opinion piece that showed that 20 years earlier, Smerconish said, “in order to keep America safe, the TSA should deliberately target Arabs and Muslims for searches because they look like the perpetrators of past terrorist attacks.”

“Does someone like Mike Smerconish in any way represent the achievements and ambitions of its students? If Dickinson truly loves and values its students, shouldn’t it honor them with someone who reflects that love?” the student asked in the opinion piece.
Protests ensued, and the college president gave in.

In 2025, the noted author Salman Rushdie withdrew as commencement speaker at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California, after members of its Muslim Student Association urged the school to revoke his invitation. They accused Rushdie, a self-described “hardline atheist,” of “disparaging a global religious community” in his writing and public appearances. In a 2015 commencement address at Emory University, he said: “I sometimes think we live in a very credulous age. People seem ready to believe almost anything. God, for example.”

Over the past few years, the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip has led to various commencement controversies and rescinded invitations, based on scheduled speakers’ politics around the conflict.

There have also been various commencement speakers who have delivered controversial addresses that some graduates – and outside observers – found offensive. Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker, for example, spoke at Benedictine College’s commencement in 2024 and encouraged women to become homemakers.

—————

Commencement and free speech

That brings us back to Schapiro.

“I have presided over 28 commencements as a president and dean,” Schapiro wrote in a note to Georgetown’s law students, “and those ceremonies are about celebrating the graduates and their supporters. I was looking forward to giving a talk about humility and gratitude, but I don’t want my presence to distract from the day’s festivities.”

Humility and gratitude are often missing in disinvitation season.

In 2017, Drew Gilpin Faust, then the president of Harvard University, seemed to understand this absence when she issued a free speech message to graduates in her commencement address. “Silencing ideas or basking in intellectual orthodoxy independent of facts and evidence impedes our access to new and better ideas, and it inhibits a full and considered rejection of bad ones,” Faust warned.

Commencement season puts Faust’s admonitions to the test. “Universities,” she said, “must model a commitment to the notion that truth cannot simply be claimed, but must be established – established through reasoned argument, assessment and even sometimes uncomfortable challenges that provide the foundation for truth.”

The call to change the process for nominating candidates for attorney general and secretary of state is growing louder, with lawmakers introducing a joint resolution on Thursday to change the constitution. 

By Elena Durnbaugh
Gongwer News Service

The call to change the process for nominating candidates for attorney general and secretary of state is growing louder, with lawmakers introducing a joint resolution on Thursday to change the constitution. 

HJR U and SJR I would change the process for selecting partisan candidates for attorney general and secretary of state from a nominating convention with delegates to a primary put before voters. The House resolution is sponsored by Rep. Greg Markkanen, R-Hancock, and Rep. Joe Tate, D-Detroit. The Senate resolution has not yet been formally introduced. 

The resolutions, and proposed constitutional amendment, would also establish new ethics requirements and term limits for board members of Wayne State University, the University of Michigan and Michigan State University. Board members would be appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the Senate, rather than nominated by partisan conventions before a statewide vote in the general election. The proposed amendment would also add a ninth member to all three boards to focus on alumni representation. 

In recent years, nominating conventions for both the Michigan Republican Party and the Michigan Democratic Party have been contentious. After this year’s Democratic convention, there was much discussion about decorum, as candidates were booed while on stage, and investigations are ongoing regarding problems with accurately counting votes of the delegates. Republicans faced fights and factions at their nominating conventions in previous years under the leadership of former Chair Kristina Karamo. 

“Primaries have become the normal practice for selecting nominees for most offices, and many citizens are surprised there are no primaries for these two important offices,” Sen. Ed McBroom, R-Vulcan, one of the initiative’s sponsors, said in a statement. 
“Voters will get to know the candidates and what they stand for during the primary, and parties will be able to nominate candidates who can handle the rigors of a statewide campaign.” 

The proposed changes to the university board nominating process comes after an MSU board meeting held last Sunday when some trustees refused to sign an ethics pledge which would bar trustees from speaking negatively about board actions to press or the public. The MSU board has also had a history of infighting amongst board members. The nominating process for the University of Michigan Board of Regents also became highly contentious this year between intraparty scuffles and a scandal involving sexually inappropriate messages sent by one regent. 

Former Govs. John Engler and Jim Blanchard issued statements supporting the proposed changes to the university board nominating process. 

“In recent years, we have seen how political parties have fumbled the nominating process by failing to properly vet board candidates,” Engler said in the statement. “When board members are distracted by infighting and petty grievances and ignore their fiduciary responsibilities, they can do irreparable harm to our universities. Talented administrators and faculty are discouraged, and the ability to retain or attract the most highly qualified people becomes impossible. In Michigan, the quality of our 10 appointed university boards is in sharp contrast to our elected boards.” 

Engler, who served a controversial and brief run as MSU president in the immediate aftermath of the Larry Nassar scandal, noted only four states have elected university boards. 

“If the amendment is adopted, the boards of the University of Michigan, Wayne State University and MSU will have to comply,” he said. “The recent embarrassing meeting at MSU saw three board members say that they would not comply with a voluntary ethics code even after it was adopted by a majority of the board. We need to change a broken system.” 

Blanchard was similarly supportive of the measure, saying it was necessary to fix an “increasingly broken status quo.” He also applauded the bipartisan work that has gone into the proposal. 

Jason Cabel Roe, a Republican political strategist with Roe Strategic, LLC, is also working on a bipartisan commission on a narrower proposal. Roe is working alongside Republican political strategist Jamie Roe, former Michigan Democratic Party Chair Lon Johnson and Democratic political strategist Jason Ellenberg. 

Roe said although he had no opposition to the changes to university boards, the proposal he was working on was focused on making changes to the attorney general, secretary of state and lieutenant governor races. 

The more you add to a resolution, the harder it is to get to the necessary threshold of votes, Roe said. 

“It’s about what can get the two-thirds to get on the ballot,” he said. 

Roe said they’ve had conversations with legislative leadership, as well as former governors and other individual lawmakers. Next week during the Detroit Regional Chamber’s Mackinac Policy Conference, Roe said he would be looking to enlist support and raise funds. 

“Given this is constitutional amendment we can’t take anything for granted,” he said. “Ultimately, it’s going to be the Legislature that decides.” 

Not everyone is as supportive of the measures. 

Rep. Matt Maddock, R-Milford, was asked about the proposals during an appearance on WKAR’s “Off the Record.” He said he preferred the convention process. 

“Michigan has open primaries, and the Democrats vote in our primaries … and they vote for the most liberal Republican,” Maddock said. “The convention is a closed primary.” 

He said the resolution was dead on arrival in the Legislature, as he thought it would be unable to get the required two-thirds vote. 

When House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, was asked about the proposal during a press conference on Wednesday, he said he had not taken a position on it.

Memorial Day is an apt time to reflect on the long-term consequences of war. Among them are substance use, mental health problems, homelessness and jail time for those who served in the military.

By Jamie Rowen
UMass Amherst

(THE CONVERSATION) — Memorial Day is an apt time to reflect on the long-term consequences of war. Among them are substance use, mental health problems, homelessness and jail time for those who served in the military.

About 8% of all Americans in prisons or jails are veterans, according to the Council on Criminal Justice, a nonpartisan think tank. Veterans end up incarcerated largely because of substance use and mental health disorders, both of which also contribute to homelessness.

For more than 15 years, one tool for helping veterans break out of addiction has been Veterans Treatment Courts. These programs help veterans accused or convicted of crimes address the challenges driving their involvement in the criminal legal system.

Veterans Treatment Courts require a dedicated clinician and need to provide access to counseling, housing support and other social services to meet veterans’ needs. For this, they must have funding from the government. As a legal scholar studying the use of criminal law to aid veterans, my research shows that these programs, which exist in every state except Connecticut and Vermont, can be very effective. But they only work when they have the staffing and the resources to support veterans’ complex needs.

However, since 2025, massive staffing losses at the Department of Veteran Affairs as well as cuts to publicly funded healthcare such as Medicaid and Medicare, which are widely used by veterans, are making it harder for veterans to access healthcare.

—————

What are Veterans Treatment Courts?

Veterans Treatment Courts are a subset of the drug treatment courts that were created by judges and criminal legal reformers beginning in 1988. These courts are an alternative to jail for people arrested or convicted for crimes that may be related to substance use disorders.

The idea was to allow courts to address the root causes of criminal behavior rather than simply punish people who committed crimes. Specialized treatment courts were soon developed to provide support for specific issues, such as mental health, or to groups accused of specific crimes, such as sex work.

In 2008, a judge in Buffalo recognized that veterans in his drug treatment court would benefit from support from other veterans and the comprehensive services from the VA. So he launched a distinct program just for veterans that soon received national media attention. Veterans Treatment Courts now operate in over 745 courthouses.

Eligibility varies across courts, but typically requires that the person have served in the military and that the crime they committed is not considered so serious that it deserves incarceration. While these programs are funded through a variety of sources, such as local and state governments, the federal government offers tens of millions of dollars every year for local courthouses to set up Veterans Treatment Courts.

Veterans Treatment Courts have a variety of requirements for participants. Once admitted to the program, participants must attend a hearing where they talk to the judge about how they are doing. They must also take drug tests and attend therapy appointments. They may also have to show that they have stable housing and employment and that they have performed community service or engaged in other activities that indicate they are connected to their communities and therefore at lower risk for substance use or criminal behavior.

If participants meet program requirements, they graduate. Graduation usually means some sort of legal benefit, such as dropped charges and fines or the termination of probation.

—————

Resources are key to success

Advocates suggest that Veterans Treatment Courts are more effective than jail or prison in preventing people from committing new crimes, and that treatment courts in general cost less than incarceration. But studies on whether they help veterans more than alternatives such as drug treatment courts or a regular criminal court have been inconclusive.

My research shows that treatment courts, in general, are most effective if they have dedicated staff and access to services to address substance use as well as housing insecurity. That level of support is exactly what the VA provides.

Veterans with VA benefits not only receive outpatient and inpatient substance use treatment, but they are able to access federally funded education and housing support unavailable to most U.S. citizens. Even Veterans Treatment Court participants who are ineligible for VA healthcare benefit from the unique levels of public support and state-funded programs for veterans in the U.S.

All this gives Veterans Treatment Courts the resources to help their participants more than other treatment courts or regular criminal courts can.

—————

A program under threat

Recognizing the connection between veteran homelessness and incarceration, the federal government has put millions of dollars into the VA to help veterans in the criminal legal system. Congress annually authorizes tens of millions of dollars to support VA clinicians working in Veterans Treatment Courts. In January 2026, Congress even created a new center dedicated to this goal.

However, despite this support, cuts to healthcare that is delivered by VA providers, as well as to publicly funded healthcare such as Medicaid and Medicare, present numerous challenges for Veterans Treatment Courts. Tens of thousands of VA employees have left the agency since President Donald Trump took office. This has led to staffing shortages that undermine care for all veterans.

Staff stability is especially important for these programs’ viability and success. My research shows that funding cuts lead to high turnover and low morale. When the Department of Health and Human Services sent a notice canceling US$2 billion worth of funding in January 2026, treatment courts were scrambling to figure out how they could staff their programs. Though this money was restored, the cancellation showed treatment court staff that their work could end without warning.

Given that the country’s criminal legal system is already overburdened, enabling Veterans Treatment Courts to do their vital work does more than help veterans. In my view, this program also models how comprehensive social services can help people struggling with substance use disorders, mental health problems, housing insecurity and other challenges.

As people recover from past wars and return from ongoing conflicts, they will need the country’s continued investment to reintegrate and thrive.

Social scientists and commentators have for years been expressing concerns about what they call the “authoritarian playbook.” To be clear, no such book exists. But would-be and actual dictators do tend to follow a common set of strategies to consolidate power.

(THE CONVERSATION) — Social scientists and commentators have for years been expressing concerns about what they call the “authoritarian playbook.” To be clear, no such book exists. But would-be and actual dictators do tend to follow a common set of strategies to consolidate power.

Since the 2000s, populist leaders from Russia to Venezuela have used their countries’ own democratic systems to overturn democracy itself. One reason for their success may be the fact that supporters of democratic institutions do not seem to have a defensive playbook to match the authoritarians’ offensive one.

Institutions that support democracy, including many nonprofits and media outlets, have few examples to learn from. And in many countries, their responses have been weak and disorganized.

I am a sociologist who researchers how membership in nonprofits can affect someone’s democratic values and how nonprofits manage to operate in nondemocratic regimes. Because there are many signs that the U.S. government is becoming increasingly autocratic, I’m now studying how U.S. nonprofits are responding to a spate of attacks on their freedom to operate.

I’ve found that many of them have been surprisingly successful.

—————

Nonprofits under fire

The second Trump administration has cut billions in funding for nonprofits focused on improving access to healthcare and childcare and providing food for low-income people. It’s also slashing aid to developing countries.

Nonprofits that previously had contracts to carry out U.S. foreign aid priorities, such as Oxfam, Save the Children and the International Rescue Committee, have been especially hard hit after the Trump White House dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The Trump administration also restricted the ability of nonprofits to operate free from political interference.

For example, it changed the rules on a program that forgave student loans to employees of nonprofits, barring loan forgiveness to employees of nonprofits that the administration disapproves of. These include nonprofits that help undocumented immigrants, provide gender-appropriate medical care to transgender children, engage or abet what the administration calls “illegal discrimination,” or support political protests that might violate state laws against “trespassing, disorderly conduct, public nuisance, vandalism, and obstruction of highways.”

The Trump administration has also threatened to criminally prosecute nonprofits for doing advocacy work, even though advocacy by nonprofits is legal.

—————

Congress is playing a role

Congress has added to the pressure on nonprofits by holding hearings that have accused some of them of smuggling undocumented immigrants and alleging that others made improper payments to former Biden administration officials.

At a February 2026 House of Representatives hearing, three Republicans – Jason Smith of Missouri, David Schweikert of Arizona and Tracey Mann of Kansas – accused the nonprofit Future Farmers of America of being connected to the Chinese Communist Party.

But much of this pressure is coming from the executive branch of government.

After the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on Sept. 10, 2025, Vice President JD Vance pledged to go after a network of nonprofits that he claimed, without evidence, “foments, facilitates and engages in violence.”

Later that month, President Donald Trump issued a national security memo that defined left-wing terrorism in terms so broad that it included protected political speech. The memo pledged to “investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations,” including “non-governmental organizations,” and designate them as “domestic terrorist organizations” if they support views that the administration considers to embody “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, anti-Christianity, extremism on migration, race and gender, and hostility towards those who hold traditional American beliefs on family, religion, and morality.”

In December 2025, then-Attorney General Pam Bondi issued instructions to field offices telling them to begin prosecutions of the “Antifa-aligned extremists” and “domestic terrorist organizations,” including nonprofits, that were described in the earlier national security memo.

That same month, Rep. David Kustoff, a Tennessee Republican, and Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, introduced a bill that would allow the Secretary of the Treasury to label nonprofits as a “terrorist-supporting organization” and strip them of their tax-exempt status.

The House passed a similar measure in 2024. It did not clear the Senate.

So far, the White House and Congress have followed up on few of those threats. However, the Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights nonprofit, on criminal charges in April 2026. The Trump administration accused the organization of fraud, not of having ties to terrorist groups.

—————

The nonprofit response

In many countries, authoritarian attacks on the nonprofit sector have been met with ineffective resistance. Some nonprofits fought back, but in the end, most nonprofits either compromised with the new reality or were forced to shut down or go into exile.
But in the U.S., many nonprofits and large philanthropic donors are working proactively to unite and protect one another.

An April 2025 Zoom meeting where nonprofit leaders discussed their strategies crashed when more than 11,000 people tried to participate – it only had a capacity for 5,000.

Thousands of nonprofits have signed open letters protesting the Trump administration’s policies.

For example, in September 2025, 3,700 nonprofits signed an open letter protesting the national security memo that called for the prosecution of nonprofits for allegedly being “domestic terrorists.”

On May 20, 2026, the Open Society Foundations, the philanthropy run by the family of billionaire investor George Soros, responded to this threat by pledging US$300 million in legal and financial support to many of the nonprofits that find themselves targeted by the government.

Some large foundations, including the Marguerite Casey Foundation, the McKnight Foundation and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, have increased their grants to nonprofits that lost federal funding.

—————

Bowing to pressure

Of course, not all nonprofits have pushed back.

Many of them have instead changed their mission statements, or the brief descriptions of their activities that they submit to the IRS, dropping references to anything that might displease the White House. One common revision: removing references to any efforts to advance diversity, equity and inclusion for historically disadvantaged groups because of the Trump administration’s efforts to wipe out DEI policies across the country.

Another self-preservation strategy is for nonprofits to change their websites. In February 2025, the National Domestic Violence Hotline removed information and resources for LGBTQ+ victims from its website. By July 2025, 1 in 12 foundations had censored themselves by removing DEI language from their websites.

In many cases, authoritarians come to power in countries where the nonprofit sector is weak. For example, Russia and Hungary had small, young nonprofit sectors that had only come into existence in the 1990s after the fall of communism. In poorer countries such as Bangladesh, Ethiopia and Indonesia, the nonprofit sector is vulnerable because of its dependence on foreign funding, which governments can easily restrict.

But the U.S. nonprofit sector is centuries old, well organized and very established. If successful, its efforts to resist the nation’s democratic backsliding may one day inform efforts in the rest of the world.

While May is hot in Houston, it’s the month for outdoor activities in Michigan. No one wants to spend time slaving in the kitchen. This Cheesy Surprise, a light snack, is ideal either just before venturing out or after outdoor activities.

“You have to be a romantic to invest yourself, your money, and your time in cheese”
? — Anthony Bourdain

While May is hot in Houston, it’s the month for outdoor activities in Michigan. No one wants to spend time slaving in the kitchen. This Cheesy Surprise, a light snack, is ideal either just before venturing out or after outdoor activities. This easy-to-make dish is nutritious and has few calories. Yogurt has a cooling effect. Sometimes when I am craving for some unknown food, I prepare this dip and eat it instead of indulging in junk food. Besides satisfying my craving, it refreshes me. 

I suggest a platter of veggies and fruit but this dip can also be enjoyed with delicious pita bread chips. While wholewheat pita bread chips are healthier and more nutritious, somehow the white pita bread chips look more appetizing.

For pita bread chips: 

Insert the pointed tip of a scissors in one side of the circumference and cut all around. This will split the pita bread into two rounds. Generously brush the inner surface of each round with olive oil and cut into small triangles. Middle Eastern stores sell two types of olive oil. One is for cooking and the other, from Palestine, is consumed raw. It is used for salad dressing or dipping bread in. It’s fragrance and flavor are completely different from the cooking variety. 

Sprinkle Za’ataar over the oiled triangles. Herbs of one’s choice can also be used. In this case, it is worth using half a teaspoon of Suma’aq as it adds flavor and fragrance. Place the triangles, oil side up, on an aluminum foil. These triangles can be baked but I always grill them, at the lowest setting, for about 3-5 minutes. It’s important to keep an eye on them after 3 minutes because they char quickly! Cool completely before serving them. They can be made a day ahead and stored in an airtight container. 

Cheesy Surprise 
(Serves 3-4)

For the Dip:

Ingredients

3/4 cup cream cheese of your liking

1/2 cup yogurt

1 tablespoon finely chopped cilantro leaves

1 tablespoon finely chopped flat-leaved ­parsley 

1 tablespoon finely chopped green parts of the spring onions

1 tablespoon finely chopped white parts of the spring onions

2-4 tablespoons salsa with  tomato chunks

1/4 – 1/2 teaspoon salt

1/4 teaspoon black pepper 

1/4 teaspoon paprika or crushed red pepper, optional

To serve with:

4 celery sticks, cut into finger-sized length

2 large carrots, peeled, halved and cut into finger-sized length

1 apple, peeled and cut into thin wedges

1/4 slice of lemon for the  apple

Other vegetables and fruit  of your choice

1-2 pita breads, optional

1 teaspoon of Za’ataar Directions

Prepare the herbs and the vegetables a day in advance. Put them in separate airtight containers or zip-lock bags and refrigerate. To chop the spring onions, score both the white and the green part into six sections and then thinly slice them.  It’s also important to chop the herbs and the onions finely. This helps with mixing and matching of all the flavors. 

Peel the apple only half an hour before serving. Sprinkle with the lemon juice to prevent from discoloring due to oxidization 

Using a fork or a hand whisk whip the cream cheese until light and fluffy. Then beat the yogurt and gradually mix in the cream, mixing it all the time until a smooth paste is formed. More yogurt can be added if the cream mixture is too thick. Leave aside the paprika or crushed red pepper and stir in the herbs and salt. Taste and adjust seasonings. Lightly stir in the salsa.  It doesn’t need to be thoroughly mixed. Transfer it into a bowl and refrigerate for an hour.  

To serve

Take out the bowl from the fridge and sprinkle the top with paprika or crushed red pepper, if using. Place the chips in a plate. Then position the cheesy bowl in the middle of a round dish and arrange the vegetables, apple wedges. 

Serve immediately.

Warning! Chips finish very quickly. So, it’s worth using more than 1 pita bread.

Bodman is proud to share that David M. Walker, member and chair of the firm’s Detroit Business Advocacy Team, has been appointed to the Board of Directors of the Michigan Black Business Alliance (MBBA).

Bodman PLC

Bodman is proud to share that David M. Walker, member and chair of the firm’s Detroit Business Advocacy Team, has been appointed to the Board of Directors of the Michigan Black Business Alliance (MBBA).

Founded in 2021, MBBA works to help close the racial wealth gap by developing programs and advocating for policies that support profitable and sustainable Black-owned businesses connected to public and private economic opportunities. The organization provides access to capital and co-working space, holds networking and educational events, and advocates for business-focused policies at the local, state and federal levels.

As chair of Bodman’s Detroit Business Advocacy team, Walker represents Detroit business owners as outside general counsel on a wide range of legal and business matters. His practice focuses on corporate and securities law, including mergers and acquisitions, divestitures, private placements of securities, and general corporate advice.

Outside of his legal practice, Walker serves as vice president of Business Engagement with the University of Michigan Club in Atlanta, and as a member of the Board of Directors of University of Detroit Mercy Law School Alumni Association.

—————

Maddin, Hauser, Roth, & Heller PC

Maddin Hauser is pleased to announce that three attorneys have been elevated to the shareholder level. Krista Cotter Ranta, David T. Lin, and Kevin C. Majewski joined the firm’s Financial Services and Real Property Litigation group in early 2025 and made an immediate positive impact. Lin is also a member of the Bankruptcy, Restructuring, and Debtor-Creditor Rights group. 

Ranta represents corporate and commercial clients in civil litigation and post-judgment collection matters. Versed in state and federal laws affecting the banking and collections industry, she has a track record of creating and implementing effective post-judgment collection strategies. 

Ranta represents clients in all phases of contested litigation at the trial and appellate levels in state and federal courts, as well as in alternative dispute resolution proceedings. She earned her law degree from Michigan State University College of Law.

Lin has a record of achieving favorable outcomes for lenders facing distressed loans or borrower insolvencies. He guides lenders and other creditors through all stages of the bankruptcy process after a debtor files for bankruptcy relief. 

Lin represents his clients’ diverse interests at the pre- and post-judgment stages of commercial litigation. He earned his law degree from Loyola University Chicago School of Law.

Majewski concentrates his practice on disputes involving real property, construction, mortgages, financial services, and other business matters. He is a methodical advocate, conducting thorough analyses of every detail for each case before devising a strategy to achieve his clients’ goals. Majewski graduated from Michigan State University College of Law.

—————

Butzel Long

Butzel recently hosted two key events, the firm’s Annual Attorney and Paralegal Meeting and the Staff and Administrative Retreat and Annual Meeting respectively. Both events took place at the Detroit Athletic Club. A highlight of each event was the presentation of Butzel’s Internal Awards.

—Core Values Award
Honors a Butzel attorney recognized for exemplifying the firm’s values of Excellence. Drive. Trust. and Teamwork. Honoree: Claudia Rast, shareholder

—Excellence in Service & Stewardship
Honors a Butzel attorney recognized for excellence in service and stewardship. Honoree: Reggie Pacis, shareholder

—Litigation Matter of the Year Award
Recognizes teams demonstrating exceptional advocacy, creativity, teamwork, and outstanding litigation results for Butzel’s clients

• Winners
Lead attorneys: Barbara Eckert Buchanan, shareholder; Terrence Miglio, shareholder
Team: Regan Dahle, shareholder; Joanne Brighton, senior paralegal; Megan Fisher, paralegal

—Transactional Matter of the Year Award
Recognizes teams demonstrating exceptional advocacy, creativity, teamwork, and outstanding transactional results for Butzel’s clients

• Winners
Lead Attorney: Justin Klimko, shareholder
Team: Jennifer Consiglio, shareholder; Shanika Owens, shareholder; Thomas Kabel, director; Laura Johnson, shareholder; Susan Johnson, shareholder; Daniel Soleimani, shareholder; Rebecca Davies, shareholder; Lynn McGuire, shareholder; Aaron Kamlay, shareholder; Clara DeMatteis Mager, Director; Linda Armstrong, shareholder; Jeanne Balint, paralegal

—Core Values Award
Honors a Butzel employee recognized for exemplifying the firm’s values of Excellence. Drive. Trust. and Teamwork. Honoree: Teresa Diles, client accounting manager

—2026 Butzel Milestones
• 25 Years at Butzel
Honoree: Penny Anderson, legal assistant
• 35 Years at Butzel

Honorees:
Lorie Johnson, legal assistant
Pam Hensley, senior billing specialist
• 40 Years at Butzel
Honoree: Therese Pawlik, legal assistant

—————

Dickinson Wright PLLC

Dickinson Wright is pleased to announce that Thomas Fabbri, Kevin Fanning, Thomas MacFarlane, Jonathan Martone, and Nicholas Papasifakis have joined the firm’s Troy office as members.

Fabbri advises individuals and families on estate planning, probate, charitable planning, estate and trust administration, and related tax matters. He also represents beneficiaries and fiduciaries in estate contests, trust disputes, and other probate litigation matters. 

Fabbri works primarily with high net worth individuals and business owners to develop estate plans that address long-term family, financial, and business goals. His practice includes planning for incapacity, business succession, creditor protection, wealth transfer, estate and generation-skipping transfer tax strategies, and the efficient transfer of assets during life and after death. He regularly prepares wills, revocable and irrevocable trusts, powers of attorney, and other estate planning documents tailored to each client’s circumstances and priorities. 

Fabbri is recognized as a leader in his field by Best Lawyers in America, Michigan Super Lawyers “Rising Stars,” and DBusiness Top Lawyers. He is a member of the State Bar of Michigan’s Probate and Estate Planning Section, the State Bar of Michigan’s Tax Section, and the Financial and Estate Planning Council of Metropolitan Detroit. He received his B.A. from Michigan State University and his law degree from Wayne State University Law School.

Fanning is an experienced commercial litigator who represents companies in the manufacturing, technology, electronics, transportation, financial services and securities industries in complex disputes. He has trial experience serving as lead counsel in jury and bench trials before state and federal courts nationwide, and regularly appears before AAA, ICDR, JAMS and FINRA panels in arbitrations throughout the United States and internationally. He has trial experience serving as lead counsel in jury and bench trials and has represented clients before state and federal courts and arbitration panels throughout the country. 

Fanning’s practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, real estate disputes, securities litigation, commercial loan enforcement matters, receiverships, and transportation-related litigation. In addition, he advises clients on emerging legal issues involving unmanned aerial systems (UAS/drone law), accessibility litigation under the ADA, FHA, website compliance under WCAG, and healthcare-related disputes and investigations. 

Fanning is recognized as a leader in his field by Best Lawyers in America, Michigan Super Lawyers, and Michigan Lawyers Weekly’s “Go To Lawyer” for Business Litigation. He has been a member of the Board of Directors and Co-Chair of the Membership Committee for the Federal Bar Association, Eastern District of Michigan Chapter, a member of the Commercial Litigation Committee, State Bar of Michigan’s Business Law Section, and served as a barrister in the Oakland County Bar Association Chapter of the American Inns of Court. He received his B.A. from Western Michigan University and his law degree from University of Detroit Mercy School of Law.

MacFarlane works with individuals and business owners on estate planning, wealth transfer, and business succession. He focuses on helping clients put plans in place for the transfer of family wealth, the transition of closely held businesses, and the practical issues that come up as those plans are carried out over time. 

MacFarlane’s work includes estate and trust planning, with attention to tax considerations and structure. He also represents beneficiaries and fiduciaries in probate and trust matters, including will contests, fiduciary disputes, and contested estate and trust administrations. These matters often involve family relationships and long-standing expectations, and he works with clients to move through those disputes while keeping the legal and personal issues in view. 

MacFarlane is recognized as a leader in his field by Michigan Lawyers Weekly’s “Hall of Fame,” Best Lawyers in America, DBusiness Top Lawyers, Leading Lawyers, and Michigan Super Lawyers. He is a Fellow of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel. He is a member of the State Bar of Michigan’s Probate and Estate Planning Section, the State Bar of Michigan’s Tax Section, the Financial and Estate Planning Council of Metropolitan Detroit, and a charter member of Michigan Leading Lawyers Advisory Board. 
He received his B.A. from Alma College, his M.B.A. from Wake Forest University, and his law degree from Wake Forest University School of Law.

Martone provides strategic counsel to business and entrepreneurial clients, guiding them through daily operational matters and complex legal challenges. He represents businesses and individuals alike in all areas of business and commercial disputes and litigation, including commercial contract and warranty actions, real estate, zoning, and landlord and tenant disputes, shareholder disputes, and municipal law litigation. Martone is also certified by the Michigan State Court Administrative Office as a Civil Facilitative Mediator and has experience in alternative dispute resolution proceedings. He has experience counseling and representing fiduciaries and interested parties in a wide range of probate, trust, and estate matters, including high-net-worth trust and estate proceedings. 

Martone is recognized as a leader in his field by Best Lawyers in America and Michigan Super Lawyers. He is Past President of the Italian American Bar Association of Michigan, a Fellow in the Oakland County Bar Foundation, a member of the State Bar of Michigan, and a past president of the Oakland County Bar Association New Lawyers Section. He received his B.A. from James Madison College, Michigan State University and his law degree from Wayne State University Law School.

Papasifakis advises individuals, families, and business owners on estate planning, asset protection strategies, business matters, and probate and trust administration and litigation. He works closely with clients to design estate plans that reflect their goals around wealth transfer, tax planning, asset protection, probate avoidance, and charitable giving. 

Papasifakis is recognized as a leader in his field by Best Lawyers in America and Michigan Super Lawyers “Rising Stars.” He is a member of the State Bar of Michigan’s Probate and Estate Planning Section, the State Bar of Michigan’s Tax Section, Tax Council, and the Hellenic Bar Association. He received his B.B.A. from Western Michigan University and his law degrees from the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law and New York University School of Law.

—————

Honigman LLP

Honigman LLP recently announced that Michael E. Carter is joining the firm as senior counsel in the Investigations and White Collar Defense Practice Group within the Litigation Department. Based in Detroit, Carter joins Honigman after serving as executive director of the Federal Community Defender Office (FCDO).of the Eastern District of Michigan.

In transitioning to private practice, Carter will focus on white collar defense—representing individuals in investigations and prosecutions and advising on complex criminal proceedings.

In his previous role, Carter led an office of approximately 45 professionals, managed a multi-million-dollar budget, and supervised the handling of complex, high-volume federal cases. He has represented clients in federal and state courts and handled hundreds of criminal defense cases, including during his tenure with the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia.

Carter earned a law degree from Wayne State University Law School and received his B.A. from the University of Michigan. He began his career as a criminal defense attorney in Michigan before spending four years with the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, returning to Detroit in 2016 to join the Federal Defender Office and later the Neighborhood Defender Service of Detroit.

Honigman is also pleased to announce that Timothy Lee has been recognized in DBusiness’ 30 in Their Thirties listing. 

Lee is a partner in Honigman’s Supply Chain & Advanced Manufacturing Transactions practice and concentrates his practice on domestic and cross-border corporate transactions, mergers and acquisitions, corporate finance, and general corporate governance and compliance. He regularly represents businesses and financial institutions in a variety of complex commercial transactions.