紐時賞析／大學欠民主一個保護學術勇氣的文化

What Does a University Owe Democracy?

大學欠民主一個保護學術勇氣的文化

Last November, Dorian Abbot, a geophysicist at the University of Chicago, posted a series of slide presentations on YouTube making a case against the use of group identity as a primary criterion in selection processes. He was immediately targeted for cancellation.

去年11月，芝加哥大學地球物理學家多利安．艾伯特在YouTube上張貼了一系列投影片，表達反對大學以群體身分當作選才的首要條件。他立即遭點名該被解聘去職。

So Robert Zimmer, Chicago’s magnificent president (now chancellor), stepped in with a clear statement of support for academic freedom. The controversy evaporated.

於是，傑出的芝大校長（現為校務會議主席）司馬博介入，發表一份明言支持學術自由的聲明。這起爭議就此煙消雲散。

Then, in August, Abbot and a co-writer published an op-ed in Newsweek making the case that diversity, equity and inclusion policies violate “the ethical and legal principle of equal treatment.” It led to another cancellation campaign, this time in protest of his invitation to deliver the prestigious Carlson Lecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he was going to speak about “Climate and the Potential for Life on Other Planets.”

之後，艾伯特和另一名作者8月聯名投書《新聞周刊》，主張多元、公平和包容政策違背了「平等待遇的倫理和法律原則」，引發了另一波抵制聲浪，這次是抗議麻省理工學院聲譽卓著的卡爾森講座邀請他發表「氣候與其他星球存在生命的可能性」。

This time, the campaign worked. As Abbot has detailed, a department chair called to tell him the school would be canceling the lecture “in order to avoid controversy.”

這次訴求的奏效了。根據艾伯特所說，系主任致電告知校方將取消講座「以避免爭議」。

The two episodes are a stark illustration of the difference between the culture of intellectual courage nurtured by Zimmer and the Coward Culture at work at MIT and other institutions ostensibly invested in the cause of free expression.

這兩起事件是全然不同的對照，司馬博培養的學術勇氣文化和在麻省理工學院內起作用的懦夫文化，以及其他機構致力於維護表意自由的表面工夫。

It’s also a reminder that our universities are failing at the task of educating students in the habits of a free mind. Instead, they are becoming islands of illiberal ideology and factories of moral certitude, more often at war with the values of liberal democracy than in their service.

這也是一個提醒，我們的大學對於教育學生養成自由思考的任務失敗。反而它們正在成為不容許異見的意識形態孤立區塊與道德證書的生產工廠，比起自身的工作，更常和自由民主價值對著幹。

I’ve been thinking about all this while reading “What Universities Owe Democracy” by Johns Hopkins University’s president, Ronald Daniels.

當閱讀約翰霍普金斯大學校長朗諾．丹尼爾斯的書《大學欠民主什麼》時，我一直在思考這一切。

Daniels’ core point is that, at their best, universities serve as escalators for social mobility, educators for democratic citizenship, stewards of fact and expertise, and forums for “purposeful pluralism” — the expression and contest of ideas.

丹尼爾斯的核心意見是，大學應盡全力，作為社會流動上升的通道，民主公民精神的教育者，事實與專業的管理人，以及「目標明確的多元主義」論壇，表達與辯證想法。

Courage isn’t a virtue that’s easily taught, especially in universities, but sometimes it can be modeled. After Abbot’s talk was canceled at MIT, conservative Princeton University professor Robert George offered to host the lecture instead.

勇氣並不是一種易於教導的美德，特別是在大學之內，但是有時候它可以建立起榜樣。艾伯特在麻省理工學院的講座被取消之後，反倒是保守派的普林頓大學教授羅勃．喬治對他提出講座邀約。

Courage begins with de-cancellation. Wisdom, thanks to books such as Daniels’, can then take wing.

勇氣始於反取消。多虧有丹尼爾斯這樣的書，智慧方能突飛猛進。

文／Bret Stephens 譯／莊蕙嘉