您现在的位置: 纽约时报中英文网 >> 纽约时报中英文版 >> 观点 >> 正文


更新时间:2017/3/15 11:48:02 来源:纽约时报中文网 作者:佚名

The Dangerous Safety of College

The moral of the recent melee at Middlebury College, where students shouted down and chased away a controversial social scientist, isn’t just about free speech, though that’s the rubric under which the ugly incident has been tucked. It’s about emotional coddling. It’s about intellectual impoverishment.

不久前,明德大学(Middlebury College)的学生们大声喝止一个有争议的社会学家的发言,并把他赶走,这场闹剧的寓意不仅仅事关言论自由——虽然报道这起丑陋事件的标题是这么写的。它还事关情感上的溺爱,以及智识上的贫乏。

Somewhere along the way, those young men and women — our future leaders, perhaps — got the idea that they should be able to purge their world of perspectives offensive to them. They came to believe that it’s morally dignified and politically constructive to scream rather than to reason, to hurl slurs in place of arguments.


They have been done a terrible disservice. All of us have, and we need to reacquaint ourselves with what education really means and what colleges do and don’t owe their charges.


Physical safety? Absolutely. A smooth, validating passage across the ocean of ideas? No. If anything, colleges owe students turbulence, because it’s from a contest of perspectives and an assault on presumptions that truth emerges — and, with it, true confidence.


What happened at Middlebury was this: A group of conservative students invited Charles Murray to speak, and administrators rightly consented to it. Although his latest writings about class divisions in America have been perceptive, even prescient, his 1994 book “The Bell Curve” trafficked in race-based theories of intelligence and was broadly (and, in my opinion, correctly) denounced. The Southern Poverty Law Center labeled him a white nationalist.

在明德大学发生的事情是这样的:一群保守派学生邀请查尔斯·默里(Charles Murray)来演讲,学校管理层公正地予以赞同。虽然默里关于美国阶级分裂的最新文字是敏锐的,甚至是有先见之明的,但他1994年的著作《钟型曲线》(The Bell Curve)贩卖的是基于种族的智力理论,遭到了广泛谴责(在我看来,这种谴责是正确的)。南方贫困法律中心(Southern Poverty Law Center)称他是白人至上主义者。

He arrived on campus wearing that tag, to encounter hundreds of protesters intent on registering their disgust. Many jammed the auditorium where he was supposed to be interviewed — by, mind you, a liberal professor — and stood with their backs to him. That much was fine, even commendable, but the protest didn’t stop there.


Chanting that Murray was “racist, sexist, anti-gay,” the students wouldn’t let him talk. And when he and the professor moved their planned interchange to a private room where it could be recorded on camera, protesters disrupted that, too, by pulling fire alarms and banging on windows. A subsequent confrontation between some of them and Murray grew physical enough that the professor with him sought medical treatment for a wrenched neck.


Middlebury isn’t every school, and only a small fraction of Middlebury students were involved. But we’d be foolish not to treat this as a wake-up call, because it’s of a piece with some of the extraordinary demands that students at other campuses have made, and it’s the fruit of a dangerous ideological conformity in too much of higher education.


It put me in mind of important remarks that the commentator Van Jones, a prominent Democrat, made just six days beforehand at the University of Chicago, where he upbraided students for insisting on being swaddled in Bubble Wrap.

他让我想起了著名的民主党人、时事评论员范·琼斯(Van Jones)在此事发生的六天之前,在芝加哥大学做出的一个重要的评论,当时他批评了一些学生,因为他们坚持把自己裹在气泡膜包装里。

“I don’t want you to be safe, ideologically,” he told them. “I don’t want you to be safe, emotionally. I want you to be strong. That’s different. I’m not going to pave the jungle for you. Put on some boots, and learn how to deal with adversity.”


“You are creating a kind of liberalism that the minute it crosses the street into the real world is not just useless, but obnoxious and dangerous,” he added. “I want you to be offended every single day on this campus. I want you to be deeply aggrieved and offended and upset, and then to learn how to speak back. Because that is what we need from you.”


The liberalism that Jones was bemoaning is really illiberalism, inasmuch as it issues repressive rules about what people should be able to say and hear. It’s part of what some angry voters in 2016 were reacting to and rebelling against. And colleges promote it by failing to summon a rich spectrum of voices.


“Certain things are not to be discussed,” said John McWhorter, a Columbia University professor who teaches linguistics and philosophy, speaking of a rigid political correctness that transcends college campuses but that he is especially disturbed to see there. Campuses are supposed to be realms of bold inquiry and fearless debate.

“某些事情是不会被讨论的,”哥伦比亚大学教语言学和哲学的约翰·麦克沃特(John McWhorter)教授说。他讲的是很多地方都弥漫着僵化的政治正确,但看到它在校园里出现,尤其令他感到不安。校园应该是进行大胆探索和无畏辩论的地方。

Reflecting on Middlebury, he told me, “Anybody whose approach to ideas that they don’t like is just to scream bloody murder has been failed in their education.” It hasn’t taught them that history is messy, society complicated and truth elusive.


Protests aren’t the problem, not in and of themselves. They’re vital, and so is work to end racism, sexism, homophobia and other bigotry. But much of the policing of imperfect language, silencing of dissent and shaming of dissenters runs counter to that goal, alienating the very onlookers who need illumination.


It’s an approach less practical than passionate, less strategic than cathartic, and partly for that reason, both McWhorter and the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt have likened it to a religion.

它比激情更加不现实,比情感的宣泄更缺乏策略感,部分出于此种原因,麦克沃特和社会心理学家乔纳森·海特(Jonathan Haidt)把它比作了一种宗教。

“When something becomes a religion, we don’t choose the actions that are most likely to solve the problem,” said Haidt, the author of the 2012 best seller “The Righteous Mind” and a professor at New York University. “We do the things that are the most ritually satisfying.”

“当一件事变成一种宗教时,我们就不会选择最有希望解决问题的行动,我们会做那些在形式上满足感最强的事情。”纽约大学教授海特说。他是2012年畅销书《正义的心智》(The Righteous Mind)的作者。

He added that what he saw in footage of the confrontation at Middlebury “was a modern-day auto-da-fé: the celebration of a religious rite by burning the blasphemer.”


The protesters didn’t use Murray’s presence as an occasion to hone the most eloquent, irrefutable retort to him. They swarmed and swore.


McWhorter recalled that back when “The Bell Curve” was published, there was disagreement about whether journalists should give it currency by paying it heed. But he said that it was because they engaged the material in detail, rather than just branding it sacrilegious, that he learned enough to conclude on his own that its assertions were wrong — and why.


Both he and Haidt belong to Heterodox Academy, a group of hundreds of professors who, in joining, have pledged to support a diversity of viewpoints at colleges and universities. It was founded in 2015. It’s distressing that there was — and is — even a need for it.

他和海特都属于非正统学院组织(Heterodox Academy),这是一个由数百名教授组成的团体,他们在加入时承诺要支持大学和学院里的观点多样性。该组织成立于2015年。当时和现在需要有这么一个组织存在,这本身就很令人不安。

But according to an essay in Bloomberg View last week by Stephen Carter, a professor of law at Yale, the impulse to squelch upsetting words with “odious behavior” is so common “that it’s tempting to greet it with a shrug.”

但在上周《彭博视点》(Bloomberg View)一篇文章中,耶鲁大学法学教授斯蒂芬·卡特(Stephen Carter)说,用“可恶的行为”来压制令人失望的言论,这种冲动是如此普遍,“以至于人们很容易不把它当回事。”

“The downshouters will go on behaving deplorably,” Carter wrote, “and reminding the rest of us that the true harbinger of an authoritarian future lives not in the White House but in the groves of academe.”


I wouldn’t go that far. But I worry that in too many instances, the groves of academe are better at pumping their denizens full of an easy, intoxicating fervor than at preparing them for constructive engagement in a society that won’t echo their convictions the way their campuses do.