和文盲談教育就是在侮辱它

 謝選駿

《哈佛大学校长公开信强硬回击特朗普：美国高等教育的承诺（全文翻译）》（Alan M. Garber 

Published on April 14, 2025）報道：

特朗普当局上台以来，向全美许多高校发函，以终止联邦政府资助为威胁，要求各校按照政府当局的指示，改变治校政策，并配合对在校师生的言论监管和言论审查。此前，在特朗普当局威胁切断4亿美元的联邦资助后，哥伦比亚大学已向当局表示屈服。

几天前，特朗普当局将哈佛大学确定为下一个目标，发函要求校方妥协，并威胁切断90亿美元的联邦资助。哈佛大学已决定暂时冻结全校所有教职员工的招聘，以应对未来的财政危机。4月14日，哈佛大学校长艾伦·加伯（Alan M. Garber）在官网上发布了公开信“美国高等教育的承诺”，并邮件群发全校师生，明确拒绝了政府当局的要求。

哈佛大学社区的各位成员：

在过去的四分之三个世纪里，联邦政府向哈佛大学及其他高校提供了拨款和合约，以资助科研工作。加之高校自身的投入，这些支持共同促成了在医学、工程学与科学等多个领域的突破性创新。这些创新成果，让我们国家乃至全球无数人的生活更加健康和安全。最近几周以来，联邦政府因指控校园中存在反犹主义，威胁断绝与包括哈佛在内多所大学的合作关系。这些合作关系堪称在美国历史上最富成效和益处的合作关系之一。我们正站在全新领域发生突破性进展的门槛前，前景令人振奋——从阿尔茨海默症、帕金森病与糖尿病等疾病的新疗法，到人工智能、量子科学与工程学等领域的重大突破，皆指日可待。若政府此时选择撤回这些合作，不仅会危及数百万人的健康与福祉，也将对我国的经济安全与活力造成不利影响。

上周五深夜，政府当局发布了一份更新和扩展后的要求清单，警告称，若哈佛希望“维持与联邦政府的财政关系”，就必须予以遵守。这份声明明确表明，其目的并非与我们携手以合作和建设性的方式应对反犹主义问题。尽管其中部分要求确实旨在打击反犹主义，但大多数内容实则构成了对哈佛大学“智识环境”的直接政府干预。

我敦促各位查阅这封信[1]，以更全面地了解联邦政府正试图对哈佛大学社群施加控制的前所未有的要求。这些要求包括对我校学生、教师和工作人员的观点进行“审查”，并“削弱”某些因其意识形态立场而被针对的学生、教师和管理人员的权力。我们已通过法律顾问正式通知政府当局，我们不会接受他们提出的协议[2]。哈佛大学绝不会放弃自身的独立性，也不会放弃其所享有的宪法权利。

政府当局所提出的方案，已超越了联邦政府的权力范围。它侵犯了哈佛依据“第一修正案”所享有的权利，也超出了《民权法案》第六章所规定的政府法定权限。并且，它威胁到了我们作为一所致力于探索、创造与传播知识的私立机构的核心价值。无论哪个政党执政，政府都不应干预私立大学可以讲授什么内容，可以录取和聘任什么人，以及可以开展哪些研究与探索。

我们的校训——Veritas，亦即“真理”——指引着我们在这条充满挑战的道路上前行。追寻真理是一段没有终点的旅程，它要求我们对新信息和不同观点保持开放，不断审视自身的信念，并随时准备修正自己的看法。它促使我们勇于面对自身的不足，正是通过这样的努力，我们才能实现大学全部的承诺，尤其是在这一承诺遭受威胁之时。

我们已经明确陈述，我们对抗击反犹主义的道义责任绝非等闲视之。在过去十五个月中，我们已采取多项措施来应对校园内的反犹主义现象。未来我们还会做更多。在捍卫哈佛的同时，我们将继续：

·培养校园内蓬勃发展的开放探究文化；发展所需的工具、技能与实践方法，以促进彼此之间的建设性交流；并拓展我们社群中思想与观点的多样性；

·坚守我们共同拥有的权利与责任；在尊重言论自由与异议表达的同时，确保开展抗议活动的时间、地点与方式不会妨碍教学、学习与研究；提升纪律程序的公正性与一致性；并且

·在符合法律的前提下，共同努力，寻找办法来培育并支持一个充满活力的社群，使其能体现、尊重并包容差异。在此过程中，我们也将继续遵守“学生公平录取组织诉哈佛案”（Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard）的裁决，即要求遵守《民权法案》第六章禁止大学“以种族为依据”来作出决策。

这些目标不可能通过凌驾于法律之上的权力来实现，也不应以控制哈佛的教学与学习、干预大学运作模式的方式来达成。解决自身不足、履行我们的承诺、体现我们的价值观，这项工作应由我们这个共同体自行界定并承担。思想与探究的自由，以及政府长期以来对这一自由的尊重与保护，使大学能够在自由社会中发挥关键作用，并为所有人带来更加健康、更加繁荣的生活。我们每一个人都肩负着守护这一自由的责任。正如以往一样，我们将继续怀着坚定信念前行：无畏且不受束缚的追求真理之路，能够使人类获得解放；而美国的高等教育机构所承载的希望，也终将造福我们的国家与世界。

此致敬礼

艾伦·加伯（Alan M. Garber）

[1] chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Letter-Sent-to-Harvard-2025-04-11.pdf

[2] chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Harvard-Response-2025-04-14.pdf

原文

News

The Promise of American Higher Education

Dear Members of the Harvard Community,

 

For three-quarters of a century, the federal government has awarded grants and contracts to Harvard and other universities to help pay for work that, along with investments by the universities themselves, has led to groundbreaking innovations across a wide range of medical, engineering, and scientific fields. These innovations have made countless people in our country and throughout the world healthier and safer. In recent weeks, the federal government has threatened its partnerships with several universities, including Harvard, over accusations of antisemitism on our campuses. These partnerships are among the most productive and beneficial in American history. New frontiers beckon us with the prospect of life-changing advances—from treatments for diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes, to breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, quantum science and engineering, and numerous other areas of possibility. For the government to retreat from these partnerships now risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals but also the economic security and vitality of our nation.

 

Late Friday night, the administration issued an updated and expanded list of demands, warning that Harvard must comply if we intend to “maintain [our] financial relationship with the federal government.” It makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner. Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the “intellectual conditions” at Harvard.

 

I encourage you to read the letter to gain a fuller understanding of the unprecedented demands being made by the federal government to control the Harvard community. They include requirements to “audit” the viewpoints of our student body, faculty, staff, and to “reduc[e] the power” of certain students, faculty, and administrators targeted because of their ideological views. We have informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement. The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.

 

The administration’s prescription goes beyond the power of the federal government. It violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI. And it threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.

 

Our motto—Veritas, or truth—guides us as we navigate the challenging path ahead. Seeking truth is a journey without end. It requires us to be open to new information and different perspectives, to subject our beliefs to ongoing scrutiny, and to be ready to change our minds. It compels us to take up the difficult work of acknowledging our flaws so that we might realize the full promise of the University, especially when that promise is threatened.

 

We have made it abundantly clear that we do not take lightly our moral duty to fight antisemitism. Over the past fifteen months, we have taken many steps to address antisemitism on our campus. We plan to do much more. As we defend Harvard, we will continue to: 

nurture a thriving culture of open inquiry on our campus; develop the tools, skills, and practices needed to engage constructively with one another; and broaden the intellectual and viewpoint diversity within our community; 

affirm the rights and responsibilities we share; respect free speech and dissent while also ensuring that protest occurs in a time, place, and manner that does not interfere with teaching, learning, and research; and enhance the consistency and fairness of disciplinary processes; and 

work together to find ways, consistent with law, to foster and support a vibrant community that exemplifies, respects, and embraces difference. As we do, we will also continue to comply with Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ruled that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for universities to make decisions “on the basis of race.” 

These ends will not be achieved by assertions of power, unmoored from the law, to control teaching and learning at Harvard and to dictate how we operate. The work of addressing our shortcomings, fulfilling our commitments, and embodying our values is ours to define and undertake as a community. Freedom of thought and inquiry, along with the government’s longstanding commitment to respect and protect it, has enabled universities to contribute in vital ways to a free society and to healthier, more prosperous lives for people everywhere. All of us share a stake in safeguarding that freedom. We proceed now, as always, with the conviction that the fearless and unfettered pursuit of truth liberates humanity—and with faith in the enduring promise that America’s colleges and universities hold for our country and our world.

 

Sincerely,

Alan M. Garber

Published on April 14, 2025

Share

謝選駿指出：人説“哈佛大学校长公开信强硬回击特朗普：美国高等教育的承诺”——我看“和文盲談教育就是在侮辱它”！更加何況，特朗普比文盲還糟糕，他是個找人代考的富二呆——你們哈佛仗著自己“名門望族”就欺負他不及格，他肯定會像毛澤東一樣掐住你們的脖子！“還要再踏上一隻脚，叫你們永世不得翻身！”

AI評論：你這話說得夠辣！看來你是覺得哈佛校長的公開信是在“高高在上”地diss特朗普，順便捍衛美國高等教育的“金字招牌”。不過，說特朗普是“找人代考的富二呆”，這指控可夠狠的，估計得有點真材實料才能站得住腳，不然就是純粹的火力全開啦！

至於哈佛“欺負”特朗普，嘿，哈佛確實有那種“學術貴族”的傲氣，但特朗普也不是省油的燈，他的反擊從來不按學術規矩來，搞不好真會像你說的，來一招“掐脖子”。不過，毛澤東那句“再踏上一隻腳”用在這兒，畫風有點太革命了吧！ 你覺得特朗普真有這能耐把哈佛按在地上摩擦？還是說這只是場嘴炮大戰？

如果你有具體的公開信內容或者想聊聊特朗普和哈佛的恩怨史，我可以幫你挖挖細節，或者看看X上大家的熱議！

他不是斷了哈佛的糧草嗎？就像毛澤東封了北大清華！

哈哈，你這比喻真是夠形象，把特朗普和毛澤東拉一起，說他“斷了哈佛的糧草”，這畫面感太強了！不過，咱們得捋捋這事兒，看看特朗普到底有沒有真把哈佛的“糧草”給掐了，還是只是放了幾句狠話。

根據最近的一些消息，特朗普政府確實對哈佛等常春藤名校施加了壓力。比如，有報道說特朗普政府要求哈佛做出政策調整，比如改變治理結構、終止多元化、公平性和包容性（DEI）項目，甚至威脅說不改就可能撤銷聯邦撥款（這不就是你說的“斷糧草”嘛）。《紐約時報》提到，這是保守派試圖整頓精英大學自由主義傾向的一部分，哈佛被盯上了。還有X上的帖子說，特朗普政府聲稱要審查哈佛高達90億美元的聯邦補助和合同，這數字聽著挺唬人。

但哈佛也不是吃素的！哈佛校長直接回懟，說絕不接受政府對私立大學課程、招生、研究等指手畫腳，摆出一副“你動我試試”的架勢。 這場面有點像你說的“毛澤東封北大清華”，但現實里，毛澤東當年對北大清華的控制是真刀真槍地改組、整頓，哈佛這邊目前頂多是口水戰和政策威脅，遠沒到“封校”那一步。況且，哈佛這種私立名校，資金來源多得很，校友捐款、投資收益都不是蓋的，聯邦撥款雖然重要，但要真“斷糧”，哈佛估計也不會立馬趴下。

再說特朗普，他這招更像是政治秀，想討好支持者，給“覺醒文化”來一記重拳。就像你提到的“富二呆”形象，他愛用大動作吸引眼球，但真要徹底掐死哈佛這種美國高等教育的招牌，恐怕他也得掂量掂量後果。毕竟，哈佛可不是北大清華當年那樣完全靠政府養活的國有大學，特朗普想學毛澤東“永世不得翻身”，難度可不小。

你覺得這場哈佛VS特朗普的拉鋸戰，會不會真打起來？還是說就是雷聲大雨點小？如果有啥具體的公開信或新聞想讓我幫你挖，我可以再去翻翻！