第431期——大学校园里发生了什么？

欢迎收听《理性思考》播客，我是山姆·哈里斯。温馨提示：如果您听到这段内容，说明您当前未订阅我们的会员频道，只能收听本次对话的前半部分。要获取《理性思考》播客的完整内容，请访问samharris.org进行订阅。本播客不接受广告赞助，完全依靠订阅用户的支持才能持续运营。

Welcome to the Making Sense Podcast. This is Sam Harris. Just a note to say that if you're hearing this, you're not currently on our subscriber feed and will only be hearing the first part of this conversation. In order to access full episodes of the Making Sense podcast, you'll need to subscribe at samharris.org. We don't run ads on the podcast and therefore it's made possible entirely through the support of our subscribers.

如果您喜欢我们的节目，请考虑成为订阅用户。今天和我一起的是迈克尔·罗斯。迈克尔，感谢你的到来。

If So you enjoy what we're doing here, please consider becoming one. Well, I'm here with Michael Roth. Michael, thanks for joining me.

很荣幸参与节目。

Glad to be here.

你不仅是卫斯理大学的校长，还是《纽约时报》的常驻撰稿人。除此之外还有什么我不知道的身份吗？

So you are the president of Wesleyan University and also a frequent contributor to The New York Times. Are there any other hats you wear that I'm not aware of?

嗯，我现在主要身份是祖父、父亲和丈夫。我仍在卫斯理大学每学期授课，主要为学术读者撰写书籍，不过最近尝试扩大受众范围。对了，你教授什么课程？

Well, I'm a grandpa and and a dad and a husband, and those are the main things right now. I I teach every semester still at Wesleyan and try to write books for mostly academic audiences, but more recently trying to broaden my my reach. Yeah. So what what do you teach?

你的学术背景和知识结构是怎样的？

What was your intellectual and academic background?

我是历史学者出身。当年在卫斯理求学时，我在历史、哲学和心理学专业间举棋不定。有位被我称为'神仙代院长'的临时院长——这种院长最好了——当时对我说：'何必做选择呢？'他允许我自己设计...

So I'm a historian, and I was as a student at Wesleyan, I couldn't make up my mind between history, philosophy, and psychology. And I had a fairy god dean, as I describe him now, who was a substitute dean. That's the best kind. And at the time, he said to me, why decide, man? And he allowed me to make up my

那个口音是哪一年的？

own What year was that accent from?

1976年。嗯哼。记得他办公室里的蕨类植物，我觉得是蕨类。还有查理，系主任查理。

1976. Uh-huh. Remember the Ferns in his office. I think they were Ferns. And and Charlie, Dean Charlie.

然后他就编造了这个专业，叫心理理论史，我当时觉得自己占了便宜。结果接下来的四十年，我都在研究历史、心理学、哲学，所以这专业其实很合适。但当我离开他办公室时，他说：“伙计，你该去加州。”嗯。而我那时从未去过波科诺山脉以西，毕竟是在纽约长大的。

And and and so he made up this major there called history of psychological theory, which I thought was I was getting away with something. And as it turned out, for the next forty years, I worked on history, psychology, philosophy, so it it turned out to be right. But as I left his office, he said, you ought to go to California, man. Mhmm. And I had never been West Of The Poconos, so from growing up in New York.

于是那年夏天，我和女友开车去了加州。我买了顶帐篷，但始终无法在哲学和历史间做抉择。所以我成了思想史学者。不错。这些年来我的研究领域一直是哲学史和心理学史。

And so I drove my girlfriend and I drove to California that summer. I bought a tent and then couldn't really decide always between philosophy and history, especially. So I became an intellectual historian. Nice. And my work has been on history of philosophy and psychology over the years.

我在卫斯理大学的毕业论文是关于精神分析与政治的，后来成了我的第一本书，还在国会图书馆办了展览。我多数学术工作都关于人们如何理解过去——比如记忆、编史学，以及人们如何处理创伤。到卫斯理任教后，我又写了几本关于博雅教育、言论自由、安全空间之类的书。

I did a my senior thesis at Wesleyan was on psychoanalysis and politics, and that became my first book. And then it became an exhibition at the Library of Congress. And then most of my work is in the scholarly world was about how people make sense of the past. So things about memory and historiography and how people deal with trauma. And then since I've been at Wesleyan, I've written a few books on liberal arts education and freedom of speech and safe spaces and things like that.

不错。我想今天我们的谈话会涉及你这些专业领域的很多观点。虽然不知道需要多深入探讨思想史，但近现代思想史肯定相关。那么先从最宏观的问题开始吧：如今的象牙塔里情况如何？

Nice. Well, many of that those ideas and areas of expertise will be brought to bear on the on the conversation we're gonna have today, I imagine. I don't know how deep in into the history of ideas we need to go, but certainly the recent history of ideas would be relevant. Well, so let just let's begin with the the very broad question. How are things in the Ivory Tower these days?

糟透了。要知道，我从1983年就开始独立教授本科生，甚至更早当助教时就开始。我从未见过如此惶恐的时期——对政府干预的深切焦虑，同时学生、甚至教职员工，尤其是行政人员，都不愿捍卫我们过去二十年来宣称的信念。最近十几年我们尤其担忧来自左翼的反自由主义思潮。

Oh, it's terrible. You know, I I've been teaching undergraduates since 1983 on my own, I guess, even before that as a as a TA. And I don't remember a time of such trepidation of really angst about government intervention and, at the same time, a kind of reluctance on students and even by faculty and certainly by administrators to stand up for the things we've claimed to believe in for the last twenty years or so. So it's been it's a very odd feeling these days. We worried for the last dozen years or so about illiberalism from the left, especially.

许多人对此感到担忧。尽管我自认立场偏左，我也曾忧心忡忡。但在我看来，这根本无法与联邦政府当前对思想自由、学术自由和言论自由的专制压制相提并论。这种情况很糟糕。但更令我困扰的是，我的同事们不愿捍卫那些我们直到最近还视为理所当然的基本自由。

Many people have worried about that. I and I although I see myself on the left, I also worried about that. But it to me, there's nothing in way of comparison to the to the authoritarianism that is now being marshaled against freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry, freedom of expression by the federal government. And so that's terrible. But what really bothers me more than even than that, which bothers me a lot, is the reluctance of my colleagues to stand up for some basic freedoms that we, until very recently, took for granted.

我确实想讨论这种渐进的专制主义与体制的妥协。但在深入之前，对于美国大学被极左意识形态占领的合理担忧是什么？我指的是这种常被称为'觉醒主义'的思潮，某种社会正义的道德恐慌，以及可能受准马克思主义影响的压迫者-被压迫者意识形态，这种思想已渗透到围绕10月7日的抗议运动中。对于这些现象，最善意的解读是什么？虽然我们会有所保留，但许多人认为特朗普政府正是在针对这种担忧采取行动。

Well, I I definitely wanna talk about the creeping authoritarianism and the capitulation of the institutions. But before we we jump into that, what are the the legitimate concerns about the ideological capture of American universities by the far left and far left ideologies. I mean, there's this intersection of, you know, what is often goes by the name of wokeness, you know, what I would call a kind of social justice, moral panic in certain areas. Also a kind of quasi Marxist ideology, perhaps informing that, and a and a certainly an an oppressor oppressed ideology that has been mapped onto the protest movement around or animated protest movement around October 7. What is the most charitable construal of the concern around all of that that many people I I think we're we're gonna demur here, but I I think many people think the Trump administration is simply just acting on that concern.

只是情况已失控。精英机构被左派接管，导致思想质量——特别是伦理思想和政治思想——明显退化。你如何为这种担忧辩护？

It's just gone too far. There's been this leftist takeover of elite institutions and a and a resulting degradation of the quality of thought there, certainly, you know, ethical thought, political thought. What can you say in defense of that concern?

没什么可辩护的。在我看来，这就像说普京对乌克兰威胁莫斯科有合理担忧，仿佛乌克兰加入北约就会危及俄罗斯，或者俄罗斯对所谓'乌克兰实体'有正当历史诉求。我认为这种担忧被严重夸大了。嗯。

Not much. I mean, to me, that's akin to saying that, you know, Putin has legitimate concerns about the Ukrainian threat against Moscow. That, you know, the Ukraine could have joined NATO and Russia would have been in peril, or the Russians don't you know, they have legitimate historical concerns in what is called The U Ukraine or the Ukrainian entity to you. So I I think it's vastly overblown. Mhmm.

意识形态占领本身就是个误称。它并未准确描述大多数高校的现状——最受欢迎的专业仍是经济学和心理学，精英院校学生最向往的职业仍是金融业，比如去华尔街私募股权公司工作，收购像你们这样的播客集团。这可不是新马克思主义。

I think ideological capture itself is is a misnomer. It doesn't really describe what's happened at most colleges and universities where the most popular majors remain economics and psychology. The most popular professions are most desirable professions, especially at the elite schools, are in finance or people wanting to go to Wall Street so they could work for a private equity firm. They could buy, let's say, a a group of podcast entities like yours. I mean, this is this is not neo Marxism.

这也不是进步主义。高等教育的真正危机更在于职业主义。重要的是不要因为某些自认左派人士的忧虑就向侵略者的要求屈服。

This is not progressivism. You know, the danger in higher education is more vocationalism. So I think that that's it's important to to not give in to the the demands of the aggressor just because there are some worries that people who thought they were on the left have had.

迈克尔，让我们回到原点。暂且不论特朗普政府回应中显而易见的恶意，只谈问题本身。我最初警觉此事是看到尼古拉斯·克里斯塔基斯在耶鲁校园被学生围堵，其中不少人——至少在我看来——已经突破了校园理智的所有底线，只差没动手打人。那种暴力威胁几乎不加掩饰，有段时间甚至不确定他能否安全脱身而不与学生发生肢体冲突。

Michael, let me just take you back. So, again, leaving aside the, I think, the obvious maliciousness and and malignancy of the response to this from the Trump administration, let's just talk about the problem. I mean, I I remember first being alarmed by all of this when I saw Nicholas Christakis in the quad at Yale being hounded by a group of students who not all of whom, but certainly several of whom, to my eye, were violating every norm of basic sanity on a college campus short of punching Nicholas in the face. I mean, there was a none too implicit threat of violence there at some point. I mean, there was actually it was not clear to me that he could have safely left that crowd at a certain point without having to physically force his way past students.

如果我没记错的话，那些学生因参与社会正义活动而获奖了。

And those students got awards for their social justice activism, if I'm not mistaken.

但他们也收到了死亡威胁，因为你们之所以知道这件事，是因为有人想借此制作宣传片，而且他们做得相当成功。事后我立刻给尼克·克里斯塔基斯写信说，这太可怕了，发生这样的事我很遗憾。其实我并不认识他。嗯...

Well, they also got death threats because the reason you're aware of this is because it was filmed by people who wanted to make propaganda out of that, and they did so very successfully. I wrote to Nick Christakis right after that and said, you know, this is horrific. I'm so sorry this happened. I don't know him, actually. We Mhmm.

我们是后来才认识的。所以我并不否认那种行为很恶劣。但这就像去兄弟会派对看到有人呕吐就说，美国大学被酒精行业意识形态绑架了一样荒谬。在耶鲁，大多数人想进华尔街谋职，而非摧毁言论自由和自由民主体系。那确实很糟糕。

We've met more recently. So I don't disagree that that behavior was awful. But it would be like saying, I don't know, we'd go to a fraternity party and see people vomiting and saying, oh, American universities have been there's an ideological capture by, I don't know, the alcohol industry. I mean, this is idiotic behavior at Yale where most people are trying to get good jobs on Wall Street, not destroy the system of free speech and liberal democracy. It was bad.

我认为是那些人行为失当，而高校对这类不良行为过于纵容。这确实存在，但我不认为这是严重问题。真正严重的是高校教职员工缺乏意识形态乃至学术多样性。我长期撰文指出这个问题，尤其在人文社科领域，温和派或保守派甚至不再攻读研究生，导致教育视野和问题探讨日益狭隘。

I I think it was the the the folks behaved badly, and there there and there was much too much tolerance for bad behavior on the part of colleges and universities. I think that's true, but I really don't think it I don't think that's a serious concern. I do think there was a serious concern about the lack of ideological or even intellectual diversity in in the faculty at colleges and universities. And I've, you know, been writing about this for a long time. And and I do think that's a serious problem, and it's getting worse in in many respects because folks aren't even going to graduate school if they're moderates or conservatives in especially in humanities and social sciences, interpretive social sciences.

这种教育窄化、问题意识收缩才是真正的问题。像耶鲁那个例子——现在有十年了吧？

And and that just is a narrowing of education, a narrowing of the kind of questions asked. So I see that as a real problem. I think like the the the Yale example, which is now what? Ten years old?

是的。

Yeah.

或是八年前？还有查尔斯·默里在米德尔伯里的例子。这些固然恶劣，但默里其他上百场讲座都平安无事。我不愿以个别案例来概括更广泛的现象。但我确实认为，像我所在的高校院系，对确保人文社科等关键领域的思想多样性重视不足。

Or eight years old? And or the Charles Murray at Middlebury example. These are bad things, but, you know, there are Charles Murray probably gave a 100 lectures beyond aside from that one and which went without incident. So I I just don't wanna take those examples as exemplifying something much broader than it seems to me they they merit being used for. I do think that the faculties at schools like mine have paid too little attention to ensuring intellectual and ideological diversity in the departments where that would really make a big difference, like the humanities and interpretive social sciences.

而且很难确切知道该如何应对这个问题。我们在卫斯理大学尝试过一些方法，虽偶有微小成效，但在我看来这仍是个严峻问题。当抗议失控时，我...我认为这并不像我某些朋友或同事认为的那么严重。确实，许多自诩为自由派或至少温和派的人，被要求我们觉得不合理事项的年轻学生超越，这令人不安。但随着年龄增长，这类情况在所难免。

And it's hard to know exactly what to do about that. We've tried some things at Wesleyan with very small successes here and there, but that seems to me a real problem. When protests get out of hand, I I I think I I don't see that as as big a deal as some of my friends do or some of my colleagues do. It it did seem to me that a lot for a lot of people who thought of themselves as liberals or at least moderates and liberals to be outflanked by young students who demanded things we didn't think were reasonable. That was upsetting to people, but that's kind of what happens as you get older.

年轻人会从他们的角度提出你认为愚蠢的要求，你没必要照做。我认为当学校恰当应对抗议者——既承认其抗议权利又不纵容骚扰行为时，大多数校园事态发展得相当好。耶鲁的例子是个反面教材，我们还能举出约二十个类似案例。嗯...我想我...

Young people ask you to do things that are dumb from your perspective, you don't have to do them. And I think when when when the schools actually stood up to protesters appropriately, acknowledging their right to protest but not to harass people, I think things actually worked out pretty well at most schools. So the Yale example's a bad one, and there are probably, you know, two dozen other examples we can come up with. Mhmm. I think I I wanna

我想探讨抗议事件及你的建议，据我了解卫斯理大学在10月8日后采取了与哥伦比亚、UCLA等遭遇严重问题的院校不同的应对策略。不过在讨论前，就你刚提到的观点多样性问题——你与乔纳森·海特或史蒂芬·平克这类学者是否存在分歧？这两位颇受欢迎的学者一直强调需要吸纳政治立场偏右（超越左翼连续体10%标准）的人才。

talk about the protests and what you recommend there, because my understanding is that Wesleyan navigated the the moment post October 8 slightly differently than campuses like Columbia or UCLA or I forget I forget the others that that really had a problem. But before we do, so just on the point of viewpoint diversity that you just brought up, is there any daylight between you and someone like Jonathan Haidt or Steven Pinker? I mean, both very popular academics who've been, you know, fairly valuable on on the need here to somehow recruit people who are politically right of the of the, you know, the the 10% mark on the the left right political continuum?

其实我和乔纳森在这个议题上合作多年。虽然我们看法不尽相同——我是少数对《美国心灵的娇惯》一书给出褒贬参半评价的人。但我确实认同他关于增强大学教师意识形态多样性的主张。早在2010年左右，我就呼吁...

Well, I think Jonathan and I have worked together over the years on this issue. And though we don't always see things the same way, I'm one of the few people who was gave a mixed review to the Coddling of the American Mind book. Mhmm. But I do agree with him that getting bringing more ideological diversity into the university's faculty is really important. And I called in, I think, 2010 or something like that.

不，应该是2015年，我提议在大学实施保守派平权法案，结果惹恼了所有人。左派自然反对，连保守派也...尤其保守派？哦，他们反应更激烈，声称'我们不需要平权，只需要择优录用'。

Well, no. 15, I guess, for an affirmative action program for conservatives in colleges and universities, which pissed off everybody, really. I mean, the left the left Even the conservatives? Oh, especially because they said, we don't need affirmative action. We just need, you know, merit.

但我认为必须刻意招聘自由意志主义者、将虔诚信仰融入学术的宗教人士以及传统保守派。有位后来成为好友的卫斯理校董不断向我指出：在我看来正常的事，若缺乏相同意识形态背景，实则充满偏见。这让我意识到'天啊，我们确实存在严重偏见，必须纠正'。

But I actually think we had to be very intentional about hiring libertarians, people with strong religious faith that in was related to their scholarship, and traditional conservatives. And I I think I do think it's really important. I I was made aware of this by a a a trustee at Westing who became a friend, who just kept pointing out to me all the ways in which things that seem normal to me, if you didn't share that ideological perspective, they were incredibly biased. And so I you know, it's one of those moments where you say, oh my gosh. We I am really biased, and so I need to correct for that.

我虽教授阿奎那思想但未改宗天主教——总不能只让长岛的犹太学者来讲授天主教义吧？应该尽可能吸纳有实际生活体验的人。因此我特意招聘过退伍军人，也聘用过与常春藤人文科系毕业生观点迥异的人才。

I mean, I'm not I teach Aquinas. I don't you know, I haven't converted to Catholicism, but I I can teach Aquinas, but they shouldn't have only have Jews from Long Island teaching Catholicism. They should have people who have lived experience, I think, and as much as you can. And and so I've hired tried to hire people from the military. I've hired people with different points of view than the standard graduate from an Ivy League humanities department.

我想当我开始这项工作时，委婉地说，我的卫斯理安大学及其他地方的同事们对此持很大怀疑态度。而现在校园里关于意识形态偏见的讨论已相当活跃。对我来说，作为校长，能做到这一步已经足够。我的意思是，我应该让人们更意识到自己的偏见。他们都是好人。

And I I think that when I started this, there was a lot of skepticism, to put it mildly, on my from my colleagues at Wesleyan and elsewhere. And now there's it's a robust conversation on campus about ideological bias. And that to me is is really as much as I should do as the as the president. I mean, I should get people to be more aware of their biases. And then they're good people.

他们是专业人士。他们并不想带着偏见行事。因此我认为已经有所纠正。当然还可以做得更多。这确实是个...

They're professionals. They they don't they don't want to be acting with bias. And so I think there's been some correction. I I it could be greater. It could be and I think that is a real My

据我了解，在不太久远的过去，新聘或拟聘人员实际上需要签署某种多元化、公平与包容（DEI）承诺书对吧？不管具体措辞如何，内容大致是'我承诺消除本领域内的种族主义'，即使他们的专业是数学之类。你不认为这种系统性筛选方式反而会排除你们原本想招募的人才吗？

understanding is that there were I can only imagine we're past this point now as the shadow of the Trump administration imposed itself over all of our universities. But in the not too distant past, prospective hires or new hires were having to sign effectively, know, DEI pledges of some kind. Right? They they had to, forget the actual verbiage, but it was something like, you know, I'm committed to even if even if their discipline was, you know, mathematics, is I'm committed to, you know, rooting out, you know, racism in my field, or whatever it was, You didn't see that as a kind of systematic way of of filtering for against the the very people you would otherwise wanna recruit?

哦，我确实认为那些都是糟糕的主意——除非是为了确保教师能教授来自多元背景的学生。这在我看来完全合理。换句话说，我们希望教授们有能力教导具有不同生活经历和背景的学生。如果聘请一位顶尖计算机科学家，而他只习惯在研究生院或顶尖学校的精英专业授课，那么让他在生源多元的公立大学任教时，必须确保其具备相应的教学能力。

Oh, I do I do think those were bad ideas, except when what you were trying to do is to make sure that somebody was able to teach a classroom of people from diverse backgrounds. That seems to me perfectly reasonable. In other words, we wanna have professors or teachers who are able to teach a classroom with of people who have different lived experiences, come from different backgrounds. That that seems to me perfectly legitimate concern. If if I'm hiring a crackerjack computer scientist who just is used to teaching in graduate school, other graduate students or very, you know, high end majors at at a great school, and you put them in a classroom at a public university where people come from various backgrounds, you wanna make sure that they're they're able to deal with that.

作为教师，本就应该根据学生情况调整教学方式，同时让学生适应你的风格。嗯。所以这种要求是合理的。但强迫数学或历史教师对多元化计划作出意识形态承诺，这在我看来就非常可耻了。

I mean, as a teacher, you tend to adjust to the people in in front of you and then have them adjust to you. Mhmm. So I think that's reasonable, but this idea that you would really want someone to make an ideological commitment to a program of diversity in order to teach math or history or whatever, that seems to me reprehensible.

那么界限究竟在哪里？显然没有大学会聘请公开或隐秘的新纳粹分子任教——考虑到品牌损害和对学生的影响，谁会想让新纳粹教授来教历史或其他课程呢？

Mhmm. So where's the the actual line here? Because, I mean, obviously, no university would want to recruit a professor who is a closeted or or, you know, out of the closet neo Nazi. So there's there's some part of the the ideological spectrum that is disqualifying from the point of view of, you know, you don't want the brand damage, you don't want the influence on your kids. I mean, why would you want a neo Nazi teaching history or anything else at your university?

同理，你们怎么会想要支持哈马斯的教授？哥伦比亚大学怎能容忍公然支持这个伪装成自由战士的死亡邪教的教师？对你来说这条界限应该划在哪里？

But by the same token, why would you want a Hamas supporter? Why would Columbia want a professor who is an unabashed supporter of a death cult masquerading as a group of freedom fighters? Where's the line there for you?

所以我认为，大学不应该雇佣那些积极支持恐怖组织的人。在我看来，这一点相当明确。反对占领或暴力的人，在我看来不应被取消资格。但我确实认为，无论是激进的反锡安主义者还是激进的锡安主义者，如果他们认为自己在课堂上的任务是培养更多像自己一样的人，那么雇佣这样的人就应该被取消资格。

So I I think that a university shouldn't hire someone who is an active supporter of a terrorist organization. So I think that's Mhmm. To me, that's pretty clear. Someone who is an opponent of the occupation or of of violence, that seems to me that that wouldn't be disqualifying. But I do think it would be disqualifying to hire someone whether they were, let's say, a radical anti Zionist or a radical Zionist who thought their job in the classroom was to have more people like themselves.

我的意思是，我认为这本身就足以取消资格，因为教师的职责不是将人们转化为你的观点，无论你的观点是什么。但关于意见光谱应该有多广的问题，我有一个糟糕的答案，那就是这是一个实用主义的问题。没有固定的公式。我不希望我的校园里有纳粹分子。有人会说，你不是支持言论自由吗？

I mean, I think that's just disqualifying because that's not what your job is as a teacher, not to say convert people to your view whatever your view is. But to the question, like, how broad the spectrum should be of opinion, I have a terrible answer, which is that's a pragmatic issue. There is no formula for that. I don't I don't want a Nazi on on my campus. And someone said, well, you say you're in favor of free speech.

你对言论自由的支持有限度吗？我确实有限度。这些限度实际上是社会学或历史学定义的，没有一个固定的公式。但我确实认为，在美国，向恐怖组织提供物质支持是违法的。

Do you have limits to your support for free speech? I do have limits. And those limits are defined really sociologically or historically. They're not there's not a formula for it. But I do think it's it's illegal in The United I know it's illegal in The United States to give material support to a terrorist organization.

我认为这应该是非法的。我不希望这些支持者在我的大学里教书。有时候你会发现，某个教数学的人实际上是哈马斯的强烈支持者，因为他们不认为哈马斯是你所描述的死亡崇拜和恐怖组织。我同意你的描述，但他们有不同的看法。

I think it should be illegal. And I would not want those supporters teaching in my university. There are times when you find out later on that somebody teaching whatever. I mean, they could be teaching, let's say, math, and they actually are strong supporters of Hamas because they feel it's not what you described as a death cult and a terrorist organization. I would agree with your description, but they have a different view of it.

我认为，只要他们教的是数学，他们对政治的愚蠢观点与我无关。在我看来，很多人对政治都有愚蠢的看法。当他们将这些观点带入课堂，歧视或骚扰学生时，我认为他们应该被解雇。

I think that as long as they're teaching math, that's really not my business what their idiotic views about politics are. Lots of people, in my view, have idiotic perspectives on politics. When they bring them into the into the classroom in a way that discriminates against students or harasses students, then I think they should be fired.

对于客座演讲者来说，这条线是否不同？我的意思是，如果有一个学生团体想邀请一个有争议的演讲者，你如何处理这种情况？在这方面，奥弗顿窗口是否更宽？

Is the line different for a guest speaker? I mean, if have a student group that wants to bring in a controversial speaker, how do you handle that, and what is the is the the Overton window wider in that regard?

我认为是更宽的。但我有一个含糊的答案。我的意思是，这是一个实用主义的问题，我认为没有固定的公式。我给你举个例子。多年前，在“觉醒”这个词被使用之前，我们曾邀请安东宁·斯卡利亚在瓦瑟学院发表演讲。

I think it's wider. But, I have this wishy washy answer. Mean, it's a pragma I don't think there's a formula for it. I'll give you an example. Years ago, before we the word woke was used, we had Antonin Scalia was invited to give a talk at Wassene.

我们有一个自由言论系列讲座，我被邀请去邀请他。我觉得教职员工有点像是在试探我，看我会不会因为他们的政治立场偏左而拒绝他们的推荐，而我认为斯卡利亚大法官对美国宪法的解释造成的伤害几乎是自十九世纪以来最大的。但他们是推荐人选的委员会成员。他是最高法院的大法官，你知道的。

We have a free speech series, and I was asked to invite him. And and I thought the faculty were kind of baiting me to see, like, if I would not accept their recommendation because they were to the left of me, and I thought justice Scalia had done more harm to the interpretation of the American constitution than almost anyone since the eighteen hundreds. But they're the committee that recommends someone. He's a supreme court justice. You know.

我邀请了他。我还以为他会拒绝，因为他是最高法院的大法官，很忙。但他立刻回复说，他很乐意来卫斯理大学。

I invited him. I also thought he'd say no because he's a Supreme Court justice. He's busy. He wrote back immediately. He said, I'd love to come to Wesleyan.

他提到拉里·莱西格曾经来过，莱西格当然是非常左派的，但曾是他的书记员。莱西格在卫斯理有过很棒的经历。所以我说，好吧，他要来了。如果我没有邀请他，我可能会去抗议。

And he mentioned that Larry Lessig had been there, who, of course, quite far on the left, but had clerked for him. And Lessig had a great experience at Westlake. So I said, okay. He's coming. Now if I hadn't invited him, I would have protested.

我不会去抗议阻止他发言，但我会站在外面举着牌子，写着‘斯卡利亚大法官是个坏人’之类的。你知道的，一些愚蠢的话。但相反，我不得不邀请他，还不得不介绍他，因为是我发出的邀请。

I wouldn't have protested, like, to sort of stop him from speaking, but I would have stood outside with a sign saying, you know, Justice Scalia is a bad guy or something. You know? Something dumb. And but instead, I had to invite him. I had to introduce him because I issued the invitation.

所以我就这么做了。他做了一个很好的演讲，花了一整天在校园里和学生见面。校园里有一些零星的抗议，不是为了阻止他发言，而是表达对他作为最高法院大法官所做工作的反对。实际上，那天校园里的氛围很棒。我在介绍词中提到了他的一位批评者。

That was the the so I did that, and and he gave a good talk. He spent the whole day on campus meeting with students. There were protests here and there, not to keep him from speaking, but just acknowledge that they were against the work he had done as a Supreme Court justice. And we had a it was actually a great day on campus. I allowed myself a reference to a critic of his in my introductory comments.

他是全场唯一一个理解这一点的人。嗯，他确实理解了，他是唯一一个会反对原旨主义的人。所以我觉得这已经是最好的结果了。有抗议者穿着橙色连体服站起来，因为关塔那摩是当时的热点问题。

A very he's the only one in the room who under who got it. Mhmm. He did get it, who did who would disagree with the originalism. And so I thought that was about as good as it gets. We had protesters who stood up in the room in orange jumpsuits because of Guantanamo at the that was the issue of the day.

我们走过去说，你们必须坐下或离开，不能挡住别人的视线。他们要么坐下了，要么离开了。他继续演讲。在提问环节，一个年轻的女学生突然站起来说，为什么你不叫一个女性提问？

We went around and said, you have to sit down or leave. You can't block the view of others. They sat down or left. He gave his talk. At some point when he was calling on people, a young student, she jumped up and said, why don't you call on a woman?

因为他只点名男生。然后他说，好吧。好吧。接着他点了一位女生。这没什么问题。

Because he only called on guys. And then he said, okay. Okay. And he called on a woman. And it was fine.

明白吗？我是说，人们以诚实的方式表达自己，但同时让对话或辩论得以继续。我认为这对我来说是个很好的典范。虽然不总能实现，但在卫斯理大学，我们已经培养了一种文化，即使有人对我们邀请罗斯或施密特等嘉宾感到愤怒，但迄今为止（敲敲木头），他们还没逼我们取消过任何活动。如果发生这种情况，我们会处分那些学生。

You know? I mean, people expressed themselves in a way that was honest, but that allowed for the conversation or debate to continue. I think that's that's that's to me the the a great model. It's not always possible, but, you know, at Wesleyan, I think we have developed a culture where people can be they may be angry that we've invited, you know, Roth to come and speak or Schmidt to come and speak or whomever, but they they have so far, knock on wood, they they haven't forced us to cancel any events. If they did, we would discipline those students.

这一点对他们来说非常明确——违反校规就要受罚。这条规则至关重要，因为显然，阻止他人发声就是在破坏整个教育事业的根基。是的。

That that that's it's very clear to them that that's against our rules, and we enforce our rules. And that's a really important rule because, obviously, if you keep from someone from being heard, that you're really undermining the whole educational project. Yeah.

那为什么这么多大学都搞错了？我是说，他们可能是个例，但我的听众们肯定看过无数视频，本质上都是对干扰手段的有效运用。若想继续收听本期对话，请前往samharris.org订阅。订阅后即可收听《Making Sense》播客所有完整版节目。本播客无广告，完全依赖听众支持。

So why do so many colleges get this wrong? I mean, I I again, they could be outliers, but many people in in my audience will will have seen video after video of essentially an effective use of the heck. If you'd like to continue listening to this conversation, you'll need to subscribe at samharris.org. Once you do, you'll get access to all full length episodes of the Making Sense podcast. The Making Sense podcast is ad free and relies entirely on listener support.

您现在就可以在samharris.org订阅。

And you can subscribe now at samharris.org.

嗨。

Hi.