這麽高，不考慮國家發展，考慮的就自己這一畝三分田。
對我個人來說，來美後最大的收獲之一是明白了pursuit of happiness 是堂堂正正對個人來說的#1 priority, 沒有人可以舉著道德大旗說我應該怎麽做，我媽都不行，更別說他人。
趁機跟你說：周末讀了一篇，這篇在紙版的名字會是：Tower in flames 就想到你寫的 “論象牙塔的倒掉”
Published in the print edition of the May 6, 2024, issue, with the headline “Tower in Flames.”
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/06/academic-freedom-under-fire
The right at stake in these events is that of academic freedom, a right that derives from the role the university plays in American life. Professors don’t work for politicians, they don’t work for trustees, and they don’t work for themselves. They work for the public. Their job is to produce scholarship and instruction that add to society’s store of knowledge. They commit themselves to doing this disinterestedly: that is, without regard to financial, partisan, or personal advantage. In exchange, society allows them to insulate themselves—and to some extent their students—against external interference in their affairs. It builds them a tower.
The pro-Palestinian demonstrators who created the conditions that the Jewish students allege are antisemitic are immunized by the First Amendment. “From the river to the sea” is a political slogan, classic protected speech. That is why Congress does not subpoena the demonstrators but goes after university presidents instead. The members of Congress who grilled Shafik want universities to punish demonstrators precisely because the government cannot.
Academic freedom is an understanding, not a law. It can’t just be invoked. It has to be asserted and defended. That’s why it’s so disheartening that leaders of great universities appear reluctant to speak up for the rights of independent inquiry and free expression for which Americans have fought. Even after Shafik offered up faculty sacrifices on the congressional altar and called in the N.Y.P.D., Republicans responded by demanding her resignation. If capitulation isn’t working, not much is lost by trying some defiance
