紐約客，我代表人民審判你。。。

看到糯米引用的文章，很有意思，想到曆史的變遷，法官席位的搶占。

感覺吧，人類的難點在於：聲稱的、希望的、實際做的、和真實結果有差異。就像原來自稱公仆的人，不一定真是公仆，自稱為公共利益工作的人，不一定真的如此。

這個問題，在人的認識水平不提高的情況下，基本無解。曆史上一直在不停地變換：

* 牧師，我不為自己工作，我不為政客工作，我為上帝服務，我為人類服務。這個願望當然是好的。

* 某黨黨員，我不為自己工作，我不為政客服務，我們沒有自己獨立的利益，我們隻為了國家和人民服務。

* 這篇文章裏的教授：Professors don’t work for politicians, they don’t work for trustees, and they don’t work for themselves. They work for the public. 這個也很牛的，自己給自己發證書，自己給自己屁股上蓋QC pass章。證書也挺大的。好像也是搞得靈魂附體。

都是自稱的，也或許是真心希望的，但是，他們沒有意識到，他們已經快把自己弄成上帝的角色了。（我不是不承認上帝，我信仰上帝，隻是對那些自稱已經達到上帝水平的人，持審慎懷疑態度而已。）

當教授（即使不是某黨黨員）們，自稱我代表公眾的時候，也是很危險的。他們就可以代表人民，批判任何人了。嗬嗬

不過，哎，理解吧，專欄作家可能也是個以寫作為生的小年青，理解他的虔誠和對人性的認識不足吧。

想起當年的尼克鬆，本來的心態是，誰反對國家誰就是反對我，慢慢地越來越激動，就變成了誰反對我誰就是反對國家，甚至是反對人類了。教授，也是人啊，難道這個記者還有本事證明教授具有不繆性了？整著整著就附體成楊秀清了，洪秀全你給我聽著：我現在不是代表我自己，不是代表政客，我是代表天父，嗯，不對，是代表公眾。告訴你們這些人，你們公眾選出來的代表並不能代表公眾，我才是代表公眾。。。。嗬嗬。

我這篇的意思不是判斷具體的事兒，而是說，紐約客的同學們、編輯們，別急著附體，而且不知道自己在搞附體，就開始審判別人廖。

這裏：https://bbs.wenxuecity.com/culture/637140.html

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