大學欠民主一個保護學術勇氣的文化

Last November, Dorian Abbot, a geophysicist at the University of Chicago, posted a series of slide presentations on YouTube making a case against the use of group identity as a primary criterion in selection processes. He was immediately targeted for cancellation.

去年11月，芝加哥大學地球物理學家多利安．艾伯特在YouTube上張貼了一系列投影片，表達反對大學以群體身分當作選才的首要條件。他立即遭點名該被解聘去職。

So Robert Zimmer, Chicago’s magnificent president (now chancellor), stepped in with a clear statement of support for academic freedom. The controversy evaporated.

於是，傑出的芝大校長（現為校務會議主席）司馬博介入，發表一份明言支持學術自由的聲明。這起爭議就此煙消雲散。

Then, in August, Abbot and a co-writer published an op-ed in Newsweek making the case that diversity, equity and inclusion policies violate “the ethical and legal principle of equal treatment.” It led to another cancellation campaign, this time in protest of his invitation to deliver the prestigious Carlson Lecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he was going to speak about “Climate and the Potential for Life on Other Planets.”

之後，艾伯特和另一名作者8月聯名投書《新聞周刊》，主張多元、公平和包容政策違背了「平等待遇的倫理和法律原則」，引發了另一波抵制聲浪，這次是抗議麻省理工學院聲譽卓著的卡爾森講座邀請他發表「氣候與其他星球存在生命的可能性」。

This time, the campaign worked. As Abbot has detailed, a department chair called to tell him the school would be canceling the lecture “in order to avoid controversy.”

這次訴求的奏效了。根據艾伯特所說，系主任致電告知校方將取消講座「以避免爭議」。

The two episodes are a stark illustration of the difference between the culture of intellectual courage nurtured by Zimmer and the Coward Culture at work at MIT and other institutions ostensibly invested in the cause of free expression.

這兩起事件是全然不同的對照，司馬博培養的學術勇氣文化和在麻省理工學院內起作用的懦夫文化，以及其他機構致力於維護表意自由的表面工夫。

It’s also a reminder that our universities are failing at the task of educating students in the habits of a free mind. Instead, they are becoming islands of illiberal ideology and factories of moral certitude, more often at war with the values of liberal democracy than in their service.

這也是一個提醒，我們的大學對於教育學生養成自由思考的任務失敗。反而它們正在成為不容許異見的意識形態孤立區塊與道德證書的生產工廠，比起自身的工作，更常和自由民主價值對著幹。

I’ve been thinking about all this while reading “What Universities Owe Democracy” by Johns Hopkins University’s president, Ronald Daniels.

當閱讀約翰霍普金斯大學校長朗諾．丹尼爾斯的書《大學欠民主什麼》時，我一直在思考這一切。

Daniels’ core point is that, at their best, universities serve as escalators for social mobility, educators for democratic citizenship, stewards of fact and expertise, and forums for “purposeful pluralism” — the expression and contest of ideas.

丹尼爾斯的核心意見是，大學應盡全力，作為社會流動上升的通道，民主公民精神的教育者，事實與專業的管理人，以及「目標明確的多元主義」論壇，表達與辯證想法。

Courage isn’t a virtue that’s easily taught, especially in universities, but sometimes it can be modeled. After Abbot’s talk was canceled at MIT, conservative Princeton University professor Robert George offered to host the lecture instead.

勇氣並不是一種易於教導的美德，特別是在大學之內，但是有時候它可以建立起榜樣。艾伯特在麻省理工學院的講座被取消之後，反倒是保守派的普林頓大學教授羅勃．喬治對他提出講座邀約。

Courage begins with de-cancellation. Wisdom, thanks to books such as Daniels’, can then take wing.

勇氣始於反取消。多虧有丹尼爾斯這樣的書，智慧方能突飛猛進。

這些網站要付費 讀者照樣埋單

You had to pay to get in.

你得買票才能進場。

Roughly 250 people paid $15 or $20 apiece to attend a party hosted by the staff of Defector, a subscription website started a year ago by journalists who had quit (or were fired from) the sports news site Deadspin after refusing to heed a request from their bosses that they “stick to sports.”

大約有250人，每人繳交15或20美元，參加由訂閱網站「叛逃者」員工主辦的派對。「叛逃者」創立於一年前，創辦人是運動新聞網站「死亡旋轉」記者，他們因為拒絕遵守老闆指示「堅守體育運動，不對政治或文化發表意見」，而辭職或被解雇。

The party guests were accustomed to paying. They were Defector subscribers, for the most part, meaning they had paid $79 for a year’s subscription, allowing them to get past a strict paywall to read articles like “What 1993 Video Game Tony La Russa Taught Me About Baseball” and “Please, I Am Begging You, Stop Putting the Giants in Primetime.”

這場派對的賓客已習慣付費。他們是「叛逃者」的訂戶，在大多數情況下，這意味著他們繳交79美元訂閱一年，得以穿越嚴密的付費牆讀到文章，如「1993年電玩遊戲拉魯沙教我棒球的事」和「拜託，求你別在黃金時段播放職棒舊金山巨人隊的比賽」。

In charging for access to its website, Defector differs from its predecessor, Deadspin, which belongs to a digital-media generation that gives readers free access and tries to make money by selling ads.

「叛逃者」要讀者付費觀看，與前身「死亡旋轉」不同。「死亡旋轉」屬於讓讀者免費觀看並企圖透過賣廣告賺錢的數位媒體世代。

It remains a challenge for online publications to persuade readers to pay, and it’s perhaps more difficult to get them to pay again after the initial subscription. Defector is optimistic that it will hang on to its fan base as it heads into its second year.

線上出版品要說服讀者付費仍是挑戰，要讀者捧場一次之後再度掏錢也許更困難。邁入創站第二年的「叛逃者」對於守住粉絲群表示樂觀。

Print newspapers charged readers for a century, and readers never questioned the idea that they would have to pay for journalism. The first generations of online-only news sites, eager to build their audiences by pulling readers away from old habits, offered up their work free of charge.

印刷報紙向讀者收費100年了，讀者不曾質疑要看新聞必須要付費的觀念。第一代純線上新聞網站渴望把讀者拉離舊習慣來培養自己的閱聽群，所以才免費提供作品。

Defector and digital newsletter platform Substack are part of a wider shift, one made possible by readers who have come to see paying for journalism as the right thing to do, rather than an annoyance.

「叛逃者」和數位電子報平台Substack則是更大轉變的一部分。讀者把為看新聞付費視為理所當然，而非令人不悅，讓轉變能成為可能。

The Daily Memphian, a nonprofit news site in Memphis, Tennessee, is also part of the wave, with readers contributing the bulk of its revenue. It started in 2018 in response to the shrinking of the local newspaper, The Commercial Appeal. Nearly 17,000 subscribers pay $99 per year (or $12.99 per month) for The Memphian, and they have renewed their subscriptions at a rate of 90%, said Eric Barnes, the publication’s CEO. Ad sales, sponsorships and donations cover the rest of a $5 million annual budget that supports a newsroom of 38.

美國田納西州最大城曼非斯的非營利新聞網站「每日曼非斯報」，也是這波改變浪潮的一波，其營收多數來自讀者訂閱。這個網站是因應當地「商業呼聲報」縮編，在2018年創立。網站執行長巴恩斯說，近1萬7000名訂戶每年付99美元（或每月12.99美元），續訂率高達九成。網站每年需要500萬美元預算來支撐共38人的新聞部，除了訂閱收入以外，其餘由廣告收入、贊助和捐款支應。

“People paid for news for decades,” Barnes said. “Why can’t they pay for it now?”

巴恩斯說：「人們已經花錢看新聞看了幾十年了，為何現在不能？」