【演讲】迈克尔·彭博在哈佛大学2014年毕业典礼上的演讲

点击标题处“北极光翻译”，关注我们，定期接收有关英语和翻译学习的文章！

本视频是前纽约市长、彭博社创始人迈克尔·彭博在哈佛大学2014年毕业典礼上的演讲。彭博目前拥有330亿美元资产，位列全球富豪榜第16位。普通毕业典礼演讲都是对学生提出建议和希望，但这次演讲有所不同，彭博通篇都在抨击美国社会和大学中非正统思想受到抑制的情况，抨击标榜自由和宽容者的伪善。彭博要求哈佛毕业生能有开放的思想，学会聆听他人的意见，哪怕是自己并不赞同甚至强烈反对的意见。

https://v.qq.com/txp/iframe/player.html?vid=w0131csp5kj&width=500&height=375&auto=0

部分演讲稿：

Tolerance for other people’s ideas, and the freedom to express your own, are inseparable values at great universities. Joined together, they form a sacred trust that holds the basis of our democratic society.

包容他人观点，以及表达自身言论的自由，是顶尖大学不可分割的价值。两者结合在一起，构成了支撑民主社会根基的一种神圣的信赖。

First, for New York City. Several years ago, as you may remember, some people tried to stop the development of a mosque a few blocks from the World Trade Center site.

首先，来谈谈纽约市。你们可能记得，几年前有些人试图阻止在世贸中心旧址几个街区远的地方建一座清真寺的计划。

Our union of 50 states rests on the union of two values: freedom and tolerance. And it is that union of values that the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th, 2001 and on April 15th, 2013 found most threatening.

我们这50州联邦的建立取决两大价值的结合：自由和包容。正是这两大价值的结合，让2001年9月11日和2013年4月15日袭击我们的恐怖分子备感威胁。

To them, we were a God-less country.

在他们看来，我们是一个无神的国度。

But in fact, there is no country that protects the core of every faith and philosophy known to human kind – free will – more than the United States of America. That protection, however, rests upon our constant vigilance.

但事实上，没有任何一个国家，比美国更能保护人类各种信仰和哲学认识的核心——自由意志。不过，这种保护需要依赖于我们时刻的警觉。

We like to think that the principle of separation of church and state is settled. It is not. And it never will be. It is up to us to guard it fiercely and to ensure that equality under the law means equality under the law for everyone.

我们会这么认为：政教分离的原则已经确立。实际上并没有，而且永远不会。我们需要坚决地拥护它，以确保法律条文下规定的人人平等，对每个人都是平等的。

If you want the freedom to worship as you wish, to speak as you wish, and to marry whom you wish, you must tolerate my freedom to do so or not do so as well.

如果你希望你的信仰、言论和选择配偶的自由，如你所愿，你就必须包容我这样做或不这样做的自由。

What I do may offend you. You may find my actions immoral or unjust. But attempting to restrict my freedoms–in ways that you would not restrict your own – leads only to injustice.

我做的事可能会冒犯你，你可能觉得我的行为不道德或不正义。但你不能用你不会约束自身的方式来试图约束我，否则只会导致不公平。

We cannot deny others the rights and privileges that we demand for ourselves. And that is true in cities， and it is no less true at universities, where the forces of repression appear to be stronger now，I think than they have been since the 1950s.

我们在要求权利和特权的同时，不能否认其他人也同样拥有。这在城市中如此，对于大学亦然。我认为现今大学里对此原则的压制，似乎是自1950年代以来最为严重的。

When I was growing up, U.S. Senator... yes, you can applaud。 

在我成长的过程中，美国参议员...当然你们可以鼓掌。

When I was growing up, U.S. Senator Joe McCarthy was asking: “Are you now or have you ever been?” He was attempting to repress and criminalize those who sympathized with an economic system that was, even then, failing.

在我成长的过程中，美国参议员乔·麦卡锡曾问“你现在是，或者曾经是（G.C.D）?”他试图压制和定罪那些赞同哪怕在当时都已经很失败的经济体制的人。

McCarthy’s Red Scare destroyed thousands of lives, but what was he so afraid of? An idea in this case, communism that he and others deemed dangerous.

麦卡锡的红色恐怖让数以千计的人失去了生命，他害怕的是什么呢？是一种思想，也就是共产主义，一种被他及其同僚们视为危险的思想。

But he was right about one thing: Ideas can be dangerous. They can change society. They can upend traditions. They can start revolutions. That’s why throughout history, those in authority have tried to repress ideas that threaten their power, their religion, their ideology, or their reelection chances.

不过他搞对了一件事——思想可以是危险的。思想能改变社会，思想能颠覆传统，思想能掀起革命。这就是为什么历史上，那些权贵企图抑制思想，避免这些思想威胁到他们的权力、宗教信仰、意识形态及连任机会。

That was true for Socrates and Galileo, it was true for Nelson Mandela and Václav Havel, and it has been true for Ai Wei Wei, Pussy Riot, and the kids who made the ‘Happy’ video in Iran.

对苏格拉底与伽利略如此，对纳尔逊·曼德拉与瓦茨拉夫·哈维尔如此，对艾未未、造反猫咪乐队以及在伊朗制作《快乐》视频的孩子们也是如此。

Repressing free expression is a natural human weakness, and it is up to us to fight it at every turn. Intolerance of ideas– whether liberal or conservative–is antithetical to individual rights and free societies, and it is no less antithetical to great universities and first-rate scholarship.

抑制言论自由是人类本性上的弱点，每次出现时我们都需要同它进行斗争。对思想的不包容，无论是自由派的还是保守派的思想，都是与个人权利和自由社会背道而驰的，同样与顶尖大学和一流学术相背离。

There is an idea floating around college campuses, including here at Harvard I think, that scholars should be funded only if their work conforms to a particular view of justice. There’s a word for that idea: censorship. And it is just a modern-day form of McCarthyism.

大学校园处处充斥着一种观念，我想哈佛也不例外，即学者只有在研究符合特定正义观念的前提下才应获得资助。这种观念可以用一个词来概括：审查制度。这不过就是现代版的“麦卡锡主义”。

Think about the irony: In the 1950s, the right wing was attempting to repress left wing ideas. Today, on many college campuses, it is liberals trying to repress conservative ideas, even as conservative faculty members are at risk of becoming an endangered species. And perhaps nowhere is that more true than here in the Ivy League.

想想这有多么的讽刺，1950年代，右翼份子企图打压左翼思想。而如今，在许多大学校园，则是自由派正企图打压保守派思想，保守派教员正面临着成为濒危物种的风险。这种现象在常春藤盟校尤为突出，

In the 2012 presidential race, according to Federal Election Commission data, 96 percent of all campaign contributions from Ivy League faculty and employees went to Barack Obama.

2012年总统大选时，根据联邦选举委员会的数据，96%常春藤盟校教职员工的政治献金都捐给了巴拉克·奥巴马，

Ninety-six percent. There was more disagreement among the old Soviet Politburo than there is among Ivy League donors.

96%啊。与常春藤盟校的捐献者相比，前苏联政治局中的意见分歧高多了。

That statistic should give us pause – and I say that as someone who endorsed President Obama for reelection – because let me tell you, neither party has a monopoly on truth or God on its side.

这一统计数字发人深思，虽然我也支持奥巴马总统的再次当选，但我认为任何派别都不能独占真理或让上帝总站在他一边。

When 96 percent of Ivy League donors prefer one candidate to another, you have to wonder whether students are being exposed to the diversity of views that a great university should offer.

96%常春藤盟校捐献者偏向于某一特定政治立场的候选人，你不得不怀疑，这些大学中的学生是否接触到了顶尖大学应当给予的多元化观点。

Diversity of gender, ethnicity, and orientation is important. But a university cannot be great if its faculty is politically homogenous. In fact, the whole purpose of granting tenure to professors is to ensure that they feel free to conduct research on ideas that run afoul of university politics and societal norms.

性别、种族及定位的多元化很重要，但一所大学还应当有政治的多元化，否则称不上顶尖。实际上，为教授提供终身教职就是为了保证他们能够自由地进行研究，而不怕研究主题和学校政治及社会规范不一致。

When tenure was created, it mostly protected liberals whose ideas ran up against conservative norms.

终身教职创立初期，主要是为了保护与保守派准则相冲突的自由派思想。

Today, if tenure is going to continue, it must also protect conservatives whose ideas run up against liberal norms. Otherwise, university research – and the professors who conduct it – will lose credibility.

而现在，终身教职如果要继续存在，就必须保护与自由派准则相冲突的保守派思想，否则，大学研究和进行研究的教授将失去信誉。

Great universities must not become predictably partisan. And a liberal arts education must not be an education in the art of liberalism.

顶尖的大学绝不能偏向于特定（政治立场）的党派，而自由的人文教育不应当成为自由主义的人文教育。

The role of universities is not to promote an ideology. It is to provide scholars and students with a neutral forum for researching and debating issues – without tipping the scales in one direction, or repressing unpopular views.

大学的角色不应当是推动某种意识形态，而应当是为学者与学生提供问题研究和辩论的中立论坛，不让天平朝任何一个方向倾斜，不抑制不得人心的的观点。

Requiring scholars – and commencement speakers, for that matter – to conform to certain political standards undermines the whole purpose of a university.

规定学者以及毕业典礼演讲者，遵循某些特定的政治标准，会破坏整个大学的宗旨。

This spring, it has been disturbing to see a number of college commencement speakers withdraw – or have their invitations rescinded – after protests from students and – to me, shockingly – from senior faculty and administrators who should know better.

今年春，令人不安地看到，一些大学毕业典礼演讲者被撤销了，甚至连邀请函都被撤回了，仅仅因为学生以及资深教员和管理人员的反对，令我相当震惊。学生姑且不论，其他人显然应当明白事理一些。

It happened at Brandeis, Haverford, Rutgers, and Smith. Last year, it happened at Swarthmore and Johns Hopkins, I’m sorry to say.

这在布兰迪斯、哈沃福特、 罗格斯与史密斯等学校都曾发生过。我很遗憾地说，去年还发生在斯沃斯摩尔与约翰斯霍普金斯。

In each of these case, liberals silenced a voice – and denied an honorary degree – to individuals they deemed politically objectionable. This is an outrage and we must not let it continue.

在这些例子中，自由派通过拒绝授予政治上与其相左的人荣誉学位，以此封杀不喜欢的声音。这是一种暴行，我们不应当让它继续发生。

If a university thinks twice before inviting a commencement speaker because of his or her politics censorship and conformity – the mortal enemies of freedom – win out.

如果一所大学，在邀请一位毕业典礼演讲嘉宾时，还要对其政治立场是否符合，进行一再地审查，自由的死敌就赢了。

And sadly, it is not just commencement season when speakers are censored.

可悲的是，并不只有毕业季的演讲嘉宾会被审查。

Last fall, when I was still in City Hall, our Police Commissioner was invited to deliver a lecture at another Ivy League institution – but he was unable to do so because students shouted him down.

去年秋，我还在市政府的时候，我们的警察局长应邀到另一所长春藤盟校进行演讲，但他未能如愿，因为学生把他轰下台。

Isn’t the purpose of a university to stir discussion, not silence it? What were the students afraid of hearing? Why did administrators not step in to prevent the mob from silencing speech? And did anyone consider that it is morally and pedagogically wrong to deprive other students the chance to hear the speech?

难道大学的宗旨不是鼓励讨论，而是封杀不同的声音吗？学生到底害怕听到什么？为什么当局不介入，制止这群暴民破坏演讲？难道没人考虑过，剥夺其他学生听演讲的机会，在道德上和学理上都是大错特错的？

I’m sure all of today’s graduates have read John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. But just let me read a short passage from it: “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it.”

我相信，今天的毕业生都读过约翰·弥尔的《论自由》。请允许我朗读其中的一小段：“限制别人不能表达意见的罪恶，是对人类的掠夺，是对子孙后代及当代人类的掠夺，是对那些持不同意见的人掠夺更多。”

He continued: “If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”

他继续写道：“假如那意见是对的，那么他们是被剥夺了以错误换真理的机会；假如那意见是错的，那么他们失去了一个几乎同样巨大的好处，那就是从真理与错误碰撞中产生出来的对真理的更加清晰的认知和更加强烈的影响。”

Mill would have been horrified to learn of university students silencing the opinions of others. He would have been even more horrified that faculty members were often part of the commencement censorship campaigns.

弥尔如果得知大学生压制别人发表意见肯定会毛骨悚然，弥尔如果得知连教职员工都通常是毕业演讲者审查活动的一部分，肯定会更毛骨悚然。

For tenured professors to silence speakers whose views they disagree with is the height of hypocrisy, especially when these protests happen in the northeast – a bastion of self-professed liberal tolerance.

如果享有终身职位的教授，压制那些持有他不赞同观点的人发声，那是高度的伪善，尤其是当那些抗议发生在自称自由宽容堡垒的东北。

Now I’m glad to say that Harvard has not caved in to these commencement censorship challenges. If it had, Colorado State Senator Michael Johnston would not have had the chance to address the Education School yesterday.

我很高兴的是，哈佛没有屈服于这些毕业典礼审查的挑战中，否则的话，科罗拉多州参议员迈克尔·约翰斯顿昨天就没有机会在教育学院发表演讲了。

Some students called on the administration to rescind the invitation to Johnston because they opposed some of his education policies. But to their great credit, President Faust and Dean Ryan stood firm.

有些学生要求校方撤回对约翰斯顿的邀请，因为他们反对他的一些教育政策。所幸他们未能得逞，福斯特校长和院长立场都非常坚定。

As Dean Ryan wrote to students: “I have encountered many people of good faith who share my basic goals but disagree with my views when it comes to the question of how best to improve education. In my view, those differences should be explored, debated, challenged, and questioned. But they should also be respected and, indeed, celebrated.”

正如瑞恩院长写给这些学生的信所说：“我遇到过很多真诚的人，他们和我都有相同的目标，不过在如何改善教育的问题上，我们的观点存在分歧。在我看来，这些分歧应当经过探究、辩论，挑战和质疑。同时这些分歧也应获得尊重，确实应该被称颂。”

He could not have been more correct, and he could not have provided a more valuable final lesson to the class of 2014.

他是完全正确的，他为2014届毕业生上了宝贵的最后一课。

As a former chairman of Johns Hopkins, I strongly believe that a university’s obligation is not to teach students what to think but to teach students how to think. And that requires listening to the other side, weighing arguments without prejudging them, and determining whether the other side might actually make some fair points.

作为约翰霍普金斯大学前任主席，我坚信一所大学的职责并非是教学生思考什么，而是教学生如何思考，这就需要倾听不同声音，不带偏见地衡量各种观点，冷静思考不同意见中是否也有公正的论点，

If the faculty fails to do this, then it is the responsibility of the administration and governing body to step in and make it a priority. If they do not, if students graduate with ears and minds closed, the university has failed both the student and society.

如果教员做不到这一点，行政官员和主管部门就有责任介入，并优先解决这一问题，否则的话，学生就带着封闭的耳朵与思维毕业，大学也就辜负了学生和社会的期望。

And if you want to know where that leads, look no further than Washington, D.C.

如果想知道这会导致什么后果，看今日的华府就知道。

Down in Washington, every major question facing our country – involving our security, our economy, our environment, and our health – is decided.

我国面临的各类重大问题都在华府被裁定——包括我们的安全、我们的经济、我们的环境及我们的健康，

Yet the two parties decide these questions not by engaging with one another, but by trying to shout each other down, and by trying to repress and undermine research that counters their ideology. The more our universities emulate that model, the worse off we will be as a society.

然而两党在处理所有问题时都没有考虑协作，而是看谁声音更大，以此压制对方，试图抑制和破坏与其意识形态相抵触的调研报告。我们的大学对这种模式仿效得越多，我们的社会就会变得越糟糕。

And let me give you a few example: For decades, Congress has barred the Centers for Disease Control from conducting studies of gun violence, and recently Congress also placed that prohibition on the National Institute of Health. You have to ask yourself: What are they afraid of?

我来举一些例子，数十年来，国会都禁止疾病控制中心进行枪支暴力的研究，最近国会又对国立卫生研究院颁发禁令。你得问问自己，他们到底在害怕什么？

This year, the Senate has delayed a vote on President Obama’s nominee for Surgeon General – Dr. Vivek Murthy, a Harvard physician – because he had the audacity to say that gun violence is a public health crisis that should be tackled. The gall of him!

今年，参议院延迟对奥巴马总统提名的卫生局局长——哈佛内科医师席菲克·莫西博士进行表决。原因是，他大胆地说，枪支暴力是一大应当处理的公共卫生危机。他胆子太大了。

Let’s get serious: When 86 Americans are killed with guns every single day, and shootings regularly occur at our schools and universities – including last week’s tragedy at Santa Barbara – it would be almost medical malpractice to say anything else.

来点严肃的：每天都有86位美国人死于枪杀，枪击事件也经常发生在校园中，包括上周发生在加州大学圣巴巴拉分校的悲剧，除了说这是医疗失当，不知道该说什么了。

But in politics – as it is on too many college campuses – people don’t listen to facts that run counter to their ideology. They fear them. And nothing is more frightening to them than scientific evidence.

在政治上，就如在很多的大学校园中一样，人们不愿意听到与自己意识形态相抵触的事实，他们害怕这类事实。而且没有什么比科学证据更让他们恐惧的了。

Earlier this year, the State of South Carolina adopted new science standards for its public schools – but the state legislature blocked any mention of natural selection. That’s like teaching economics – without mentioning supply and demand.

年初的时候，南卡罗来纳州对其公立大学采用了新的科学教育标准，州议会尽然禁止在教学中提及自然选择，这就像教经济学却不讲供需。

Once again, you have to ask: What are they afraid of?

你得再问那个问题，他们害怕什么？

The answer, of course, is obvious: Just as members of Congress fear data that undermines their ideological beliefs, these state legislators fear scientific evidence that undermines their religious beliefs.

答案显而易见，和国会议员害怕数据会破坏他们意识形态一样，这些州议会议员害怕科学证据破坏他们的宗教信念。

And if you want proof of that, consider this: An 8-year old girl in South Carolina wrote to members of the state legislature urging them to make the Woolly Mammoth the official state fossil. The legislators thought it was a great idea, because a Woolly Mammoth fossil was found in the state way back in 1725. But the state senate passed a bill defining the Woolly Mammoth as having been “created on the 6th day with the beasts of the field.”

若你想要证据，可以考虑这个：南卡罗来纳州一位8岁的女孩给州议员们写了一封信，请他们将猛犸象定位官方州化石，州议员认为这个主意很好，因为猛犸象化石早在1725年就在该州发现。然后参议院通过的法案中却将猛犸象定义为“第六天与其他陆生动物一同被（上帝）创造出来的”。

You can’t make this stuff up.

这事你不能胡编乱造。

Here in 21st century America, the wall between church and state remains under attack – and it’s up to all of us to man the barricades.

在21世纪的美国，教会和国家之间的壁垒仍在遭受攻击，这就需要靠我们来将两者分开。

Unfortunately, the same elected officials who put ideology and religion over data and science when it comes to guns and evolution are often the most unwilling to accept the scientific data on climate change.

很不幸的是，在遇到枪支与进化论时将意识形态与宗教观念置于数据与科学证据之上的当选官员，大多都是不愿意接受气候变化科学证据的那些人。

Now, don’t get me wrong: scientific skepticism is healthy. But there is a world of difference between scientific skepticism that seeks out more evidence and ideological stubbornness that shuts it out.

别误解我的意思，科学怀疑主义是合理的，但是寻求更多证据的科学怀疑主义和意识形态上拒绝科学证据的顽固不化，有着巨大的差别。

Given the general attitude of many elected officials toward science it’s no wonder that the federal government has abdicated its responsibility to invest in scientific research, much of which occurs at our universities.

鉴于许多当选官员对科学都是这种态度，联邦政府没能尽到自己的职责，在大学投资科学研究也就不足为奇了。

Today, federal spending on research and development as a percentage of GNP is lower than it has been in more than 50 years which is allowing the rest of the world to catch up – and even surpass – the U.S. in scientific research.

如今，联邦政府用于研发的支出，在国民生产总值中的百分比是五十余年来最低的，这让世界其他国家有机会赶上，甚至超过美国的科学研究。

The federal government is flunking science, just as many state governments are.

联邦政府在科学上是不及格的，跟很多州政府一样。

We must not become a country that turns our back on science, or on each other. And you graduates must help lead the way.

我们国家不应该背离科学，内部也不应该互相仇视。而各位毕业生你们有责任引领国家步入正轨，

On every issue, we must follow the evidence where it leads and listen to people where they are. If we do that, there is no problem we cannot solve. No gridlock we cannot break. No compromise we cannot broker.

在每个问题上，我们都应该遵循有理有据的原则，倾听他人的不同意见，只要我们这样做，就没有不能解决的问题，没有打不破的僵局，没有达不成的妥协。

The more we embrace a free exchange of ideas, and the more we accept that political diversity is healthy, the stronger our society will be.

当我们能拥抱思想自由交流，接受政治的多元化，我们的社会就会更加健全，更加强盛。

Now, I know this has not been a traditional commencement speech, and in fact it may keep me from passing a dissertation defense in the humanities department, but there is no easy time to say hard things.

我知道，我的演讲有别有于传统的毕业典礼演讲。事实上，这甚至可能让我无法通过人文系的论文答辩。但是，没有一个轻松的时刻，是说重话的好时机。

Graduates: Throughout your lives, do not be afraid of saying what you believe is right, no matter how unpopular it may be, especially when it comes to defending the rights of others.

毕业生们，在你们一生中，不要害怕说出自己认为正确的事，不管这事有多么不受欢迎，特别是在捍卫他人权利的时候。

Standing up for the rights of others is in some ways even more important than standing up for your own rights. Because when people seek to repress freedom for some, and you remain silent, you are complicit in that repression and you may well become its victim.

站出来捍卫他人的权利，有时比捍卫自身权利更为重要，因为当人们试图限制他人自由的时候，你可能会保持沉默，这样你将会助长这种限制，哪天你可能也会成为受害者。

Do not be complicit, and do not follow the crowd. Speak up, and fight back.

不要沆瀣一气，不要人云亦云，大胆说出来，反击。

You will take your lumps, I can assure you of that. You will lose some friends and make some enemies.I can assure you of that too. But the arc of history will be on your side, and our nation will be stronger for it.

我敢肯定这样做，你会受到批评。我敢肯定这样做，你还会失去一些朋友，树立一些敌人。我敢肯定你还会这样做。历史的弧线会偏向你这一边，而我们的国家也会因此更加强盛。

Now, all of you graduates have earned today’s celebration, you have a lot to be proud of，a lot to be grateful for. So tonight, as you leave this great university behind, have one last Scorpion Bowl at the Kong – on second thought, don’t – and tomorrow, get to work making our country and our world freer than ever, for everyone.

God bless and good luck.

上帝保佑你们好运

推荐阅读：

篇篇有干货，天天有惊喜

微信@我：563730218

点击左下角【阅读原文】发现更多惊喜