特朗普与哈佛之战将如何改变美国高等教育的格局

 
 
The Trump administration is escalating its fight with Harvard, pulling multiple levers to pressure America’s oldest and richest university to comply with its demands. Framing his actions in part as an initiative to fight antisemitism, President Donald Trump has been targeting diversity, equity and inclusion as well as educational independence at Harvard and universities across the country.  Trump has threatened Harvard’s nonprofit tax status and accreditation, frozen more than $2.6 billion in research funding and moved to cancel about $100 million worth of its federal contracts. He is also trying to bar Harvard from enrolling international students, a key source of revenue. Harvard has been fighting back in court on all fronts. But how long can it resist pressure from Trump?
 
特朗普政府正在多管齐下升级与哈佛大学的对抗，向这座美国历史最悠久、资金最雄厚的学府持续施压。唐纳德·特朗普总统将其行动部分包装为"打击反犹主义"的举措，实则剑指哈佛及全美高校的多元化政策、教育公平理念和学术独立地位。政府已威胁取消哈佛的非营利性免税资格与认证资质，冻结超过26亿美元的研究经费，并着手终止价值约1亿美元的联邦合同。特朗普还试图禁止哈佛招收国际学生——该校关键的收入来源。哈佛目前正在法律层面展开全面的反击，但面对总统的持续施压，这座学术堡垒还能坚守多久？
 
 
 
@nox4000
Universities should be neutral forums to discuss anything
 
大学本应是畅所欲言的中立论坛。
 
@delphipascal
And they are. Trump wants to change them by making them lean to Goverment pressure.
 
它们确实是中立的。特朗普却试图通过施加政府压力来改变这一点。
 
@tomonaut
@delphipascal No they aren't, when do you see right-wing ideas being openly discussed?
 
它们根本不中立，你何时见过右翼观点能在大学里公开讨论？
 
@Eoin-B
@tomonaut There are conservative youth groups in every university.
 
每所大学里都有保守派青年团体存在。
 
@kartik-varmaa
@tomonaut
Many right wing ideas are being discussed in academia like immigration, tarriffs, etc.
But if you are talking about right wing ideas like "women should not abort", "white lifes are more important than other lifes", "people speaking against government are traitors to nation", and "kil*ings in Gaza are justified because Bible supports it" etc., then these things will not be seen being discussed in academia as much as other real issues just like no one cares about extreme left leaning ideas like "usurp wealth of everyone and distribute", "no one should have better lifes than others" etc
 
学术界确实在讨论移民政策、关税等右翼观点，但如果是涉及"禁止女性堕胎"、"白人的命更珍贵"、"批评政府即叛国"、"圣经支持加沙杀戮"等极端右翼思想，它们就如同"没收全民财产再分配"、"禁止任何人过得比别人好"等极端左翼主张一样，在严肃的学术讨论中鲜少出现。
 
@pfoe
Are you asking for equity of opinion, diversity of thought and inclusivity of Conservative thoughts as you feel they're underrepresented?
 
您是在呼吁观点平等、思想多元化和包容保守派意见吗？因为觉得他们未被充分代表？
 
@bakerkawesa
No. They're places of research and education. Ideas aren't equal. And facts are paramount.
 
并非如此。大学是研究与教育的圣地，思想本就不该平等，事实才至高无上。
 
@Anthony-tw9bw
Harvard wants federal funding because it is more money for them. Harvard wants international students because it is more money for them. Harvard wants tax exempt status because it is more money for them. Where does it stop being about the money?
 
哈佛索要联邦拨款是为了钱，招收国际学生是为了钱，争取免税地位还是为了钱——这种金钱游戏何时才是个头？
 
@PeterEhik
I get your point but where exactly do you think the money goes, it’s not going into some guys pocket like say amazon or meta or a regular corporation, they literally use the money to provide financial aid for students and fund some of the most important research in the world.
I’m not a fan of Harvard kids, met a few in my time, didn’t like any, but I don’t think country is better off without Harvard. If the federal government really needs money, there’s 700 billion dollars we spend on the military every year, maybe take a little bit from that huge pile instead of attacking colleges, just a thought.
 
我理解你的观点，但这些资金究竟流向何处？它们并非像亚马逊、Meta或其他普通企业那样流入个人的腰包，而是实打实地用于提供学生资助和资助全球最重要的科研项目。
虽然我也不喜欢哈佛的学生——我这辈子遇到过几个，没一个讨喜的——但我认为没有哈佛对国家并无益处。如果联邦政府真的缺钱，我们每年7000亿美元的军费开支里随便省点出来就好，何必拿高校开刀？以上只是个人浅见。
 
@yurei8
"Harvard wants federal funding because it is more money for them. Harvard wants international students because it is more money for them." Even if you are right, you are still leaving out, the positive benefits that foreign students bring;:That is, possibly a different perspective. I can cite my own life experiences. I can also cite 49 years of life experiences since I got my BA degree, to add to my analysis. Not only was it class content, and discussion, but it was interacting with students of a diverse background, that opened my appreciation of certain things. In my case it was music from various international styles. But back to education, I remember student discussions in various classes. And I remember students with different ethnic backgrounds, turning class discussions around with their unique perspectives. Money is not everything in life. I am now a senior, and i tend to see life from a broader view.
 
"哈佛争取联邦资金是为了钱，招收国际学生也是为了更多钱。"即便你说得对，但你却忽略了留学生带来的积极价值：那就是多元视角的碰撞。我可以用自己的经历佐证——自从获得学士学位后的49年里，这些经历不断丰富着我的认知。真正让我受益的不仅是课堂上的内容与讨论，更是与多元文化背景同学的互动，这让我学会了欣赏某些事物，比如各国风格的音乐。回到教育本身，我至今记得不同课堂上的学生讨论，记得那些带着独特的文化视角、彻底改变讨论方向的少数族裔同学。金钱并非生命的全部。如今作为长者，我更倾向于用更开阔的视野看待人生。
 
@R.U.Pennybags
Not including race into a university's admission process is a win! It's not about where you're from, what color you are, etc., it's about merit. That's it.
 
大学录取过程中不考虑种族因素是一种进步！这与你的出身、肤色等都无关，关键只在于个人能力。仅此而已。
 
@tonespeaks
@R.U.Pennybags Merit is a relative concept. If you really think about it... the admissions process is flawed, if it is strictly about grades. The smartest/intelligent students aren't always the ones with the highest grades. First who is grading them is an issue and what they are being graded on. Race shouldn't be part of the admissions process, neither should Alumni status, the admissions process has many flaws and using Race is one of them. Race is even a difficult thing so define for a growing segment of society. Community is a better idea and instead of just focusing on Grades/Testing that can easily be gamed, it would be better to use a variety of metrics and weight them according to the make up of the student body that is desired. Schools need a variety of voices, so that a variety of ideas can be explored, to the fullest extend of that schools specialty.
 
优秀与否是个相对的概念。细想之下...单纯以成绩评判的录取制度存在缺陷。最聪慧的学生未必成绩最优——评分者的身份和评分标准本身就有问题。种族不应该成为录取考量的因素，校友子女特权同样不应该存在。现行的录取制度漏洞百出，种族因素只是其中之一。更何况在当今社会，种族界定本身就日益困难。相较之下，社区背景是更好的参考指标。与其只关注容易造假的考试成绩，不如采用多元化评估体系，根据学校期望的学生群体结构来加权考量。学校需要多元的声音，才能在其专业领域内最大限度地探索各种可能性。
 
@theoforand432
@MrStephen-v7c discounting people’s perspectives bc their perspective differs from your isn’t really disagreement…it appears more reflexive than actual methodological rigor. My perspective is that your perspective on this matter is incomplete at best.
 
仅因他人的观点与己相左就予以贬低，这算不上真正的意见分歧...更像是条件反射而非严谨的方法论。在我看来，你对此事的认知充其量只能算管中窥豹。
 
@MrStephen-v7c
@theoforand432 the reasons Harvard and all the other universities are overwhelmingly liberal/leftist is because young and educated people are overwhelmingly liberal/leftist.
They do not ban conservatism, it's just not something most students want.
 
哈佛等高校之所以压倒性地倾向自由主义/左翼，其根本原因在于年轻的知识分子群体本就普遍倾向自由主义/左翼。校方并未禁止保守主义，只是这并非多数学生的选择。
 
@Lunalas4123
They do NOT want diversity of Opinions, AND isn’t that what education is really about?
 
他们根本不在乎观点多元化，而这难道不是教育的真谛所在？
 
@Flint_Dribble
No it's actually about learning skills to acquire a job that benefits society. Since when are colleges supposed to be a 100k a year rich kid Confucius club to do nothing and ponder the unanswerable questions of life? Then leave college with no skills and a degree that is meaningless and then complain about your life
 
非也，教育的本质是掌握服务社会的谋生技能。何时起大学变成了年薪十万的富家子弟清谈会，整日思考人生的无解之谜？最终空持无用的文凭离校，再抱怨人生困顿。
 
@theoforand432
C’mon y’all, he’s clearly talking about diversity of perspectives…diversity of thought. And it’s sorely lacking at Harvard. So no, no taxpayer money. There are colleges that don’t take government money so as to maintain their independence. That’s the deal, they knew and know it.
 
诸位听好，他分明在探讨视角多元化...思想多样性，而这正是哈佛严重缺失的。因此，不应该动用纳税人的资金。有些院校为保持独立性而拒不接受政府的资助，这就是游戏规则，他们向来心知肚明。
 
@MrStephen-v7c
What opinions? Which flavor of fascism is the best?
 
什么意见？难道是在讨论哪种法西斯主义变体最优秀吗？
 
@theoforand432
@MrStephen-v7c he probably meant diversity of perspective/thought. The assertion of fascism seems ideologically narrow…seemingly lacking in diversity of perspective/thought. The op may be pointing to the mentality that you are presently performing. Can’t be sure but that’s my preliminary perspective.
 
他指的应该是观点和思想的多样性。将讨论引向法西斯主义的断言本身就显示出思想上的狭隘...恰恰缺乏观点多样性。发帖人可能正是在暗指你目前展现的这种思维模式。当然这只是我的初步看法。
 
@StardustMirage000
If you don't want to be a neutral university then don't take government money. Simple as that.
 
如果大学不愿保持中立的立场，那就别拿政府的资金。道理就这么简单。
 
@TheGeorgeD13
But government is not neutral at all, especially a Trump government. And it's not like Universities don't debate all ideas openly and without judgment anyway, at least in my experiences.
 
但政府从来就不是中立的，特朗普政府尤其如此。而且据我所知，大学本就会公开讨论各种思想观点而不预设立场。
 
@clockhead1776
If Harvard claims it can do whatever it wants because it's a private university, then it shouldn't take taxpayers' money. Be like Hillsdale College if you want to talk tough. You can't have it both ways. If you tolerate unruly behavior on campus in the name of "global intifada" crowds at the expense of other students and then shield the identities of those involved from being reported to the government, be prepared to face consequences, including the loss of federal funding.
 
如果哈佛大学以私立大学自居而宣称可以随心所欲，那就不应该接受纳税人的资金。要耍横就应该像希尔斯代尔学院那样硬气。鱼与熊掌不可兼得。如果以"全球起义"之名纵容校园暴乱、损害其他学生的权益，还包庇涉事者的身份不向政府报告，那就准备好承担后果——包括失去联邦的拨款。
 
@HelloWorld-t9c
Bro at least do some research before making such statement. Most of the federal funding is for research and development (R&D) are grants and contracts, mainly to benefit national sovereignty. Secondly, what you except from educated students if they are seeing live GENOCIDE and killing of babies for almost 2 years.
 
老兄，发表这种言论前至少应该做点功课。大部分联邦资金是以资助和合同的形式用于研发，主要服务于国家主权利益。其次，当受过教育的学生目睹了近两年的种族灭绝和婴儿屠杀直播，你还能指望他们怎样？
 
@OrangiaNebula
@francesparker699 If the tax-exempt status is revoked, Harvard by definition becomes a for-profit corporation. In that scenario, for the federal government to receive the product of the research and development (R&D) previously obtained through grants and contracts, the federal government will have to pay competitive market rates. Which scenario do you think is more advantageous to us taxpayers?
 
如果免税资格被撤销，哈佛大学本质上就将成为营利性企业。届时联邦政府要想获得原先通过资助和合同获取的研发成果，就必须支付有市场竞争力的价格。您认为哪种情况对我们纳税人更有利？
 
@blazingcoder3196
the video never specifies what speciific grants trump is taking way, and that matters, do we really need billions of dollars of grants going into gender affirming degrees/programs?
 
视频从未明确说明特朗普取消的是哪些具体的资助项目——这才是关键。我们真的需要将数十亿美元投入性别确认学位/项目吗？
 
@stehgrad
The biggest research areas impacted by the Trump administration's cuts to Harvard's federal grants primarily fall into medical and health sciences. This includes critical research for diseases like cancer, heart disease, and dementia. Additionally, general scientific and engineering research, such as projects on planetary atmospheres and advanced materials, have also been significantly affected.
 
特朗普政府削减哈佛的联邦资助主要影响医学与健康科学领域，包括癌症、心脏病、痴呆症等重大疾病研究。此外，行星大气层、先进材料等基础科学与工程项目也遭受重创。
 
@TheGeorgeD13
Not a single dollar was going to that though. At all. The grants that Trump is cutting are research for cancer, heart disease, dementia, engineering, transportation and infrastructure innovation, etc.
 
然而事实上一分钱都没有流向那些领域。特朗普削减的明明是癌症、心脏病、痴呆症研究经费，以及工程、交通与基础设施创新等项目拨款。
 
@felicialagarce6513
@TheGeorgeD13 there’s other schools that can follow the rules and do that research. Taxpayers don’t want their money going to schools that don’t protect all there students.
 
还有别的学校可以遵守规则开展研究，纳税人可不想把钱投给那些不能保护所有学生的学校。
 
@tixximmi1
DEI and the woke stuff. Stop discriminating against Israel. And the gender stuff too. And they're playing "poor me".
 
多元化平等包容政策和那些觉醒主义把戏。别再歧视以色列了，还有那些性别议题也是。他们现在又在扮演"可怜虫"的角色。
 
@SilverDaisy7236
They are not telling you that their multi Billion dollar endowment also is a tax shelter for the donors that put their millions into it. Also we are not talking about individuals we are talking about companies and even other countries/ governments. Colleges and universities do not pay taxes. The people that work for them do!
 
他们没有告诉你的是那数十亿美元的捐赠基金同时也是捐款人的避税天堂。而且我们讨论的不是个人，而是企业甚至其他国家/政府。高校本身不用缴税，但他们的员工要缴！
 
@mattn6685
Harvard, and higher education in general, has the obligation to educate, not indoctrinate with public money. If they want to be an indoctrination mill, do with their own money. Trump is 100% right to hold Haarvaad accountable!
 
哈佛乃至整个高等教育界，其职责是用公共资金来教育学生而非洗脑。如果想搞思想灌输，请用他们自己的钱。特朗普要求哈佛负责完全正确！
 
@KnRunIT
While "no government - regardless of which party is in power - should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue" while this statement is nice to the ears and certainly does take place against politics, well then how much of this sentence stays true to the structure and is able to be dissected by the student? Just me personally a student if made must the be applicable to all frxworks of the university, or other wise, it being spoken only shows as false to the students while the speaker in some form still appear synonymous of the standards of the university
 
"任何政府——无论哪个党派执政——都无权干涉私立大学的教学内容、招生雇佣政策及研究领域"，这番言论虽然听起来冠冕堂皇且确实试图摆脱政治干预，但这句话本身有多少能经得起制度框架的检验？作为学生，我认为这类宣言要么必须完全符合大学的所有制度框架，否则在学生们眼中就只是虚伪的说辞——尤其当发言者本人某种程度上仍与大学标准保持共谋关系时。
 
@Paul-c9b6e
If a college or University accepts Federal Money there are strings attached. It's no different than freedom of religion, the fact that a religious monument or 10 commandments be in a school that is public or funded by the government. Thats a No ,No. Harvard can be controlled or go entirely private. If they do that the endowments and Tax exempt status plus all their existing funds will have to be forfeited to the Government
 
高校如果接受联邦的资金就必须接受附加的条件，这与宗教自由同理——公立或政府资助的学校不得出现宗教纪念碑或十诫。哈佛要么接受管控，要么彻底私有化。如果选择后者，就必须向政府上交所有的捐赠基金、免税资格及现有资金。
 
@vertabrate1
if this is the new normal most of our scientists will go to Europe or Canada.
 
倘若这成为新常态，我国的多数科学家将会流向欧洲或加拿大。
 
@amrishkrishnannair
Kinda sad to see places like Harvard pushing political narratives instead of staying neutral, informative & academic.
Universities should be about open discussion and facts not taking sides in global conflicts. When they lean too far left (or right), it shuts down opposing views, encourages groupthink, and makes students afraid to speak up.
Also, let's be real the sextive activism is obvious. Loud for one cause, silent on others. If you're gonna speak on human rights, be consistent.
This kind of stuff turns campuses into echo chambers instead of places for learning and knowledge.
 
看到哈佛这样的学府放弃中立的立场、不再专注于学术，转而推动政治议程，实在令人遗憾。
大学本应是开放讨论、尊重事实的场所，而非在国际冲突中选边站队。当它们过度倾向左翼（或右翼）时，就会压制不同的观点，助长群体思维，使学生不敢发声。
坦白地说，这种选择性显而易见——对某些议题高调发声，对其他议题却保持沉默。如果真要谈论人权，就应该一以贯之。
此类行径将校园变成了回音室，而非追求真知的学习殿堂。
 
@getDarced
This flies in the face of everything written in the 1st amendment. You think you’re doing something here but what you’re actually doing is advocating for the loss of your rights. You can’t just be mad your opinion isn’t the popular one.
 
这完全违背了宪法第一修正案的精神。你以为自己在伸张正义，实则是在鼓吹放弃自身的权利。不能仅仅因为自己的观点不受欢迎就恼羞成怒。
 
@Antonis-mo7ov
@getDarced when one side is the overwhelming majority and has such extreme opinions on that matter isn't it just a bit weird?
 
当某一方占据绝对多数却仍持有极端观点时，难道不觉得反常吗？
 
@alwaysacomplicatedaffair2407
@Antonis-mo7ov by definition, one side can’t have "extreme" opinions if they are the overwhelming majority. If, however, you’re conceding that conservatives are the overwhelming minority, please explain how we live in a democracy when the party of overwhelming minority controls all 3 branches of government despite the current president not being eligible to run for office for numerous reasons. We are living through the theoretical case for the first amendment, and if you can’t see it for what it is now, you never will.
 
根据定义，占据绝对多数的群体不可能持有"极端"观点。但如果你承认保守派是绝对少数，请解释为何这个少数党派能掌控政府的三大分支——尽管现任总统因诸多原因已无连任资格。我们正在经历第一修正案的典型案例，如果此刻你都看不清本质，那你将永远无法理解。
 
@loganwolverine8571
Private Universites with Billions in endowments should not use public funds. If they choose to take those funds, then you willingly concede some power. It's naive to think money doesn't come with influence.
 
拥有数十亿美元捐赠基金的私立大学本不应动用公共资金。既然选择接受这些拨款，就等于自愿让渡部分权力。认为金钱不会带来影响力，这种想法实在天真。
 
@evgeninisa6410
Supporting hamas and in the same time trying to show you aren't antisemitic is indeed a fine balance
 
既要支持哈马斯，又要试图表明自己并非反犹主义者，这确实需要极其微妙的平衡。