看到糯米引用的文章，很有意思，想到历史的变迁，法官席位的抢占。
感觉吧，人类的难点在于：声称的、希望的、实际做的、和真实结果有差异。就像原来自称公仆的人，不一定真是公仆，自称为公共利益工作的人，不一定真的如此。
这个问题，在人的认识水平不提高的情况下，基本无解。历史上一直在不停地变换：
* 牧师，我不为自己工作，我不为政客工作，我为上帝服务，我为人类服务。这个愿望当然是好的。
* 某党党员，我不为自己工作，我不为政客服务，我们没有自己独立的利益，我们只为了国家和人民服务。
* 这篇文章里的教授：Professors don’t work for politicians, they don’t work for trustees, and they don’t work for themselves. They work for the public. 这个也很牛的，自己给自己发证书，自己给自己屁股上盖QC pass章。证书也挺大的。好像也是搞得灵魂附体。
都是自称的，也或许是真心希望的，但是，他们没有意识到，他们已经快把自己弄成上帝的角色了。（我不是不承认上帝，我信仰上帝，只是对那些自称已经达到上帝水平的人，持审慎怀疑态度而已。）
当教授（即使不是某党党员）们，自称我代表公众的时候，也是很危险的。他们就可以代表人民，批判任何人了。呵呵
不过，哎，理解吧，专栏作家可能也是个以写作为生的小年青，理解他的虔诚和对人性的认识不足吧。
想起当年的尼克松，本来的心态是，谁反对国家谁就是反对我，慢慢地越来越激动，就变成了谁反对我谁就是反对国家，甚至是反对人类了。教授，也是人啊，难道这个记者还有本事证明教授具有不缪性了？整着整着就附体成杨秀清了，洪秀全你给我听着：我现在不是代表我自己，不是代表政客，我是代表天父，嗯，不对，是代表公众。告诉你们这些人，你们公众选出来的代表并不能代表公众，我才是代表公众。。。。呵呵。
我这篇的意思不是判断具体的事儿，而是说，纽约客的同学们、编辑们，别急着附体，而且不知道自己在搞附体，就开始审判别人廖。
这里：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
