英汉：美国教育界关于正义和开放辩论的公开信
科学百姓 雨台 2020.7.26
2020年7月7日，美国知识界最受尊重的一批学者，在《哈泼斯》发表公开信，呼吁坚守开放辩论、容忍对立观点、尊重诚意分歧。《哈泼斯》创办于1850年，是美国第二古老的杂志。（美国历史最悠久的杂志是《科学美国人》）
签署的学者包括被誉为当今活着的被引用得最多的语言学家乔姆斯基等约150名教育界、文化界人士。
以下是完整的英汉对照的译文。
“对言论进行挑剔检查在我们整个文化也在更广泛地盛行，表现为：不容忍对立观点，公开羞辱和排斥对立观点成为风尚，以及容易用盲目的道德界定来化解复杂政策问题。”
———— 公开信段落
Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial我们的文化机构正面临着一场检验。Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. 为争取种族正义和社会正义的强烈抗议引发早该提出的警察改革的要求，以及在我们整个社会，特别是在高等教育、新闻业、慈善事业和艺术领域的更大的平等和包容的广泛呼声。But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. 但这种必要的清算也强化了一套新道德态度和新政治承诺，这些新态度和承诺容易削弱我们社会的开放辩论的准则和对分歧的宽容，使我们趋向在意识形态上的一致性。
As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. 在我们赞扬第一个事态发展（即为争取正义的抗议）的同时，我们也发声呼吁反对第二个情况（即新的意识形态一致性）的出现。
The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. 反自由主义的力量在全世界日益增大，代表对民主的真正威胁的川普成为这个力量的强有力的同盟。But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. 但是，决不能让（对这个反自由力量的）抵抗运动凝固成为它自身的教条或胁迫行为——右翼煽动者已经在利用这个情况了。The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides. 只有当我们发声反对在各方面形成的不宽容的氛围，我们想要的民主包容才能实现。
The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. 信息和思想的自由交流是自由社会的生命线，它日益受到限制。While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. 虽然我们已经预期极端右翼人士会是这样，但对言论进行挑剔检查在我们整个文化也在更广泛地盛行，表现为：不容忍对立观点，公开羞辱和排斥对立观点成为风尚，以及容易用盲目的道德界定来化解复杂政策问题。We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. 我们坚持认为，来自各个方面的有力的、甚至尖锐的反对言论是有价值的。But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. 但是，现在已经司空见惯的是，针对人们在言论和思想上显得带有冒犯的表达，而呼吁实施快速和严厉的惩罚。More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. 更令人不安的是，机构领导人惊慌中为了减少麻烦自保，对言论和思想的冒犯采取了草率和轻重比例不分的惩罚措施，而不是经过深思熟虑的改革。Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. 编辑因刊登有争议的文章而被解雇；书籍因涉嫌不真实而被收回；记者被禁止就某些主题撰写文章；教授因在课堂上引用文学作品而被调查；一名研究员因传阅有经过同行评议的学术研究而被解雇；而机构领导人有时候仅仅因为笨拙的错误而被罢免。 Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. 无论围绕每一个特定事件的具体争议是什么，其结果都是报复的威胁，在稳固地缩小什么可以说和什么不可以说的界限。We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement. 我们已经为此付出了代价 —— 作家、艺术家和记者有了更大的规避风险倾向，他们担心会因为偏离共识，或者甚至因为对共识的表示赞同不够热情，而让自己的生计受到影响。
This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. 这种令人窒息的气氛最终将损害我们这个时代最重要的事业。The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. 无论是来自一个压制性的政府还是一个不宽容的社会，对辩论的限制总是会伤害那些缺乏权力的人，削弱每个人的民主参与的能力。The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. 击败坏主意的方法是通过暴露、争论和说服，而不是通过试图沉默或希望坏主意消失。We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. 在正义和自由之间选择是个虚假的选择，我们拒绝任何这种虚假选择，因为正义和自由不能彼此离开对方而单独存在。As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. 作为作家，我们需要一种文化，给我们留有试验、冒险甚至犯错的空间。We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. 我们需要维系保持诚意分歧的可能性，而不需要为此面临严重的职业生涯后果的风险。If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us. 如果我们自己不为我们的工作所依赖的条件辩护，我们就不应该指望公众或国家为我们辩护。
参考资料链接
1. A Letter on Justice and Open Debate. Harper's, 2020.07