譯者前言
在上一篇《Paying the Price for the Breakdown of the Country’s Bourgeois Culture》即《美國版真理大討論：美國奮鬥文化崩潰的代價（譯文/原文）》於2017年8月9號發表之後，在美國的思想界和文化界引起了軒然大波。原文的作者賓夕法尼亞大學法學院教授Amy Wax受到了來自各方面的攻擊：包括但不限於賓夕法尼亞大學法學院33名教授聯名寫公開信要求開除她，賓夕法尼亞法學院的院長要求她休長假，學界和輿論界的持續炮轟。
2018年，2月16日 Amx Wax教授在《華爾街日報》發表了一篇新的文章《What Can’t Be Debated on Campus》繼續探討美國的核心價值觀和言論自由所遇到的問題。
譯文
今天的美國校園中充斥著所謂言論自由和價值觀自由的誇誇其談，嘴皮子上誇張地支持著自由表達和觀點多樣性。但我通過最近撰寫有爭議專欄文章的經歷，了解到，其實大多數這種誇誇其談是沒有多大價值。只有當人們面對他們所不喜歡的言論時，才能看清楚他們的這種誇誇其談究竟是不是他們真實的想法。
我與聖地牙哥大學法學院 Larry Alexander教授合寫的專欄文章《Paying the Price for the Breakdown of the Country’s Bourgeois Culture 》於2017年8月9號作為頭版頭條刊登在 《費城詢問報》上。文章中，我們首先列出了當今美國社會的一些病態：
太少的美國人真正能夠適應現代社會所需要的工作。適齡男性勞動參與率處於大蕭條以來的最低點，鴉片類毒品濫用現象非常普遍，兇殺和暴力困擾著內陸城市。幾乎有一半的孩子都是非婚生子女，而更多的孩子由單身母親撫養。許多大學生缺乏基本的技能，高中生的排名低於世界上其他二十幾個國家！
美國適齡男性勞動參與率歷史曲線 圖由譯者補充
然後我們討論了「文化準則」，即一系列理所應當的行為（這些準則從二戰結束之後到60年代中期，在美國社會得到廣泛認可）：
先結婚然後再要小孩，為了家庭和孩子們努力維護婚姻。為了找到高收入的工作，努力獲得所需的教育。努力工作，拒絕懶散。儘可能為你的客戶和僱主多做一些事情。做一個愛國者，隨時準備為國家服務。儘可能維護鄰裡和睦，具有公民意識，慈善意識。避免在公開場合使用粗俗的語言，尊重權威。避免藥物濫用和犯罪。
這些文化準則定義了一個成年人的責任，文中進一步提到
這些文化準則為社會的生產效率提高，教育水平的提高，社會和諧起到了巨大的作用。
而事實上這種行為規範依託的「奮鬥文化」自1960年代以來就已經開始土崩瓦解。我們聲稱，這種奮鬥文化的崩潰很大程度上解釋了當今社會的很多社會悲劇，因此我們呼籲重新擁抱這種「奮鬥文化」走上解決這些社會問題的漫漫長路。
在整篇文章最具有爭議性的部分中，我們指出有些文化並沒有讓自己的民眾為適應這個高效現代化社會做好準備，我們舉例：
好比印第安人的文化是為遊牧獵人設計的，但不適合21世紀的發達國家。在一些白人工薪階層中的單親，反社會的亞文化，在一些城市黑人中反白人說唱文化，在一些西班牙移民中的反融合亞文化同樣無法適應21世紀社會的需求！
Amy Wax教授 圖片來自華爾街日報
各界對這段文字的反應讓我提出了一個問題，即學術界，甚至是整個美國社會如何處理那些非正統的觀點？有據可查的是，今日的美國大學比以往任何時候更多地掌握在那些政治光譜偏左（極左）的學界人士手裡。那麼這些左派學者應該如何處理那些和他們的「政治正確」相差很遠的觀點呢？
正確的回應方式應該是，進行合理的辯論：試圖用邏輯，證據，事實和實質性的論斷，來證明為什麼這些觀點是錯誤的。這種文明的對話在我們這樣的法學院尤為重要，因為法學院就是致力於教會學生如何從一個問題的各個角度出發進行思考和探討。一般來講，學術機構應該成為人們可以自由思考和分析那些影響我們社會和生活方式重要問題的地方，然而在今天這種強制政治正確的氛圍中是不可能的。
我們這些在學界的學者們最不應該做的一件事情就是是發表毫無邏輯的言論：喊口號，謾罵，誹謗，人格侮辱和不經思考，毫無意義的標籤。同樣，我們這些學者不應該不提供合理的論據而直接拒絕他人的觀點。然而，近年來，不止一次我自己或者看到其他學術機構一再遇到這些違反公共實踐標準的事情，而且我們也看到這一趨勢在社會上不斷蔓延。
加州伯克利大學反對Milo（一個右派的編輯）集會變成一場騷亂(圖由譯者補充）
有人可能會回應說，無理的誹謗和歇斯裡地的譴責也是言論，必須也予以捍衛。而我最近的經歷讓我重新思考這一立場。在我們和別人辯論時，我們應該要有更高的標準。當然，人們有權拋出「種族主義」，「性別歧視」和「仇外心理」種種標籤 - 但這並不是正確的做法。隨便貼標籤不會給人於啟發，教誨或教育。事實上，他們只是通過貼標籤來阻止並扼殺不同意見。
現在說說，去年八月份我們的專欄發表後發生了什麼？ 我收到了大量所在大學和其他地方學生和教授的一系列信件，聲明和請願書，紛紛譴責了這篇文章是仇恨言論，種族主義，白人至上主義者，仇外心理，異族主義等等。也有人要求將我驅逐出校，並從學術委員會中除名。但這些要求沒有一個是通過嚴肅和正式的渠道來解決我們之間觀點的分歧。
我們的校刊《賓夕法尼亞日報》發表了一篇回應，並由我的五位賓大法學院同事籤名。他們指責我們讚美20世紀50年代的罪惡。因為50年代的十年是公開實踐種族歧視，限制女性機會的十年。我並不同意這樣的看法，1950年代是有一些問題，但是這些問題瑕不掩瑜。而且我們在專欄中，已經看到這些問題，並明確表明了我們對這些問題的態度，所以這篇回應並沒有任何新東西傳遞給我們。但至少這個回應試圖在提出一個論點來和我們進行探討。
而那封由33位賓大法學院同僚籤署的公開信，就連這一點都沒有做到！這封信從專欄和我們的採訪報告中斷章取義，然後譴責我們兩人，並斷然拒絕了我們的所有觀點。然後，它還呼籲學生監督我並隨時報告他們所謂的「偏見」。這封公開信沒有任何辯論，也沒有任何實質內容，也沒有任何推理，也沒有指出我們的專欄文章錯在哪裡。
我們已經聽夠了各種關於榜樣的話題：榜樣是如何為學生和其他人樹立了積極範本，供人學習和模仿！在我看來，籤署這封公開信的33位教授都是反面的楷模。我想對學生和公民們說：請不要跟隨他們的腳步-譴責他人的觀點而提不出任何合理的論點。請拒絕他們所帶的節奏！他們不僅沒有教你行使公民話語權（ 這是自由教育和民主的必要條件），而且他們的行為所傳遞的信息是合理的公民討論是不必要的！
正如紐約大學的Jonathan Haidt 博士於9月在學術網站Heterodox Academy上所寫的那樣：「當你們因為與一位同事的言論有分歧而籤署的每一封公開信都使我們更接近一個世界即通過社會力量和政治力量來解決分歧，而不是通過辯論和說服！」在此文發表之後，公開信的兩位籤名者 Jonathan Klick和Jonah Gelbach對Haidt 博士在Heterodox Academy 發表的這篇質疑公開信的文章作出了回應，並為公開信提供了辯護意見。
但值得令人高興的是，讀者們對公開信的評論非常深刻！
一封讀者寫道，這封公開信
「既沒有反例，也沒有反駁Wax的論點，只是生硬地斷言她錯了，這好令人尷尬啊！」
另一位寫道：
」這封信是自以為是的偽善典型表現，完全不能像Wax教授與Alexander教授一樣如此有力地表達的論點......父母們請注意，如果你想讓你的女兒或兒子學會如何解決有爭論的問題，請不要把它們送到賓夕法尼亞法學院。」
賓大法學院
在專欄文章發表之後不久，我遇到了一位我很久沒有見過的同事。我便問侯他暑假過得怎麼樣？他說他的暑假過得相當糟糕，而且看起來非常嚴肅。我還以為有人死了。然後他解釋道，他的暑假非常糟糕的原因是我的專欄文章。因為我的攻擊會對學校，學生，教師造成損害。連我一位耶魯法學院左傾的學生都覺得這個故事很有趣 - 誰能想到一篇專欄文章能夠毀掉某些人的暑假！但是，這件事除了荒謬之外，還請注意用詞的斟酌：「attack」和「damage」通常是用於敵人而不是同事或公民之間的對話。事實上，這至少從另外一個側面反映了他們這種敵對的觀念：「它們不鼓勵表達不受他們歡迎的想法和言論。」
我和我們的副院長也有過類似的交談。由於她的官方身份無法籤署公開信，但她辯解說籤署公開信是必要的。她告訴我，公開信必須要寫下來才能讓我引起重視！這樣才能讓我重新思考我寫下的內容，並理解我的言論所造成的破壞與傷害，這樣我以後才不會再次這樣做。消息非常明確：停止異端。
我們法學院的同事中只有一半在公開信上簽名。有一位沒有在公開信上簽名的教授給我發了一封深思熟慮，律師風格的電子郵件，解釋她是如何想的以及她為什麼不同意我在專欄中的特定主張。我們之間進行了友好的電子郵件交換，我們依然是親切的同事。在此之中我也學到了很多東西，同時我也了解到她的部分觀點與我保持一致，事情本應該是這麼運作的。
在籤署這封信的33個人當中，只有一個人跑來跟我談專欄文章這件事，我很感激。在大約三分鐘我們的談話中，他承認他並沒有完全拒絕我專欄中的所有內容。他承認，奮鬥文化的價值觀並不是那麼糟糕，也不是所有的文化都是同等的。鑑於這些是專欄文章的要點，那我就奇怪了問他為什麼在信上簽了字。他的回答是，因為我在接受《賓夕法尼亞日報》採訪時，他不喜歡我的說法，即全球移民湧向歐洲裔白人國家的趨勢表明某些文化的存在著優越性。這觸發了他的「code「，讓他嗅到了納粹主義的味道！
那麼好，讓我再次聲明我從來不支持納粹主義！
此外這種指控某段言論是某些事情的觸發信號或者狗哨聲或者類似的說法（我們經常能聽到這種指控，即便人們有時只是陳述了某些能夠證明的事實），這種指控是令人百口莫辯的。這好比我們指控某個演講者的演說引起了某些聽眾感情受到了傷害，感到被邊緣化一樣。使用這種語言（學生們已經非常好地學會了這招）的目的就是終止討論和辯論。讓一切他們認為不可接受的言論止步於沉默。
正如Humpty Dumpty對愛麗絲說的那樣，我們可以可以利用文字說出任何我們希望這些文字表達的意思。但是又是誰能決定這些言論是不是某些事情的代碼或者狗哨聲的資格呢？當然那些掌權者-在學術界這意味著左派。
humpty dumpty 的名言
我33位同事可能相信他們正在保護學生們免於受到有害意見的傷害，但他們這麼做對學生們並沒有好處。學生們並不需要被保護，他們反而需要接觸到各種不同觀點的討論和了解看問題的不同角度。這種接觸將教會他們如何思考。正如John Stuart Mill所說的那樣，「只知道他自己一方的人，對彼此都知之甚少。」
John Stuart Mill 是19世紀英國著名的哲學家，經濟學家
在專欄文章發表之後幾個月裡，我收到了來自全國各地的1000多封電子郵件 - 大部分都是支持性的，有些批評，但這些批大部分都是深思熟慮並充滿敬意的。許多人都表達了這樣的想法：「你說出了我們的想說但不敢說的想法！」-這句話是我們這個公民社會的悲哀啊！ 許多人敦促我不要退縮，怯懦，道歉。我非常同意他們的觀點，異議者已經道歉的太頻繁了！
至於賓夕法尼亞大學，號召反對我的行動還在持續進行中。我們法學院的院長最近建議我明年休假並停止一年級的必修課的教學。他解釋說，他受到很多因為我不受歡迎的觀點而要求驅逐我的壓力，並希望我的離開會使爭議能夠平息下來。當我提醒他，他理應是一位抵制這種無理要求的領導，他解釋說，他是一個「多元化的院長」，他必須要傾聽並容納「各方面」的意見。
民主是在談話和辯論中，而不是一團和氣中茁壯成長的。我每天都會在媒體上看到一些事情，並且每天都會聽到一些令我感到憤怒和侮辱的事情，甚至有一些是關於我朋友半真半假的事情。感到冒犯與憤怒往往地盤有關，這種感覺是是我們一個開放社會的重要組成部分。我們應該教導我們的年輕人適應這些事情，而不是相反。
討厭，拒絕和迴避和我們持不同政治理念的人是不利於我們國家發展的。我們在一起生活，我們需要一起解決我們的問題。這些和我們觀點不同的人總有可能在某些方面可以為我們提供一些東西，在某些方面可以作出貢獻，在某些東西方面可以教導我們。如果我們看不到這一點那麼是危險的！正如 Heather Mac Donald 在「國家評論」中談及我那邊有爭議的專欄文章時所寫的那樣：「如果左翼對不平等現象的分析是錯誤的....而文化比較分析反而是更接近事實真相的呢？如果真正的改革行為是應受懲罰的「仇恨言論」，那麼我們很難知道這個國家該如何解決其社會問題。「 換句話說，我們很有可能被現在所灌輸的正統觀念帶上歧路。
美國道路是歷來是以文明的方式進行自由和公開的辯論。我們的大學校園和整個社會應該回到這條道路上來。
原文
There is a lot of abstract talk these days on American college campuses about free speech and the values of free inquiry, with lip service paid to expansive notions of free expression and the marketplace of ideas. What I』ve learned through my recent experience of writing a controversial op-ed is that most of this talk is not worth much. It is only when people are confronted with speech they don’t like that we see whether these abstractions are real to them.
The op-ed, which I co-authored with Larry Alexander of the University of San Diego Law School, appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer on Aug. 9 under the headline, 「Paying the Price for the Breakdown of the Country’s Bourgeois Culture.」 It began by listing some of the ills afflicting American society:
Too few Americans are qualified for the jobs available. Male working-age labor-force participation is at Depression-era lows. Opioid abuse is widespread. Homicidal violence plagues inner cities. Almost half of all children are born out of wedlock, and even more are raised by single mothers. Many college students lack basic skills, and high school students rank below those from two dozen other countries.
We then discussed the 「cultural script」—a list of behavioral norms—that was almost universally endorsed between the end of World War II and the mid-1960s:
Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.
These norms defined a concept of adult responsibility that was, we wrote, 「a major contributor to the productivity, educational gains and social coherence of that period.」 The fact that the 「bourgeois culture」 these norms embodied has broken down since the 1960s, we argued, largely explains today’s social pathologies—and re-embracing that culture would go a long way toward addressing those pathologies.
In what became the most controversial passage, we pointed out that some cultures are less suited to preparing people to be productive citizens in a modern technological society, and we gave examples:
The culture of the Plains Indians was designed for nomadic hunters, but is not suited to a First World, 21st-century environment. Nor are the single-parent, antisocial habits prevalent among some working-class whites; the anti-『acting white』 rap culture of inner-city blacks; the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants.
The reactions to this piece raise the question of how unorthodox opinions should be dealt with in academia—and in American society at large. It is well documented that American universities today are dominated, more than ever before, by academics on the left end of the political spectrum. How should these academics handle opinions that depart, even quite sharply, from their 「politically correct」 views?
The proper response would be to engage in reasoned debate—to attempt to explain, using logic, evidence, facts and substantive arguments, why those opinions are wrong. This kind of civil discourse is obviously important at law schools like mine, because law schools are dedicated to teaching students how to think about and argue all sides of a question. But academic institutions in general should also be places where people are free to think and reason about important questions that affect our society and our way of life—something not possible in today’s atmosphere of enforced orthodoxy.
What those of us in academia should certainly not do is engage in unreasoned speech: hurling slurs and epithets, name-calling, vilification and mindless labeling. Likewise, we should not reject the views of others without providing reasoned arguments. Yet these once common standards of practice have been violated repeatedly at my own and at other academic institutions in recent years, and we increasingly see this trend in society as well.
One might respond that unreasoned slurs and outright condemnations are also speech and must be defended. My recent experience has caused me to rethink this position. In debating others, we should have higher standards. Of course one has therightto hurl labels like 「racist,」 「sexist」 and 「xenophobic」—but that doesn’t make it the right thing to do. Hurling such labels doesn’t enlighten, inform, edify or educate. Indeed, it undermines these goals by discouraging or stifling dissent.
So what happened after our op-ed was published last August? A raft of letters, statements and petitions from students and professors at my university and elsewhere condemned the piece as hate speech—racist, white supremacist, xenophobic, 「heteropatriarchial,」 etc. There were demands that I be removed from the classroom and from academic committees. None of these demands even purported to address our arguments in any serious or systematic way.
A response published in the Daily Pennsylvanian, our school newspaper, and signed by five of my Penn Law School colleagues, charged us with the sin of praising the 1950s—a decade when racial discrimination was openly practiced and opportunities for women were limited. I do not agree with the contention that because a past era is marked by benighted attitudes and practices—attitudes and practices we had acknowledged in our op-ed—it has nothing to teach us. But at least this response attempted to make an argument.
Not so an open letter published in the Daily Pennsylvanian and signed by 33 of my colleagues. This letter quoted random passages from the op-ed and from a subsequent interview I gave to the school newspaper, condemned both and categorically rejected all of my views. It then invited students, in effect, to monitor me and to report any 「stereotyping and bias」 they might experience or perceive. This letter contained no argument, no substance, no reasoning, no explanation whatsoever as to how our op-ed was in error.
We hear a lot of talk about role models—people to be emulated, who set a positive example for students and others. In my view, the 33 professors who signed this letter are anti-role models. To students and citizens alike I say: Don’t follow their lead by condemning people for their views without providing a reasoned argument. Reject their example. Not only are they failing to teach you the practice of civil discourse—the sine qua non of liberal education and democracy—they are sending the message that civil discourse is unnecessary. As Jonathan Haidt of New York University wrote in September on the website Heterodox Academy: 「Every open letter you sign to condemn a colleague for his or her words brings us closer to a world in which academic disagreements are resolved by social force and political power, not by argumentation and persuasion.」 Two signers of the open letter, Jonathan Klick and Jonah Gelbach, responded to Dr. Haidt’s post by writing pieces for Heterodox Academy that challenged the substance of the op-ed, with the latter adding a defense of the open letter’s condemnation of my views.
It is gratifying to note that the reader comments on the open letter were overwhelmingly critical. The letter has 「no counterevidence,」 one reader wrote, 「no rebuttal to [Wax’s] arguments, just an assertion that she’s wrong.... This is embarrassing.」 Another wrote: 「This letter is an exercise in self-righteous virtue-signaling that utterly fails to deal with the argument so cogently presented by Wax and Alexander.... Note to parents, if you want your daughter or son to learn to address an argument, do not send them to Penn Law.」
Shortly after the op-ed appeared, I ran into a colleague I hadn’t seen for a while and asked how his summer was going. He said he』d had a terrible summer, and in saying it he looked so serious I thought someone had died. He then explained that the reason his summer had been ruined was my op-ed, and he accused me of attacking and causing damage to the university, the students and the faculty. One of my left-leaning friends at Yale Law School found this story funny—who would have guessed an op-ed could ruin someone’s summer? But beyond the absurdity, note the choice of words: 「attack」 and 「damage」 are words one uses with one’s enemies, not colleagues or fellow citizens. At the very least, they are not words that encourage the expression of unpopular ideas. They reflect a spirit hostile to such ideas—indeed, a spirit that might seek to punish the expression of such ideas.
I had a similar conversation with a deputy dean. She had been unable to sign the open letter because of her official position, but she defended it as having been necessary. It needed to be written to get my attention, she told me, so that I would rethink what I had written and understand the hurt I had inflicted and the damage I had done, so that I wouldn’t do it again. The message was clear: Cease the heresy.
Only half of my colleagues in the law school signed the open letter. One who didn’t sent me a thoughtful and lawyerly email explaining how and why she disagreed with particular assertions in the op-ed. We had an amicable email exchange, from which I learned a lot—some of her points stick with me—and we remain cordial colleagues. That is how things should work.
Of the 33 who signed the letter, only one came to talk to me about it, and I am grateful for that. About three minutes into our conversation, he admitted that he didn’t categorically reject everything in the op-ed. Bourgeois values aren’t really so bad, he conceded, nor are all cultures equally worthy. Given that those were the main points of the op-ed, I asked him why he had signed the letter. His answer was that he didn’t like my saying, in my interview with the Daily Pennsylvanian, that the tendency of global migrants to flock to white European countries indicates the superiority of some cultures. This struck him as 「code,」 he said, for Nazism.
Well, let me state for the record that I don’t endorse Nazism!
Furthermore, the charge that a statement is 「code」 for something else, or a 「dog whistle」 of some kind—we frequently hear this charge leveled, even against people who are stating demonstrable facts—is unanswerable. It is like accusing a speaker of causing emotional injury or feelings of marginalization. Using this kind of language, which students have learned to do all too well, is intended to bring discussion and debate to a stop—to silence speech deemed unacceptable.
As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice, we can make words mean whatever we want them to mean. And who decides what is code for something else or what qualifies as a dog whistle? Those in power, of course—which in academia means the Left.
My 33 colleagues might have believed they were protecting students from being injured by harmful opinions, but they were doing those students no favors. Students need the opposite of protection from diverse arguments and points of view. They need exposure to them. This exposure will teach them how to think. As John Stuart Mill said, 「He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.」
I have received more than 1,000 emails from around the country in the months since the op-ed was published—mostly supportive, some critical and for the most part thoughtful and respectful. Many expressed the thought, 「You said what we are thinking but are afraid to say」—a sad commentary on the state of civil discourse in our society. Many urged me not to back down, cower or apologize. And I agree with them that dissenters apologize far too often.
As for Penn, the calls to action against me continue. My law school dean recently asked me to take a leave of absence next year and to cease teaching a mandatory first-year course. He explained that he was getting 「pressure」 to banish me for my unpopular views and hoped that my departure would quell the controversy. When I suggested that it was his job as a leader to resist such illiberal demands, he explained that he is a 「pluralistic dean」 who must listen to and accommodate 「all sides.」
Democracy thrives on talk and debate, and it is not for the faint of heart. I read things every day in the media and hear things every day at my job that I find exasperating and insulting, including falsehoods and half-truths about people who are my friends. Offense and upset go with the territory; they are part and parcel of an open society. We should be teaching our young people to get used to these things, but instead we are teaching them the opposite.
Disliking, avoiding and shunning people who don’t share our politics is not good for our country. We live together, and we need to solve our problems together. It is also always possible that people we disagree with have something to offer, something to contribute, something to teach us. We ignore this at our peril. As Heather Mac Donald wrote in National Review about the controversy over our op-ed: 「What if the progressive analysis of inequality is wrong…and a cultural analysis is closest to the truth? If confronting the need to change behavior is punishable 『hate speech,』 then it is hard to see how the country can resolve its social problems.」 In other words, we are at risk of being led astray by received opinion.
The American way is to conduct free and open debate in a civil manner. We should return to doing that on our college campuses and in our society at large.
譯後小結
這篇文章很長但是觀點還是一如既往的犀利。讀到某些地方，如果熟悉文革歷史的背後不由會感到一陣寒意。特別是當左翼學者號召學生監督Wax教授言行的舉動，以及現在還在持續的驅逐Wax教授的行為。
美國的歷史正如Amy Wax教授所說，是在公民之間自由公開的辯論中前進的。小到一個小區的規定，學校的規定，大到國家的走向，政策的取捨，憲法的解釋都是充滿了討論與辯論。美國有一套非常有名的《聯邦黨人文集》，最早就是連載於紐約當地的幾份報紙上的政論小短文。這些短文中有很多關於美國憲法的探討，聯邦與州之間關係的討論，發展後遇到新問題的討論，以及各種力量關係之間的制約的討論。這本文集到現在成了了解並理解美國的運作機制繞不過去的文集。而反方同樣有anti-federalist papers，各方都有表述。
聯邦黨人文集
拋開Wax教授第一篇文章中談到的奮鬥文化不說，就說這篇文章中提到的言論自由。美國人民引以為豪的第一修正案所保護的權利言論自由，今天在美國的新環境下受到全面挑戰。
一方面，在媒體，大學等左翼佔絕對主導地位的地方，一切不合他們口味的言論都會被扼殺。Wax教授所遇到的問題就是一個真實並正在發生的典型例子。另外一方面，技術的發展使得精細化控制言論自由變的非常可行和高效。比如，最近借著所謂打擊俄羅斯網絡滲透的藉口，逐漸引入各種自動審查機制。以及在大選期間，各大左傾科技公司對右派言論的封殺和大規模刪帖（twitter刪除hashtag， reddit關閉右傾討論組，google的政治類搜索自動提示和各種左翼的fact check）都是對言論自由赤裸裸的侵犯。
而Amx教授的文章以重新探討美國價值觀為切口，發起了對言論霸權的挑戰。而文中最令人感到諷刺的是，一位自詡「pluralistic dean」多元化校長，以維護傾聽多元不同意見為藉口，要求一位因為發表了不同於他們觀點的教授滾蛋的事實。
理越辯越明,道越論越清沒有激烈的思想交鋒，就沒有對現實社會深層的認知！
註：
Amx的系列討論，我只譯了第一篇和最新的一篇，有興趣的可以把整個文章系列找出來看看。我會收集整理各方的觀點，放到一個專門的網站上去。
文中一個詞的翻譯 Bourgeois Culture 我採用兩種譯法一種是直譯，資本主義文化，布爾喬亞，在馬克思體系中有特別的含義。另外一種是意譯，奮鬥文化。這個詞確實有點nb，可以寫一篇論文。我這裡的意譯是基於對美國自由資本主義階段的價值觀，以及對所謂美國夢的理解。
中國很多理所應當的說法在美國是犯左派忌諱的。比如，落後就會挨打，就會被認為宣傳社會達爾文進化論。