迈克尔·布隆伯格在哈佛大学2019年毕业典礼英语演讲稿

迈克尔·布隆伯格在哈佛大学

2019

年毕业典礼英语

演讲稿

Thank you, Katie

–

and thank you to President Faust, the Fellows

of

Harvard

College,

the

Boardof

Overseers,

and

all

the

faculty,

alumni,

and students who have welcomed me back to campus.

I

’

m

excited

to

be

here,

not

only

to

address

the

distinguished

graduates and alumni atHarvard University

’

s 363rd commencement but

to stand in the exact spot where Oprah stoodlast year. OMG.

Let me begin with the most important order of business: Let

’

s have

a big round of applause forthe Class of 2019! They

’

ve earned it!

As

excited

as

the

graduates

are,

they

are

probably

even

more

exhausted after the past fewweeks. And parents: I

’

m not referring to

their final exams. I

’

m talking about the SeniorOlympics, the Last Chance

Dance, and the Booze Cruise

–

I mean, the moonlight cruise.

The entire year has been exciting on campus: Harvard beat Yale for

the seventh straight timein football. The men

’

s basketball team went to

the second round of the NCAA tournament forthe second straight year.

And the Men

’

s Squash team won national championship.

1

————来源网络整理，仅供供参考

Who

’

d

a

thunk

it:

Harvard,

an

athletic

powerhouse!

Pretty

soon

they

’

ll

be

asking

whether

youhave

academics

to

go

along

with

your

athletic programs.

My

personal

connection

to

Harvard

began

in

1964,

when

I

graduated

from

Johns

HopkinsUniversity

in

Baltimore

and

matriculated

here at the B-School.

You

’

re probably asking: How did I ever get into Harvard Business

School,

given

my

stellaracademic

record,

where

I

always

made

the

top

half

of

the

class

possible?

I

have

no

idea.

Andthe

only

people

more

surprised than me were my professors.

Anyway, here I am again back in Cambridge. And I have noticed that

a

few

things

havechanged

since

I

was

a

student

here.

Elsie

’

s

–

a

sandwich spot I used to love near the Square

–

is now a burrito shop.

The

Wursthaus

–

which

had

great

beer

and

sausage

–

is

now

an

artisanalgastro-pub,

whatever

the

heck

that

is.

And

the

old

Holyoke

Center is now named the SmithCampus Center.

Don

’

t

you

just

hate

it

when

alumni

put

their

names

all

over

everything?

I

was

thinking

aboutthat

this

morning

as

I

walked

into

the

————来源网络整理，仅供供参考

2

Bloomberg

Center

on

the

Harvard

Business

Schoolcampus

across

the

river.

But

the

good

news

is,

Harvard

remains

what

it

was

when

I

first

arrived on campus 50 yearsago: America

’

s most prestigious university.

And,

like

other

great

universities,

it

lies

at

theheart

of

the

American

experiment in democracy.

Their purpose is not only to advance knowledge, but to advance the

ideals

of

our

nation.

Greatuniversities

are

places

where

people

of

all

backgrounds,

holding

all

beliefs,

pursuing

allquestions,

can

come

to

study and debate their ideas

–

freely and openly.

Today, I

’

d like to talk with you about how important it is for that

freedom to exist for everyone,no matter how strongly we may disagree

with another

’

s viewpoint.

Tolerance

for

other

people

’

s

ideas,

and

the

freedom

to

express

your

own,

are

inseparable

valuesat

great

universities.

Joined

together,

they form a sacred trust that holds the basis of ourdemocratic society.

But that trust is perpetually vulnerable to the tyrannical tendencies

of

monarchs,

mobs,

andmajorities.

And

lately,

we

have

seen

those

3

————来源网络整理，仅供供参考

tendencies manifest themselves too often, both oncollege campuses and

in our society.

That

’

s the bad news

–

and unfortunately, I think both Harvard,

and my own city of New York,have been witnesses to this trend.

First, for

New

York

City.

Several years

ago,

as you

may

remember,

some

people

tried

to

stopthe

development

of

a

mosque

a

few

blocks

from the World Trade Center site.

It

was

an

emotional

issue,

and

polls

showed

that

two- thirds

of

Americans

were

against

amosque

being

built

there.

Even

the

Anti-Defamation

League

–

widely

regarded

as

the

country

’

smost

ardent defender of religious freedom

–

declared its opposition to the

project.

The

opponents

held

rallies

and

demonstrations.

They

denounced

the

developers.

And

theydemanded

that

city

government

stop

its

construction.

That

was

their

right

–

and

we

protectedtheir

right

to

protest. But they could not have been more wrong. And we refused to

cave in totheir demands.

The idea that government would single out a particular religion, and

————来源网络整理，仅供供参考

4

block its believers

–

andonly its believers

–

from building a house of

worship

in

a

particular

area

is

diametricallyopposed

to

the

moral

principles

that

gave

rise

to

our

great

nation

and

the

constitutionalprotections that have sustained it.

Our union of 50 states rests on the union of two values: freedom

and

tolerance.

And

it

is

thatunion

of

values

that

the

terrorists

who

attacked

us

on

September

11th,

2019

–

and

on

April15th,

2019

–

found most threatening.

To them, we were a God-less country.

But in fact, there is no country that protects the core of every faith

and

philosophy

known

tohuman

kind

–

free

will

–

more

than

the

United

States

of

America.

That

protection,

however,rests

upon

our

constant vigilance.

We like to think that the principle of separation of church and state

is settled. It is not. And itnever will be. It is up to us to guard it fiercely

–

and to ensure that equality under the lawmeans equality under the

law for everyone.

If

you want

the

freedom

to

worship

as

you

wish,

to

speak

as

you

5

————来源网络整理，仅供供参考

wish, and to marry whom youwish, you must tolerate my freedom to do

so

–

or not do so

–

as well.

What

I

do

may

offend

you.

You

may

find

my

actions

immoral

or

unjust.

But

attempting

torestrict

my

freedoms

–

in

ways

that

you

would not restrict your own

–

leads only to injustice.

We cannot deny others the rights and privileges that we demand for

ourselves.

And

that

is

truein

cities

–

and

it

is

no

less

true

at

universities,

where

the

forces

of

repression

appear

to

bestronger

now

than they have been since the 1950s.

When

I

was

growing

up,

U.S.

Senator

Joe

McCarthy

was

asking:

‘

Are you now or have you everbeen?

’

He was attempting to repress

and

criminalize

those

who

sympathized

with

an

economicsystem

that

was, even then, failing.

McCarthy

’

s Red Scare destroyed thousands of lives, but what was

he

so

afraid

of?

An

idea

–

inthis

case,

communism

–

that

he

and

others deemed dangerous.

But he was right about one thing: Ideas can be dangerous. They can

change

society.

They

canupend

traditions.

They

can

start

revolutions.

————来源网络整理，仅供供参考

6

That

’

s why throughout history, those in authorityhave tried to repress

ideas

that

threaten

their

power,

their

religion,

their

ideology,

or

theirreelection chances.

That

was

true

for

Socrates

and

Galileo,

it

was

true

for

Nelson

Mandela

and

V

á

clav

Havel,

and

ithas

been

true

for

Ai

Wei

Wei,

Pussy

Riot, and the kids who made the

‘

Happy

’< /p>

video in Iran.

Repressing free expression is a natural human weakness, and it is up

to us to fight it at everyturn. Intolerance of ideas

–

whether liberal or

conservative

–

is antithetical to individualrights and free societies, and

it is no less antithetical to great universities and first- ratescholarship.

There

is

an

idea

floating

around

college

campuses

–

including

here

at

Harvard

–

that

scholarsshould

be

funded

only

if

their

work

conforms

to

a

particular

view

of

justice. There

’

s

a

word

forthat

idea:

censorship. And it is just a modern-day form of McCarthyism.

Think about the irony: In the 1950s, the right wing was attempting

to repress left wing , on many college campuses, it is liberals

trying

to

repress

conservative

ideas,

even

asconservative

faculty

members

are

at

risk

of

becoming

an

endangered

species.

And

7

————来源网络整理，仅供供参考

perhapsnowhere is that more true than here in the Ivy League.

In

the

2019

presidential

race,

according

to

Federal

Election

Commission

data,

96

percent

of

allcampaign

contributions

from

Ivy

League faculty and employees went to Barack Obama.

Ninety-six

percent.

There

was

more

disagreement

among

the

old

Soviet Politburo than there isamong Ivy League donors.

That

statistic

should

give

us

pause

–

and

I

say

that

as

someone

who

endorsed

President

Obamafor

reelection

–

because

let

me

tell

you, neither party has a monopoly on truth or God on itsside.

When

96

percent

of

Ivy

League

donors

prefer

one

candidate

to

another, you have to wonderwhether students are being exposed to the

diversity of views that a great university shouldoffer.

Diversity

of

gender,

ethnicity,

and

orientation

is

important.

But

a

university cannot be great ifits faculty is politically homogenous. In fact,

the whole purpose of granting tenure to professorsis to ensure that they

feel

free

to

conduct

research

on

ideas

that

run

afoul

of

university

politicsand societal norms.

When tenure was created, it mostly protected liberals whose ideas

————来源网络整理，仅供供参考

8

ran up against conservativenorms.

Today,

if

tenure

is

going

to

continue

to

exist,

it

must

also

protect

conservatives

whose

ideasrun

up

against

liberal

norms.

Otherwise,

university

research

–

and

the

professors

who

conductit

–

will

lose

credibility.

Great

universities

must

not

become

predictably

partisan.

And

a

liberal arts education mustnot be an education in the art of liberalism.

The

role

of

universities

is

not

to

promote

an

ideology.

It

is

to

provide

scholars

and

studentswith

a

neutral forum

for

researching

and

debating

issues

–

without

tipping

the

scales

in

onedirection,

or

repressing unpopular views.

Requiring

scholars

–

and

commencement

speakers,

for

that

matter

–

to

conform

to

certainpolitical

standards

undermines

the

whole purpose of a university.

This

spring,

it

has

been

disturbing

to

see

a

number

of

college

commencement

speakerswithdraw

–

or

have

their

invitations

rescinded

–

after protests from students and

–

to me,shockingly

–

from senior faculty and administrators who should know better.

9

————来源网络整理，仅供供参考