您现在的位置: 纽约时报中英文网 >> 纽约时报中英文版 >> 观点 >> 正文

哈佛为何容不下韦恩斯坦的代理律师

更新时间:2019/6/25 20:24:03 来源:纽约时报中文网 作者:佚名

Why Harvard Was Wrong to Make Me Step Down
哈佛为何容不下韦恩斯坦的代理律师

In May, Harvard College announced that it would not renew the appointment of me and my wife, Stephanie Robinson, as faculty deans of Winthrop House, one of Harvard’s undergraduate residential houses, because I am one of the lawyers who represented the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein in advance of his coming sexual assault trial. The administration’s decision followed reports by some students that they felt “unsafe” in an institution led by a lawyer who would take on Mr. Weinstein as a client.

今年五月,哈佛大学宣布不再继续任命我和我妻子斯蒂芬妮·罗宾逊(Stephanie Robinson)担任温斯罗普宿舍(Winthrop House)的舍监,因为我在好莱坞制片人哈维·韦恩斯坦(Harvey Weinstein)接受性侵案审判前是他的代理律师之一。温斯罗普是哈佛的本科生宿舍之一。校方的这一决定,是在接到一些学生的投诉后做出的,这些学生称,在一名愿意接受韦恩斯坦为客户的律师领导的机构中,他们感到“不安全”。

I am willing to believe that some students felt unsafe. But feelings alone should not drive university policy. Administrators must help students distinguish between feelings that have a rational basis and those that do not. In my case, Harvard missed an opportunity to help students do that.

我愿意相信,一些学生是感到不安全。但大学的政策不应仅靠感受来推动。管理者必须帮助学生区分有理性基础的情感和没有理性基础的情感。就我的情况而言,哈佛错过了一个帮助学生实现这一目标的机会。

Consider: During the 10 years I served as faculty dean, I represented survivors of sexual assault as well as people accused of sexual assault. As recently as the fall semester, I served as a special prosecutor in a case against Eric Greitens, a former governor of Missouri, involving sexual assault.

试想:在我担任舍监的十年间,我代理过性侵案件中的受害者,也代理过被控性侵的人。就在最近的这个秋季学期,我还在一起针对密苏里州前州长埃瑞克·格雷滕斯(Eric Greitens)的性侵案件中担任了特别检察官。

The administration knew full well that for 10 years I had been able to fulfill my duties as a faculty dean — including advising and representing student survivors of sexual assault in the context of Title IX — while representing clients in criminal court. Until this spring, there was never even a whisper of a complaint that I was unable to provide the care and concern that all students concerned with sexual violence deserve.

校方非常清楚,过去十年中,在刑事法庭上代表当事人的同时,我完全有能力履行作为一名舍监的职责——包括在教育法修正案第九条的框架下,为遭受性侵犯的学生幸存者提供咨询和代理。在今年春天之前,没有任何人表达过哪怕一丁点的不满,认为我不能给予所有牵涉到性暴力的学生应有的照料和关心。

I would hope that any student who felt unsafe as a result of my representation of Mr. Weinstein might, after a reasoned discussion of the relevant facts, question whether his or her feelings were warranted. But Harvard was not interested in having that discussion. Nor was Harvard interested in facilitating conversations about the appropriate role of its faculty in addressing sexual violence and the tension between protecting the rights of the criminally accused and treating survivors of sexual violence with respect.

我希望,任何因为我代理韦恩斯坦案而感到不安全的学生,都可以在对相关事实进行了理性的讨论后自问,他或她的感觉是否有正当的依据。但哈佛对展开这样的讨论并不感兴趣。哈佛也无意去促成对话,探讨如何促进有关教员在处理性暴力方面扮演恰当角色,以及在保护受刑事指控者的权利和尊重性暴力幸存者之间的紧张关系。

Instead, the administration capitulated to protesters. Given that universities are supposed to be places of considered and civil discourse, where people are forced to wrestle with difficult, controversial and unfamiliar ideas, this is disappointing.

相反,校方选择向抗议者投降。鉴于大学本应进行的是审慎而文明的论说,并迫使一个人去苦苦思索困难的、有争议的、陌生的理念,校方此举令人感到失望。

Harvard has been silent in other disappointing ways. Not long ago, I was taking my 9-year-old son to school when we saw that “Down with Sullivan” had been spray-painted on the wall abutting our home. I had to explain to my son that representing unpopular clients serves an important constitutional role in our democracy and that I had done nothing wrong. As you might imagine, it was hard to see my son read that piece of graffiti.

哈佛在其他方面的沉默也令人失望。不久前,我送九岁的儿子去上学,当看到我们家附近的墙上喷涂着“打倒沙利文”(Down with Sullivan)的字样时,我不得不向我儿子解释,为不受欢迎的客户作代理,在我们的民主制度中是很重要的宪法职责,我没做错什么。让自己的儿子看到那样一幅涂鸦,你们可以想象我的痛苦。

The administration said and did nothing in response to the vandalism. Yet again, reasoned discourse lost out to raw feelings.
面对这种恣意毁坏,校方没有任何表示和行动。理性的话语再一次输给了原始的情感。
I wish I could say that Harvard’s response in these matters is unique in higher education. Unfortunately, many universities have failed in this regard of late.
我真希望在高等院校对此类事件的处理中,哈佛只是一个特例。但不幸的是,近来许多大学在这方面表现差强人意。

But I am profoundly troubled by the reaction of university administrators who are in charge of student growth and development. The job of a teacher is to help students think through what constitutes a reasonable argument. It is a dereliction of duty for administrators to allow themselves to be bullied into unprincipled positions.

但我对负责学生成长和发展的大学管理者的反应深感不安。教师的工作是帮助学生思考什么叫明理的论证。管理者在霸凌之下让自己选择毫无原则的立场,这是玩忽职守。

Unchecked emotion has replaced thoughtful reasoning on campus. Feelings are no longer subjected to evidence, analysis or empirical defense. Angry demands, rather than rigorous arguments, now appear to guide university policy.

在校园里,不加克制的情感已经取代了深思熟虑的推理。情感不再需要证据、分析或实证辩护。如今左右大学政策的似乎是愤怒的要求,而不是严谨的论证。

This must change. Until then, universities are doing a profound disservice to those who place their trust in us to educate them.

这必须改变。否则,那些将自己交给我们来教育的人,只能是反被大学所害。

“全文请访问纽约时报中文网,本文发表于纽约时报中文网(http://cn.nytimes.com),版权归纽约时报公司所有。任何单位及个人未经许可,不得擅自转载或翻译。订阅纽约时报中文网新闻电邮:http://nytcn.me/subscription/”

相关文章列表