哥大校長抗議FBI監視外國學生公開信全文翻譯_風聞

編者按

是的，FBI的確在勸説美國高校的教職工們，對自己學校的中國留學生和中國學者們進行監視。

早在去年，美國就曾有報道稱FBI官員訪問了美國大學聯盟中的超過10所高校，建議這些學校的教職工們對自己校園中與部分中國研究機構和中國企業有聯繫的學生和學者進行監視，與此同時，FBI官員還希望這些高校能夠密切關注“可能用於國防領域的”、有中國人蔘加的研究項目的進展。

儘管FBI僅將這一行動描述為“我們就國家安全事務而持續進行的接觸的一部分”（part of our ongoing engagement on national security matters），對於遭遇問詢的高校來説，事情並非如此。今年6月，印第安納大學副校長弗雷德·凱特向媒體透露，“這不僅僅是搜尋可疑行為的問題——它實際上針對的是一些特定的國家，以及來自那些國家的人”。

8月29日和9月4日，哥倫比亞大學校長伯靈格（Lee Bollinger）在《華盛頓郵報》與哥倫比亞大學官方網站上兩次發表公開信，對FBI説“不”。

以下為伯靈格在《華盛頓郵報》發表的公開信全文翻譯

原標題：No, I won’t start spying on my foreign-born students

聯邦調查局（FBI）近日加強了對大學校園研究工作的審查——包括我們（哥倫比亞大學）。

為了阻止知識產權被非法轉移給外國競爭對手，執法機構和情報機構正在鼓動美國學者和行政人員制定更加嚴格的規定，來監控外國學生和訪問學者，尤其是華裔學生與華裔訪問學者。

隨着學生們重返校園，這些監視手段，正企圖將政治經濟層面的擔憂和憲法第一修正案所保證的自由置於衝突之中。

誠然，在網絡安全和生物恐怖主義等國家安全領域，政府資助的學術研究確實敏感。同樣，這些與美國公司合作進行的研究而帶來的商業創新成果，也成為了非法技術轉讓的主要目標，它們值得被保護。

大學有義務遵守現有的安全規定、合理地加強安全措施，並在明顯發現疑似間諜行為時，充分配合執法部門和企業研究夥伴。在過去，的確發生過幾起教研人員將敏感的知識產權泄露給外國政府的個案，所以某種程度上來説，我們在這方面還做得不夠好，我們能，也必須做得更好。

然而，在校園裏進行的研究，只有一小部分屬於“機密”。事實上，學術研究的目的本就是共享，也就是將學術成果發佈到公共領域，以推動人類進步。突破性的醫學發現、使世界各地幾百萬人免於飢餓的農業創新、互聯網、人工智能，這些成果都來自公開的、基於大學的研究。

因此，外國人無須跨越大半個地球“滲透”進我們這些優秀的大學，來獲取我們最新的發現，除了一些極其重要的學術發現之外，通過搜索引擎，他們完全可以在舒適的辦公室或者宿舍，細讀同行評議的學術期刊。或者，他們也可以訪問美國專利商標局的網站，瞭解專利保護申請提供的創新成果的詳細信息。

因此，作為一個花了50年時間倡導言論和集會自由的人，當得知我們大學的教職工，或許還有學生，竟然被要求去監控外國學生和同事的行為時，我感到極度憂慮。這與我們的初心背道而馳。

大學的使命，是培育出開放的氛圍，來促進思考、實驗和創造。美國的高等教育之所以令全世界豔羨，正是因為它在保障開放性和多元化方面無人能及。它吸引、並歡迎着世界上最聰明的頭腦們，無論他們來自哪裏，國籍是什麼。

換句話説，美國的大學模式是一種戰略優勢，而不是對美國競爭力的阻礙。我們的行政人員、教授和研究人員不是，也不應該成為美國執法部門的觸手。具有諷刺意味的是，在我看來，我們在FBI眼中最薄弱的一環，恰恰是我們最大的優勢。

在我擔任校長的哥倫比亞大學，有來自150多個國家的成千上萬的學生和教師。作為主流研究型大學的管理者，我們不能肆意限制學術自由。大學文化與系統審查並不兼容，這或許可以解釋，為什麼即使是到訪我們校園的執法官員，也只是告訴我們應該保持警惕，卻很少提供規範性指導。

海外競爭對手盜用知識產權確實是一個嚴重的問題。但對外國學者進行監視是個錯誤的解決方案。在我看來，如果執法機構有某些合法關切，那麼他們應該識別並監控那些基於真正的威脅而被他們鎖定的“可疑人員”，而不是擔心整個國家的人。

我在高等教育界的許多同事，以及兩黨聯合成立的美國反知識產權竊取委員會，都提倡一種更為有效的做法，那就是擴大向我們高校的外國畢業生髮放的綠卡的數量。如果允許的話，這些擁有國際背景的學者中許多人，特別是在科學、技術、工程和數學領域的學者，畢業後更願意留在美國，為美國公司工作，這樣還可以為美國的經濟增長和繁榮做出貢獻。但根據目前的規定，當他們完成學業後，我們很難讓他們留下來。他們帶着在這裏學到的先進知識，回到自己的國家，而這些知識未來可以為美國的競爭對手，提供商業策略的參考。

我們學院和大學的使命是，在廣泛的議題上不斷地進行公開的徵詢。我們的高等教育機構，應改為美國成為這個世界上有史以來最具創新精神的國家努力，而不是相反。

以下為公開信英文原文

The FBI has stepped up its scrutiny of research practices at college and university campuses — including mine.

Law enforcement and intelligence agencies determined to thwart the illegal transfer of intellectual property to foreign rivals are encouraging U.S. academics and administrators to develop more robust protocols for monitoring foreign-born students and visiting scholars — particularly if they are ethnically Chinese.

With students returning to campus, these policing attempts thrust economic and political concerns into fierce conflict with First Amendment freedoms.

To be sure, government-funded academic research in such national security realms as cybersecurity and bioterrorism is justifiably sensitive. Likewise, academic research conducted in collaboration with U.S. companies — a principal target of most unlawful technology transfers — leads to commercial innovations that warrant protections. Universities have an obligation to comply with existing security protocols, identify sensible ways to bolster them, and cooperate fully with law enforcement authorities and corporate research partners if clear acts of espionage are suspected. To the extent we are falling short in any of these areas — and yes, there have been isolated incidents of academics sharing sensitive intellectual property with foreign governments — we can and must do better.

At the same time, however, only a fraction of the research conducted on campus is “secret.” Indeed, the reality is just the opposite. Academic research is intended to be shared — released into the public domain to advance human progress. Groundbreaking medical discoveries, agricultural innovations credited with saving billions of people worldwide from starvation, the Internet, artificial intelligence: All are the result of publicly available, university-based research.

With students returning to campus, these policing attempts thrust economic and political concerns into fierce conflict with First Amendment freedoms.

​

Consequently, a foreign national need not fly halfway around the world to “infiltrate” our great universities and learn about our latest insights and findings: With some notable exceptions, she can type words into a search engine and peruse peer-reviewed academic journals from the comfort of an office or dorm room overseas. Or, similarly, she can visit the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s website, where applications for patent protection provide detailed descriptions of recent innovations.

And so, most worrisome to me, as someone who has spent five decades advocating freedom of expression and assembly, is the notion that university personnel — and perhaps students themselves — should be asked to monitor the movements of foreign-born students and colleagues. This is antithetical to who we are.

The mission of a university is to foster an open atmosphere conducive to speculation, experimentation and creation. American higher education is the envy of the world not in spite of, but because of, its unrivaled commitment to openness and diversity. Attracting — and welcoming — the brightest minds in the world, regardless of nationality or country of origin, is what we’re all about.

To put it another way, the U.S. university model is a strategic advantage, not a hindrance to American competitiveness. Our administrators, professors and research scholars are not, and should not become, an arm of U.S. law enforcement. Ironically, what the FBI apparently considers our great vulnerability is, in my view, our greatest strength.

At Columbia University, where I am president, thousands of students and faculty represent more than 150 countries. We stewards of major research universities couldn’t contain intellectual freedom even if we wanted to. The incompatibility of university culture with systematic scrutiny may explain why even law enforcement officials who have visited our campus have offered little prescriptive guidance, instead offering that we should be vigilant.

The unauthorized use of intellectual property by overseas competitors is a serious problem. But the surveillance of foreign-born scholars in this country is the wrong solution. If law enforcement agencies have legitimate concerns, it seems to me that they should identify and monitor those they designate as “suspicious people” based on real threats, not broad worries about entire nationalities.

A more effective approach — advocated by many of my colleagues in higher education as well as the bipartisan Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property — is to expand the number of green cards awarded to foreign-born graduates of our great colleges and universities. Many of these international scholars, especially in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, would, if permitted, prefer to remain in the United States and work for U.S.-based companies after graduation, where they could also contribute to the United States’ economic growth and prosperity. But under the present rules, when their academic studies are completed, we make it difficult for them to stay. They return to their countries with the extraordinary knowledge they acquired here, which can inform future commercial strategies deployed against U.S. competitors.

The mandate of our colleges and universities is to pursue open, robust inquiry across a wide range of topics. Our institutions of higher learning should do more — not less — of what made the United States the most innovative nation in the history of the world.