原标题：哥大校长反对FBI监督外国学生揭露信全文翻译

编者按

是的，FBI确实在劝说美国高校的教职工们，对自己学校的我国留学生和我国学者们进行监督。

早在上一年，美国就曾有报导称FBI官员拜访了美国大学联盟中的超越10所高校，主张这些学校的教职工们对自己学校中与部分我国研讨组织和我国企业有联络的学生和学者进行监督，与此同时，FBI官员还期望这些高校能够亲近重视“或许用于国防范畴的”、有我国人参与的研讨项意图发展。

虽然FBI仅将这一举动描绘为“咱们就国家安全业务而继续进行的触摸的一部分”（part of our ongoing engagement on national security matters），关于遭受问询的高校来说，作业并非如此。本年6月，印第安纳大学副校长弗雷德·凯特向媒体泄漏，“这不仅仅是搜索可疑行为的问题——它实际上针对的是一些特定的国家，以及来自那些国家的人”。

8月29日和9月4日，哥伦比亚大学校长伯灵格（Lee Bollinger）在《华盛顿邮报》与哥伦比亚大学官方网站上两次宣布揭露信，对FBI说“不”。

以下为伯灵格在《华盛顿邮报》宣布的揭露信全文翻译

原标题：No, I won’t start spying on my foreign-born students

联邦调查局（FBI）近来加强了对大学学校研讨作业的检查——包含咱们（哥伦比亚大学）。

为了阻挠常识产权被不合法搬运给外国竞争对手，法律组织和情报组织正在煽动美国学者和行政人员拟定愈加严厉的规则，来监控外国学生和拜访学者，尤其是华裔学生与华裔拜访学者。

跟着学生们重返学校，这些监督手法，正妄图将政治经济层面的担忧和宪法榜首修正案所确保的自在置于抵触之中。

固然，在网络安全和生物恐怖主义等国家安全范畴，政府赞助的学术研讨确实灵敏。相同，这些与美国公司协作进行的研讨而带来的商业立异效果，也成为了不合法技能转让的首要方针，它们值得被维护。

大学有义务恪守现有的安全规则、合理地加强安全措施，并在显着发现疑似特务行为时，充沛合作法律部分和企业研讨同伴。在曩昔，确实发生过几起教研人员将灵敏的常识产权走漏给外国政府的个案，所以某种程度上来说，咱们在这方面还做得不够好，咱们能，也有必要做得更好。

但是，在学校里进行的研讨，只要一小部分归于“秘要”。事实上，学术研讨的意图本便是同享，也便是将学术效果发布到公共范畴，以推进人类前进。突破性的医学发现、使世界各地几百万人免于饥饿的农业立异、互联网、人工智能，这些效果都来自揭露的、依据大学的研讨。

因而，外国人无须跨过大半个地球“浸透”进咱们这些优异的大学，来获取咱们最新的发现，除了一些极其重要的学术发现之外，经过搜索引擎，他们完全能够在舒适的办公室或许宿舍，细读同行评议的学术期刊。或许，他们也能够拜访美国专利商标局的网站，了解专利维护请求供给的立异效果的详细信息。

因而，作为一个花了50年时刻倡议言辞和集会自在的人，当得知咱们大学的教职工，或许还有学生，居然被要求去监控外国学生和搭档的行为时，我感到极度担忧。这与咱们的初心各走各路。

大学的任务，是培育出敞开的气氛，来促进考虑、试验和发明。美国的高级教育之所以令全世界艳羡，正是由于它在保证敞开性和多元化方面无人能及。它招引、并欢迎着世界上最聪明的脑筋们，不管他们来自哪里，国籍是什么。

换句话说，美国的大学形式是一种战略优势，而不是对美国竞争力的阻止。咱们的行政人员、教授和研讨人员不是，也不应该成为美国法律部分的触手。具有挖苦意味的是，在我看来，咱们在FBI眼中最单薄的一环，恰恰是咱们最大的优势。

在我担任校长的哥伦比亚大学，有来自150多个国家的不计其数的学生和教师。作为干流研讨型大学的管理者，咱们不能任意约束学术自在。大学文明与体系检查并不兼容，这或许能够解说，为什么即使是到访咱们学校的法律官员，也仅仅告知咱们应该保持警惕，却很少供给规范性辅导。

海外竞争对手盗用常识产权确实是一个严峻的问题。但对外国学者进行监督是个过错的解决方案。在我看来，假如法律组织有某些合法关心，那么他们应该辨认并监控那些依据真实的要挟而被他们确定的“可疑人员”，而不是忧虑整个国家的人。

我在高级教育界的许多搭档，以及两党联合建立的美国反常识产权盗取委员会，都发起一种更为有用的做法，那便是扩展向咱们高校的外国结业生发放的绿卡的数量。假如答应的话，这些具有国际背景的学者中许多人，特别是在科学、技能、工程和数学范畴的学者，结业后更乐意留在美国，为美国公司作业，这样还能够为美国的经济增加和昌盛做出奉献。但依据现在的规则，当他们完成学业后，咱们很难让他们留下来。他们带着在这里学到的先进常识，回到自己的国家，而这些常识未来能够为美国的竞争对手，供给商业战略的参阅。

咱们学院和大学的任务是，在广泛的议题上不断地进行揭露的咨询。咱们的高级教育组织，应改为美国成为这个世界上有史以来最具立异精力的国家尽力，而不是相反。

以下为揭露信英文原文

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 deions 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 preive 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.

翻译：金书沁 朱凯

责编：张希蓓

责任编辑：