外籍教师在清华课堂引起的分歧
四川地震是一场大悲剧，但它可能有助于驱散一种广为流传的荒诞说法：中国新一代学生是物质主义的、自私的。
自2004年以来，我在清华大学任教，我发现几乎所有的学生都有要为社会出力的冲动力。因此当我听到数百清华学子在灾难发生后，于红十字血站通宵排队捐血和捐赠物资，我毫不惊讶。还有人到了千里之外的地震区，去分发援助。
如今我希望事件可以驱散另一种错误的印象：年轻的中国人是仇外的民族主义者，不辨好坏地为自己的国家欢呼。
清华是中国最著名的大学之一，政治倾向保守。我的多数同事和很多学生都是共产党员。
然而那里的气氛一点也不保守。最受欢迎的讲师往往是那些公开批评当代中国的讲师。在班上，学生的问题常常很尖锐，我只得引入一些“亲政府”的观点平衡一下。
在四川发生地震几天后，我准备讲授罗尔斯（John Rawls）的公平论。当时，地震死亡人数已经很庞大，国家情绪变得阴沉。在课堂之前，四名学生到我的办公室，质疑我授课的“抽象”理论的相关性，要求我使用更加具体的例子。因此我努力思考可以抓住学生的例子。
最后我想出了一个我自以为好的例子。根据罗尔斯的理论，国家应该首先考虑境遇最差的社会（community）成员。但“社会”的实质是什么呢？国家的义务是否应扩大到边界之外？例如，缅甸的飓风死亡人数比中国地震死亡人数还多。中国是否应该帮助缅甸飓风受害者，哪怕这意味着减少对中国救援任务的援助？
当我完成讲课后，学生们出人意料的沉默，甚至令我感到某种程度的敌意。最后，一名学生表示，中国政府当然应该首先帮助中国人。我问为什么。另一个学生回答道，这是很显然的，受难的是中国人。我问但为什么，为什么呢。我有点不耐烦了。给我一些理由。
一些学生发言了。没有全球机构会根据罗尔斯的公平理论来分发援助。中国民众向国家纳税，因此国家对他们有特别的义务。即使国家想帮助缅甸民众，它也不可能为此做很多事情。
我回答说缅甸政府是真正混帐，妨碍援助抵达民众手中，而且中国政府可以对它发挥一些影响力。一位学生表示这种自由主义理论可能不适合中国。我想回答说儒家理论也可以论证有理由帮助受压迫的外国人，但这时下课铃声响起。在过去，一向礼貌的学生会在离开之前鼓掌表示感谢。但这次没有掌声。
我回家的时候意识到自己走过一个敏感领域。中国电视满是死亡和灾难的画面，士兵在泥泞中跋涉帮助灾民的画面。每一次谈话首先谈的就是对灾民的关心。我向这个班发了一封电子邮件，为这个“错误（wrong-headed）”的例子道歉，并补充说“清华学生为支持地震灾民所做的事情非常令人敬佩，我并不是说我们必须要在两场悲剧之间作出选择。”
关心更邻近的民众是很自然的事情，特别是在灾难时期。我想我喜欢中国人，但我对他们的观点仍然不够敏感。
或者这只是时间的问题。想象一下，在刚发生“911”袭击后，纽约一位教授要学生辩论是把捐赠的钱物用来救助袭击遇难者的亲属，还是救助海外的战争受害者。他可能被哄出教室。但一年后，这就可能成为讨论的话题了。我想，问题在于一年之后我的学生和我是不是就可以讨论中国的全球责任了。（原标题：中国课堂上的分歧；作者：DANIEL A. BELL 加拿大人，牛津大学博士，清华大学哲学系教授，著名社会学家，其代表作《社群主义及其批评者》、《东方遭遇西方》已被翻译成中文、日文等多国文字。）
译文为摘译，英文原文：http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/opinion/21bell.html?ref=opinion
China’s Class Divide
Published: May 21, 2008
Beijing
AS tragic as the Sichuan earthquake has been, perhaps it can do some good by helping dispel a widespread myth: that the new generation of Chinese students are materialistic and selfish.
I’ve been teaching political theory at Tsinghua University here since 2004 and I’ve found that almost all of my students are driven to do good for society. So I wasn’t surprised when, as word of the disaster came out, hundreds of Tsinghua students lined up overnight at a Red Cross station to donate blood and supplies. Others went to the earthquake zone, more than 1,000 miles away, to distribute aid.
Now I’m hoping events can dispel another false impression: that young Chinese are xenophobic nationalists who cheer for their country, good or bad.
Tsinghua is one of China’s most prestigious universities and it is known for its politically conservative orientation. President Hu Jintao is an alumnus, and most of my colleagues are Communist Party members, as are many of my students.
Yet the atmosphere is anything but conservative. The most popular lecturers tend to be the ones who openly criticize contemporary China. In private, students are quick to express frustration at Internet censorship and official propaganda. In class, student questions are often critical to the point that I need to introduce some “pro-government” views for balance.
Shortly after the uprisings in Tibet in March, I happened to lecture on Locke’s idea of constitutional democracy. A student asked if the “right to rebel” would justify the use of violence by Tibetans fighting for independence. In the interest of class time, I had to shut off the discussion. The next week we discussed Isaiah Berlin’s concept of freedom, and a student mentioned the cover illustration of a German magazine that depicted the Olympic rings in barbed wire. Once again, I was forced into the strange position of cutting off debate before it got out of hand.
After the Sichuan earthquake, one student told me the disaster was a punishment from heaven and that the government would have to make amends. Another accused the local government of suppressing news predicting an earthquake because it might have disrupted the “harmonious environment” for the Olympics.
A few days later, I was due to lecture on John Rawls’s theory of justice. By then, the huge toll of the earthquake had become apparent and the national mood had turned grim. Before the class, four students came to my office, raising doubts about the relevance of the “abstract” theories I was teaching and urging me to use more concrete examples. So I tried hard to think of an example that the students could grapple with.
Finally I came up with a good one (or so I thought). According to Rawls, the state should give first consideration to the worst-off members of the community. But which “community” matters? Do the state’s obligations extend outside national boundaries? For example, the cyclone in Burma caused more deaths than the Chinese earthquake. Should China help the victims of the Burmese cyclone, even if it means less aid for the rescue mission in China?
When I finished, the class went unexpectedly silent, to the point that I could feel a certain amount of hostility. Finally a student said that of course the Chinese government should help the Chinese first. But why, I said? Another student said, it’s obvious, the victims are Chinese. “But why, why?” I asked, somewhat impatiently. Give me some reasons.
Some students spoke up. There is no global institution that could distribute aid in accordance with Rawls’s principles of justice. The Chinese people pay taxes to the Chinese state, so the state has special obligations to them. The Chinese state couldn’t do much for the Burmese people even if it wanted to.
I responded that the Burmese government is truly awful, blocking aid to its own people, and that the Chinese government could have some influence on it. A student commented that liberal theories may not be appropriate in China. I wanted to reply that Confucian theories can also justify intervention to help oppressed foreigners, but the bell rang. In the past, the ever-polite students would clap in appreciation before leaving. This time, there was no applause
When I got home, I realized that I had trodden on sensitive territory. Chinese TV has been filled with scenes of death and devastation, of Chinese soldiers wading through mud and gore to help the victims. Every conversation is prefaced with concern about the victims. I sent an e-mail message to the class apologizing for the “wrong-headed” example, adding, “It is very admirable what students at Tsinghua are doing to support the earthquake victims and I didn’t mean to imply that we must choose between two tragedies.”
A student wrote back saying, “It is not a wrong-headed example; we just have clear and strong identification.” That seems to go to the heart of what went wrong. It’s perfectly natural to care about people closer to home, especially in times of disaster. I think I have a soft spot for the Chinese, but I still wasn’t sufficiently sensitive to their point of view.
Or maybe it’s just a matter of timing. Imagine a professor in New York, just after the 9/11 attacks, asking students to argue about whether donations are best spent aiding relatives of the victims of those attacks or victims of war abroad. He might well have been shouted out of the room. But a year later, say, it could have been a subject of discussion. The question, I guess, is whether my students and I will be able to debate China’s global obligations a year from now.
Daniel A. Bell is the author of “China’s New Confucianism: Politics and Everyday Life in a Changing Society.”
罗尔斯（John Rawls）的公平论,我注意到这个由王沪宁写中译本序的书.上世纪70代的书,至今仍然很有价值,可以理解正义公平的意义的久远.本站补经济观察,外籍教师在清华课堂引起的分歧
