My immigrant parents attended my Yale graduation. Seeing them on the Ivy League campus for the first time was surprisingly moving.

 编者：像所有移民致敬。

• My immigrant parents never visited me while I was a student at Yale, but they came to my graduation.

• They didn't fit in with the other families, and they often apologized for their presence.

• It was moving seeing them on the Ivy League campus, signifying all they gave up for me.

The night before I left for my senior year at Yale, my mom and I joked that we would find each other again in the next lifetime, but as classmates. We imagined ourselves sitting in the back row of some old lecture hall, whispering about which New Haven spot to try next for dinner.

"And Dad?" I asked.

"He would probably be in the very first row," Mom laughed. "You know he loves to talk."

That fantasy came to life in May when my immigrant parents finally came to visit me at Yale for the first time. Neither of them graduated from high school in rural China, but they came to campus to celebrate my commencement.

For years, complicated logistics and sacrifices kept them away. My father rarely left New York because of my grandparents' declining health, while my mother has grown increasingly reluctant to travel alone.

They missed every one of Yale's annual family events. Our story is far from unique. Immigrant parents exist in a gray zone between demanding work schedules and language barriers. Plus, mounting scrutiny on noncitizens makes even domestic travel fraught with risk.

I was determined that graduation would make up for the missed opportunities to bond with my parents. I just didn't expect to be so moved by their presence on campus.

I hoped to give my parents the full college experience

I coordinated the details: guiding them through train transfers, creating an ambitious itinerary of museums, libraries, restaurants, and landmarks. I even coached my mom on what to say if anyone asked for ID at any point.

I also wanted them to participate in the Yale Class Day traditions: decorating personalized graduation hats, seeing the annual comedy skit, and listening to student representatives from various faiths read scriptures at the Baccalaureate Ceremony.

It was my mission to make them feel comfortable at the school, but part of my motivation was selfish. Nothing meant more to me than walking across that stage, turning to the audience, and seeing their faces cheer me on. I wanted my parents to know their son was standing tall in a place that once seemed impossible.

Their presence stood in quiet contrast to the families surrounding us

While I was excited to see them cheer, I didn't expect them to look so lost on the Ivy League campus.

Other families moved confidently through the elite spaces, spoke fluent English, knew the difference between Gothic and Baroque architecture, and, in some cases, proudly returned as Yale alums.

I noticed that my mom and dad over-apologized throughout their stay. "Sorry," they said, while smiling and brushing past security. They said it again when they accidentally got in the way of a photo shoot, or when catching a break during our hike up East Rock, a mountain ridge north of campus that ends up with a breathtaking view of New Haven.

"Sorry," they said as we took a rest at the base of a large hemlock. A small creek burbled in front of us, and Dad picked up a few rocks and skipped them across the water. They got close, but the rocks never reached the opposite bank.

It wasn't the humility that moved me; it was the exhausting vigilance I saw in my parents. It pained me the way they tried not to inconvenience others — a broader reflection of what it means to be immigrants in our country. They were two people who grew up too fast, who put aside their differences and discomforts to join me at a place I have now become accustomed to.

If college graduation is all about thrusting ourselves into uncharted waters, then this was just as much their graduation as mine.

I will long cherish my parents' visit

Having my parents finally on Yale's campus reminded me to cherish the moments we have together and not harp on the moments they missed over the past four years. I know they'll also miss out on important milestones as I head into med school at Stanford.

Even though it can get lonely without them around to cheer me on through all my achievements, I'm proud to honor their hard work in this country.

Toward the end of their three-day stay for commencement, I took my parents to Marsh Hall, where I had my first biology course as a first-year student. Seating 483 students, it's also the largest classroom at Yale. My parents went to the front of the classroom. They marveled at the Japanese chalk near the blackboard, flipped through empty blue book exams, and wondered how the projector worked.

I took off my glasses, and through the blur, my parents looked like college students having fun: Mom in her emerald green dress and Dad in the dress shirt I'd bought him. They seemed too busy looking around to notice me. From the margins, watching the two people I loved most forget me, even if it was just for a moment, I was happy.

美国市场正在分化，为什么MAGA经济能蓬勃发展？

 想象一个完美的清晨。在阴谋论者迈克·林德尔创立的“我的枕头”（My Pillow）床品间醒来，然后来杯“黑步枪咖啡”（Black Rifle Coffee），这家咖啡店标榜“为热爱美国的人提供咖啡和文化”。接着用“杰里米剃须刀”（Jeremy’s Razors）剃须，这款剃须刀专为“硬朗的下巴线条设计”。再吃几片“好牧场”（Good Ranchers）的培根，这家公司承诺“让美国农场再次强大”，最后骑上你的哈雷摩托兜个风。

但MAGA阵营的势力范围远不止这些营销夸张的商品，还包括那些受共和党人青睐的产品和企业。每个经济选择的累计都会产生更大的影响。据我们分析，美国正分化为两大经济和市场阵营：保守派与自由派。双方对经济的认知迥异，消费选择不同，所处的行业也日益分化。更令人意外的是，MAGA经济的表现竟然相当亮眼。

美国自由派人士往往对专攻保守派市场的公司嗤之以鼻。虽说这一定程度上是因为他们不喜欢对方，但有些MAGA产品确实看着像骗局。特朗普的加密币在推出后一度飙升，但很快就崩盘了，让许多支持者损失惨重。他推出的品牌手表，包括“战斗、战斗、战斗”款，售价最高达10万美元，评价却褒贬不一。

这种傲慢也反映出一种观点，即认为保守经济是落后的。2016年民主党总统候选人希拉里·克林顿曾指出，“她获胜的地区，占美国国内生产总值三分之二，这些地方充满乐观、多元和活力，正不断向前迈进”。2024年总统候选人哈里斯也是如此。

当然，一些稳定的共和党选区长期以来也很富裕，比如佛罗里达州的朱庇特镇，人们打高尔夫球，穿白色休闲裤。然而，在加利福尼亚北部的尤巴市，许多当地人务农，且强烈支持特朗普，这里或许更能体现MAGA地带的特征：收入水平较低，商店出售五金、枪支和快餐。放眼望去，一条休闲裤都找不到。



尽管如此，将共和党与落后联系在一起的观点与数据不符。即便是尤巴市这样的地方，也比以往发展得更好，整个红州地区的实力也相当雄厚。如果说民主党控制着美国三分之二的GDP，那共和党仍掌握着约10万亿美元的经济体量，这能使他们成为全球第三大经济体（见图一）。看过《胜利之光》的人都知道，美国各地都有大手笔的人。汽车经销商巴迪·加里蒂就是典型的MAGA富人代表。他虽然没富裕到拥有私人飞机，也没时尚到参加大都会艺术博物馆慈善晚宴，但他的银行存款依旧丰厚。

从“软”数据和“硬”数据中都可以看出，MAGA经济与民主党经济之间的差距越来越大。调查显示，共和党人和民主党人现在生活在不同的现实中。总统大选前，50%的民主党人认为经济正在好转，而在共和党人中，这一比例仅为6%。如今，持相同观点的民主党人降至8%，而共和党人则升至49%。这种党派分歧愈发显著。这一点看看按党派划分的通胀预期差距就知道了（见图二）。

官方数据显示，消费者的口味正沿着党派路线分化。以蓝州纽约和红州怀俄明为例，自20世纪90年代以来，蓝州的人们在典型的蓝色商品和服务上支出更多，而红州的人们在红色商品和服务上支出更多。纽约人热衷于外出就餐，在公共交通上的支出也大幅增加。相比之下，怀俄明州的人在车辆零部件和养老院等可能与更年长、更保守群体相关的事物上的支出比过去更多。

不仅仅是消费问题，MAGA地区和蓝州的经济表现也日益分化。他们对新冠第一波疫情的反应也截然不同。红州的经济活动降幅仅为蓝州的一半，当地人对病毒的恐惧程度较低。这种分化是长期趋势的结果。2008年前后，民主党和共和党各县GDP增长率的差异急剧扩大。此后，这一差异一直保持在两倍左右。过去，红区经济好时，蓝区通常也会蓬勃发展。但如今不再是这样了。

双方经济分道扬镳，部分原因在于产业结构的变化。我们分析了美国各县的工作和工资数据。随着时间的推移，2024年投票给民主党的地区在知识密集型经济活动中的占比越来越高。1993年，共和党各县雇员薪酬中来自“信息”行业（包括软件等）的比例与其他地方大致相同。

现在，这一比例比平均水平低30%，而对制造业的依赖程度则有所上升。总体来看，民主党和共和党地区的就业模式出现了20%的差异，这种差异可以用“区位商”（location quotients）来衡量，它能反映各行业就业分布的差异程度。

尽管如此，今天仍有很多“巴迪·加里蒂”式的人物。2024年，年收入超过100万美元的美国人中，有47%居住在支持特朗普的州，这一比例从2014年的43%上升到了现在的水平。低收入人群的收入也在增长，人口增长也很强劲。

MAGA经济中有很多大型企业，这些企业很少被自由派接触到。尤巴市就有温科超市（WinCo），感觉像是好市多（Costco）的山寨版，还有售卖牛仔靴的靴子农场。看福克斯新闻的人收入相对较低，然而在过去一年里，该公司的股价却一路飙升。

另一个例子是，尤巴城的意大利连锁餐厅橄榄园（Olive Garden）。舆观（YouGov）2023-2024年的民调显示，最受共和党人欢迎的餐饮是，提供木制摇椅和南方菜系的饼干桶（Cracker Barrel），其次是橄榄园。

虽然橄榄园的意面可能不是家里做的味道，但它依然很受欢迎。经营这家连锁店的达登公司（Darden），股票价格在过去五年里几乎翻了三倍。

这些趋势在美国各地都有所体现。我们与知名基金管理公司的基金经理吴凯，调查收集了30家被共和党或民主党看好的上市公司。这一过程难免有不严谨之处：没有一项民意调查能涵盖所有公司。

最终，共和党的篮子里装有约翰迪尔、福克斯和哈雷戴维森等公司，而民主党的篮子里则有埃齐（Etsy）、露露乐蒙、来福车（Lyft）等企业。最近的市场动荡沉重打击了共和党的篮子。然而，在过去十年里，共和党篮子的股东回报，包括股息在内，远远超过了民主党篮子（见图三）。



为什么MAGA公司似乎表现更好？或许是因为他们不搞政治正确那一套。比如Point Bridge America First的基金，股票代码是MAGA，仅包含支持共和党的企业；而Democratic Large-Cap Core Fund，股票代码为 DEMZ，专门投资向民主党提供大笔捐款的公司。

从2020年底开始，MAGA的股价就一直吊打DEMZ。高盛银行构建了一个股票指数，包含那些可能从共和党关键政策中受益的公司，比如石油行业中的公司。在过去十年中，这些公司的股价轻松跑赢大盘。

但现在MAGA经济前途未卜。特朗普的关税提高了进口零部件的成本，这将损害制造业。哈雷戴维森（Harley-Davidson）就成了外国政客报复的理想目标。

不过另一方面，包括佛罗里达州和得克萨斯州在内的共和党州仍在吸引国内移民。由于当地消费者信心强劲，可以预见MAGA地区的消费支出会好于民主党占优的地方，这种经济并不仅仅依赖“我的枕头”这一类产品。

Yurong “Luanna” Jiang, M.P.A. ’25, Graduate English Address: “Our Humanity”

 编者：当一个地方太阳落山的时候，一定有另一个地方太阳升起。Congratulations, class 2025!

Last summer, when I was doing my internship in Mongolia, I got a call from two classmates in Tanzania. They had a very urgent question: how to use their washing machine — because all the labels were in Chinese, and Google kept translating a big button as “Spinning Ghost Mode.”

There we were: an Indian and a Thai calling me, a Chinese in Mongolia, to decipher a washer in Tanzania. And we all study together here at Harvard.

That moment reminds me of something I used to believe when I was a kid: that the world was becoming a small village. I remember being told we would be the first generation to end hunger and poverty for humankind.

My program at Harvard is International Development. It was built on this exact beautiful vision that humanity rises and falls as one.

When I met my 77 classmates from 34 countries, the countries I knew only as colorful shapes on a map turned into real people - with laughter, dreams, and the perseverance to survive the long winter in Cambridge. We danced through each other’s traditions, and carried the weight of each other’s worlds. Global challenges suddenly felt personal.

If there’s a woman anywhere in the world who can’t afford a period pad, it makes me poorer. If a girl skips school out of fear of harassment, that threatens my dignity. If a little boy dies in a war that he didn’t start and never understood, part of me dies with him.

But today, that promise of a connected world is giving way to division, fear, and conflict. We’re starting to believe that people who think differently, vote differently, or pray differently—whether they’re across the ocean or sitting right next to us — are not just wrong. We mistakenly see them as evil.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

What I’ve gained most from Harvard isn’t just calculus and regression analysis. It’s to sit with discomfort. Listen deeply. And stay soft in hard times.

If we still believe in a shared future, let us not forget: those we label as enemies—they, too, are human. In seeing their humanity, we find our own. In the end, we don’t rise by proving each other wrong. We rise by refusing to let one another go.

So, Class of 2025, when the world feels stuck in Spinning Ghost Mode, just remember: As we leave this campus, we carry everyone we’ve met — across wealth and poverty, cities and villages, faith and doubt. They speak different languages, dream different dreams, and yet—they’ve all become part of us. You may disagree with them, but hold onto them, as we are bound by something deeper than belief: our shared humanity.

Congratulations, Class of 2025!

What happens to Trump’s tariffs now that a court has knocked them down?

编者：论美国的民主。法院是一个制度最后的防线。

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal court in New York handed President Donald Trump a big setback Wednesday, blocking his audacious plan to impose massive taxes on imports from almost every country in the world.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that Trump overstepped his authority when he invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to declare a national emergency and justify the sweeping tariffs.

The tariffs overturned decades of U.S. trade policy, disrupted global commerce, rattled financial markets and raised the risk of higher prices and recession in the United States and around the world.

The U.S. Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over civil cases involving trade. Its decisions can be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington and ultimately to the Supreme Court, where the legal challenges to Trump’ tariffs are widely expected to end up.

Which tariffs did the court block?

The court’s decision blocks the tariffs Trump slapped last month on almost all U.S. trading partners and levies he imposed before that on China, Mexico and Canada.

On April 2, Trump imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs a trade deficit and 10% baseline tariffs on almost everybody else. He later suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries time to agree to reduce barriers to U.S. exports. But he kept the baseline tariffs in place. Claiming extraordinary power to act without congressional approval, he justified the taxes under IEEPA by declaring the United States' longstanding trade deficits “a national emergency.”

In February, he'd invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs across the U.S. border amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to set taxes, including tariffs. But lawmakers have gradually let presidents assume more power over tariffs — and Trump has made the most of it.

The tariffs are being challenged in at least seven lawsuits. In the ruling Wednesday, the trade court combined two of the cases — one brought by five small businesses and another by 12 U.S. states.

The ruling does leave in place other Trump tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminum and autos. But those levies were invoked under a different law that required a Commerce Department investigation and could not be imposed at the president’s own discretion.

Why did the court rule against the president?

The administration had argued that courts had approved then-President Richard Nixon’s emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic and financial crisis that arose when the United States suddenly devalued the dollar by ending a policy that linked the U.S. currency to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language later used in IEPPA.

The court disagreed, deciding that Trump’s sweeping tariffs exceeded his authority to regulate imports under IEEPA. It also said the tariffs did nothing to deal with problems they were supposed to address. In their case, the states noted that America's trade deficits hardly amount of a sudden emergency. The United States has racked them up for 49 straight years in good times and bad.

So where does this leave Trump's trade agenda?

Wendy Cutler, a former U.S. trade official who is now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, says the court's decision "throws the president’s trade policy into turmoil.”

“Partners negotiating hard during the 90-day day tariff pause period may be tempted to hold off making further concessions to the U.S. until there is more legal clarity," she said.

Likewise, companies will have to reassess the way they run their supply chains, perhaps speeding up shipments to the United States to offset the risk that the tariffs will be reinstated on appeal.

The trade court noted that Trump retains more limited power to impose tariffs to address trade deficits under another statute, the Trade Act of 1974. But that law restricts tariffs to 15% and only for 150 days with countries with which the United States runs big trade deficits.

For now, the trade court's ruling “destroys the Trump administration’s rationale for using federal emergency powers to impose tariffs, which oversteps congressional authority and contravenes any notion of due process,” said Eswar Prasad, professor of trade policy at Cornell University. "The ruling makes it clear that the broad tariffs imposed unilaterally by Trump represent an overreach of executive power.''

“哈佛保卫战”：战线在重组，火力正升级…

 文 ｜ 郭英剑（中国人民大学全民阅读教育研究院院长）

5月22日，美国国土安全部宣布撤销哈佛大学招收国际学生的资质，甚至要求目前在哈佛大学学习的国际学生立刻转学，否则将失去在美国的合法身份。消息一出，震惊全球学界。

作为全世界最具影响力的高校，哈佛大学的国际学生比例约占学生总数的1/4，其对全球学术共同体的象征意义不言自明。该事件不仅引发了哈佛师生的抗议，更在全球掀起了一场关于大学使命、国家治理与全球知识秩序的深层讨论。

在我看来，该事件的轰动效应之大，堪称新世纪以来全球教育界最剧烈的一次震荡。

权力、知识与文化的碰撞

此次事件并非完全令人意外。它其实是2024年底哈佛遭遇美国国会严格审查事件的延续。当时，哈佛因对校内反犹言论的处理方式而遭到美国国会审查，最终导致其黑人女校长克劳丁·盖伊辞职。对于外界而言，该事件似乎是因言论危机引发的一次校方管理失误，但若仅以“处理不当”或“反犹争议”归结这一系列事态，无疑低估了它背后的深层结构。

在我看来，该事件不仅是一所大学的公关灾难和一场观念之争，更是一场蔓延至权力核心、牵动国家意识形态的文化战争。它展现了美国社会在高等教育、政治权力与文化信仰之间激烈的碰撞与撕裂。

过去几十年中，哈佛大学及其同类精英学府因其自由主义立场、社会正义话语和多元包容政策，逐渐成为美国保守派眼中的“文化堡垒”。这场以“反犹”为由发动的攻势，在很大程度上是保守力量对精英教育体系长期不满的一次集中爆发。哈佛与美国执政者之战，是一次知识权威、政治忠诚、文化立场的全面交锋。

我们需要思考的不仅是哈佛“处理反犹是否得当”，还有“哈佛为何成为靶子”，以及“谁有权决定大学价值”。在极化的政治气候中，大学还能否保有对知识的自由探索及对社会的深度反思？相信所有人都看得出，美国政府此次重拳出击哈佛极具象征意义。正如美国国土安全部部长诺姆在受访时所说，这是对美国其他大学的警告，所有大学都应好自为之，尽快整顿。

为此，我将这次哈佛的抗争以及美国学界乃至全球高等教育界对其的声援称之为“哈佛保卫战”，因为它事实上是一场关于大学自由、学术自治与制度尊严的坚守与抗争。

从意识形态对立到制度性重塑

事实上，美国特朗普政府对于哈佛的极限施压，早在特朗普第一任期就开始了。

在美国，高等教育领域已成为日益激烈的意识形态争夺之地。2017年，首次当选美国总统的特朗普就频繁对以哈佛为代表的常春藤盟校发起批评乃至政治性攻击。这些批评与攻击并非零散事件，而是构成了一场具有结构性意图的文化战争。特朗普政府通过话语、政策、财政和监管手段，持续对美国高等教育施加压力，意图“纠正”大学被指“过于自由派化”的价值导向，并试图借此重塑大学与国家、大学与资本、大学与社会之间的关系。

首先，初期攻势是从话语建构开始到政策威胁（2017—2020）。特朗普频繁抨击美国高等教育机构，指责大学“扼杀言论自由”“压制保守派声音”，并要求接受美国联邦资金的大学必须保障“言论自由”。

其次，号召美国国会对哈佛进行制度审查。再度步入总统竞选期的特朗普以“反犹主义”“校园暴力”“招生不公”为由，重新炮轰哈佛大学，并掀起新一轮针对高等教育的全面攻势。在他的推动下，举行了一场对哈佛的政策与制度进行审查的听证会。会上，多位美国国会议员质问哈佛、宾夕法尼亚大学等高校在处理亲巴抗议与校园骚乱中的“不作为”，并质疑大学在DEI（多元、公平与包容）政策上的“歧视性逆向倾斜”。

最后，动用行政命令冻结哈佛的美国联邦政府拨款、剥夺其招收国际学生的资格。特朗普就任美国第47届总统后不久，美国教育部与财政部便启动了对哈佛的联邦拨款项目审查，冻结其约23亿美元的多年期拨款计划及6000万美元的科研合同。紧随其后，特朗普公开威胁取消哈佛的税收减免资格，并对其校友捐赠施压。该阶段的攻势不再仅仅是话语建构，而是启动实质性惩罚机制。

应该说，上述美国政府的行为反映了教育自主的结构性危机——大学自由正在遭受前所未有的挑战。

特朗普政府的这些连续进攻并非单一现象，而是反映出一场结构性的政治重组正在加速进行。传统上，美国大学享有“制度性自主”，即在招生、教学、研究与价值引导上的独立空间。但随着美国政府将财政审查、价值裁判与社会压力作为工具，其“教育自主”遭遇前所未有的系统性挑战。这场挑战的根源不仅在于资金链的脆弱性，更在于大学治理模式的脆弱性。当高校必须在道义与生存之间作出选择时，原本以“中立”自居的象牙塔已难以维系学术自由与制度稳定的双重理想。

更深层的问题在于，随着“大学是否仍是社会公共利益的一部分”的讨论越发激烈，大学的合法性正被置于持续的政治博弈中。从特朗普的“文化战”策略来看，大学不再只是一个教育机构，而是被建构为价值斗争中的敌对阵营。这直接将大学从“社会公益”转化为“阶层工具”的象征性阵地。

在此背景下，哈佛的财政危机不是孤例，而是象征性揭示了大学自由精神正面临“财政-政治-舆论”三重夹击的现实。在后真相时代，当“言论自由”被用来打压“自由表达”，当“公共财政”被用于惩罚“政治不正确”，大学如何重新确立其使命与边界，成为“哈佛保卫战”之后的更大命题。

哈佛的回应与高教联盟的集体反应

在特朗普政府采取审查与资金冻结手段之初，哈佛并未立刻作出强烈反应，而是采取了相对克制、审慎的态度，试图通过内部磋商与法律评估以缓解局势。对于指控中涉及的“校园反犹太主义”和“招生歧视”等问题，哈佛的初步回应仅停留在对校园价值观的重复申明与制度的辩护上。但当美国财政部宣布冻结其多年期拨款与合同，并威胁取消其税收优惠资格后，哈佛终于意识到这不是一场对单一事件的审查，而是针对其制度、文化与自治精神的全面进攻。

哈佛的转变是显著且有力的。

今年3月，校方正式对美国财政部提起联邦诉讼，指控其以政治动机干预学术机构的财政与治理。这标志着哈佛从单一学校利益的防守，转向为整个高等教育系统争取制度正义与公共信任的主动出击。更关键的是，这场诉讼并不是象征性抵抗，而是明确聚焦于政府通过财政杠杆手段控制大学意识形态与办学自主的危险趋势。

哈佛的起诉很快引发全美高教界的广泛声援，很多高校公开谴责美国联邦政府。在此过程中，我们看到美国高等教育系统在危机中的“联合意识”开始显现。过去数年，由于在很多议题上的分歧，美国高校之间并不总能保持一致的价值立场。但此次哈佛的遭遇在某种程度上成为一面镜子，反映出美国整个高教系统普遍存在的脆弱性——当一所标杆性大学都无法免于政治与财政的双重操控时，其他大学的制度安全亦岌岌可危。因此，这种“制度自保机制”不仅是同声援助的情感共鸣，更是在现实逻辑推动下的理性选择。

更关键的是，这场联合反击彰显出大学在面对权力干预时的一种“后危机反思机制”。不少高校在支持哈佛的同时，开始重新审视自身内部治理结构与舆情管理机制，试图在保持大学开放性与自由性的同时，强化公共沟通、完善危机应对。这不仅有助于提升公众对大学的信任，也为高校面对类似压力提供了制度与道义的预备方案。

应该说，哈佛的反抗不再是一所精英高校的孤军奋战，而是一场制度性反击的信号弹。在这场围绕资金、治理与意识形态展开的文化战争中，美国高教界显然意识到，它们若不形成共识并采取集体行动，不仅将失去财政支持，更将丧失独立性与公共信誉。

司法审判：地方法院的关键判决

在哈佛大学与联邦政府对抗的同时，一场司法审判悄然展开。

5月22日,失去招收国际生资质的哈佛迅速向法院提起诉讼，表示政府试图抹去哈佛1/4的学生群体，即对大学及其使命有重大贡献的国际学生。哈佛校长加伯在公开信中写道：“这项撤销措施是政府一连串报复哈佛的行动之一，因为我们拒绝放弃学术自主，亦拒绝接受联邦政府对我们课程、教职员及学生的非法控制。”

一天后，美国马萨诸塞州波士顿联邦法院地方法官巴罗斯裁定，联邦政府不得执行其一天前发布的命令。巴罗斯批准了一项临时限制令，裁定如果美国国土安全部的命令生效，哈佛将遭受“立即且无法弥补的损害”。

此次判决呈现的宪政逻辑，正是在当下文化战争语境下，为美国大学自治划定的一道制度红线。它不仅回应了哈佛的法理主张，也象征性地为其他高校提供了防御性先例。尽管该案很有可能被上诉至联邦上诉法院，甚至最高法院，但地方法院的初步判决已然发挥了重要的“司法护栏”功能，即在政权更替与社会分裂的风暴中，维系学术共同体最后的制度性安全区。

当然，判决的意义不止于支持哈佛，更在于重申美国高教系统赖以生存的制度底线，即大学必须拥有自主判断政治与学术边界的权力。这场审判不仅是一起技术层面的行政法判例，更是一次象征性的制度正名。它向所有观察者传递出明确信号——哪怕文化战已烧至象牙塔深处，宪政法律仍是高校得以安身立命的最后屏障。

自由派与保守派的世纪对峙

自上世纪下半叶以来，美国社会就陷入了一场旷日持久的“文化战争”。

这场战争最早可以追溯到上世纪60年代的新左派运动与保守主义复兴之间的冲突。是时，自由派推动的民权运动、反战思潮与女性主义等激进议题，使美国社会发生了剧烈的文化裂变。同时，保守力量也开始反击，将“回归传统价值”塑造成政治口号，开启了长达数十年的文化对峙。作为思想与价值的生产地，大学自然成为了“主战场”。

上世纪70年代以来，美国保守派就将高校描绘为“自由派意识形态温床”，指责其容忍“政治正确”，打压保守意见，纵容学术左倾、逆向歧视与“身份政治”的膨胀。

新世纪后，随着社交媒体的扩张与舆论分裂加剧，“觉醒主义”成为保守派最新的攻击对象。“觉醒”原是少数族裔对社会不公的自我警醒，但近年来逐渐泛化为自由派对种族、性别等议题的敏感激进立场。

在此语境下，“反觉醒”浪潮应运而生。2020年5月，美国黑人乔治·弗洛伊德被捕后被白人警察“跪杀”事件引发了全美大规模抗议。此后，美国高校纷纷加强DEI措施，但这些举措却成为保守派眼中“逆向歧视”“思想灌输”的象征。

哈佛大学前校长盖伊的下台正是“文化战争”的一次集中爆发，并标志着保守派在“反觉醒”运动中的阶段性胜利。长期以来，保守派深感自身在学界、媒体、艺术等“文化高地”上失势，进而提出要“夺回话语权”。这一战略不仅包括政治议题设定与舆论引导，还包括对高校资金、治理、课程的直接干预。

盖伊事件之后，保守派政客进一步发起对美国哥伦比亚大学、宾夕法尼亚大学等高校的调查。可以说，一场“由下至上”的文化攻势正转变为“由上而下”的体制性重塑。它不再停留在舆论领域，而是通过预算、评估、问责等手段，直接改写高校治理逻辑。

但这场战争并非简单的自由派失败、保守派胜利。盖伊辞职后，学界、媒体乃至部分政治人物迅速反弹，批评这是“反智主义对大学自治的攻击”。可以说，哈佛事件不仅揭示了大学的脆弱，也激发了更广泛的公共反思：大学是否应沦为政治角力的附庸？学术自由与言论边界应由谁设定？大学能否仍作为自由社会的最后堡垒？

当然，这场文化战争的火焰尚未熄灭，其战线正在重组，火力正在升级。哈佛所经历的不仅是一次危机，更是一场深刻的制度性转向。在这场漫长对峙中，大学既不能退缩于象牙塔的避风港，也不能轻易投降于权力的指令书。自由与责任、自治与反思，仍是当下大学在文化战争中必须面对的双重命题。

总之，哈佛的此次抗争是一场危机，也是一面镜子，照见了当代大学在政治、文化与社会变迁中的困境与坚守。这场危机提醒人们，大学不能满足于内部循环的“象牙塔式”自我陶醉，必须走向社会，回应关切，发出理性的声音，承担建设性的责任。大学精神不仅要在论文中表达，更要在公共生活中显现。

正如历史上的许多大学危机最终成为其文化重塑的契机，今天的哈佛保卫战亦应成为全球高教界自我更新的转折点。人们必须清醒地意识到，唯有坚持自由精神，并以此为起点不断革新，才能使大学继续成为文明的灯塔、人类理性的堡垒。

Trump's tariffs are backfiring around the world. And who benefits? China.

 President Donald Trump announced America’s "Liberation Day" on April 2, levying new tariffs against more than 180 countries and territories. Since then, Americans have been liberated from a good chunk of their retirement savings, with more than $6 trillion in stock value being wiped out in just two days.

Also, since that announcement, 75 nations have offered to renegotiate tariffs against America if our recent actions are undone. Now, the ball is in Trump’s court to make a deal.

If he doesn't, Trump’s newest round of tariffs will undermine America’s interests abroad and push our allies closer to our enemies. The window for him to avoid disastrous consequences from foreign policy is quickly approaching.

Trump's tariffs are undermining America's place in the world

The rest of the world will not abandon globalization just because the United States has. Countries that have had their economies decimated by Trump’s policies will not be eager to regain our good graces.

In all likelihood, our voluntary destruction of the world economy will only push our allies further toward our enemies. Nobody will be happier about these policies than China and Russia. The second Trump presidency gives them the biggest opportunity to expand their sphere of influence since the end of World War II.

There's an argument to be made for targeted tariffs on Chinese goods. The 145% tariffs that the Trump administration has now slapped on our great rival are much higher than what makes sense, but disincentivizing investment in China has value for America.

However, that's not what we are doing. Rather than tariff China and encourage manufacturing elsewhere, we are punishing even the countries that have long provided alternatives to Chinese manufacturing.

Countries like Vietnam, where 30% of the economy depends on exports to the United States, are going to have their economies crumbled if exporting to America becomes infeasible. The alternative is that they find other nations to manufacture goods for; in all likelihood, those nations will not be our allies.

For decades, we have encouraged companies to manufacture in Vietnam to give them an alternative to China. If Vietnamese goods become unaffordable, the incentive for companies to avoid Chinese manufacturing will also disappear.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has already expressed his desire to improve influence over Vietnam in light of American tariffs, and with nowhere else to go, Vietnam may be forced to cozy up to the Chinese Communist Party.

Fears that the United States will lose its status as the “world’s reserve currency” that have existed for years will only be exacerbated by this. Even if we reverse course, neither our allies nor our trading partners have any reason to trust that Trump’s whims won’t shift back in favor of tariffs. Trump's volatility is undermining the United States’ role in the world.

The off-ramp is quickly approaching if Trump wants deal

Trump and his allies have been oscillating between the explanation that tariffs will create jobs and the explanation that these are a negotiating tool to promote free trade.

There are people in Trump’s camp, including Elon Musk, who disagree wildly on the end goal of these tariffs.

It's not just our enemies that we are entering this trade war with. Europe has already announced its own possible retaliatory tariffs. America is willingly vacating its role in the world of trade, and the chance to backtrack is quickly disappearing.

Trump has the opportunity to avoid much of the long-term consequences of his actions, but the window is closing for him to do so.

Should Trump want to save face in light of the disastrous market response, all he needs to do is drop tariffs on countries that make concessions to the United States. Making the tariffs truly reciprocal and opening up free trade with partners willing to drop barriers against us could actually deliver a political good from this.

This action wouldn’t fix Trump’s broken logic surrounding trade deficits and their harm, but it would give him an easy political out to save face before the economy crashes in its entirety. This should allow for the tariffs to deliver a political win for Republicans and to stroke Trump’s “art of the deal” ego.

However, if countries see that there truly is no negotiating out of these heightened tariffs, it's only a matter of time before they begin orienting their economies away from America, and aside from Europe, the only other places to go are to our enemies.

The reality is that Trump’s stubbornness likely doesn’t allow for this. He has been convinced of the effectiveness of tariffs for decades; he isn’t likely to let economists and the entire economy crumbling stop him.

America is quickly approaching the off-ramp, and Trump would be wise to take it. America, and in turn the entire world, will suffer if he chooses to prolong the madness of tariffs.