昨天在英文社區有一封公開信像地下的野火一樣，瘋狂地在傳播。
文章很長很長，半天時間就有46萬多閱讀，這在英文社區裏面非常罕見。這篇文章，已經有伯克利教授確認了這封信是真的。
我們先貼原文，譯文在後：
UC Berkeley History Professor's Open Letter Against BLM, Police Brutality and Cultural Orthodoxy
Dear profs X, Y, Z
I am one of your colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley. I have met you both personally but do not know you closely, and am contacting you anonymously, with apologies. I am worried that writing this email publicly might lead to me losing my job, and likely all future jobs in my field.
In your recent departmental emails you mentioned our pledge to diversity, but I am increasingly alarmed by the absence of diversity of opinion on the topic of the recent protests and our community response to them.
In the extended links and resources you provided, I could not find a single instance of substantial counter-argument or alternative narrative to explain the under-representation of black individuals in academia or their over-representation in the criminal justice system.The explanation provided in your documentation, to the near exclusion of all others, is univariate: the problems of the black community are caused by whites, or, when whites are not physically present, by the infiltration of white supremacy and white systemic racism into American brains, souls, and institutions.
Many cogent objections to this thesis have been raised by sober voices, including from within the black community itself, such as Thomas Sowell and Wilfred Reilly. These people are not racists or'Uncle Toms'.They are intelligent scholars who reject a narrative that strips black people of agency and systematically externalizes the problems of the black community onto outsiders. Their view is entirely absent from the departmental and UCB-wide communiques.
The claim that the difficulties that the black community faces are entirely causally explained by exogenous factors in the form of white systemic racism, white supremacy, and other forms of white discrimination remainsa problematic hypothesis that should be vigorously challenged by historians.Instead, it is being treated as an axiomatic and actionable truth without serious consideration of its profound flaws, or its worrying implication of total black impotence. This hypothesis is transforming our institution and our culture, without any space for dissent outside of a tightly policed, narrow discourse.
A counternarrative exists. If you have time, please consider examining some of the documents I attach at the end of this email.Overwhelmingly, the reasoning provided by BLM and allies is either primarily anecdotal(as in the case with the bulk of Ta-Nehisi Coates' undeniably moving article) or it is transparently motivated. As an example of the latter problem, consider the proportion of black incarcerated Americans. This proportion is often used to characterize the criminal justice system as anti-black. However,if we use the precise same methodology, we would have to conclude that the criminal justice system is even more anti-male than it is anti-black.
Would we characterize criminal justice asa systemically misandrist conspiracy against innocent American men? I hope you see that this type of reasoning is flawed, and requires a significant suspension of our rational faculties.Black people are not incarcerated at higher rates than their involvement in violent crime would predict. This fact has been demonstrated multiple times across multiple jurisdictions in multiple countries.
And yet,I see my department uncritically reproducing a narrative that diminishes black agency in favor of a white-centric explanation that appeals to the department's apparent desire to shoulder the'white man's burden'and to promote a narrative of white guilt.
If we claim that the criminal justice system is white-supremacist,why is it that Asian Americans, Indian Americans, and Nigerian Americans are incarcerated at vastly lower rates than white Americans?This is a funny sort of white supremacy. Even Jewish Americans are incarcerated less than gentile whites. I think it's fair to say that your average white supremacist disapproves of Jews. And yet, these alleged white supremacists incarcerate gentiles at vastly higher rates than Jews.None of this is addressed in your literature. None of this is explained, beyond hand-waving and ad hominems."Those are racist dogwhistles"."The model minority myth is white supremacist"."Only fascists talk about black-on-black crime", ad nauseam.
These types of statements do not amount to counterarguments: they are simply arbitrary offensive classifications,intended to silence and oppress discourse. Any serious historian will recognize these for the silencing orthodoxy tactics they are,common to suppressive regimes, doctrines, and religions throughout time and space. They are intended to crush real diversity and permanently exile the culture of robust criticism from our department.
Increasingly, we are being called upon to comply and subscribe to BLM's problematic view of history, and the department is being presented as unified on the matter. In particular, ethnic minorities are being aggressively marshaled into a single position. Any apparent unity is surely a function of the fact that dissent could almost certainly lead to expulsion or cancellation for those of us in a precarious position, which is no small number.
I personally don't dare speak out against the BLM narrative, and with this barrage of alleged unity being mass-produced by the administration, tenured professoriat, the UC administration, corporate America, and the media, the punishment for dissent is a clear danger at a time of widespread economic vulnerability. I am certain that if my name were attached to this email, I would lose my job and all future jobs, even though I believe in and can justify every word I type.
The vast majority of violence visited on the black community is committed by black people. There are virtually no marches for these invisible victims, no public silences, no heartfelt letters from the UC regents, deans, and departmental heads. The message is clear: Black lives only matter when whites take them. Black violence is expected and insoluble, while white violence requires explanation and demands solution. Please look into your hearts and see how monstrously bigoted this formulation truly is.
No discussion is permitted for nonblack victims of black violence, who proportionally outnumber black victims of nonblack violence. This is especially bitter in the Bay Area, where Asian victimization by black assailants has reached epidemic proportions, to the point that the SF police chief has advised Asians to stop hanging good-luck charms on their doors, as this attracts the attention of(overwhelmingly black) home invaders. Home invaders like George Floyd. For this actual, lived, physically experienced reality of violence in the USA, there are no marches, no tearful emails from departmental heads, no support from McDonald's and Wal-Mart. For the History department, our silence is not a mere abrogation of our duty to shed light on the truth: it is a rejection of it.
The claim that black intraracial violence is the product of redlining, slavery, and other injustices is a largely historical claim. It is for historians, therefore, to explain why Japanese internment or the massacre of European Jewry hasn't led to equivalent rates of dysfunction and low SES performance among Japanese and Jewish Americans respectively. Arab Americans have been viciously demonized since9/11, as have Chinese Americans more recently. However, both groups outperform white Americans on nearly all SES indices- as do Nigerian Americans, who incidentally have black skin. It is for historians to point out and discuss these anomalies. However, no real discussion is possible in the current climate at our department. The explanation is provided to us, disagreement with it is racist, and the job of historians is to further explore additional ways in which the explanation is additionally correct. This is a mockery of the historical profession.
Most troublingly, our department appears to have been entirely captured by the interests of the Democratic National Convention, and the Democratic Party more broadly. To explain what I mean, consider what happens if you choose to donate to Black Lives Matter, an organization UCB History has explicitly promoted in its recent mailers. All donations to the official BLM website are immediately redirected to ActBlue Charities, an organization primarily concerned with bankrolling election campaigns for Democrat candidates. Donating to BLM today is to indirectly donate to Joe Biden's2020 campaign. This is grotesque given the fact that the American cities with the worst rates of black-on-black violence and police-on-black violence are overwhelmingly Democrat-run. Minneapolis itself has been entirely in the hands of Democrats for over five decades; the'systemic racism' there was built by successive Democrat administrations.
The patronizing and condescending attitudes of Democrat leaders towards the black community, exemplified by nearly every Biden statement on the black race, all but guarantee a perpetual state of misery, resentment, poverty, and the attendant grievance politics which are simultaneously annihilating American political discourse and black lives. And yet, donating to BLM is bankrolling the election campaigns of men like Mayor Frey, who saw their cities devolve into violence. This is a grotesque capture of a good-faith movement for necessary police reform, and of our department, by a political party. Even worse, there are virtually no avenues for dissent in academic circles. I refuse to serve the Party, and so should you.
The total alliance of major corporations involved in human exploitation with BLM should be a warning flag to us, and yet this damning evidence goes unnoticed, purposefully ignored, or perversely celebrated. We are the useful idiots of the wealthiest classes, carrying water for Jeff Bezos and other actual, real, modern-day slavers. Starbucks, an organisation using literal black slaves in its coffee plantation suppliers, is in favor of BLM. Sony, an organisation using cobalt mined by yet more literal black slaves, many of whom are children, is in favor of BLM. And so, apparently, are we. The absence of counter-narrative enables this obscenity. Fiat lux, indeed.
There also exists a large constituency of what can only be called'race hustlers': hucksters of all colors who benefit from stoking the fires of racial conflict to secure administrative jobs, charity management positions, academic jobs and advancement, or personal political entrepreneurship.
Given the direction our history department appears to be taking far from any commitment to truth, we can regard ourselves as a formative training institution for this brand of snake-oil salespeople. Their activities are corrosive, demolishing any hope at harmonious racial coexistence in our nation and colonizing our political and institutional life. Many of their voices are unironically segregationist.
MLK would likely be called an Uncle Tom if he spoke on our campus today. We are training leaders who intend, explicitly, to destroy one of the only truly successful ethnically diverse societies in modern history. As the PRC, an ethnonationalist and aggressively racially chauvinist national polity with null immigration and no concept of jus solis increasingly presents itself as the global political alternative to the US, I ask you: Is this wise? Are we really doing the right thing?
As a final point, our university and department has made multiple statements celebrating and eulogizing George Floyd. Floyd was a multiple felon who once held a pregnant black woman at gunpoint. He broke into her home with a gang of men and pointed a gun at her pregnant stomach. He terrorized the women in his community. He sired and abandoned multiple children, playing no part in their support or upbringing, failing one of the most basic tests of decency for a human being. He was a drug-addict and sometime drug-dealer, a swindler who preyed upon his honest and hard-working neighbors.
And yet, the regents of UC and the historians of the UCB History department are celebrating this violent criminal, elevating his name to virtual sainthood. A man who hurt women. A man who hurt black women. With the full collaboration of the UCB history department, corporate America, most mainstream media outlets, and some of the wealthiest and most privileged opinion-shaping elites of the USA, he has become a culture hero, buried in a golden casket, his(recognized) family showered with gifts and praise. Americans are being socially pressured into kneeling for this violent, abusive misogynist. A generation of black men are being coerced into identifying with George Floyd, the absolute worst specimen of our race and species.
I'm ashamed of my department. I would say that I'm ashamed of both of you, but perhaps you agree with me, and are simply afraid, as I am, of the backlash of speaking the truth. It's hard to know what kneeling means, when you have to kneel to keep your job.
It shouldn't affect the strength of my argument above, but for the record, I write as a person of color. My family have been personally victimized by men like Floyd. We are aware of the condescending depredations of the Democrat party against our race. The humiliating assumption that we are too stupid to do STEM, that we need special help and lower requirements to get ahead in life, is richly familiar to us. I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be easier to deal with open fascists, who at least would be straightforward in calling me a subhuman, and who are unlikely to share my race.
The ever-present soft bigotry of low expectations and the permanent claim that the solutions to the plight of my people rest exclusively on the goodwill of whites rather than on our own hard work is psychologically devastating. No other group in America is systematically demoralized in this way by its alleged allies. A whole generation of black children are being taught that only by begging and weeping and screaming will they get handouts from guilt-ridden whites.
No message will more surely devastate their futures, especially if whites run out of guilt, or indeed if America runs out of whites. If this had been done to Japanese Americans, or Jewish Americans, or Chinese Americans, then Chinatown and Japantown would surely be no different to the roughest parts of Baltimore and East St. Louis today. The History department of UCB is now an integral institutional promulgator of a destructive and denigrating fallacy about the black race.
I hope you appreciate the frustration behind this message. I do not support BLM. I do not support the Democrat grievance agenda and the Party's uncontested capture of our department. I do not support the Party co-opting my race, as Biden recently did in his disturbing interview, claiming that voting Democrat and being black are isomorphic. I condemn the manner of George Floyd's death and join you in calling for greater police accountability and police reform. However, I will not pretend that George Floyd was anything other than a violent misogynist, a brutal man who met a predictably brutal end.
I also want to protect the practice of history. Cleo is no grovelling handmaiden to politicians and corporations. Like us, she is free.
/end
簡單翻譯一下（文章比較長，信達雅有限，圖片和數據是我補充的）
親愛的X，Y，Z教授
我是您在加州大學伯克利分校的同事之一。雖然我和你們私下見過面，但是我和你們並不是那麼熟，所以請原諒我用匿名的方式與您聯繫。因為我擔心如果公開寫這封電子郵件可能會導致我丟到工作，而且很可能在這個領域裏再也找不到工作。
在最近你們給系裏的電子郵件中，提到了我們對多樣性(diversity)的保證。但是最近的抗議活動以及我們整個社區對抗議活動的態度缺乏共識，這讓我感到越來越震驚。
在你郵件中提供的連結和資源中，我實在找不到任何一個實質性的例子來解釋為什麼黑人在學術界代表性不足而在刑事系統中代表性過多的情況。
您那些文檔中提供的解釋中幾乎都是千篇一律的解釋：
即黑人社區的問題都是由白人引起的。如果當白人並沒有直接出現的時候，那肯定是白人至上主義或者根植於美國人大腦，靈魂以及制度中的系統性種族主義造成的。
很多清醒的聲音提出了許多有力的反對意見，包括來自黑人社區內部的聲音，例如托馬斯·索威爾Thomas Sowell和威爾弗雷德·賴利 Wilfred Reilly。這些人不是種族主義者或「湯姆叔叔」。他們都是聰明的學者，但他們拒絕成為黑人問題敘事邏輯的傳聲筒，拒絕系統性地將黑人社區內部的問題轉移到社區外部。然而他們的觀點在系和UCB的報告中完全不存在。
提到的兩位教授
現在的解釋：黑人社區所面臨的困難完全是由外部因素，即白人系統性的種族主義，白人至上主義和其他形式的白人歧視所造成的，這個因果關係的解釋是一個有問題的假設，應該接受歷史學家們的質疑。
而事實恰恰相反，這個假設已經被視為公理以及採取實際行動的理論基礎，而根本沒有認真考慮這個理論背後的缺陷以及默認所有黑人群體都是低能兒的含義。另外這種假設也正在改變我們的機構和我們的文化，而且這種假設幾乎不留任何異議空間。
這種理論的反例是存在的。如果你有時間，請考慮看一下我附件中的一些文檔。絕大多數情況下，BLM及其盟友提供的推理要麼主要是各種軼事（例如Ta-Nehisi Coates的大量不置可否的文章）要麼是出於顯而易見的動機。
另外如果我們分析被囚禁美國黑人的比例，這個比例通常被描述成我們的司法系統反黑人。但是，如果我們使用完全相同的方法，精確地對性別進行分析，就會得出結論，刑事司法系統更反男性而不是更反黑人。
監獄裏的男女比例
那是不是，我們可以推導出結論即美國的司法系統更加系統性地針對無辜的美國男性？我希望您能看到這種推理邏輯背後的問題。黑人的入獄率並沒有比黑人參加暴力犯罪的預計的要高。這個事實已經在多個國家，多個司法管轄區得到了多次證明。
美國監獄裏的種族比例
英國英格蘭和威爾斯監獄裏的種族比例
然而，我看到我在歷史系不加批判地全盤背書以白人中心論的敘事邏輯，這種敘事邏輯迎合了歷史系想承擔「白人負擔」的說法並且宣傳白人有罪論的心態。
如果我們聲稱我們的司法制度是白人至上主義者，那麼為什麼亞裔美國人，印度裔美國人和尼日利亞裔美國人的監禁率都要遠低於美國白人呢？這真是一種有趣的白人至上主義。另外即便是猶太裔美國人其監禁率也比普通白人少。按說白人至上者都普遍反猶啊。然而事實上這些所謂的白人至上主義者所關押的白人罪犯要遠遠高於猶太人。而您的這些文獻中都沒有涉及到這些。除了自鳴得意並揮舞着大棒之外，並沒有任何其他的解釋：
「那些是種族主義的狗哨政治」。
「模範少數族裔是白人至上主義者編的神話！
「只有法西斯主義者才談論黑人對黑人的犯罪！」
這些類型的論斷並不構成有效的反駁：它們只是隨意的冒犯性貼標籤，旨在沉默和壓制任何不同意見。任何認真的歷史學家都會因為這些壓制非主流意見的行為而感到警覺：因為在歷史的時空長河中充斥着這樣壓制異見的政權，教義與宗教。他們旨在粉碎真正的多樣性，並排斥我們這個系裏悠久的批判性文化。
我們被越來越多地要求遵守並贊成這種有問題的BLM歷史觀，並且系裏要求大家在此問題上要統一口徑。而且積極地為一些少數族裔特意創建一個職位。而這種表面上的團結是建立在以下這些事實上的：
任何異議分子幾乎肯定會遭致報復，被驅逐或者取消教職。
我個人是不敢公開出來反對BLM的敘事邏輯的，以及公開反對這種所謂的團結。這種由行政部門，終身教授們，UC，美國的大企業們，媒體們，批量生產的團結。任何異議在這個風雨飄搖的經濟環境中都是一個巨大的風險。我敢肯定，如果我的名字附在此電子郵件上，即使我所相信並可以證明我鍵入的每個單詞，我也會失去工作和以及所有以後的工作。
黑人社區中絕大多數暴力犯罪都是黑人犯下的。這些罪行的受害者幾乎沒有人為他們遊行，沒有默哀，沒有來自UC行政部門，院長和系主任們誠摯的慰問信。
信息很明確：只有白人傷害黑人時，黑人的生命才重要。因為黑人暴力傾向是預期的和無法解決的，而白人暴力傾向則需要解釋並需要解決方案。請你們看看你們的內心，看看這種說法到底有多可怕。
黑人暴力犯罪中非黑人受害者與非黑人暴力中黑人受害者的比例是不允許討論的。
這在灣區尤其令人痛苦，因為在該地區，黑人暴力犯罪中亞裔是最大的受害者，不計其數已經快到了傳染病的程度。以至於三藩市警察局長已建議亞裔不要在自己的門口懸掛好運護身符，因為這會引起入室搶劫者的關注（絕大多數是黑人，就像喬治•弗洛伊德（George Floyd）這樣的入室搶劫者。）
去年加州東灣地區連續入室搶劫，綁架，槍擊的兇犯
而這種現實的，真實發生的暴力事件，沒有人遊行，沒有系主任們含淚的電子郵件，沒有麥當勞和沃爾瑪的支持。
對於歷史系來說，我們的沉默不僅僅是放棄我們闡明真理的責任：更是對真理的拒絕。
有人聲稱黑人種族內部暴力是歷史遺留問題，是奴隸制和其他各種不公正現象的產物。然而這就需要由歷史學家來解釋，為什麼二戰時期對日本人的拘禁，歐洲猶太人的大屠殺並沒有導致日本人或者猶太人 SES(social economic status)表現低下？自9/11以來，阿拉伯裔美國人就被惡魔般地妖魔化，最近的華裔美國人也開始被妖魔化。然而，在幾乎所有的SES指數上，這兩個群體的表現都比美國白人好。甚至尼日利亞裔美國人的情況也是如此，而且後者的皮膚都是黑色的。歷史學家應該指出並討論這些異常情況的原因。
（亞裔尤其是華裔的SES是表現最好的）
但是，在我們歷史系當前的形勢下，是不可能進行真正的討論。歷史的解釋是他們塞給我們的，如果不同意就是種族主義。歷史學家的工作是進一步探索其他正確解釋，現在的這種方式是對歷史研究這個職業的嘲弄。
最令人不安的是，我們的部門似乎已完全被民主黨全國代表大會 DNC和民主黨的利益所俘獲。為了解釋我的意思，我舉例說明，假如你考慮給Black Lives Matter組織捐款，因為加州伯克利大學的歷史系在最近的郵件中明確推廣了該組織。
BLM官方網站上的所有捐款連結都會立即重定向到ActBlue Charities，而該組織主要關注為民主黨候選人提供資金的競選活動。
向BLM捐款就是間接向Joe Biden2020年競選捐款。
鑑於黑人對黑人的暴力犯罪和警察與黑人暴力事件發生率最高的美國城市絕大多數是由民主黨統治，因此這也太過怪誕了。比如明尼阿波利斯本身已經完全掌握在民主黨手中超過了五十年;那裏的「系統性種族主義」就是由歷屆民主黨政府建立的！
blacklivesmatter官網中捐款按鈕
後面的跳轉連結驗證了教授的說法
跳轉後的頁面
拜登幾乎所有關於黑人的聲明都體現了民主黨領導人對黑人社區傲慢與憐憫的態度，這幾乎保證了黑人社區永久的苦難，怨恨，貧窮和隨之而來的苦難政治，在此同時也消滅了美國的政治言論空間和黑人生活的希望。向BLM捐款變成正在資助諸如像明州弗雷市長之類的人的競選活動：他們眼睜睜看着他們的城市淪為暴力之城。這就是一個試圖從善意出發，進行必要警察改革的政黨在行動中的各種荒誕表現，這也是我們歷史系的怪誕表現。更糟糕的是，在學術界幾乎沒有異議的渠道。我拒絕為黨派服務，你也應該拒絕為黨派服務。
拜登著名的言論：如果你（黑人）在我和川普之間不知道選誰，那你就不是黑人
而我們本該對一些大公司們發出警告，但是那些令人髮指的證據，要麼並未引起注意，或者有意無意的忽視，或者受到不正當的讚揚。其實我們是那些最富有的階級有用的白痴，我們可以幫傑夫·貝索斯（Jeff Bezos）的奴隸們送送水。星巴克（Starbucks）的咖啡種植園供應商，正在使用着字面意義上黑奴。而星巴克它支持BLM。索尼是一個使用鈷礦的公司，而這些鈷礦是由真正黑人奴隸開採的，其中甚至許多人還是兒童，而SONY支持BLM。由於缺少反面的敘事才使得這種當面一套背後一套的行為是那麼令人困惑。
還有一個只能稱為「種族騙子」的群體：他們從引發的種族衝突大火中受益，以確保他們的行政工作職位，慈善管理職位，學術工作的位置和社會地位的提高，或個人的政治資本。
考慮到我們的歷史系似乎從來沒有對真理的承諾，我們可以視自己為品牌蛇油銷售人員的培訓機構。這種行為具有腐蝕性，破壞了我們各民族和諧共處的希望，並侵佔了我們的政治體制和社會生活。具有諷刺意味的是，他們的許多論調都是種族隔離主義的論調。
如果MLK今天能在我們的校園裏講話，他很可能被稱為湯姆叔叔。我們正在培訓的精英領袖們明確打算摧毀現代歷史上唯一真正成功的種族多元化社會。相比之下中國的積極進取，零移民和強硬的法制越來越展現為美國的全球政治的替代品，我問你：我們這麼做明智嗎？我們真的在做正確的事嗎？
最後，我們的大學和歷史系發表了許多聲明來讚揚喬治·弗洛伊德。Floyd是一位重罪犯，曾以槍口抵着一名黑人孕婦。他與一幫暴徒闖入她的家，並用槍指着孕婦的肚子，他嚇壞了社區中的婦女。他自己遺棄了多個孩子，他在撫養孩子的過程中沒有起到任何作用，這連最基本的人格測試都沒有通過。他是一個吸毒者，有時還是一個販毒者，他還是一個騙子，騙了他誠實而勤奮的鄰居們。
然而，UC的管理人員以及加州伯克利大學歷史系的歷史學家正在慶祝這名暴力罪犯。
將他的名字提升為虛擬的聖人。
一個傷害女人的男人。
一個傷害黑人婦女的男人。
在UCB歷史系，美國大公司，大多數主流媒體以及美國一些最富有和最具有特權的意見領袖的全面合作下，他已成為文化英雄，被埋在金棺材中，給他的家人送來禮物和讚美。
美國人在社會的壓力下向這個暴力分子下跪。
一整代黑人被脅迫認同喬治·弗洛伊德（George Floyd），然而他絕對是我們這個種族和物種最差的樣板。
我為我的歷史系感到羞恥。我會說我也為你們倆感到羞恥。但也許您同意我的看法，並且像我一樣，只是害怕說實話遭到報復。當您必須下跪才能保住工作時，很難知道下跪着意味着什麼。
我的身份不應該影響到我上面論點的強度，但是為了留個記錄，我也是以一個有色人種的身份寫的。我的家人就曾遭受過Floyd這樣人的傷害。我知道民主黨對我們種族的蔑視與傲慢。我們非常熟悉他們愚蠢的假設：即我們太愚蠢而無法進行STEM的學習，我們需要特殊的幫助和特殊的保護和較低的要求才能取得成功。我有時覺得和觀點鮮明的法西斯主義打交道會不會更加容易一些，畢竟他們會直接了當稱我們為劣等民族，而且還不太會和我們共享同一個種族。
一直存在的低期望，低標準，以及白人的善意，而不是我們自己的辛勤工作，這在心理上是毀滅性的。在美國，沒有其他群體被其所謂的盟友以這種方式系統性地消沉！整整一代的黑人孩子都被教導說，只有乞討，哭泣和尖叫，他們才能從內心存在白人原罪的白人身上獲得施捨！
沒有什麼消息可以比白人的原罪感快要消失了或者美國白人本身快要成少數民族了，這種消息能夠更加確定地摧毀這個種族的未來。如果這樣的事情發生日裔美國人，猶太裔美國人或華裔美國身上，那麼唐人街和日本城一定也會和今天的巴爾的摩和東聖路易斯最亂的地區一樣。今天UCB的歷史部門已經成為一個摧毀黑人意志對黑人進行系統性破壞不可或缺的機構！
我希望您能感受到這封郵件背後的挫敗感。我不支持BLM。我也不支持民主黨暗搓搓的計劃，以及對我們歷史系不由分說的侵佔。我更不支持綁架我們種族的政黨的競選，就像拜登最近在採訪中所做的那樣，他聲稱投票民主黨和黑人是等價的。
我也譴責導致喬治·弗洛伊德（George Floyd）的死亡的方式，我也與您一道呼籲加強警察責任制和警察改革。
但是我不會假裝認為George Floyd是一個好人，他是一個暴力份子，一個厭惡女性主義者，一個野蠻的人，而他的結局可想而知。
我也想保護我們如何研究歷史。克萊奧女神並不是大公司，政治家任人驅使的女僕。
像我們一樣，她是自由的。
/終
