新闻:《疯狂传播！伯克利教授关于BLM公开信确认是真的》的相关评论
观点没问题，但时机不好，美国人已经陷入了集体的社会性癫狂中，现在说什么他们都听不进去的，等等吧，等他们冷静下来，然后看看前路和来处，才知道是生存还是毁灭。昨天在英文社区有一封公开信像地下的野火一样，疯狂地在传播。
文章很长很长，半天时间就有46万多阅读，这在英文社区里面非常罕见。这篇文章，已经有伯克利教授确认了这封信是真的。
我们先贴原文，译文在后：
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 remains a 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 as a 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 since 9/11, 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's 2020 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
简单翻译一下（文章比较长，信达雅有限，图片和数据是我补充的）
亲爱的X，Y，Z教授
我是您在加州大学伯克利分校的同事之一。虽然我和你们私下见过面，但是我和你们并不是那么熟，所以请原谅我用匿名的方式与您联系。因为我担心如果公开写这封电子邮件可能会导致我丢到工作，而且很可能在这个领域里再也找不到工作。
在最近你们给系里的电子邮件中，提到了我们对多样性(diversity)的保证。但是最近的抗议活动以及我们整个社区对抗议活动的态度缺乏共识，这让我感到越来越震惊。
在你邮件中提供的链接和资源中，我实在找不到任何一个实质性的例子来解释为什么黑人在学术界代表性不足而在刑事系统中代表性过多的情况。
您那些文档中提供的解释中几乎都是千篇一律的解释：
即黑人社区的问题都是由白人引起的。如果当白人并没有直接出现的时候，那肯定是白人至上主义或者根植于美国人大脑，灵魂以及制度中的系统性种族主义造成的。
很多清醒的声音提出了许多有力的反对意见，包括来自黑人社区内部的声音，例如托马斯·索威尔Thomas Sowell和威尔弗雷德·赖利 Wilfred Reilly。这些人不是种族主义者或“汤姆叔叔”。他们都是聪明的学者，但他们拒绝成为黑人问题叙事逻辑的传声筒，拒绝系统性地将黑人社区内部的问题转移到社区外部。然而他们的观点在系和UCB的报告中完全不存在。
提到的两位教授
现在的解释：黑人社区所面临的困难完全是由外部因素，即白人系统性的种族主义，白人至上主义和其他形式的白人歧视所造成的，这个因果关系的解释是一个有问题的假设，应该接受历史学家们的质疑。
而事实恰恰相反，这个假设已经被视为公理以及采取实际行动的理论基础，而根本没有认真考虑这个理论背后的缺陷以及默认所有黑人群体都是低能儿的含义。另外这种假设也正在改变我们的机构和我们的文化，而且这种假设几乎不留任何异议空间。
这种理论的反例是存在的。如果你有时间，请考虑看一下我附件中的一些文档。绝大多数情况下，BLM及其盟友提供的推理要么主要是各种轶事（例如Ta-Nehisi Coates的大量不置可否的文章）要么是出于显而易见的动机。
另外如果我们分析被囚禁美国黑人的比例，这个比例通常被描述成我们的司法系统反黑人。但是，如果我们使用完全相同的方法，精确地对性别进行分析，就会得出结论，刑事司法系统更反男性而不是更反黑人。
监狱里的男女比例
那是不是，我们可以推导出结论即美国的司法系统更加系统性地针对无辜的美国男性？我希望您能看到这种推理逻辑背后的问题。黑人的入狱率并没有比黑人参加暴力犯罪的预计的要高。这个事实已经在多个国家，多个司法管辖区得到了多次证明。
美国监狱里的种族比例
英国英格兰和威尔士监狱里的种族比例
然而，我看到我在历史系不加批判地全盘背书以白人中心论的叙事逻辑，这种叙事逻辑迎合了历史系想承担“白人负担”的说法并且宣传白人有罪论的心态。
如果我们声称我们的司法制度是白人至上主义者，那么为什么亚裔美国人，印度裔美国人和尼日利亚裔美国人的监禁率都要远低于美国白人呢？这真是一种有趣的白人至上主义。另外即便是犹太裔美国人其监禁率也比普通白人少。按说白人至上者都普遍反犹啊。然而事实上这些所谓的白人至上主义者所关押的白人罪犯要远远高于犹太人。而您的这些文献中都没有涉及到这些。除了自鸣得意并挥舞着大棒之外，并没有任何其他的解释：
“那些是种族主义的狗哨政治”。
“模范少数族裔是白人至上主义者编的神话！
“只有法西斯主义者才谈论黑人对黑人的犯罪！”
这些类型的论断并不构成有效的反驳：它们只是随意的冒犯性贴标签，旨在沉默和压制任何不同意见。任何认真的历史学家都会因为这些压制非主流意见的行为而感到警觉：因为在历史的时空长河中充斥着这样压制异见的政权，教义与宗教。他们旨在粉碎真正的多样性，并排斥我们这个系里悠久的批判性文化。
我们被越来越多地要求遵守并赞成这种有问题的BLM历史观，并且系里要求大家在此问题上要统一口径。而且积极地为一些少数族裔特意创建一个职位。而这种表面上的团结是建立在以下这些事实上的：
任何异议分子几乎肯定会遭致报复，被驱逐或者取消教职。
我个人是不敢公开出来反对BLM的叙事逻辑的，以及公开反对这种所谓的团结。这种由行政部门，终身教授们，UC，美国的大企业们，媒体们，批量生产的团结。任何异议在这个风雨飘摇的经济环境中都是一个巨大的风险。我敢肯定，如果我的名字附在此电子邮件上 ，即使我所相信并可以证明我键入的每个单词，我也会失去工作和以及所有以后的工作。
黑人社区中绝大多数暴力犯罪都是黑人犯下的。这些罪行的受害者几乎没有人为他们游行，没有默哀，没有来自UC行政部门，院长和系主任们诚挚的慰问信。
信息很明确：只有白人伤害黑人时，黑人的生命才重要。因为黑人暴力倾向是预期的和无法解决的，而白人暴力倾向则需要解释并需要解决方案。请你们看看你们的内心，看看这种说法到底有多可怕。
黑人暴力犯罪中非黑人受害者与非黑人暴力中黑人受害者的比例是不允许讨论的。
这在湾区尤其令人痛苦，因为在该地区，黑人暴力犯罪中亚裔是最大的受害者，不计其数已经快到了传染病的程度。以至于旧金山警察局长已建议亚裔不要在自己的门口悬挂好运护身符，因为这会引起入室抢劫者的关注（绝大多数是黑人，就像乔治•弗洛伊德（George Floyd）这样的入室抢劫者。）
去年加州东湾地区连续入室抢劫，绑架，枪击的凶犯
而这种现实的，真实发生的暴力事件，没有人游行，没有系主任们含泪的电子邮件，没有麦当劳和沃尔玛的支持。
对于历史系来说，我们的沉默不仅仅是放弃我们阐明真理的责任：更是对真理的拒绝。
有人声称黑人种族内部暴力是历史遗留问题，是奴隶制和其他各种不公正现象的产物。然而这就需要由历史学家来解释，为什么二战时期对日本人的拘禁，欧洲犹太人的大屠杀并没有导致日本人或者犹太人 SES(social economic status) 表现低下？自9/11以来，阿拉伯裔美国人就被恶魔般地妖魔化，最近的华裔美国人也开始被妖魔化。然而，在几乎所有的SES指数上 ，这两个群体的表现都比美国白人好。甚至尼日利亚裔美国人的情况也是如此，而且后者的皮肤都是黑色的。历史学家应该指出并讨论这些异常情况的原因。
（亚裔尤其是华裔的SES是表现最好的）
但是，在我们历史系当前的形势下，是不可能进行真正的讨论。历史的解释是他们塞给我们的，如果不同意就是种族主义。历史学家的工作是进一步探索其他正确解释，现在的这种方式是对历史研究这个职业的嘲弄。
最令人不安的是，我们的部门似乎已完全被民主党全国代表大会 DNC和民主党的利益所俘获。为了解释我的意思，我举例说明，假如你考虑给Black Lives Matter组织捐款，因为加州伯克利大学的历史系在最近的邮件中明确推广了该组织。
BLM官方网站上的所有捐款链接都会立即重定向到ActBlue Charities，而该组织主要关注为民主党候选人提供资金的竞选活动。
向BLM捐款就是间接向Joe Biden2020年竞选捐款。
鉴于黑人对黑人的暴力犯罪和警察与黑人暴力事件发生率最高的美国城市绝大多数是由民主党统治，因此这也太过怪诞了。比如明尼阿波利斯本身已经完全掌握在民主党手中超过了五十年 ; 那里的“系统性种族主义”就是由历届民主党政府建立的！
blacklivesmatter官网中捐款按钮
后面的跳转链接验证了教授的说法
跳转后的页面
拜登几乎所有关于黑人的声明都体现了民主党领导人对黑人社区傲慢与怜悯的态度，这几乎保证了黑人社区永久的苦难，怨恨，贫穷和随之而来的苦难政治，在此同时也消灭了美国的政治言论空间和黑人生活的希望。向BLM捐款变成正在资助诸如像明州弗雷市长之类的人的竞选活动：他们眼睁睁看着他们的城市沦为暴力之城。这就是一个试图从善意出发，进行必要警察改革的政党在行动中的各种荒诞表现，这也是我们历史系的怪诞表现。更糟糕的是，在学术界几乎没有异议的渠道。我拒绝为党派服务，你也应该拒绝为党派服务。
拜登著名的言论：如果你（黑人）在我和川普之间不知道选谁，那你就不是黑人
而我们本该对一些大公司们发出警告，但是那些令人发指的证据，要么并未引起注意，或者有意无意的忽视，或者受到不正当的赞扬。其实我们是那些最富有的阶级有用的白痴，我们可以帮杰夫·贝索斯（Jeff Bezos）的奴隶们送送水。星巴克（Starbucks）的咖啡种植园供应商，正在使用着字面意义上黑奴。而星巴克它支持BLM。索尼是一个使用钴矿的公司，而这些钴矿是由真正黑人奴隶开采的，其中甚至许多人还是儿童，而SONY支持BLM。由于缺少反面的叙事才使得这种当面一套背后一套的行为是那么令人困惑。
还有一个只能称为“种族骗子”的群体：他们从引发的种族冲突大火中受益，以确保他们的行政工作职位，慈善管理职位，学术工作的位置和社会地位的提高，或个人的政治资本。
考虑到我们的历史系似乎从来没有对真理的承诺，我们可以视自己为品牌蛇油销售人员的培训机构。这种行为具有腐蚀性，破坏了我们各民族和谐共处的希望，并侵占了我们的政治体制和社会生活。具有讽刺意味的是，他们的许多论调都是种族隔离主义的论调。
如果MLK今天能在我们的校园里讲话，他很可能被称为汤姆叔叔。我们正在培训的精英领袖们明确打算摧毁现代历史上唯一真正成功的种族多元化社会。相比之下中国的积极进取，零移民和强硬的法制越来越展现为美国的全球政治的替代品，我问你：我们这么做明智吗？我们真的在做正确的事吗？
最后，我们的大学和历史系发表了许多声明来赞扬乔治·弗洛伊德。Floyd是一位重罪犯，曾以枪口抵着一名黑人孕妇。他与一帮暴徒闯入她的家，并用枪指着孕妇的肚子，他吓坏了社区中的妇女。他自己遗弃了多个孩子，他在抚养孩子的过程中没有起到任何作用，这连最基本的人格测试都没有通过。他是一个吸毒者，有时还是一个贩毒者，他还是一个骗子，骗了他诚实而勤奋的邻居们。
然而，UC的管理人员以及加州伯克利大学历史系的历史学家正在庆祝这名暴力罪犯。
将他的名字提升为虚拟的圣人。
一个伤害女人的男人。
一个伤害黑人妇女的男人。
在UCB历史系，美国大公司，大多数主流媒体以及美国一些最富有和最具有特权的意见领袖的全面合作下，他已成为文化英雄，被埋在金棺材中，给他的家人送来礼物和赞美。
美国人在社会的压力下向这个暴力分子下跪。
一整代黑人被胁迫认同乔治·弗洛伊德（George Floyd），然而他绝对是我们这个种族和物种最差的样板。
我为我的历史系感到羞耻。我会说我也为你们俩感到羞耻。但也许您同意我的看法，并且像我一样，只是害怕说实话遭到报复。当您必须下跪才能保住工作时，很难知道下跪着意味着什么。
我的身份不应该影响到我上面论点的强度，但是为了留个记录，我也是以一个有色人种的身份写的。我的家人就曾遭受过Floyd这样人的伤害。我知道民主党对我们种族的蔑视与傲慢。我们非常熟悉他们愚蠢的假设：即我们太愚蠢而无法进行STEM的学习，我们需要特殊的帮助和特殊的保护和较低的要求才能取得成功。我有时觉得和观点鲜明的法西斯主义打交道会不会更加容易一些，毕竟他们会直接了当称我们为劣等民族，而且还不太会和我们共享同一个种族。
一直存在的低期望，低标准，以及白人的善意，而不是我们自己的辛勤工作，这在心理上是毁灭性的。在美国，没有其他群体被其所谓的盟友以这种方式系统性地消沉！整整一代的黑人孩子都被教导说，只有乞讨，哭泣和尖叫，他们才能从内心存在白人原罪的白人身上获得施舍！
没有什么消息可以比白人的原罪感快要消失了或者美国白人本身快要成少数民族了，这种消息能够更加确定地摧毁这个种族的未来。如果这样的事情发生日裔美国人，犹太裔美国人或华裔美国身上，那么唐人街和日本城一定也会和今天的巴尔的摩和东圣路易斯最乱的地区一样。今天UCB的历史部门已经成为一个摧毁黑人意志对黑人进行系统性破坏不可或缺的机构！
我希望您能感受到这封邮件背后的挫败感。我不支持BLM。我也不支持民主党暗搓搓的计划，以及对我们历史系不由分说的侵占。我更不支持绑架我们种族的政党的竞选，就像拜登最近在采访中所做的那样，他声称投票民主党和黑人是等价的。
我也谴责导致乔治·弗洛伊德（George Floyd）的死亡的方式，我也与您一道呼吁加强警察责任制和警察改革。
但是我不会假装认为George Floyd是一个好人，他是一个暴力份子，一个厌恶女性主义者，一个野蛮的人，而他的结局可想而知。
我也想保护我们如何研究历史。克莱奥女神并不是大公司，政治家任人驱使的女仆。
像我们一样，她是自由的。
/终
