FBI 正约谈多家美国大学，希望他们能协助 FBI 监视来自中国的留学生和学者。

　　对此，8月30日和9月3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发表公开信，对FBI说“不”。

　　布林格对FBI的所为更显深恶痛绝，认为此等行为非常荒谬，并借此将此事公开于国际大众，尤其强调所谓 “中国学生间谍” 论点可笑荒唐：

　　“一个人外国人，飞了大半个地球来美国，就是为了‘潜伏’到我们的大学里，了解我们最新的学术发现。而这个人大可坐在自己舒适的办公室内，把关键字输入进搜索引擎就能够阅读学术期刊。或者同样地这个人也可访问美国专利及商标局的网站，那儿有最新发明专利的详细介绍。”

　　以下是公开信全文：

　　联邦调查局(FBI)加强了对包括我校在内的大学校园研究工作的审查。

　　为了阻止知识产权非法转移给外国竞争对手，执法和行政机构正在鼓励美国学者和管理人员制定更严格的渠道，以监控外国出生的学生和访问学者——尤其是华裔学生和学者。

　　随着学生们重返校园，这种监控正在将经济和政治方面的担忧与美国宪法《第一修正案》所倡导的自由置于冲突之中。

　　诚然，政府资助的诸如网络安全和生物恐怖主义等国家安全领域的学术研究是有理由敏感的。同样，与美国公司合作进行的学术研究——这是大多数非法技术转让的主要目标——其商业创新成果确实需要保护。

　　大学有义务遵守现有的安全规定，以合理的方式实行安全措施，并在怀疑存在明显的间谍行为时，与执法部门和企业研究伙伴充分配合。在某种程度上，我们在这些方面都有不足之处——过去的确存在学者与外国政府分享敏感知识产权的个案——我们可以而且必须做得更好。

　　然而，只有一小部分在校园里进行的研究是“秘密”的。事实恰恰相反。学术研究的目的是分享——发表到公共领域，以推动人类进步。突破性的医学发现、农业创新(使全球数十亿人免于饥饿)、互联网、人工智能，所有这些都是来自大学的公开研究成果。

　　因此，外国人不需要飞越大半个地球去“渗透”我们伟大的大学了和了解我们的最新见解和发现：他们大可坐在海外的舒适办公室或宿舍，只需要在搜索引擎里输入关键字，就可以阅读同行评议的学术期刊。或者，同样地，他们也可以访问美国专利商标局的网站，网站上的专利保护申请书就提供了所有最新发明的详细描述。

　　因此，作为一个花了50年时间倡导言论和集会自由的人，当得知我们大学的教职工，或许还有学生，竟然被要求去监控外国学生和同事的行为时，我感到极度忧虑。这与我们的原则是对立的。

　　大学的使命是培养一种有利于思考、实验和创造的开放的氛围。美国的高等教育令全世界羡慕，恰恰是因为它无与伦比的开放和多样性。吸引——并欢迎——世界上最聪明的人，无论其国籍或出生国是什么，这就是我们所关心的。

　　换句话说，美国的大学模式是一种战略优势，而不是对美国竞争力的阻碍。我们的行政人员、教授和研究学者不是、也不应该成为美国执法部门的一员。具有讽刺意味的是，在我看来，FBI显然认为我们最大的弱点是我们最大的优势。

　　在我担任校长的哥伦比亚大学，数千名的学生和教师代表着150多个国家。我们这些主要研究型大学的管理者，即使我们想要，也不能限制知识自由。大学文化与系统审查的不相容性或许可以解释，为什么即使是访问过我们校园的执法官员也只是提出我们应该保持警惕，而很少提供规范性指导。

　　海外竞争对手未经授权使用知识产权是一个严重的问题。但对外国出生的学者进行监视是错误的解决方案。如果执法机构有合理的担忧，我认为他们应该根据真正的威胁去识别和监控那些他们指定为“可疑人士”的人，而不是对整个国籍提出担忧。

　　我在高等教育界的许多同事，以及两党联合成立的反知识产权窃取委员会，都提倡一种更为有效的做法，就是增加向外国出生的大学毕业生发放绿卡的数量。如果允许的话，这些国际学者中的许多人，特别是在科学、技术、工程和数学领域的学者，会更愿意留在美国为美国政府工作，他们也可以为美国的经济增长和繁荣做出贡献。但根据目前的规定，当他们完成学业后，我们很难让他们留下来。他们带着在这里学到的非凡知识回到自己的国家，这些知识可以为未来针对美国竞争对手的商业策略提供参考。

　　我们学院和大学的使命是，在广泛的议题上进行公开、有力的调查。我们的高等教育机构应该为使美国成为这个世界上有史以来最具创新精神的国家做出更多努力，而不是相反。

　　以下是英文原文：

　　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 descriptions 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 prescriptive 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.

　　发完这份公开信后，布林格还于9月3日发送内部电子邮件，向哥伦比亚全体师生重申自己的立场。

　　“我一般不会在学校内转发自己写的东西，但鉴于大家对近期发生事情很关心，我会这么做(转发)。”邮件呼应布林格《华盛顿邮报》署名文章，指出FBI正在“鼓励”大学设立机制，监视外籍学生学者，尤其是针对中国籍人士。“但大学不能监视自己的人，这不是我们。”

       以上讲的就是哥大校长刊文硬刚FBI：我不会监视我的外国学生介绍，希望能给各位赴美留学的学子们指点迷津。托普仕留学可以为你排忧解难，同时，更多关于赴美留学的相关资讯在等着你，绝对让你“浏览”忘返。在此，衷心祝愿各位学子们能够顺利奔赴自己心目中理想的学校并且学业有成!