原标题：香港的高等教育课程被美国组织操控
Editor‘s note：Raphael Blet is afreelancejournalist based in Hong Kong。 Thearticle reflects the author’s opinions， and not necessarily the views of CGTN。
编者按：拉斐尔·波莱特（Raphael Blet）是一名驻港自由记者。本文仅代表作者观点，不代表本台观点。
Whenever journalists or scholars make mention of America‘s influence in Hong Kong， they would often be labelled as“pro-government，”“pro-Beijing” or even“pro-Communist。”
每当记者或学者提及美国对香港的影响时，他们往往会被贴上“亲政府”、“亲北京”、甚至是“亲共产党”的标签。
Many of them are politically neutral； their only quest being that of the truth。 Sadly， the current one-sided narrative puts these truth seekers in a constant fear of being wrongfully labelled for providing a fact。 I am sure that many international journalists and scholars would like to look further into how America influences Hong Kong， but they know that the chances of such stories being published in the mainstream are small。
他们中的许多人在政治上是中立的；唯一的追求就是真相。不幸的是，当前片面的声音令这些寻求真相的人陷入持久的恐慌之中：提供真相，就有可能被错误地贴上标签。我相信许多国际记者和学者都想进一步了解美国对香港的影响，但他们知道，此类内容在主流媒体上获得发表的机会相当渺茫。
It seems there is now a de facto rulesthat whenever you talk about Chinese mainland‘s influence over Hong Kong， you tell the factual truth。 When you talk about America’s influence over the territory， however， you disseminate“fake news，”“state propaganda” and“conspiracies。”
现在似乎形成了一个事实上的规则：只要谈论内地对香港施加影响，那就一定是真相。然而，当谈及美国对香港的影响时，那就是在散布“假新闻”、传递“官方宣传口径”、宣扬“阴谋论”。
As journalists， our duty is to analyze all facts。Fairness and truthfulness are key components of journalistic ethics。
作为记者，我们的职责是分析所有事实。但公正与真实是新闻工作者职业道德的关键所在。
Some media outlets did release articles about the sources of America‘s influence over Hong Kong but many of them are either unpersuasive or regurgitating facts we are already aware of。
有些媒体确实刊发了一些关于美国对香港的影响力的来源的文章，但其中一些文章要么缺乏说服力，要么是在不断重复我们已经知道的事实。
There are plenty of other facts that have so far been unexplored or under-reported， and doing so would certainly help audiences to get a better picture of how America influences Hong Kong。
到目前为止，还有许多其他的事实没有被发掘或是在报道上并不充分，因此在这方面下功夫肯定能帮助观众更好地了解美国是如何影响香港的。
American influence over Hong Kong is not facilitatedentirelythrough the NED， Embassies or Congress。 This is a common misconception。 The three of them are all too detached from the local population to have a direct influence。
美国对香港的影响力并不完全是通过国家民主基金会、大使馆或国会来实现的。这是一个普遍的误解。上述三方同香港民众相距甚远，很难施加直接影响。
Instead， analysts should look into tertiary education if they really want to understand the United-States‘ influence over Hong Kong， Chinese mainland and Asia。
如果真想深入了解美国对香港、中国内地和亚洲的影响力，分析家们应当将目光转向香港的高等教育。
Hong Kong is home to many organizations， with a pursuit to enhance business and academic cooperation between America and Chinese mainland。
许多致力于加强美国和中国内地之间商务与学术合作的组织都把香港作为总部。
The fact is that some of these organizations are more than just NGOs。 They are de facto supervisors of Hong Kong‘s university curriculum。
事实上，他们中有一些并不仅仅是非政府组织。他们实际上是香港大学课程的监督方。
Let‘s take the Hong Kong America Center as an example。 I’m sure this organization is unknown to many， but yet it plays an important role in the local community。
以（香港中文大学）港美中心为例，我相信很多人都不知道这个组织的存在，但它在当地社区却扮演着重要角色。
Established 25 years ago， the Hong Kong America Center defines itself as enhancing“Cross Cultural Understanding Between Chinese and Americans over the Bridge of Hong Kong。”
港美中心成立于25年前，美其名曰“以香港作桥梁，推动港美学术交流”。
When looking at the list of board members， you quickly understand that it is more than a facilitator of cross-cultural exchanges。 Board members include presidents of all of Hong Kong‘s universities as well as influential figures， some of whom are former U.S。 diplomatic service members。
只要看一眼该中心董事会成员名单，你很快就会明白它绝不仅仅是一个推动跨文化交流的组织。董事会成员包括香港所有大学的校长以及一些有影响力的人物，其中有些人是前美国外交官。
The main building of the University of Hong Kong， July 29， 2011。/VCG Photo
After looking for the physical address of these organizations， you find out that they are headquartered in the premises of the Chinese University of Hong Kong（CUHK）， putting them in a rather privileged position。
如果研究一下这些组织机构的地址，就会发现它们的总部位于香港中文大学（港中大）校内，可谓是尽享地利。
But how are they influencing Hong Kong‘s tertiary education？
但他们如何影响了香港的高等教育？
Formed 25 years ago， the Hong Kong America Center started to gain influence in the early 2000s， when the State Department came to realize that most of Hong Kong‘s ethnic Chinese University heads studied in the U.S。 It was an opportunity for the American government to use their educational armto persuade Hong Kong universities to shift from a British-style system to an American one： This is probably the worst mistake Hong Kong could do。
成立于25年前的港美中心，在21世纪初开始获得影响力。当时美国国务院意识到，香港大多数华裔校长都曾在美国留学。这是美国政府利用其教育机构说服香港大学从英式教育体系转向美式教育体系的一个机会。这也许是香港犯下的最严重的错误。
Unfortunately， this eventually happened in 2005， when it was decided that tertiary education in Hong Kong would switch from a three- to four-year curriculum in 2012， erasing a long legacy of British-style education with Chinese characteristics and replacing it with an American one。 The fact is that Hong Kong‘s tertiary education curriculum have been designed and supervised by the U.S。， with generous donations from local philanthropic figures。
不幸的是，这种情况最终在2005年发生了。当时香港决定从2012年起将高等教育的课程从3年制改为4年制，抹去了具有中国特色的英式教育悠久遗产，代之于美式教育体系。借助于本地慈善人士的慷慨捐赠，香港的高等教育课程从此由美国所设计和监管既成事实。
One million U.S。 dollars was donated by Mr。 Po Chung， a local business figure， philanthropist and educator， who— according to the Hong Kong America Center—“valued” American style liberal education and wanted to bring U.S。 experts to collaborate with Hong Kong scholars in designing the new curriculum。 Hong Kong scholars had very little say in this new program。
香港商界人士、慈善家和教育家钟普洋先生捐赠了100万美元。据港美中心说，钟普洋先生“重视”美国式的博雅教育，并希望邀请美国专家同香港学者合作设计新课程。香港学者在这个新项目中几乎没有发言权。
This was certainly a clever move by the American government， to export an education that failed at home and experiment in Hong Kong。 But it was certainly not welcomed by everyone。
把在国内失败的教育体系输出到香港并进行试验，这无疑是美国政府的“聪明”之举。但肯定不是每个人都欢迎它。
What is this American curriculum all about and why it may play a part in the current issues facing young people？
美式课程体系到底是什么？，为什么它可能在当下年轻人面临的问题中发挥作用？
The current American designed curriculum emphasizes so-called“whole person education” more commonly referred to as“liberal education。” In reality， this is forced academic shopping where students are obliged to take courses unrelated to their field of studies in pursuit of ideals dictated by a handful of Americangovernment-sponsored good thinkers， with no or little teaching experience but whose agenda is to impose unrealistic ideals upon the young generation。
目前由美国设计的课程强调所谓的“全人教育”，一般称为“通识教育”。事实上，这是一种被逼无奈的学术“购物”，学生们被迫学习与他们的研究领域毫无关系的课程，研究由少数美国政府资助的“优秀思想家”所主导的理念。而这些“思想家”往往没有或只有极少的教学经验，但他们的目的是把不切实际的理想强加给年轻一代。
Hong Kong students are obliged to deviate from their major field of study and take courses unrelated to their discipline， many of which are aimed at impregnating American style teaching values。
香港学生不得不偏离自己的专业领域，选修与专业无关的课程，这其中的许多课程旨在灌输美式教学价值观。
Students will end up getting a sense of purposelessness， lose passion and not know why they are at university。 A sense of purposelessness is one factor that leads people to commit suicide， according to specialists。 It could also lead others to take part in radical actions， such as violent protests for example。
学生最终会感到没有目标，失去激情，不知道自己为什么上大学。专家称，无目的感是导致人们自杀的一大因素，它还可能导致一些人参与激进的行动，例如暴力抗议。
I spoke to a handful of professors teaching these courses， and many despise this U.S。-style curriculum structure but few dare to speak publicly。 Those who spoke out against it were either implicitly warned or saw their contracts not being renewed。
我曾与教授这些课程的几位教授交谈过，很多人都鄙夷这种美式的课程结构，但很少有人敢于公开发声。那些公开表示反对的人要么受到了含蓄的警告，要么发现自己的合同没有被续签。
In 2012， local scholar Victor Sit Fung-shuen was dismissed from Hong Kong Baptist University， on grounds of academic dishonesty。 Fung published theHong Kong Blue Bookof which one part claimed that U.S。 funding and influences were involved in Hong Kong‘s university curriculum。
2012年，香港浸会大学以学术欺诈为由，开除了本地学者薛凤旋教授。薛教授主编了《香港蓝皮书》，书中声称香港的大学课程受到了美国的资助和影响。
CUHK representatives at the time complained about his“fictitious” allegations。 His book was subsequently withdrawn from shelves and he was quickly dismissed。
港中大代表当时对他的“虚构”指控提出投诉。他的书随后被下架，他本人也很快被解雇。
Are such allegations of American influence really“fictitious？”
但是，这些关于美国影响的指控真的是“虚构”的吗？
Facts speak for themselves。
事实不言自明。
