One of the most interesting paradoxes² in America today is that Harvard University, the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States, is now engaged in a serious debate about what a university should be, and whether it is measuring up.
　　Like the Roman Catholic Church and other ancient institutions, it is asking - still in private rather than in public - whether its past assumptions about faculty³, authority, admissions, courses of study, are really relevant to the problems of the 1990’s.
　　『Should Harvard or any other university be an intellectual sanctuary⁴, apart from the political and social revolution of the age, or should it be a laboratory for experimentation⁵ with these political and social revolutions; or even an engine of the revolution? 』①This is what is being discussed privately⁶ in the big clapboard houses of faculty members around the Harvard Yard.
　　The issue was defined by Waiter Lippmann, a distinguished⁷ Harvard graduate, several years ago. “If the universities are to do their work,” he said, “they must be independent and they must be disinterested⁸… They are places to which men can turn for judgements which are unbiased by partisanship⁹ and special interest. 『Obviously, the moment the universities fall under political control, or under the control of private interests, or the moment they themselves take a hand in politics and the leadership of government, their value as independent and disinterested sources of judgement is impaired¹¹.”』②
　　This is part of the argument that is going on at Harvard today. Another part is the argument of the militant¹² and even many moderate students: that a university is the keeper of our ideals and morals, and should not be “disinterested” but activist¹³ in bringing the nation’s ideals and actions together.
　　Harvard’s men of today seem more troubled and less sure about personal, political and academic purpose than they did at the beginning. 『They are not even clear about how they should debate and resolve their problems, but they are struggling with them privately, and how they come out is bound to influence American university and political life in the 1990’s.』③

1. The issues in the debate on Harvard’s goals are whether the universities should remain independent of our society and its problems, and whether they should .
A. fight militarism
B. overcome the widespread drug dependency
C. take an active part in solving society’s ills
D. support our old and established institutions

2. In regard to their goals and purposes in life, the author believes that Harvard men are becoming .
A. more sure about them
B. less sure about them
C. more hopeful of reaching a satisfactory answer
D. completely disillusioned¹⁴ about ever

3. The word “paradox¹” in paragraph 1 is .
A. a parenthetical expression
B. a difficult puzzle
C. an abnormal condition
D. a self-contradiction

4. The word “sanctuary”in paragraph 3 is.
A. a holy place dedicated¹⁵ to a certain god
B. a temple or nunnery of middle age
C. a certain place you can hide in and avoid mishaps¹⁶
D. an academy for intelligent people

5. In the author’s judgement, the ferment¹⁷ going on at Harvard .
A. is a sad symbol of our general bewilderment
B. will soon be over, because times are bound to change
C. is of interest mostly to Harvard men and their friends
D. will influence future life in America

Vocabulary
1.paradox n. 似非而是的论点；似非而可能是的隽语；自相矛盾的话
2.sanctuary n. 避难所
3.clapboard n. 隔板，墙板，桶板
4.distinguished adj. 卓著的，著名的，高贵的
5.partisanship n. 党派性，党派偏见
6.disinterested adj. 无私的
7.impair¹⁰ v. 削弱，伤害
8.militant adj. 好战的，战斗性的
9.be bound to 一定要……