flat-out wrong ‘accepted knowledge’ can be? I assume that Ben-Porath means that scientific evidence should only be refuted by scientific evidence. But this assumes that science itself is not ideologically driven, not a dutiful creature of cultural norms and biases – including, at times, hateful racist and sexist ones. Two final caveats of my own: First, I wish Ben-Porath had provided a more elaborate section on the practical classroom application of her inclusive freedom framework, in a sense reaching her conclusion more inductively. The proof of her framework’s value needs hands-on testing. Second, and relatedly, Ben-Porath argues throughout her book that ‘difficult cases should not be the main lens to inform the way colleges respond to ongoing issues of speech on their campuses’ (p. 121, fn. 12). But distinguishing difficult cases is not so cut-and-dry. Ben-Porath writes that Condoleezza Rice, who was disinvited as a commencement speaker at Rutgers University, was ‘hardly a controversial speaker’ (p. 15). But obviously, for some she was. And it is the difficult cases, I think, that would best serve the goal of formulating practical applications of inclusive freedom and, by doing so, bring greater precision and rigor to this important contribution to the free-speech debate.

中文翻译：

---

书评：Monisha Bajaj (ed.), Human Rights Education: Theory, Research, PraxisBajajMonisha (ed.), Human Rights Education: Theory, Research, Praxis, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, 2017. 353 pp. ISBN 9780812249026 , 49.95 美元

完全错误的“公认的知识”可以吗？我认为 Ben-Porath 的意思是科学证据只能被科学证据反驳。但这假设科学本身不是意识形态驱动的，不是文化规范和偏见的忠实产物——有时包括可恶的种族主义和性别歧视。我自己的最后两个警告：首先，我希望 Ben-Porath 就她的包容性自由框架的实际课堂应用提供了一个更详细的部分，在某种意义上更归纳地得出了她的结论。她的框架价值的证明需要动手测试。其次，与此相关的是，Ben-Porath 在她的书中认为，“困难案例不应该成为告知大学如何应对校园中持续存在的言论问题的主要镜头”（第 121 页，第 12 页）。但区分疑难病例并不是那么简单。Ben-Porath 写道，康多莉扎·赖斯 (Condoleezza Rice) 在罗格斯大学 (Rutgers University) 的毕业典礼演讲中被取消邀请，“几乎不是一个有争议的演讲者”（第 15 页）。但显然，对于某些人来说，她是。我认为，正是困难的案例最有助于制定包容性自由的实际应用的目标，并通过这样做为对言论自由辩论的这一重要贡献带来更大的精确性和严谨性。