BSECTION 1: LISTENING TEST/B

Marriage may be about love, but divorce is a business. For global couples—born in different countries, married in a third, now working somewhere else and with children, pensions and other assets sprinkled over the world—a contested divorce is bliss for lawyers and a nightmare for others. Divorce laws vary wildly, from countries (such as Malta) that still forbid it to Islamic states where—for the husband, at least—it may be obtained in minutes. Rules on the division of property and future financial obligations vary hugely too. France expects the poorer party, usually the wife, to start fending for herself almost immediately; England and some American states insist on lifelong support. Some systems look only at the "acquest" (assets built during the marriage); others count the lot. A few, like Austria, still link cash to blame (eg, for adultery). Japan offers a temptingly quick cheap break, but—for foreigners—little or no enforceable contact with the kids thereafter, notes Jeremy Morley, a New York-based "international divorce strategist". Other places may be mum-friendly when it comes to money but dad-friendly on child custody. The European Union (home to 875,000 divorces a year, of which a fifth are "international") is trying to tidy up its divorce laws. A reform in 2001 called Brussels II tried to stop forum shopping, in which each party sought the most favourable jurisdiction, by ruling that the first court to be approached decides the divorce. That worked—but at the cost of encouraging trigger-happy spouses to kill troubled marriages quickly, rather than trying to patch them up. This, says David Hodson, a specialist in international divorce law, favours the "wealthier, more aggressive, more unscrupulous party". It goes against the general trend towards counselling, mediation and out-of-court settlement. An EU measure called Rome III, now under negotiation and pencilled in to come into force in 2008, tries to ensure that the marriage is ended by the law that has governed it most closely. It may be easy for a Dutch court to apply Belgian law when dealing with the uncontested divorce of a Belgian couple, but less so for a Spanish court to apply Polish rules, let alone Iranian or Indonesian, and especially not when the divorce is contested. Such snags make Rome III "laughably idiotic—a recipe for increasing costs", according to John Cornwell, a London lawyer. Britain and Ireland say they will opt out. That, says Mr. Hodson, will give a further edge to London. Since a judgment in 2000 entrenched the principle of "equality" in division of marital assets, England, home to hundreds of thousands of expatriates, has become a "Mecca for wives", says Louise Spitz of Manches, a London law firm. David Truex, who runs a specialist international divorce outfit, reckons that at least a fifth of divorce cases registered in London's higher courts now have an international element. That trend is accelerating as more and more foreign professionals move to Britain: the latest bunch of customers, says Ms. Spitz, are from the former Soviet Union: hugely wealthy and based in London for political reasons. That may protect their assets from being grabbed by the Kremlin; but it does not shield them from their wives. English courts are slowly edging towards the principle (already entrenched in some American states) that the wife's efforts during the marriage to boost her husband's earning power must be compensated, meaning that future income, as well as current assets, must be shared. Compared with most other jurisdictions, English courts are not just wife-friendly but sharp-toothed and clear-sighted. A case to be heard next week by the Court of Appeal will determine the fate of the huge offshore fortune of John Charman, a financier. A lower court ruled that his wife was entitled to her share of the assets held in a Bermuda trust. Rich couples with troubled marriages and a London connection are watching with a mixture of glee and foreboding. For the typical global couple, such high-profile, big-money cases matter less than the three basic (and deeply unromantic factors) in marriage planning. According to Mr. Truex, a rich man should choose his bride from a country with a stingy divorce law, such as Sweden or France, and marry her there. Second, he should draw up a pre-nuptial agreement. These are binding in many countries and have begun to count even in England. Third, once divorce looms, a wife may want to move to England or America (but should avoid no-alimony states such as Florida); for husbands, staying in continental Europe is wise. Outside Europe, the country—or American state—deemed the most "appropriate" in terms of the couple's family and business connections will normally get to hear the case. But here too unilateral action may be decisive. When Earl Spencer, brother of Princess Diana, divorced his first wife he surprised her by issuing proceedings in South Africa where they were then living. In England, where they had been domiciled, she might have got a better deal. She ended up suing her lawyers. The lesson for couples? How you live may determine the length and happiness of your marriage. Where you live is likely to determine how it ends.

[此试题无题干]

Of all the troubles that US troops may face when they come home, getting their old jobs back should not be one. Uncle Sam supposedly took care of that with a law saying civilians turned soldiers cannot be fired for serving their country—or denied the right to sue in federal court.That is why returning veterans should hear the story of Michael Garrett. Thirteen years ago, Captain Garrett of the US Marine Corps traded his camouflage utility uniform for the business-casual dress of a Circuit City service manager. The electronics company was booming, and Garrett could still get his dose of a soldier's life as a member of the Marine Reserve. For almost a decade, Garrett ascended the company's ranks. But in October 2002, with war in Iraq near certain, his bosses asked whether he would go on active duty, according to Garrett. He said it was possible, and within weeks, the sniping began: his department took too long with repairs, one boss said, and its work was sometimes shoddy. Then, on March 17—two days before the US invaded Iraq—Garrett got fired. The company declined to comment, saying only that it "supported the mission and values of the United States Armed Forces". But Garrett said the timing was no coincidence: he lost his job because of his military status. If true, that would violate a 1994 federal law. So Garrett sued Circuit City, only to see it spring yet another surprise. Garrett, the company said, had to take his case to private arbitration, a quasi-legal process offering sharply limited rights. Garrett acknowledged that his employment contract required arbitration, but he argued that the 1994 Act overrode the contract. A federal judge in Dallas agreed in 2004, just before Garrett was activated for a 10-month tour in the Horn of Africa. Last year, though, the US Court of Appeals in New Orleans reversed that decision, becoming the first court to rule that a contract crafted to help employers trump the law designed to protect the rights of veterans. "That just blows me away," says Garrett, whose case heads for arbitration. No one knows how many veterans are in a similar bind, but the numbers are substantial—and will grow as more troops return home. Complaints under the 1994 Act have increased steadily, to more than 1,500 in 2006 from about 800 in 2001. Some have become lawsuits, and employers may have tried to steer many toward arbitration, since about one-fifth of US companies require the procedure for workplace disputes. In defense of employers, it's not easy reserving jobs for workers called to active duty. But Congress judged that the cost was worth the peace of mind of citizen soldiers, willing to sacrifice their time and perhaps lives to the military. Like predecessor statutes dating from 1940, the 1994 Act's broad protections rest on the promise of a federal jury trial—with rights to evidence, a fair hearing and an appeal—if an employer fails to comply. Companies like Circuit City say binding arbitration is faster and cheaper than going to court, though studies have cast doubt on both claims. What really bugs employees are the rights they lose in arbitration—and the apparent bias of arbitrators. There are strict limits on gathering evidence for arbitration hearings, and it is virtually impossible to appeal them. Arbitrators don't necessarily have to follow the law, and studies suggest they favor companies that regularly hire them. Still, the courts generally uphold arbitration clauses unless a law makes absolutely clear that the employee can go to court, arbitration be damned. That pretty much describes the 1994 Act, as three federal courts have ruled. But the magic of law is that even federal judges can give it surprising twists, as the court of appeals judges did in Garrett's case. Sure, they explained, the Act says the rights it grants can't be limited. But the judges said that referred to "substantive rights" like the guarantee of a job. Whether such rights are enforced in court or arbitration, the judges thought, is just a matter of process. It's hard to believe, though, that Congress thought a second-class justice system like arbitration was just as good as the federal courts for veterans. As Bob Goodman, Garrett's lawyer, says, "Taking away the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial is no way to treat the troops." Or to welcome them home.

{{B}}Sectence TranslationDirections: In this part of the test, you will hear 5 sentences in English. You will hear the sentences ONLY ONCE. After you have heard each sentence, translate it into Chinese and write your version in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET.{{/B}}

[此试题无题干]

[此试题无题干]

As a thriving midwestern city, Chicago is still the beating heart of much of America's industry. But its arteries—both road and rail—are increasingly clogged. A report released earlier this month by Illinois's auditor, William Holland, highlighted some chronic glitches in the network of buses and commuter trains. The region also needs a better approach to highways and rail freight. It is hard, of course, to co-ordinate commuter transport between an urban system and one that serves surrounding counties with a different tax base. Chicago's Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), which covers the six counties of the metropolitan area, is supposed to promote better planning and links among the city's system and a pair of others that run suburban train and bus networks. But it has clearly come up short so far. The RTA, Mr. Holland's audit concluded, needs to wield a firmer hand, over budgets and in general. No matter how the RTA allocates the pie, however, the current pot of money seems woefully inadequate. Operating costs have grown three times as fast as revenues over the past five years. Last month the RTA released a five-year "strategic plan" (otherwise known as a request for money) that called for, among other things, an extra $400 million in annual operating funds and $10 billion in capital spending over the next five years. That will be a tough sell in the state legislature. Freight traffic is arguably an even bigger problem. In this, Chicago is unique. Six of the country's seven biggest-earning railways converge there, and the city is still the hub for a staggering amount of trans-continental commerce. Managing logistics and supply chains for distant companies, as well as physically moving goods around at warehouses and inter-modal hubs, generates lots of jobs for the area. Chicago's ability to handle all this traffic is being badly stretched, however. Ann Drake, the head of DSC Logistics, says that west-east freight traffic continues to grow rapidly, as ever more goods from Asia try to make their way to the east coast. Ms. Drake's worry—and that of many others—is that Chicago's congestion will eventually cause many shipments to be rerouted around it, a process that could eat away its advantages. "We do not want to become another St. Louis," she says, gloomily invoking the city that lost its midwestern primacy to Chicago after failing to invest in infrastructure. Helpfully, many business and civic leaders are moving transport problems up their list of priorities. The Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC), which presses for a co-ordinated policy for the region's big issues, has done a good job of channeling their frustrations into useful ideas. But there is something odd about the way that many of Chicago's leaders talk about these problems. They invariably try to link their suggestions to grand or abstract ideas, such as being a "global city" or winning a bid to host the Olympics. The simpler need is to get goods and people moving. The awful state of Chicago's transport comes home most plainly to drivers sitting stationary in their cars. The public debate over making drivers pay to use the roads has been as shallow in Chicago as in the rest of America. The argument tends to revolve around whether it makes more sense to use tolls and private enterprise to pay for better roads, or instead to keep charging taxpayers for a system that just limps along. By contrast, not much is said about the role that prices might play in altering the behaviour of both companies and commuters. MarySue Barrett, president of the MPC, says that her outfit hopes to make road pricing a bigger part of that debate. Hostility towards road pricing might be understandable in other parts of America. But one of Chicago's proudest feats was the creation of financial futures markets, which prompted far-flung firms and farmers to adjust their behaviour to the slightest twitch in the price of pork futures or Canadian dollars. Surely the system would work for Chicago commuters as well.

In Britain's overheated property market, the only things hotter than the prices of the houses for sale are the firms that build them. On March 26th Taylor Woodrow and George Wimpey agreed upon a ￡5 billion ($9.8 billion) merger to create the country's largest housebuilder. The financial logic of the deal seems hard to fault. Last year the two firms built about 22,000 homes in Britain, a tenth of all completions. Together they will be able to trim costs by more than ￡70 million a year and they will be in a stronger position in America, where they have operations in Florida, California, Arizona and Texas. The merger may be the biggest of its kind but it is not the first, as a wave of consolidation sweeps through the industry. Of the country's ten biggest builders in 2002, only six remain. The rest have been taken over by the three largest firms. Four years ago the top three firms controlled about 20% of the market; now they have around 30%. The upheaval is transforming an industry that Kate Barker, a member of the Bank of England's monetary-policy committee, heavily criticised in 2004. Ms. Barker was investigating why the supply of new houses had responded so sluggishly to the house-price boom, with completions actually falling to a low of about 175,000 in 2001, although they have since staged a recovery. One reason she highlighted was a fragmented and inefficient industry, whose firms competed not for customers by offering better homes or building them more cheaply but for that scarce British commodity, land with permission to develop. Local firms dominated their regions because they often stood a better chance of gaming the planning system than their national rivals. Quality often suffered because demand was so great that builders could sell all but the shoddiest of homes. Two things have since changed. First, publicly quoted builders now look vulnerable to takeovers from rivals or private-equity firms because rising house prices have pushed up the value of their land faster than their share prices. This is partly because they value land on their books at its historic purchase price, rather than its current price. So it has often been cheaper to get land by pouncing on a rival than by buying it on the open market, says Kate Moy, an analyst at Teather & Greenwood, a stockbroker. The second change is that Britain may soon weaken longstanding rules that have preserved "green belts" around towns and cities. Another report by the energetic Ms Barker, released in December, argued that farms and parks will have to be concreted over to provide living space for an extra 209,000 new households each year over the next two decades. One consequence is that firms may soon be able to buy land in suburb-sized chunks. The potential change has sparked a flurry of interest in land adjoining towns and cities that may be reclassified. That seems to be shifting the balance of power from local builders to large firms with enough capital to buy rights to huge tracts of land. A sign of the shift, says Peter Damesick, head of research at CB Richard Ellis, is that even institutional investors with little previous experience are now getting into the game of speculating on town-edge land. With interest in land running high the merger between George Wimpey and Taylor Woodrow is unlikely to be the last, if indeed it proceeds. Other builders and private-equity firms are running their slide-rules over the two companies, whose shares have gained on optimism that a counterbid may emerge. And several smaller housebuilders are also expected to fall to bids soon. Given the industry's generally shoddy customer service, few of them will be missed.

Good morning. The discussion topic for today's seminar is "Homelessness in America. " In the United States, homelessness has【C1】______during the last decade. Estimates of the number of Americans currently without 【C2】______vary wildly. Advocacy groups like the National Coalition for the Homeless say that 【C3】______Americans live on the streets or in emergency and temporary shelters. The US Department concerned puts the figure at【C4】______. Yet both bureaucrats and advocates agree on one point, that is, the face of homelessness【C5】______in the past 10 years, as more and more low-income housing is mowed down【C6】______. Some 20 years ago, the typical "street person" was a white male who suffered from a mental illness or【C7】______. Today's homeless, however, are a more eclectic group. 【C8】______of the homeless today are Black, mostly【C9】______. More than half of them have never been homeless before. In many cases, they have been evicted from their homes, or the【C10】______in which they lived was demolished or burned down. About 60 percent of all homeless people live on【C11】______with an average monthly income of 450 dollars. About 20 percent are mentally ill. All sorts of people have been pushed out of【C12】______because of the critical shortage of affordable places to live. As a result, homelessness has climbed to the top of the【C13】______of social concerns. But there is a great gap between concern and active involvement【C14】______this growing problem. For many people, the inaction is【C15】______, not indifference. The fact is that there are many ways in which individuals can【C16】______. Yet for those people【C17】______, one of the first steps is to get to know the homeless and understand how they【C18】______. Many advocates believe that it is important for【C19】______to get to know and reach out to the homeless and【C20】______.

{{B}}Part B Directions: In this part of the test, you will hear 2 passages in Chinese. After you have heard each passage, interpret it into English. Start interpreting at the signal.., and stop it at the signal…you may take notes while you're listening. Remember you will hear the passages ONLY ONCE.Now, let us begin Part B with the first passage.{{/B}}

{{B}}Part B Directions: In this part of the test, you will hear 2 passages in Chinese. After you have heard each passage, interpret it into English. Start interpreting at the signal.., and stop it at the signal…you may take notes while you're listening. Remember you will hear the passages ONLY ONCE.Now, let us begin Part B with the first passage.{{/B}}

[此试题无题干]

[此试题无题干]

[此试题无题干]

Now the levee breach has been fixed. The people have been evacuated. Army Corps of Engineers magicians will pump the city dry, and the slow (but quicker than we think) job of rebuilding will begin. Then there will create a wall of illusion thicker than the new levees. The job of turning this national disaster into sound-bite-size commercials with somber string music will be left to TV. The story will be sanitized as America's politicians congratulate themselves on a job well done. Americans of all stripes will demonstrate saintly concern for one another. It's what's done in a crisis. This tragedy, however, should make America take an account of itself. It should not allow the mythic significance of this moment to pass without proper consideration. Let the size of this cataclysm be assessed in cultural terms, not in dollars and cents of politics. Americans are far less successful at doing that, having never understood how the country's core beliefs are manifest in culture—and how culture should guide political and economic realities. That's the city of New Orleans can now teach the nation again as all are forced by circumstance to literally come closer to one another. I say teach again, because New Orleans is a true American melting pot: the soul of America. A place freer than the rest of country, where elegance met an indefinable wildness to encourage the flowering of creative intelligence. Whites, Creoles and Negroes were strained, steamed and stewed in a thick, sticky, below-sea-level bowl of musky gumbo. These people produced an original cuisine, an original architecture, vibrant communal ceremonies and an original art form: jazz. Their music explored irrepressibly from the forced integration of these castes to sweep the world as the definitive American art form. New Orleans, the Crescent City, the Big Easy—home of Mardi Gras, the second-line parade, the po' boy sandwich, the shotgun house—is so many people's favorite city. But not favorite enough to embrace the integrate superiority of its culture as a national objective. Not favorite enough to digest the gift of supersized soul internationally embodied by the great Louis Armstrong. Over time, New Orleans became known as America's national center for frat-party-type decadence and (yeah, boy) great food. The genuine greatness of Armstrong is reduced to his good nature; his artistic triumphs are unknown to all but a handful. So it's time to consider, as this great American city is rebuilt, exactly what this bayou metropolis symbolizes for the US. New Orleans has a habit of tweaking the national consciousness at pivotal times. The last foreign invasion on US, soil was repelled in the Crescent City in 1815. The Union had an important early victory over the South with the capture of the Big Easy in 1862. Homer Plessy, a black New Orleanian, fought for racial equality in 1896, although it took our Supreme Court 58 years to agree with him and, with Brown v. Board of Education, to declare segregation unequal. Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference was formally organized in Orleans in 1957. The problem is that all Americans have a tendency to rise in that moment of need, but when that moment passes, fall back again. The images of a ruined city make it clear that the US needs to rebuild New Orleans. The images of people stranded, in shock, indicate that it needs to rebuild a community. The images of all sorts of Americans aiding these victims speak of the size of people's hearts. But this time what's needed is to look a little deeper. The US should use the resurrection of the city to reacquaint its citizens with the gift of New Orleans: a multicultural community invigorated by the arts. Forget about tolerance. What about embracing? This tragedy implores all to re-examine the soul of America. Its democracy, from the very beginning, has been challenged by the shackles of slavery. The parade of black folks across TV screens asking, as if ghosts, "Have you seen my father, mother, sister, brother?" reconnects to the still unfulfilled goals of the Reconstruction era. Americans always back away from fixing the nation's racial problems. Not fixing the city's levees before Katrina struck will now cost untold billions. Not resolving the nation's issues of race and class has and will cost so much more.

They're smug, egotistical, and already think they run the country (if not the world). So what's the rest of the nation to do now that three of them are mentioned as White House hopefuls, ready to swap Penn Station for Pennsylvania Avenue? Cringe? Clap? Or just consider somebody else? "That's pretty sick," said Norm Whipple, 59, of Los Angeles, offering a wry grin about the presidential prospects of Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, Republican Rudy Giuliani and unaffiliated New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. "Someone has to keep an eye on those New Yorkers." The specter of an all-New York November 2008 was raised when Bloomberg, a titular Republican since his 2001 mayoral run, announced last week that he was quitting the GOP to become an independent. His predecessor, Giuliani, is running for the Republican nomination for president, while second-term New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is among the Democratic hopefuls. While New Yorkers are all too aware of the differences between the Big Apple's big three, folks beyond the Hudson River were not as certain. "I think basically they are the same candidate," said Bob House, a Republican from Des Moines, Iowa. "We all love New York. But when our options are New York, New York, New York, I think people want to see a different life experience." Angeles Perry, 65, feeding the slot machines in Las Vegas, saw more similarities than differences among the New York triumvirate. "They have the money," said the retiree from California's Silicon Valley. "And they all have big egos." She's right. Billionaire Bloomberg spent more than $155 million for his two mayoral campaigns, and reports indicated he could drop $500 million on a presidential campaign despite his repeated and coy refusals to announce a candidacy. Giuliani and Clinton have millions of dollars on hand. None shrinks from the national spotlight, although it's shone a little brighter on some than others. "I know nothing about Bloomberg," said Belinda Abelar, 51, a nurse from Los Angeles. "Can you tell me something?" Although the nation's most populous city is regarded by many—including its residents—as the nation's financial, fashion and cultural capital, it has rarely served as a catapult to the White House. Mayor John V. Lindsay's Democratic presidential bid in 1972 was the most recent failure. Statewide office offered little promise, either: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, elected in 1932, was the last governor elected president. Oft-mentioned Mario Cuomo, a Democrat, never mounted a campaign, and talk about his GOP successor, George Pataki, making the move was just talk. Attorney Felix Lasarte, 36, brought his 9-year-old daughter to see Giuliani speak last week in Hialeah, Fla. He was not bothered by the concept of three New Yorkers vying for the presidency; he even thought their Empire State pedigree was a plus. "Coming from a big city, it really helps the candidate to address the issues that are really relevant to the country," Lasarte said. "Certainly on issues of safety and terrorists, it helps if you're from New York." As some people noted, two of the three are not New Yorkers anyway: Giuliani was born in Brooklyn, but Clinton hails from Illinois and Bloomberg still bears a trace of his Boston accent. "They just happen to be living in the New York area," said Marvin Hall, 57, of Chicago. Hall said he is more concerned with the abilities than their addresses, although a fellow Windy City resident wondered if too many candidates from adjoining zip codes was a good idea. "It doesn't give me heartburn, or cause concern, but you know what?" said Mary Tripoli, a Chicago court clerk. "I don't think it's a great idea. For one thing, it's not really representative of the nation."

The word for The Da Vinci Code is a rare invertible palindrome. Rotated 180 degrees on a horizontal axis so that it is upside down, it denotes the maternal essence that is sometimes linked to the sport of soccer. Read right side up, it concisely conveys the kind of extreme enthusiasm with which this riddle-filled, code-breaking, exhilaratingly brainy thriller can be recommended. That word is wow. The author is Dan Brown (a name you will want to remember). In this gleefully erudite suspense novel, Mr. Brown takes the format he has been developing through three earlier novels and fine-tunes it to blockbuster perfection. Not since the advent of Harry Potter has an author so flagrantly delighted in leading readers on a breathless chase and coaxing them through hoops. Consider the new book's prologue, set in the Grand Gallery of the Louvre. (This is the kind of book that notices that this one gallery's length is three times that of the Washington Monument.) It embroils a Caravaggio, an albino monk and a curator in a fight to the death. That's a scene leaving little doubt that the author knows how to pique interest, as the curator, Jacques Sauniere, fights for his life. Desperately seizing the painting in order to activate the museum's alarm system, Sauniere succeeds in buying some time. And he uses these stolen moments, which are his last, to take off his clothes, draw a circle and arrange himself like the figure in Leonardo's most famous drawing, "The Vitruvian Man." And to leave behind an anagram and Fibonacci's famous numerical series as clues. Whatever this is about, it is enough to summon Langdon, who by now, he blushes to recall, has been described in an adoring magazine article as Harrison Ford in Harris Tweed. Langdon's latest manuscript, which "proposed some very unconventional interpretations of established religious iconography which would certainly be controversial," is definitely germane. Also soon on the scene is the cryptologist Sophie Neveu, a chip off the author's earlier prototypes: "Unlike the cookie-cutter blondes that adorned Harvard dorm room walls, this woman was healthy with an unembellished beauty and genuineness that radiated a striking personal confidence." Even if he had not contrived this entire story as a hunt for the Lost Sacred Feminine essence, women in particular would love Mr. Brown. The book moves at a breakneck pace, with the author seeming thoroughly to enjoy his contrivances. Virtually every chapter ends with a cliffhanger: not easy, considering the amount of plain old talking that gets done. And Sophie and Langdon are sent on the run, the better to churn up a thriller atmosphere. To their credit, they evade their pursuers as ingeniously as they do most everything else. When being followed via a global positioning system, for instance, it is smart to send the sensor flying out a 40-foot window and lead pursuers to think you have done the same. Somehow the book manages to reconcile such derring-do with remarks like, "And did you know that if you divide the number of female bees by the number of male bees in any beehive in the world, you always get the same number?" The Da Vinci Code is breezy enough even to make fun of its characters' own cleverness. At one point Langdon is asked by his host whether he has hidden a sought-after treasure carefully enough. "Actually," Langdon says, unable to hide his grin, "that depends on how often you dust under your couch."

How is it that the louder the calls for "civility," the less civil the behavior? On American campuses today, the call for civility has become the cry of the craven. So basic, so decent, so safe does civility sound that it's hard to imagine anyone's opposing it. Until, that is, the uncivilized rise up, at which point—from the University of Missouri to Claremont McKenna and Yale—those in charge either acknowledge their guilt or hurl themselves onto the funeral pyre of resignation prepared for them. As Hillary Clinton alluded to in Saturday night's Democratic debate, for some Americans the latest student unrest awakens fond memories of the 1960s. In truth those were far more tumultuous times, with the frenzies of the sexual revolution, the civil-rights movement and the Vietnam War all converging on our campuses at about the same time. The more dispiriting comparison with the 1960s, alas, has less to do with the self-indulgence of the young than the learned fecklessness of the older and presumably wiser. Across the country the coddled activists with iPhones have rendered college presidents, chancellors and deans unable or unwilling to challenge the moral superiority of the mob. A pity, because even the 1960s gave us examples worth emulating. Start with 1968 at San Francisco State College. In the teeth of raging protests that had already claimed the scalps of his two immediate predecessors, a linguistics professor, S. I. Hayakawa, became acting president—and a national hero when he climbed atop a sound truck and ripped out wires to the speakers protesters were using to shout him down. Or John Silber. When activists in 1972 tried to block students from meeting with Marine recruiters, the Boston University president showed up with a bullhorn to direct those interfering with their fellow students' right to interview where they should line up to be arrested. Perhaps most successful was the Rev. Theodore Hesburgh of Notre Dame. Though by this time a dove on Vietnam, he believed the universities played an important role in training the nation' s military officers. At one point he prevented protesters from burning down the school' s ROTC building. In November 1968, protesters staged a lie-in aimed at blocking other students from job interviews with Dow Chemical and the CIA. Father Hesburgh was appalled by the idea of forcing a fellow student to walk across your body because you disagree with him. Scarcely three months later, he would issue a letter to the entire campus community—a letter reprinted in this paper and The New York Times. The Hesburgh letter recognized "the validity of protest" but made clear that any group that "substituted force for rational persuasion, be it violent or nonviolent," would be given 15 minutes to meditate. Students who persisted would have their IDs confiscated and be "suspended from this community." Father Hesburgh went on: "There seems to be a current myth that university members are not responsible to the law, and that somehow the law is the enemy, particularly those whom society has constituted to uphold and enforce the law. I would like to insist here that all of us are responsible to the duly constituted laws of this University community and to all of the laws of the land. There is no other guarantee of civilization versus the jungle or mob rule, here or elsewhere. " The Times called his letter " the toughest policy on student disruptions yet by any major American university in the course of recent disorders. " An editorial in this paper further noted Father Hesburgh's warning that if the universities didn't get their act together, they would invite "unwholesome reactions" from others including government. History has by and large vindicated Father Hesburgh. At the time, it was a different story. A Wall Street Journal news story reported a " majority" of university administrators rejecting Father Hesburgh' s stand and predicting(incorrectly)it would prove a "prescription for disaster. " "Confrontation," read the Journal news story, "is what administrators fervently seek to avoid. " Then as now, what those avoiding confrontation did not understand is that civility and free expression do not occur in a state of nature: They require ground rules that must be enforced. So where are we today? At Yale, students provoked by a faculty member insufficiently sensitive to potentially offensive Halloween costumes have called for the head of said teacher along with a list of other demands for more diversity, apologies and self-criticism from the top. On cue, Yale President Peter Salovey calls for civility and has repeated Yale' s commitment to free expression. But at a moment when people thirst for a university president who will back up his words, Mr. Salovey, like so many others, apologizes. "We have failed you," he told protestors. Indeed they have failed. Just not in the way they imagine.

{{B}}Part B Listening and TranslationTask 1 Sentence TranslationDirections: In this part of the test, you will hear 5 English sentences. You will hear the sentences ONLY ONCE. After you have heard each sentence, translate it into Chinese and write your version in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET.{{/B}}