President Bok, former President Rudenstine, incoming President Faust,
members of the Harvard Corporation and the Board of Overseers, members of
the faculty, parents, and especially, the graduates:
I applaud the graduates today for taking a much more direct route to your
degrees. For my part, I'm just happy that the Crimson has called me
"Harvard's most successful dropout." I guess that makes me valedictorian of
my own special class … I did the best of everyone who failed.
But I also want to be recognized as the guy who got Steve Ballmer to drop
out of business school. I'm a bad influence. That's why I was invited to
speak at your graduation. If I had spoken at your orientation, fewer of you
might be here today.
Harvard was just a phenomenal experience for me. Academic life was
fascinating. I used to sit in on lots of classes I hadn't even signed up
for. And dorm life was terrific. I lived up at Radcliffe, in Currier House.
There were always lots of people in my dorm room late at night discussing
things, because everyone knew I didn't worry about getting up in the
morning. That's how I came to be the leader of the anti-social group. We
clung to each other as a way of validating our rejection of all those social
people.
Radcliffe was a great place to live. There were more women up there, and
most of the guys were science-math types. That combination offered me the
best odds, if you know what I mean. This is where I learned the sad lesson
that improving your odds doesn't guarantee success.
One of my biggest memories of Harvard came in January 1975, when I made a
call from Currier House to a company in Albuquerque that had begun making
the world's first personal computers. I offered to sell them software.
I worried that they would realize I was just a student in a dorm and hang up
on me. Instead they said: "We're not quite ready, come see us in a month,"
which was a good thing, because we hadn't written the software yet. From
that moment, I worked day and night on this little extra credit project that
marked the end of my college education and the beginning of a remarkable
journey with Microsoft.
What I remember above all about Harvard was being in the midst of so much
energy and intelligence. It could be exhilarating, intimidating, sometimes
even discouraging, but always challenging. It was an amazing privilege –
and though I left early, I was transformed by my years at Harvard, the
friendships I made, and the ideas I worked on.
But taking a serious look back … I do have one big regret.
但是，如果现在严肃地回忆起来，我确实有一个真正的遗憾。
I left Harvard with no real awareness of the awful inequities in the
world – the appalling disparities of health, and wealth, and opportunity
that condemn millions of people to lives of despair.
I learned a lot here at Harvard about new ideas in economics and politics. I
got great exposure to the advances being made in the sciences.
我在哈佛学到了很多经济学和政治学的新思想。我也了解了很多科学上的新进展。
But humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries – but in how
those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity. Whether through democracy,
strong public education, quality health care, or broad economic
opportunity – reducing inequity is the highest human achievement.
I left campus knowing little about the millions of young people cheated out
of educational opportunities here in this country. And I knew nothing about
the millions of people living in unspeakable poverty and disease in
developing countries.
You graduates came to Harvard at a different time. You know more about the
world's inequities than the classes that came before. In your years here, I
hope you've had a chance to think about how – in this age of accelerating
technology – we can finally take on these inequities, and we can solve
them.
Imagine, just for the sake of discussion, that you had a few hours a week
and a few dollars a month to donate to a cause – and you wanted to spend
that time and money where it would have the greatest impact in saving and
improving lives. Where would you spend it?
During our discussions on this question, Melinda and I read an article about
the millions of children who were dying every year in poor countries from
diseases that we had long ago made harmless in this country. Measles,
malaria, pneumonia, hepatitis B, yellow fever. One disease I had never even
heard of, rotavirus, was killing half a million kids each year – none of
them in the United States.
We were shocked. We had just assumed that if millions of children were dying
and they could be saved, the world would make it a priority to discover and
deliver the medicines to save them. But it did not. For under a dollar,
there were interventions that could save lives that just weren't being
delivered.
If you believe that every life has equal value, it's revolting to learn that
some lives are seen as worth saving and others are not. We said to
ourselves: "This can't be true. But if it is true, it deserves to be the
priority of our giving."
So we began our work in the same way anyone here would begin it. We asked:
"How could the world let these children die?"
所以，我们用任何人都会想到的方式开始工作。我们问：“这个世界怎么可以眼睁睁看着这些孩子死去？”
The answer is simple, and harsh. The market did not reward saving the lives
of these children, and governments did not subsidize it. So the children
died because their mothers and their fathers had no power in the market and
no voice in the system.
We can make market forces work better for the poor if we can develop a more
creative capitalism – if we can stretch the reach of market forces so that
more people can make a profit, or at least make a living, serving people who
are suffering from the worst inequities. We also can press governments
around the world to spend taxpayer money in ways that better reflect the
values of the people who pay the taxes.
If we can find approaches that meet the needs of the poor in ways that
generate profits for business and votes for politicians, we will have found
a sustainable way to reduce inequity in the world. This task is open-ended.
It can never be finished. But a conscious effort to answer this challenge
will change the world.
I am optimistic that we can do this, but I talk to skeptics who claim there
is no hope. They say: "Inequity has been with us since the beginning, and
will be with us till the end – because people just … don't … care." I
completely disagree.
I believe we have more caring than we know what to do with.
我相信，问题不是我们不在乎，而是我们不知道怎么做。
All of us here in this Yard, at one time or another, have seen human
tragedies that broke our hearts, and yet we did nothing – not because we
didn't care, but because we didn't know what to do. If we had known how to
help, we would have acted.
Even with the advent of the Internet and 24-hour news, it is still a complex
enterprise to get people to truly see the problems. When an airplane
crashes, officials immediately call a press conference. They promise to
investigate, determine the cause, and prevent similar crashes in the future.
But if the officials were brutally honest, they would say: "Of all the
people in the world who died today from preventable causes, one half of one
percent of them were on this plane. We're determined to do everything
possible to solve the problem that took the lives of the one half of one
percent."
The bigger problem is not the plane crash, but the millions of preventable
deaths.
显然，更重要的问题不是这次空难，而是其他几百万可以预防的死亡事件。
We don't read much about these deaths. The media covers what's new – and
millions of people dying is nothing new. So it stays in the background,
where it's easier to ignore. But even when we do see it or read about it,
it's difficult to keep our eyes on the problem. It's hard to look at
suffering if the situation is so complex that we don't know how to help. And
so we look away.
Finding solutions is essential if we want to make the most of our caring. If
we have clear and proven answers anytime an organization or individual asks
"How can I help?," then we can get action – and we can make sure that none
of the caring in the world is wasted. But complexity makes it hard to mark a
path of action for everyone who cares — and that makes it hard for their
caring to matter.
Cutting through complexity to find a solution runs through four predictable
stages: determine a goal, find the highest-leverage approach, discover the
ideal technology for that approach, and in the meantime, make the smartest
application of the technology that you already have — whether it's
something sophisticated, like a drug, or something simpler, like a bednet.
The AIDS epidemic offers an example. The broad goal, of course, is to end
the disease. The highest-leverage approach is prevention. The ideal
technology would be a vaccine that gives lifetime immunity with a single
dose. So governments, drug companies, and foundations fund vaccine research.
But their work is likely to take more than a decade, so in the meantime, we
have to work with what we have in hand – and the best prevention approach
we have now is getting people to avoid risky behavior.
Pursuing that goal starts the four-step cycle again. This is the pattern.
The crucial thing is to never stop thinking and working – and never do what
we did with malaria and tuberculosis in the 20th century – which is to
surrender to complexity and quit.
The final step – after seeing the problem and finding an approach – is to
measure the impact of your work and share your successes and failures so
that others learn from your efforts.
You have to have the statistics, of course. You have to be able to show that
a program is vaccinating millions more children. You have to be able to show
a decline in the number of children dying from these diseases. This is
essential not just to improve the program, but also to help draw more
investment from business and government.
But if you want to inspire people to participate, you have to show more than
numbers; you have to convey the human impact of the work – so people can
feel what saving a life means to the families affected.
I remember going to Davos some years back and sitting on a global health
panel that was discussing ways to save millions of lives. Millions! Think of
the thrill of saving just one person's life – then multiply that by
millions. … Yet this was the most boring panel I've ever been on – ever.
So boring even I couldn't bear it.
What made that experience especially striking was that I had just come from
an event where we were introducing version 13 of some piece of software, and
we had people jumping and shouting with excitement. I love getting people
excited about software – but why can't we generate even more excitement for
saving lives?
Still, I'm optimistic. Yes, inequity has been with us forever, but the new
tools we have to cut through complexity have not been with us forever. They
are new – they can help us make the most of our caring – and that's why
the future can be different from the past.
The defining and ongoing innovations of this age – biotechnology, the
computer, the Internet – give us a chance we've never had before to end
extreme poverty and end death from preventable disease.
Sixty years ago, George Marshall came to this commencement and announced a
plan to assist the nations of post-war Europe. He said: "I think one
difficulty is that the problem is one of such enormous complexity that the
very mass of facts presented to the public by press and radio make it
exceedingly difficult for the man in the street to reach a clear
appraisement of the situation. It is virtually impossible at this distance
to grasp at all the real significance of the situation."
Thirty years after Marshall made his address, as my class graduated without
me, technology was emerging that would make the world smaller, more open,
more visible, less distant.
The emergence of low-cost personal computers gave rise to a powerful network
that has transformed opportunities for learning and communicating.
低成本的个人电脑的出现，使得一个强大的互联网有机会诞生，它为学习和交流提供了巨大的机会。
The magical thing about this network is not just that it collapses distance
and makes everyone your neighbor. It also dramatically increases the number
of brilliant minds we can have working together on the same problem – and
that scales up the rate of innovation to a staggering degree.
At the same time, for every person in the world who has access to this
technology, five people don't. That means many creative minds are left out
of this discussion -- smart people with practical intelligence and relevant
experience who don't have the technology to hone their talents or contribute
their ideas to the world.
We need as many people as possible to have access to this technology,
because these advances are triggering a revolution in what human beings can
do for one another. They are making it possible not just for national
governments, but for universities, corporations, smaller organizations, and
even individuals to see problems, see approaches, and measure the impact of
their efforts to address the hunger, poverty, and desperation George
Marshall spoke of 60 years ago.
Members of the Harvard Family: Here in the Yard is one of the great
collections of intellectual talent in the world.
哈佛是一个大家庭。这个院子里在场的人们，是全世界最有智力的人类群体之一。
What for?
我们可以做些什么？
There is no question that the faculty, the alumni, the students, and the
benefactors of Harvard have used their power to improve the lives of people
here and around the world. But can we do more? Can Harvard dedicate its
intellect to improving the lives of people who will never even hear its
name?
Let me make a request of the deans and the professors – the intellectual
leaders here at Harvard: As you hire new faculty, award tenure, review
curriculum, and determine degree requirements, please ask yourselves:
Should our best minds be dedicated to solving our biggest problems?
我们最优秀的人才是否在致力于解决我们最大的问题？
Should Harvard encourage its faculty to take on the world's worst
inequities? Should Harvard students learn about the depth of global
poverty … the prevalence of world hunger … the scarcity of clean
water …the girls kept out of school … the children who die from diseases
we can cure?
Should the world's most privileged people learn about the lives of the
world's least privileged?
那些世界上过着最优越生活的人们，有没有从那些最困难的人们身上学到东西？
These are not rhetorical questions – you will answer with your policies.
这些问题并非语言上的修辞。你必须用自己的行动来回答它们。
My mother, who was filled with pride the day I was admitted here – never
stopped pressing me to do more for others. A few days before my wedding, she
hosted a bridal event, at which she read aloud a letter about marriage that
she had written to Melinda. My mother was very ill with cancer at the time,
but she saw one more opportunity to deliver her message, and at the close of
the letter she said: "From those to whom much is given, much is expected."
When you consider what those of us here in this Yard have been given – in
talent, privilege, and opportunity – there is almost no limit to what the
world has a right to expect from us.
In line with the promise of this age, I want to exhort each of the graduates
here to take on an issue – a complex problem, a deep inequity, and become a
specialist on it. If you make it the focus of your career, that would be
phenomenal. But you don't have to do that to make an impact. For a few hours
every week, you can use the growing power of the Internet to get informed,
find others with the same interests, see the barriers, and find ways to cut
through them.
You graduates are coming of age in an amazing time. As you leave Harvard,
you have technology that members of my class never had. You have awareness
of global inequity, which we did not have. And with that awareness, you
likely also have an informed conscience that will torment you if you abandon
these people whose lives you could change with very little effort. You have
more than we had; you must start sooner, and carry on longer.
And I hope you will come back here to Harvard 30 years from now and reflect
on what you have done with your talent and your energy. I hope you will
judge yourselves not on your professional accomplishments alone, but also on
how well you have addressed the world's deepest inequities … on how well
you treated people a world away who have nothing in common with you but
their humanity.
