Opinion: The Milo Tour Is The One Inciting Violence

College campuses have the responsibility to maintain free speech on their campuses and to promote diverse representation from different communities. Unfortunately, the stir caused by right-winged, self-proclaimed troll, Milo Yiannopoulos has put many of these responsibilities into question.

Last week’s peaceful protest at UC Berkeley became violent, as many “Black-Bloc” anarchists began to throw stones and break down barricades to shut down the scheduled Milo talk.

Although they were successful, many Berkeley students expressed dismay in how it occurred, citing the historic Free Speech Movement as their preferred means of action.

 Similarly, one freshman student in a CNN article is quoted as saying, “It allows people on the right to say, ‘Look at all these liberal Berkeley snowflakes. They’re intolerant of speech.’ I don’t think it’s productive at all. It does nothing to help this country.”

Image via Pixabay

THE DOUBLE STANDARD

 What is alarming is the problematic aspects surrounding the discourse of violent protest. There exists a double standard in protecting right-winged individuals who, on a daily basis, use hate speech to energize their followers.

To claim that a violent protest is somehow a discouragement towards national reconciliation is a complete avoidance of the real issues at hand. Hate speech is considered a precursor for actual violence. Inciting hate speech confirms more division than any kind of peace. Saying Berkeley’s protest had gone “rogue” is a complacent agreement that hate-speech is okay to disseminate.

Milo’s talk would not have created any type of dialogue. It would have been a reaffirmation of exclusion and white nationalist pride, none of which is a complete reflection of any college campus.

Protecting minority viewpoints is important but not to the extent in which it then poses a safety risk to the rest of campus.

In looking at the response of Milo’s tweets following the cancelled Berkeley talk, he avoids the implication of how his own speech would have affected others by claiming that liberals are scared of free speech. What Milo ignores is what this “liberal fear” reflects on his own speech and on his own beliefs.

In a Los Angeles Times article, Berkeley administrators are quoted saying that they intend to defend first amendment rights but they intend to review their policing tactics for future events.

The article then goes on to suggest (through quotes) that it is not about limiting speech but protecting students.

If college campuses are so concerned about safety, why is it that they allow people to visit campus who enact hate-speech against minorities? Considering the rise in hate crimes following Trump’s inauguration, how is having speakers like Milo Yiannopoulos visit campus any different?

The protest at UC Berkeley will hardly be the last if this is the case, and it is a reflection of the double standard when dealing with the far-right. Many minorities already feel their safety is at risk when speakers like Milo visit campus to talk to their peers.

 On other college campuses already, many students are calling foul in response to the amped up police security that colleges are offering in protecting Milo’s scheduled appearances.

In particular, the Muslim Student Association (MSA) at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo have actively called out their college campus on its double standards.

They point out that the college did not charge the Cal Poly Republicans Club for police security when in contrast the MSA had just been charged thousands for a student conference event.

Although the campus defends its actions, it is altogether unconvincing and possibly reflects the external pressures many colleges are facing.

Image via Pixabay

THE COERCION ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL

After learning Milo’s talk was cancelled, Trump tweeted, “If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view — NO FEDERAL FUNDS?”

Soon after, Milo had also tweeted in response claiming he is the center of such a move and that colleges need to know they’re being watched.

Similar rhetoric has been heard surrounding the issue of sanctuary cities, in which Trump has threatened to withhold federal funds to sanctuary cities, most likely as an attempt to coerce counties to cooperate with federal agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The apparent coercion between the federal and state level government is more likely to be polarizing than helpful but it does put pressure on college institutions to fall in line with allowing the presence of alt-right or neo-nazi speakers on campus.

The existing rhetoric implies that if colleges don’t allow the presence of hate-speech on their campuses, they will somehow face repercussions financially. This is especially counter-intuitive to institutions that have built a climate of diversity where safe spaces exist.

Regardless, it would be a mistake to assume that dissent does not matter in times like right now where the far-right is continually attempting to delegitimize inclusivity and other values that many have worked for decades in trying to establish.

So, the next time a violent protest occurs (and most likely, there will be more of these) it would be wise to remember that saying violence was incited by “others” or by the “black-bloc” is not an appropriate argument when dealing with figures of authority who espouse hate-speech and spreads lies in media. Saying violence was incited by others implies that it is okay to limit demonstrations or dissent in opposition to hate-speech. We have to remember that we’re all living in this present moment together.