If you want to ban Milo from campus, you’re no better than he is

I don’t understand why at UCI, the same people who say “Trump wants to censor media and the internet with libel laws! Yuck!” can turn around and say “Don’t let Milo Yiannopoulos speak his opinions at UCI”. It’s a bit ironic.

University should be a place of higher learning, and we should accept both sides of an argument and think critically, not just feed ourselves with views that we already agree with.

Before I continue, I think it’s important for me to give a disclaimer: My argument is purely confined to why Milo Yiannopoulos should be able to speak at UCI, not if what he says is right or wrong.

Perhaps the greatest argument against Milo is that he spreads hate speech. It’s important to distinguish the difference between hate speech and offensive language; one is much more subjective than the other. The line between the two is vague because hate speech is also offensive, but offensive language is not always hate speech.

Milo is definitely offensive, and he admits it, but it’s hard to say that he’s hateful. He critiques on very touchy subjects and often generalizes groups of people, which is offensive, but never does he call for violent action against these people. One can argue they feel threatened by what he says, which may be true, but that isn’t his fault. Everyone responds to language differently, and something harmless to one person can be seen as threatening to another. Again, it is difficult to distinguish because violent language is threatening, but not everything that can be threatening is violent. Milo is offensive but not hateful or violent.

I find it absurd that there is a petition to ban Milo, while every year, there are people who come to campus and spread actual hateful language to passing students. I’m talking about the Radical Reverend. They come to campus every year and scream “Y’all goin to hell” and (insert group here) will burn forever. UCI allows these people to scream their hate in public, but a speaker invited by a student organization to speak in private needs to be banned.

In response to Milo’s speech, Vice chancellor Thomas A Parham wrote to students saying ”The university maintains a neutral position when it comes to political speech”. But followed it with “We will not be neutral when acts of racism, bigotry, sexism, homophobia and oppression are paraded as sport intended to disrupt the cultural sensibilities of our diverse population. We will not be neutral when speakers and the crowds who support them use derogatory and vulgar language to insult and demean persons in our community on the basis of their race, citizenship status, gender or sexual orientation. We will not be neutral when degrading people’s culture and history of struggle becomes comic relief for local and national audiences who seek to affirm themselves and their ideology by belittling others”

Milo’s supporters on campus earlier this year

As someone who witnessed the protest in June, I ask the Vice Chancellor: What are you talking about?!

From what I witnessed, BOTH sides of the protest were acting immature. Those protesting against Milo screamed offensive chants such as “Go back to Europe!”. While those opposing the protest screamed phrases like “ build the wall!”. From The Vice Chancellor’s email, he made it seem as if only one side is at fault. In reality, the whole ordeal was a result of a radical reaction to censor Milo’s talk; It was initiated because protesters blocked the entrance to Milo’s speech. To suggest that those who supported Milo were the ones causing the trouble is misleading and frankly dishonest.  

If we as a school allow and support efforts to censor opposing views, it will only cause more chaos.

People fail to realize that Milo is a comedian, he’s supposed to be offensive, but he also happens to take a conservative viewpoint that other comedians don’t take. We say that Louis CK, and George Carlin are funny, even though they are offensive, but in the end they have a liberal standpoint. It’s not fair that we view Milo differently, because he has a conservative standpoint. simply, It’s wrong that we take away his right to speak at UCI because of this.