Letter From UCD Student Groups Opposing Milo Yiannopoulos



Editor’s Note: This letter was submitted to the Davis Vanguard.  “Milo Yiannopoulos is coming to UC Davis on January 13th to speak at an event hosted by the Davis College Republicans. The campus community is extremely upset about this and has been mobilizing around stopping the event. Below is a link to a letter composed by UCD graduate students and signed by over 900 faculty, staff, students, and alumni demanding that admin rescind the use of campus facilities for this event. Several graduate students represented by UAW 2865, the UC academic student workers union, have filed grievances with labor relations citing the UC’s violation of the UAW 2865 contract by fostering an unsafe work environment and violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act which prohibits harassment against protected categories.”

To UC Davis Administrators and the Davis College Republicans,

We, the undersigned students, faculty, staff, and alumni, strongly object to the Davis College Republican’s invitation to host Milo Yiannopoulos at UC Davis on January 13th, and demand that campus administrators and the Davis College Republicans cancel this event. Milo Yiannopoulos is well known for his espousal of racist, sexist, and islamophobic hate speech targeted towards numerous members of our campus community. The use of campus facilities and resources to host and therefore legitimize a white nationalist runs completely counter to the stated goals of the University of California and serves as a direct threat towards traditionally marginalized groups on campus. If the University of California, Davis is indeed committed to “maintaining a climate of equity and justice demonstrated by respect for one another,” then campus administrators must rescind the use of campus facilities for this event and condemn the presence of white supremacy on campus.

As a prominent representative of white nationalism and ‘men’s rights,’ Milo Yiannopoulos is a champion of hate speech against people of color and women. He equates Black Lives Matter with “black supremacism”[1] and argues that the protest movement should be labeled a “terrorist organization”[2]. He interprets the desire for diversity at college campuses as “anti-White racism”[3] and has gone so far as to set up a Privilege Grant exclusively for white men to help this demographic pursue postsecondary degrees in the face of alleged institutional discrimination[4]. He has received particular notoriety for his support of Britain leaving the European Union[5] as a way to end immigration of people from “ordinary Muslim communities” which he alleges “import…regressive social attitudes into the West”[6] He calls for a 5-10% cap on the number of women in STEM programs because “they can’t cut it in highly competitive environments” and any higher proportions are “a criminal waste of public funds.”[7] He encourages men to flush their partners’ birth control down the toilet, stating “birth control makes you fat” and “women on the pill are more likely to cheat.”[8] Finally, he denounces rape culture as a myth propagated by feminists “aimed squarely at undermining masculinity.”[9]

The invitation to host Milo Yiannopoulos at UC Davis is particularly harmful given the current sociopolitical climate in the United States. Milo Yiannopoulos is a popular spokesman for the ‘alt-right,’ a movement dominated by white nationalists, neo-Nazis, Christian Identity groups, and racist skinheads whose white supremacist, misogynist, anti-immigrant agenda has been bolstered by public figures such as Donald Trump and Steven Bannon. The number of organizational affiliates and individual supporters of the white nationalism has grown significantly over the past two years, with an increase of 14% in the past year alone[10]. Currently, groups associated with ‘alt-right’ ideals account for 34%, of all hate groups in the United States[11]. In the week directly following Donald Trump’s election, the Southern Poverty Law Center documented over 700 incidents of hateful harassment[12], a surge in hate crimes higher than that of the post-9/11 period.

California universities have become popular targets for white nationalist expansion and UC Davis is no exception. In the Fall of 2016, Identity Evropa, the self-styled “intellectual” arm of white nationalism, visited campus to “recruit college students” as part of their nation-wide campaign to “infiltrate the institutions and gain as much power as possible”[13]. A few weeks later, white nationalist flyers including the same pseudo-scientific neo-eugenicist publications[14] promoted by Identity Evropa were found posted in Sproul Hall, Hart Hall, and Voorhies Hall. Despite the fact that Interim Chancellor Ralph Hexter condemned the fliers as “hostile and harassing [in] content,”[15] campus administrators are still fostering an environment in which hate speech is able to proliferate by providing Milo Yiannopoulos with a formal platform for student outreach and recruitment.

Welcoming Milo Yiannopoulos to the podium of the largest lecture hall on campus calls into the question campus administrators’ dedication to the UC’s Principles of Community and its calls for “an ethos of respect for others and inclusion of all.”  Even more damaging is the fact that campus leadership is willing to allow the the reputation of our world-class, research-oriented, and culturally powerful university to be exploited in the service of legitimizing racist and sexist discourse. The university’s commitment to free speech is not an obligation to provide a formal podium for every form of non-academic, hateful rhetoric that student groups wish to bring to campus. Commitment to the Principles of Community does obligate the university to “strive to maintain a climate of equity and justice,” an obligation which cannot be upheld while legitimizing a white nationalist.

For these reasons, we demand that UC Davis administrators remove Milo Yiannopoulos’ platform for spreading hate and bigotry on our campus and issue a statement condemning white nationalist rhetoric within our community. Now is the time for our university to take a firm stand and prove its commitment to inclusivity and egalitarianism in the face of growing exclusionist movements throughout the United States. As Interim Chancellor Ralph Hexter and Vice Chancellor Adela de la Torre have noted in their recent campus-wide emails, the University administration is obligated to oppose discrimination and foster a safe campus climate “to protect all members of our community [and] ensure their continued success at the University.”[16] If they truly believe these words, the decision to cancel the Milo Yiannopoulos event should be an easy one to make.


[1] https://youtu.be/Lgl53EXInPc

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNRGW1VtPJE

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNRGW1VtPJE

[4] https://privilegegrant.com/

[5] http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/06/20/watch-milo-britain-leave-eu-stop-muslim-immigration/

[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNRGW1VtPJE

[7] http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/15/heres-why-there-ought-to-be-a-cap-on-women-studying-science-and-maths/

[8] http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/08/29/the-washing-machine-and-the-pill-the-two-worst-inventions-in-the-history-of-humanity/

[9] http://www.slate.com/articles/life/inside_higher_ed/2016/02/milo_yiannopoulos_says_college_rape_culture_is_a_myth.html

[10] https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/alternative-right

[11] https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

[12] https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/11/18/update-incidents-hateful-harassment-election-day-now-number-701

[13] https://www.reddit.com/r/altright/comments/4ydm2i/nathan_damigo_ask_me_anything/

[14] https://www.identityevropa.com/human-biological-diversity/

[15] http://interimchancellor.ucdavis.edu/news-and-updates/campus_updates/2016-updates/111416_message_to_students.html

[16] Message from Vice Chancellor de la Torre, November 22 email to UC Davis students

(names removed)


About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts

144 thoughts on “Letter From UCD Student Groups Opposing Milo Yiannopoulos”

  1. Barack Palin

    The campus community is extremely upset about this and has been mobilizing around stopping the event.


    Can’t have all these snowflakes being upset, can’t they go to their campus safe space during his speech and draw in their coloring books?

    1. David Greenwald

      “And these children that you spit on
      As they try to change their worlds
      Are immune to your consultations
      They’re quite aware of what they’re going through”

      —David Bowie

      1. Barack Palin

        And these children that spit on others

        As they cry in mourn and grief

        Are okay with free speech

        As long as it conforms to their belief

        —Barack Palin

  2. Alan Miller

    Milo Yiannopoulos is coming to UC Davis on January 13th to speak at an event hosted by the Davis College Republicans. The campus community is extremely upset about this and has been mobilizing around stopping the event.

    Speak out against him, loudly and firmly, but let him speak.  That’s free speech.  So far UC Davis has continued to allow free speech.  When the free speech stops and contrary views stop flowing, God help us.  That’s when the violence begins.  Quashing the opponent’s views may seem a way to stop what one opposes, but in fact only strengthens them.

    1. Barack Palin

      I agree with Alan.  I never heard of Yianno until all this uproar started over him speaking on campus.

      Let the man speak and have a discussion afterwards and voice your objections to his views, but don’t stop free speech.

  3. SODA

    What is the rationale for him speaking, e.g., why did the club invite him?

    BTW to webmaster, please go back to format that when you log in it takes you back to the reply area not back to too. Used to be that way. Thx.

    1. Don Shor

      To me, this is the real issue.
      Of course he can speak. This kind of thing goes on all the time. Controversial speakers come to campuses and there is lively discussion, protests, whatever. I saw Al Capp (Lil Abner comic artist) at an event at UCSD in the 1970’s, and it was a wildly chaotic, hysterically funny event. It’s a fine American tradition. But to me the key issue is that this is happening “at an event hosted by the Davis College Republicans.”
      So young Republicans wish to align their party with his views? I would love to see interviews with Davis College Republicans about that.

      1. Barack Palin

        Who said they’re aligning with his views?  When hard left liberal hate speakers are invited to the campus does that mean that Democrats are aligning with their views?

        1. David Greenwald

          Are these “hard left liberals” invited by the college Democrats? That’s the nexus here you seem to be missing – he was invited by the college Republicans

        2. Barack Palin

          Okay, any group that asks a hard left hate mongerer to speak doesn’t necessarily mean that group aligns with the speaker’s views.  Now is that better?

    2. South of Davis

      Don wrote:

      > So young Republicans wish to align their party with his views?

      Back in the early 80’s I went to hear a member of the US Communist Party (not “Socialist” but “Communist”) speak that was invited by the College Democrats (I also went to a few free vegetarian dinners sponsored by the Hare Krishnas in the 80’s)

      I despise both the Republican party and Democrat party and would never want to “align with either party” but who am to tell people who they should invite to campus (and worry that some might think the person they invited may “align with their views”)…

  4. Tia Will


    Let the man speak and have a discussion afterwards and voice your objections to his views, but don’t stop free speech.”

    Twice in two days, we agree. I would go further. Hold a peaceful protest outside the forum if you like. Write articles. Alert elected officials to what is going on and your opposition to these ideas. Invite speakers with differing points of view. Provide examples of women who have been highly successful in STEM fields if his comments include this issue. Linda Katehi is for me an excellent example of just how very successful women can be in the STEM fields as can any number of our UCD female graduates who have had careers in medicine, vet med, agricultural, biology and chemistry to name only a few. Our own campus is rich with examples of how he is so very wrong on this issue.

    How would anyone here feel if a campus group had invited Colin Kaepernick or Beyonce to speak on the topic of how to use your earned position in life to draw attention to matters of major importance to the individual ?  Would we not all agree that they had the right to express those views ?

    There is probably no one who posts here who is more opposed to the views as expressed to date by Milo Yiannopoulous than I. And yet, this is not about whether or not I like his views, it is about his right to express them. And if we truly believe that the university is promoting ““an ethos of respect for others and inclusion of all.” how can we exclude Mr. Yiannopoulos from the “inclusion of all” phrase ?

    I have found his invitation and the attempts to spread white male supremacy odious and alarming. I am disgusted that the Republican group on campus saw this hate monger as a worthy candidate to speak on campus. I am slightly nauseated as I write this, and yet I stand as completely in agreement with his right to speak as I was to Mr. Kaepernick’s right to “take a knee”.

  5. South of Davis

    I wonder if the people who signed the letter opposing an openly gay right wing guy they don’t like speaking at UCD would offer to cancel the appearance of any openly gay left wing guy the College Republicans didn’t like?

    Just like Andrew Dice Clay (a comic who was not very good) got a lot of press (and money since people went to see him) Milo Yannopoulos (a conservative speaker and writer who is not very good) gets a lot of press (and money since people read him and go to see him).

    P.S. If Joy Behar (who has said things right wingers don’t like) announced she was coming to campus I don’t think the College Republicans would write a letter to try and stop her (and head to a safe space if the letter didn’t stop her).


      1. Jerry Waszczuk

        I can’t believe that I missed this all day. What in the world does any of this have to do with the sexual preferences of Mr. Yiannopoulos ?

        Theoretically nothing.  However  Milo is  a member of the world’s  LGBT community who  is spreading hate, racism and intolerance.  Don’t you think that the  UC Davis Interim  Chancellor Ralph Hexter who is openly gay or Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs and Campus Diversity Adela de la Torre should say something  about this event in  the UC Davis as this article suggested.

      2. quielo


        If you read the list of signatories you will see, for example, “Randy Orso Saint Michael’s College Republican first openly Gay elected chaplain 1997”. So he chooses to identify himself by his sexual orientation in his attempt to disenfranchise another gay man.

        Interestingly his motto on his website is “We are all children of the same universe!” Clearly he has made an exception for Milo who seems to be, in his opinion, a child of a lesser God.

        1. Randy Orso

          I am not seeking to disenfranchise anyone.  I have been a proponent of Voting Rights for a very long time.  I have registered voters of all political parties.  But I don’t endorse Milo Yannopoulos’ hate speech and I don’t think any academic institution needs to endorse it.  As for the Motto, “We are all children of the same universe.” it is the motto of the Universal Life Church Monastery.  Milo is certainly a child of God, but maybe a wayward one.

  6. Misanthrop

    Asking the College Republicans to reconsider the invitation is appropriate and I hope they do reconsider if they want to be associated with this voice of hate. The California Republican Party is already a minor party with no statewide elected officials and less than 1/3 of the seats in the legislature. Many moderate Republicans like our own State Senator Bill Dodd have left the party. Are the college Republicans interested in rebuilding the party or shrinking it further? Has the Republican Party simply been taken over by such haters? These are the questions this invitation and the petition to reconsider raise.

    As for the University, I don’t think they should be in the business of deciding who can and can’t be invited to speak. There is a line somewhere to draw if a speaker advocates unprotected violence in his speech. It seems from the well referenced letter this advocate of hate goes right up to the line but doesn’t cross it. If someone can show that he has a history of crossing the line and advocating violence or other unprotected speech than UC should get involved otherwise the choice lies with the College Republicans.

    1. Tia Will


      If someone can show that he has a history of crossing the line and advocating violence or other unprotected speech than UC should get involved otherwise the choice lies with the College Republicans.”

      I believe that he has crossed the line in one area at least. He has openly advocated that men flush their partners contraceptives down the toilet. This is a out right call to interfere with the ability to use a prescribed medication by another individual While this may appear trivial to  some of you, to a gynecologist who has seen many cases of reproductive interference result in unintended and undesired pregnancy ( perpetrated by both women who “mess up” their birth control deliberately and men who “tamper” with the order of pills in their partners pack to achieve their desired result regardless of their partners desire). If you think this is not “line crossing”, how would you feel if the interference were with a partners ability to take their insulin or blood pressure medication as prescribed with serious and undesired consequences.

      1. Misanthrop

        When I read the article I wondered if this birth control issue crosses the line I described to a level worthy of university interference. I agree the question of advocating coerced unprotected sex through the destruction of someone else’s property and medicine crosses the line into unprotected speech. I agree with you that it does but perhaps someone with more of a legal understanding of what is not protected speech could weigh in.

        1. Barack Palin

          So who’s to regulate what’s considered protected and unprotected speech?

          Have I missed it, do we have a panel somewhere that consists of fair minded members of all political persuasions that determine what is and what isn’t?

        2. Tia Will


          Thanks for the thoughtful response.

          I agree that it would be good to hear from someone with legal expertise on this issue. For me, this would not alone preclude him from speaking on campus, but if there are other areas in which he has also “crossed the line”, perhaps by advocating for extremely strict quotas for women in STEM fields, in aggregate his advocacy might be enough to disqualify him from speaking. I think this illustrates just how subjective the determination of “line crossing” actually is and how carefully this must be weighed against our first amendment rights.

        3. Tia Will


          So who’s to regulate what’s considered protected and unprotected speech?”

          Good comment until you felt the need to add the second paragraph of snark. I believe that this is precisely the issue that Misanthrop and I were addressing.

          In this case I believe that it is the campus administration that has the right to make a call on what is and what is not protected speech on their property. Again the input of a lawyer would be useful to sort out this question that none of us seem to know the answer to.

        4. Barack Palin

          They already made the determination when they allowed him to be booked.

          But what if the campus admin was very left leaning and unfairly shut down conservative speech?

          Or they continually cave into snowflake lefties that would get “upset” if any right wing speech were allowed?

        5. Misanthrop

          “So who’s to regulate what’s considered protected and unprotected speech?”

          The courts.

          “…advocating for extremely strict quotas for women in STEM fields…”

          This is clearly protected, objectionable but protected.

        6. Barack Palin

          If the nazi’s can hold rallies and the Westboro Baptist Church can voice their free speech do you really think any judge is going to deny Yianno’s his right to free speech?

  7. Tia Will


    They might not write a letter to try and stop her. About the “safe spaces”, I am not so sure. It would seem that at least some right leaning students now appreciate the concept of “safe spaces” which some of their persuasion have previously ridiculed.


    Note to the moderator, I know this link has the name of a national figure in it, but I see it as highly relevant to the current local discussion.

      1. Tia Will


        Tia thinks the College Republicans invited to “spread white male supremacy”:

        Please note that this is not “what Tia thinks” and not what I said. My quote includes the conjunction “and” indicating that I find both “his invitation and the attempts to spread white male supremacy odious and alarming.” Not that I believe the invitation was for this purpose.

        Like SODA, I have no idea why the invitation was made and have made no statement speculating as to why.


        1. South of Davis

          Tia wrote:

          > I have no idea why the invitation was made and have

          > made no statement speculating as to why.

          Will you tell us why you wrote:

          “I have found his invitation and the attempts to spread white male supremacy odious and alarming.” if you don’t think that the invitation has anything to do with the “spread white male supremacy” why not write:

          “I have found his invitation AND the incidence of munchausen syndrome among female caregivers odious and alarming.”

          Like Ann Coulter Milo is a clown that makes conservatives laugh when he makes fun of liberals (Tia does not need to worry that he is starting a skinhead white supremacy revolution led by Log Cabin Republicans)…



      2. Tia Will


        With regard to the posted picture, if they are inviting him for purely entertainment, comedic, or satiric purposes, I wish that they would just say so. I would find that no more objectionable than my satiric piece about Dr. Price. Without such a statement, I remain uncertain, but skeptical about their intent.

        The best piece of advice that I could give is to wait and see what he actually has to say and then appreciate it as entertainment even if it is a form you don’t like, blow it off as inconsequential, or adamantly oppose and act effectively against it depending on the actual content.

    1. South of Davis

      Tia wrote:

      > It would seem that at least some right leaning students

      > now appreciate the concept of “safe spaces”

      The article does not quote a single “right leaning student” that is asking for a “safe space”.

      I’m not surprised since Brian Williams and the NYT are the left’s favorite places to go for “fake news”…

      1. Tia Will


        The article does not quote a single “right leaning student” that is asking for a “safe space”.”

        Conservative students who voted for Mr. Trump say that even though their candidate won, their views are not respected. Some are adopting the language of the left, saying they need a “safe space” to express their opinions .

        Apparently you missed the above paragraph from my linked article. Alternatively, you may have dismissed it since he did not name names. That does not make the quote “fake news” nor “lying”. Perhaps the students who are making these claims chose to remain anonymous, much like some of the posters here on the Vanguard.

        1. South of Davis

          Tia wrote:

          > Apparently you missed the above paragraph

          Apparently Tia missed that they did not even bother to make up names (or schools) for the “conservative students” who are asking for these “safe spaces”.

          The NYT knows that by mentioning (or making up) a name it makes it easier to get caught in a lie (Brian Williams learned this when Tom Brokaw called out one of his many fake news reports saying they were not together when the Berlin Wall came down),


          Most conservative students would put a Hillary for President sticker on their car before they asked for a “safe space”…

  8. quielo

    So the “no-platforming” crowd rears it’s cowardly head at UCD? Likely they have been reading “The Gaurdian” too much. I have heard of Milo from his involvement in the Gamersgate controversy. While not mentioned he is also flamboyantly gay.


    Let him say his piece.  Those who don’t like it can transfer to Reed.

    1. Eric Gelber

      So the “no-platforming” crowd rears it’s cowardly head at UCD? 

      I’m curious as to what you find to be “cowardly.”  It’s an interesting comment from someone who, unlike the signers of the letter, posts judgmental comments under a pseudonym.

  9. Tia Will


    While not mentioned he is also flamboyantly gay.”

    Probably not mentioned because considered completely irrelevant.

     “those who don’t like it can transfer to Reed.”

    Reminiscent of and having as much value as “America, love it or leave it.”



    1. hpierce

      Actually, might explain a lot, then relevancy follows…

      I knew a guy in college who ‘presented’ as an uber-Catholic, uber-conservative, “fag”-hating guy.

      A few years later, he “came out”, and now is ‘normal’ Catholic, moderate, contently gay man. And very successful.

      Sometimes, folk feel a need to present a certain way because of self-doubts, and wanting to “fit in”, get attention and/or approval.

      Great piece of poetry, “Please hear what I am not saying”… the author speaks of ‘masks’ we sometimes wear, very protective of them, while deeply hoping someone will gently, lovingly strip off the mask, setting them free to be who they are…

  10. Tia Will


    They already made the determination when they allowed him to be booked.”

    True as written. However, perhaps they had not considered all of the ramifications and now have the opportunity to reconsider the issue based on the ideas presented by the protestors. Maybe some of those making the decision were not fully acquainted with the work of Mr. Yiannopoulos just as you stated you were not or were biased towards his views, or just plain thought he would be entertaining as was Al Cap.  I hope that he will be allowed to speak for reasons already stated, but I accept the right to petition for a different decision as part of legitimate practice within our system.

  11. Tia Will


    Thanks, maybe I should get my poem published?”

    As far as literary merit, I think it ranks right up there with my Davis Green Onion piece. Perhaps we should start a Vanguard literary compilation.


  12. Tia Will

    Like Ann Coulter Milo is a clown that makes conservatives laugh when he makes fun of liberals (Tia does not need to worry that he is starting a skinhead white supremacy revolution led by Log Cabin Republicans)…”

    That is not what Tia is worried about. I don’t object to comedy or satire. The mainstreaming of repressive ideas such as limiting the number of women in STEM fields and sabotage of someone’s medical care ( contraception) is. As one example :



      1. Tia Will


        Sorry about the faulty link. If you do not give credibility to anything that appears in the NYT, fine. Just Google “white supremecists celebrate election outcome” and you can see the celebration for yourself on line. It is this blatant display of neo Nazi advocacy that has me worried, not those who engage in John Stewart or Colbert type humor.

  13. Tia Will


    “…advocating for extremely strict quotas for women in STEM fields…”

    This is clearly protected, objectionable but protected.

    Fair enough and agreed. I actually caught it myself, but only after my editing time had expired.

  14. Jerry Waszczuk

    MILO YIANNOPOULOS , CATHOLIC -GAY who  claims to be AUTHORITARIAN and  belonging to the “REGRESSIVE LEFT” makes me believe  that his bible is the  Mein Kamp. Especially  the  term “Regressive left’ is pointing out  his political  orientation toward the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (Nazi Party- NSDAP ) and the  paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party Sturmabteilung (SA) in the  early stage when commanding units of the  several  thousand Storm Troopers, were almost without exception homosexuals.
    The previous MILO YIANNOPOULOS’  pseudonym  MILO ANDREAS WAGNER is pointing out to the  German composer Richard Wagner’s direction.
     Richard Wagner was promoted during the Nazi era as one of Adolf Hitler‘s favorite composers. Historical perception of Wagner has been tainted with this association ever since, and there is debate over how Wagner’s writings and operas might have influenced the creation of Nazi Germany.

  15. hpierce

    Like it or not, free speech is free speech… the “state” (government in any form) should not be spending public funds to “enable” it… if a group of people are willing to spend their money to guarantee a speaker’s fees, hoping to turn a profit (as a fund-raiser?), fine… UCD (entity) should not be paying for those speaker fees… providing a forum is fine…

    Here, it appears, taxpayers are not paying to have this speaker speak… fine… am good with that…

    But this isn’t free speech, it is paid speech, unless the speaker forgoes any compensation including expenses.  That’s where I draw the line.

    Now if the event flyers/invitations said “please bring your AK’s (40 round clips minimum) so we can go out later and act on what is said”, that’s the “yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” thing, and clearly has no rights as either free or paid speech… no constitutional protection.  That does not seem to be the case here.

    More effective, would be for folk that hate the kind of speech ‘intended’, buy up all the event tickets you can… charge it to your credit card… attend… as the speaker comes to the podium, stand up, turn your backs to the podium, and put your hands over your ears… doesn’t violate any “free speech” principles [remembering this is “paid” speech]… when you leave, call your credit card company, tell them you think your card has been comprised, and you believe a fraudulent charge was made regarding a payment to [???].  I may do that.  I suspect that would be much more powerful than a ‘demonstration’ outside the venue.  Using your free speech right to show rejection/disgust, without impairing the rights of another.

    Many of you have given this speaker and the paid speech more attention, advertising, than he deserves… or was that your point/intention?  You may well have boosted ticket sales…

    Shunning/actively ignoring, but still watching in case there truly is something nefarious afoot, preparing to act if necessary, is better than banning.  IMHO…


        1. hpierce

          Hmm… nobody I’ve EVER known has called me anywhere near an “extreme” Catholic… only type of person, who knows me, who would, might be an uber atheist or uber nihilist.

  16. Tia Will


    More effective, would be for folk that hate the kind of speech ‘intended’, buy up all the event tickets you can”

    I believe that exactly such an effort has been made. When I attempted to buy tickets for the specific purpose of hearing what he had to say, and making such a silent protest if indicated by his actual speech, I found that it was already sold out.

    Shunning/actively ignoring, but still watching in case there truly is something nefarious afoot, preparing to act if necessary, is better than banning.  IMHO…”

    Agree completely.


        1. Jerry Waszczuk


          Socialists and Communists have a lot common with National Socialists and Fascists. For  example  the Benito Mussolini’s social programs were not much different then Obama’s Care  and welfare state with 50 million people  on food stamps . This Milo guy perfectly fit the profile  of his mentors from the communists and fascists dictators era.

      1. South of Davis

        Jerry wrote:

        > This event makes me wonder why  Milo is so popular ? 

        Thanks to David and the protesters many people that have never heard of the guy probably want to check him out to see what the big fuss is about.

        1. hpierce

          Although worded differently, there is another poster who said the same… and one who wanted to “check him out”…

          That’s another way of saying, I agree…

        2. South of Davis

          Jerry wrote:

          > Did you read  what Pierce’s post  about his Gay -Catholic

          > friend he created  to defend Milo ? Unbelievable

          I don’t think that hpierce is “defending” Milo per say, but I agree 100% with hpierce’s comment that many of the most conservative and religious people are hiding the fact that they are gay.  I have mentioned that one of my pledge bros who was probably the most conservative guy in the fraternity and the “only” guy who went to church on a regular basis (I’m not counting our pledge class president who was forced to go to Temple when his Jewish mom came to visit) came out after graduating and when I lived with him in SF he was openly gay and still conservative (Log Cabin Republicans) and religious (St Mark’s Lutheran Church).  It is amazing how many other guys I knew from high school and college who were “very” conservative and/or “very” anti-gay came out years later.


    1. Jerry Waszczuk

      I do not believe that Milo is “so popular”

      Jul 21, 2016 – On Tuesday night, Twitter permanently banned the conservative writer Milo Yiannopoulosas it cracked down on a wave of racist abuse …


      This guy is not a Catholic nor Republican . He is a crack head.   Due to all my  respect for the United States of America Constitution and the First Amendment , I don’t see that such persona is  a good  a commercial for  the UC Davis  reputation . If he was banned from the  Twitter than he is quite popular. I am wondering how much he is getting pay for  his  admiration of  the ” Ein Volk ein Reich , ein Fuhrer “

    2. Tia Will


      Regarding “Much Ado About Nothing”

      I would have said so too right up until the coverage of the white supremacist meeting to celebrate the results of the national election. Now I am not so sure.

      1. hpierce

        And the real impact of the of the white supremacist meeting was what?  If the media hadn’t “covered it”, it would have been “self-pleasuring”… at most…

        In Charleston, SC, a head case took out a bunch of black folk @ a Bible study meeting… months before the meeting or the election, claiming he “had to” from such talk… but for a head case like him, it probably would have happened (the insane murders) for any reason… sociopaths are sociopaths…

        To twist a phrase, words don’t kill people… people kill people…

  17. Tia Will


    This event makes me wonder why  Milo is so popular ? “

    I do not believe that Milo is “so popular”. I believe that there are a number of different reasons that many may be willing to pay to see him.

    1)For entertainment since he “makes us laugh” when he makes fun of liberals as one poster said.

    2) To check out his ideas in person as opposed to how he writes. We have at least on poster here who is very different in person from how they present their ideas on this blog.

    3) To buy up the tickets to protest as hpierce suggested

    The theory that I can debunk is that the coverage here on the Vanguard drove more people to see him, since the tickets were sold out well before there was any discussion here on the Vanguard. I cannot prove that more people have not subsequently looked up the availability, but the tickets sold out in advance of Vanguard coverage.

  18. Tia Will


    Apparently Tia missed that they did not even bother to make up names (or schools) for the “conservative students” who are asking for these “safe spaces”.”

    This comment is a tribute to nothing but your own partisanship. If a reporter were to “bother to make up names”, then he/she would be lying. You are assuming that no one actually said this for no other reason than that it does not jibe with your seeming belief that only minorities and women can feel “victimized” or “unsafe” . I would say that many of the comments in response to my article on women’s sports demonstrate that men are just as likely to feel “victimized” when faced with the exact same circumstances that women have faced for decades. Likewise, I feel that whites have now demonstrated that they have felt “left behind” and or “victimized”  in exactly the same way that they claimed was false when expressed by racial minorities. In an article that I was reading in the NYT, one attendee at the national meeting to celebrate the results of the national election said when asked if he felt that his response was not the same kind of identity politics that has been criticized by the right, was at least honest in his response. He said “absolutely it is”.


    1. South of Davis

      Tia wrote:

      > This comment is a tribute to nothing but your own partisanship.

      I am not “partisan” other than if I had to pick I would hate the Republican “party” a little more than the Democrat “party”.

      I am a guy that reads the news and keeps up on current events I’ve seen photos of hundreds on the left marching and demanding “safe spaces” all over the country but have not seen, read or even heard of a single “conservative” doing the same thing (other than the link from Tia that quotes many liberals by name responding to the probably fake allegation that conservatives want “safe spaces” without the name of a single person we can ask if they really said that) .

      P.S. There is a difference between wanting to be “safe” (and not get beat up) and wanting a “safe space “equipped with cookies, coloring books and bubbles where no one of different colors or having different views is allowed):


  19. Tia Will


    The optics of that is not great, but the intention of the press conference was good.

    “Partisan” was clearly the wrong word for which I apologize. “Biased” would have been much more accurate based on your comments of 12:53.


    1. Jerry Waszczuk


      This meas that article is one big lie about guy who likes to entertain other people  to make some money and people are willing to pay for his talent.  However , if he was removed from Twitter than his entertainment is something more than  Jon Stewart’s  or Keith Olbermann entertainment. On the  Twitter yo could find lot of extreme racially motivated messages and the  messages or  authors were  not  being removed.  Twitter is a more serious  source of  information .

      1. Don Shor

        He was banned permanently from Twitter because of abusive behavior and harassment directed at actress Leslie Jones. She is a regular on SNL and was a star of the movie Ghostbusters.

        If you want to know why people find Mr. Yiannopoulos so offensive, that incident and its precursors is one of the main reasons.

        1. Jerry Waszczuk


          I see that for you and some folks on DV is very inconvenient to say  what this guy is representing because he is gay . Be honest please . DV is posting article and trashing Milo  and telling everybody how bad  he is than moderator is peddling back. Make your mind guys .

          1. Don Shor

            Huh? He is a deliberately offensive media personality who chooses to align himself with the right-wing racist white supremacists that call themselves the alt-right. His sexual orientation doesn’t seem, to me, to be a factor in that except that it helps him increase his notoriety.

    2. Tia Will


      So I also watched about as much as you did and also saw nothing objectionable other than basically a waste of time…which one could also say about Jon Stewart of Colbert if they are not to one’s taste. It is not this aspect of the work of Mr. Yiannopoulos that I object to. I do object to his assertions that women are not capable or worthy of pursuing careers in STEM fields, are not worthy of choosing their own form of contraception and any number of other completely unreasonable positions that he has taken as exemplified in the links I provided previously to his articles on Breibart.

        1. Tia Will


          I don’t have to think deeply on this one. Both Stewart and Colbert have made statements that I felt were inflammatory. They have both made statements with which I agree and others with which I do not. However, I have not heard from either of them exhortations to sabotage someone’s health care, nor the equivalent of an entire gender not being suitable for their particular career goal, nor telling an entire gender that they should not be able to participate in an entire area on the internet. When you add to that the fact that both Stewart and Colbert were established as comedians while Yiannopoulos is selling himself as a provocateur and is selling his ideas as though they were real suggestions on how to reasonably live one’s life, I see this as an entirely different order of magnitude.

        2. hpierce

          We shall agree to disagree [at least on my part]… many reasons… yet, we agree on others…

          exhortations to sabotage someone’s health care,

          Yeah, that’s just wrong… for women, those seniors who have health issues, where ‘the kids’ just want them to kick off, etc.  But, a disagreement point, “someone’s” to me includes viable fetuses… yet we have laws, not just exhortations, sabotaging their health care…

          the equivalent of an entire gender not being suitable for their particular career goal

          Agreed… pretty much fully… yet there are few women who have the physical strength to do certain ‘careers’, but it should be based on reasonable physical requirements, not gender-based… hell, there are a lot of women who are stronger than I…

          telling an entire gender that they should not be able to participate in an entire area on the internet.

          Must have “missed that memo”… that would be completely wrong.

          Best to you and yours…


  20. Tia Will


    I think that your question about who has responsibility to speak out on hate and fear mongering is a good one. I am actually a bit conflicted. It is tempting to take the position that same group members have a greater responsibility. However, I do not believe that an individual has an increased responsibility to speak out because they happen to be a member of the same group as someone who is behaving badly. For example, I don’t believe that Muslims have any greater responsibility than I do to speak out against jihadis. I also do not believe that I have a greater responsibility to speak out than does anyone else when a man is being discriminated against by women, although I most certainly did speak out very clearly when this issue arose in our department.

    What I believe is that every adult has the responsibility to stand against oppression, unfair practices, bullying, hate speech and threats whenever and wherever we encounter them regardless of group designation of either the perpetrator or their target.

    1. Jerry Waszczuk


       Muslims are jihadists.  What kind example is it ? . Don’t mix jihadists with with Muslim’s  terrorist . You can’t  exclude the fact that Milo is gays  considering themselves as oppressed group and they fighting for their rights to be married , subjected  to hate crime and discrimination. Gays in the Nazi’s  concentration camps (not death camps ) experienced such abuse that no other group of prisoners experienced and after the WW II was ended and  camps were liberated the  new Germany  government  threw the survived gays into prisons.Gay la in Germany had been changed 20 years after WW II ended. In US was not much different

      For example  the UC Davis Interim Chancellor Ralph Hester in his last interview said that the   conservative donors don’t like to make contributions  to UC Davis because of gay chancellor .

    2. hpierce

      BTW… another way to respond to speech you are troubled with it to publically laugh at it… laughing, as a sign of derision, is also protected free speech… had folk done so, perhaps Hitler, Mussolini and more modern others would not have achieved as much mischief…

  21. Matthew


    I find it remarkable that more students will be concerned with this than the LRDP or other major campus issues that will immediately impact students’ pocket books.

    One last point. When Milo was shut down at DePaul, the results were his name splashed on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and Wall Street Journal. Milo feeds off of inspiring excessive, over the top responses from his critics. This letter appears to be carefully written to avoid being over the top. Hopefully the student actions taken when he is here will also avoid being so theatrical as to get him on the front page of the Sac Bee. Milo has effectively weaponized the campus left’s theatrics against it. And it has taken his critics a shockingly long time to figure that out.

    1. Ron

      Mathew:  “I find it remarkable that more students will be concerned with this than the LRDP or other major campus issues that will immediately impact students’ pocket books.”

      Me, too.  (And, I would add – the impact on the city.)

      (Really?  You’d all rather comment about the guy in the article?)

      1. Matthew

        Honestly Ron, I used to be a big YIMBY when it came to Davis politics, in part because housing is central to my own research.  But when the students show up for this but not housing its like alright whatever.

        Watch: many students will not show up to the housing debate until it is so they can show opposition to any university proposal for on campus housing. And I mean any.  Suppose UCD endorse all the proposals and options advocated for by the slow-growth crowd, including working with that one firm to build lots of high density on campus housing.  Suppose the campus uses a mix of Public Private Partnership, donations and redistribution of funds from within Student Housing to create an affordable option for a fifth or a third of the students.  The people on this letter will come out in full force against this right at the very end of the process that they chose not to be a part of to protest “neo-liberalism” and “privatization.” They will do so without bothering to take the time to understand why certain choices were made, complaining that the technical details are just “tools of the oppressor” or whatever.

        This is why some of the campus proposals for on campus housing over the last year did in fact fail (thinking about Orchard Park in particular here).  And it is a major reason why the issues on and off campus with respect to housing are at a perpetual impasse.

        The only thing this group might ever move on is passing Rent Control. That’s it.

        They will argue current students are paying for future students! How terrible! This is how the UC has always worked, and they don’t consider how past students’ fees paid for what they use and enjoy today. The alternative is for the UC to pay for things with bonds and pay down those bonds with future rents. This will also be opposed as evil “privatization.” The UC could spend from endowments and private donors, but this is also evil “privatization.”

        1. Ron

          Matthew:  I appreciate your response, and you’ve provided some information/thoughts I hadn’t previously considered.  I’m still thinking about what you wrote.

        2. Don Shor

          They will argue current students are paying for future students! How terrible! This is how the UC has always worked, and they don’t consider how past students’ fees paid for what they use and enjoy today. The alternative is for the UC to pay for things with bonds and pay down those bonds with future rents.

          They might argue that, but student fees don’t pay for housing construction, as far as I can tell.

        3. Matthew

          Don that is correct, housing construction is paid for by revenue from student housing.  But in that students students are still paying things forward in that sense.

        4. hpierce

          Don… student fees did start paying for the Rec Center (now called ARC, I believe) long before it was built… paid for years, but it wasn’t available for my use… no criticism, just a fact…

          1. Don Shor

            Actually, here’s a summary of how it works from the 2014-15 Budget for Current Operations. Housing is an auxiliary expense, not paid for out of tuition or state funds. It is supposed to be self-supporting.
            “Auxiliary enterprises are self-supporting services that are primarily provided to students, faculty, and staff. Student and faculty housing, dining services, and campus bookstores are the largest auxiliaries, with parking and some intercollegiate athletics making up the remaining components. No State funds are provided for auxiliary enterprises; revenues are derived from fees directly related to the costs of goods and services provided to cover their direct and indirect operating costs. The annual budget is based upon income projections.”
            So I suppose they could make the argument that their current fees are paying for future housing in some sense. But I don’t know how they exactly structure the financing of these things.

        5. hpierce

          Thanks, Don… two sets of “books”… parking, housing, recreation are not parts of the “core mission”… yet “donations” can create the Mondavi Center, etc.

          Maybe folk could donate money to UCD for housing…  still, hard to believe the tuition costs are all going to the “core missions”…

          Wonder if the Hotel was part of the “core missions”… wonder where that money came from… entrepenuers?

    2. Eric Gelber

       I find it remarkable that more students will be concerned with this than the LRDP or other major campus issues that will immediately impact students’ pocket books.

      That’s a dismissive statement suggesting that students aren’t capable either of intelligently setting their own priorities or of focusing on more than one issue at a time. Unless there’s a giant asteroid about to collide with the Earth, one can always identify an issue that is of greater importance than some other concern. The LR in LRDP perhaps explains why that’s not the issue of greatest concern to students who are here today. And thankfully, not everyone determines what’s important based solely on the impact on their pocket books.


      1. Matthew

        Wow Eric, you read a lot into that statement!  I’m not saying that they aren’t capable of deciding their own priorities.  I just happen to know that many of the names on this list are people who bemoan, very aggressively, the growth of the campus.  For example, the first signer:  Emily.  She made an interesting comment on a video Hexter put on Youtube about campus growth demanding affordable housing on campus.  By their own statements at rallies, in letters, and protests–many of these people believe the growth of the campus is bad for higher education, part of privatization, etc…  So yes, it is remarkable that a two hour presentation took priority over the LRDP. But yes, if I believed one talk by one speaker could trigger a dozen violent hate crimes I would understand their prioritization.

        1. Matthew

          “And thankfully, not everyone determines what’s important based solely on the impact on their pocket books.”

          I never said that they should!  Next time you should respond to what I actually say and not a strawman.  Just given the rhetoric of this specific set of student groups over the last five years, the relative interest in the two topics IS remarkable.

          Last point: with Milo around and the focus of everyone’s attention, a lot of people who say one thing to students and then do another when writing legislation in Sacramento are set to benefit. It’s fascinating to watch how we all come together to oppose Trump and suddenly the inequities, injustices and problems within California are less important than making symbolic stands against the incoming president who is already signaling he didn’t mean 90% of what he said in his campaign.

          The alt-right is a blessing to moderate Democrats. “At least we’re not these guys!”

        2. nomekopz

          Hey Matthew, emily here.  to explain: we are angry about the university accepting increasing numbers of students without providing the proper infrastructure to accommodate them- as evidenced by enormous class sizes and a lack of affordable on campus housing.  under this trend, the quality of education being offered is deteriorating while the cost of tuition goes up. yes, this is absolutely part of the corporatization, privatization, and mcdonaldization of higher education. and yes, we can focus on milo and on campus housing at the same time, just not in the same letter.

  22. Tia Will


    And thankfully, not everyone determines what’s important based solely on the impact on their pocket books.

    You beat me to it. I often find myself prioritizing issues of greater interest to me than my pocket book. I was actually thinking of this specific point earlier today when pondering the concept of why people frequently vote or act against their own economic best interests. Sometimes I think that it may be out of ignorance of the true effects of their actions, but for others, I think it may be the recognition that some things are just moe important than money.

    I hope that many of  our young people will retain their interest in issues beyond their personal wealth accumulation.


    1. Matthew

      Woah.  And here come the nutters. Tia, “pocketbook” here isn’t about “personal wealth accumulation.”  It’s about finishing school without tens of thousands of dollars in debt.  Are you unaware of this???

      1. Tia Will


        Are you unaware of this???”

        Since I have two children, one a recent Cal Berkeley grad and another still attending Sac State University, I would say that it hasn’t escaped my attention. But that does not alter the fact that there are always multiple ways to look at an issue and money is not the only consideration although it is a major one.

        And as a “nutter” I could not help but notice the open-mindedness with which you were willing to consider a different perspective.

  23. Misanthrop

    “If the nazi’s can hold rallies and the Westboro Baptist Church can voice their free speech do you really think any judge is going to deny Yianno’s his right to free speech?”

    Actually the courts have placed restrictions on Westboro Baptist Church.

  24. Jerry Waszczuk

    Milo Yiannopoulos is the reminder of  the  UC regent John Perez’s  colleague Roy Ashburn, who was California Republican  State Assemblyman from 1996 to 2002 and California State Republican  Senator from 2002 to 2010.
    According to Project Vote Smart,  Roy Ashburn voted against every gay rights measure in the State Senate since taking office all of which subsequently passed. On March 3, 2010, Ashburn was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving while operating a State of California owned vehicle. The Senator was pulled over in Sacramento by the California Highway Patrol shortly before 2 a.m., with sources saying he was leaving a Sacramento gay nightclub, Faces, in the Lavender Hill neighborhood, with an unidentified male passenger in a state-owned Chevy Tahoe. Ashburn’s blood alcohol content was measured at 0.14%. The arrest “launched nationwide speculation that the veteran lawmaker is gay and therefore a hypocrite for voting against gay-rights bills.” In response to those accusations, during an interview on KERN radio, Ashburn stated that he is gay and that he believes “that my responsibility is to my constituents 
    When asked during the interview whether he personally agreed with votes he made on gay rights issues, Ashburn didn’t answer the question.
    On April 14, 2010, Ashburn pleaded no contest to the charge of driving under the influence in Sacramento County Superior Court. He received a sentence of three years of informal probation and 48 hours in the county jail, though was given credit for one day for the night of his arrest and will serve the remaining day on a work project. Fines and other fees cost Ashburn $1,900 to $2,000. Ashburn is now the divorced father of four daughters, Shelley, Shannon, Stacy and Suzana.]He also has two grandchildren. Roy Ashburn not only caused a  lot of the irreversible harm to  the LGBT community in California but also destroyed his own family life .

  25. tj

    It seems the most basic question about whether Milo should speak at the university has been overlooked:   Does this speaker have anything to say that by itself will be educational?

    1. Barack Palin

      I think people might find things he says to be educational.  Does every other speaker that’s invited to UCD have things to say that are educational?


      1. Jerry Waszczuk


        Milo Yiannopoulos, the technology editor for Breitbart.com, tweeted as @Nero. Before he was banned, he had more than 338,000 followers and called himself “the most fabulous supervillain on the internet” for his provocations online.

        338,000 followers on Twitter is indicator that Milo is quite talented guy and has something interesting to say and entertain UCD  students and the  faculty members  if all  the tickets for his show were quickly sold.

      1. hpierce

        looking @ wikipedia [way down on my list of sources, except for history] Milo, is indeed a professional clown/entreprenuer… yet, look at this article, and the posts related… his true “convictions” are unclear, and perhaps mercurial…

  26. tj

    Milo might be “entertaining”, or “provocative”, or “interesting”, but that doesn’t mean there’s any educational content in his presentation.  Hitler was fascinating, but not educational.

    I wonder what the costs of security might be if he does come and speak?

  27. Tia Will

    suddenly the inequities, injustices and problems within California are less important than making symbolic stands against the incoming president who is already signaling he didn’t mean 90% of what he said in his campaign.”

    Whether or not it was your intent, I certainly do not find it the least bit reassuring if the president elect did not mean 90% of what he said in his campaign. If honesty is felt to be at all desirable in a leader, then certainly this takes the cake in terms of duplicitousness. So either you believe that he did intend to do the things he said, including the most odious, or you believe that we have just elected a liar of the magnitude of the Watergate era President Nixon or the “what the definition of “is” is Clinton. Either option is not particularly appealing and should not distract us from the problems of California, nor make us less vigilant about more distant concerns. Luckily, I believe that most young people are able to consider more than one aspect of their lives at the same time and can think about local, regional and national issues and make their own prioritization.

    1. Matthew

      You’re missing the point Tia. The point is the hypocrisy. The hypocrisy of this extremely exclusive community LARPing as some enlightened bedrock of inclusive values when it is not.

      1. Tia Will


        I don’t know what makes you think that I am missing this point when all I have pointed out is that there are many “points” and perspectives to consider. This is certainly one of them.

  28. tj


    You’re a doctor, though not specialized in psychiatry, so I wonder if you think Trump and some of his associates might be afflicted with narcissism, ODD, and OCD, an inherited triad?

  29. Roberta Millstein

    I don’t understand why people think this is an issue of free speech.  Your average person can’t simply reserve a room at UC Davis and speak.  You need to be invited by someone with a campus affiliation, who reserves the room.  Yiannopoulos is free to speak in public domains (e.g., a street corner), but he has no legal right to speak on campus.  So, if anyone’s rights were going to be violated by preventing Yiannopoulos from coming to campus, it would be those of the Davis College Republicans.  But what right is that?  That is the right to reserve a room on campus and to invite a speaker of their choice.  An important right, no doubt, but not a legal right and certainly not up there with the First Amendment.  And then it becomes clearer that the right to reserve a room and invite a speaker might be outweighed by other issues, such as the campus’s Principles of Community, providing an educational benefit, etc.

    1. Eric Gelber

      “I don’t understand why people think this is an issue of free speech.”

      Actually, if a campus organization were to be denied permission to use University facilities based on  the political views of the invited speaker, it would raise First Amendment free speech issues.

      1. Roberta Millstein

        1. My understanding is that the legal situation is not nearly as clearcut as you suggest.

        2. No one suggested political reasons as reasons he might be refused.

        3. They would still be free to use the University facilities to espouse what they liked, within the bounds of University policy and the law.

        1. Eric Gelber

          Sorry, Roberta, but University policy can’t trump the First Amendment. Offering reasons like local policy or community values to prevent or limit speech would be pretext and is the very reason we have the First Amendment.

        2. Roberta Millstein

          Eric, you can keep saying “First Amendment” over and over, but that doesn’t make it relevant.  Here is a web page that summarizes the issues:


          The whole thing is worth reading, but here is the concluding paragraph:

          The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that “State colleges and universities are not enclaves immune from the sweep of the First Amendment” (Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 180 (1972)). Those who speak on campuses are afforded full protection. However, the Supreme Court also said “the First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government” (Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 406 U.S. 37, 46 (1983)) and that reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions are allowed.

          To repeat myself, “the legal situation is not as clearcut as you suggest.”

        3. Barack Palin

          How many far left speakers have been turned away from UCD and for that matter campuses all across the country?

          It’s only right wing speakers who are being targeted and that alone shows that it is indeed a matter of free speech.

          For example, Ben Shapiro has been denied access and has had several speaking engagements canceelled in the last few years.

        4. Roberta Millstein

          BP, I don’t know – those are good questions.  If you get any data, you should present them here.

          But the objection to Yiannopoulos isn’t political – it’s that he’s engaging in hate speech and promoting white nationalism.  This is not about taxes or health care or abortion.  Unless you think that hate speech and white nationalism are part of the political platform of the Republicans?

        5. JosephBiello

          When a kid throws a screaming tantrum it is wise for the adults to leave the room and go play with the other kid.   Otherwise we teach the child that the tantrum gets our attention.

          @Roberta,   I really think you guys walked into the trap here.   I argued to other people  on different forums that a much better response to this speaker would have been first to ignore him (i.e. no protest, no letters) and then to organize a better speaker in a bigger forum (even one from the right).  For example,  that other speaker could have talked about discourse, listening and constructive debate.

          Instead the provocateur has provoked.  I glance at the comments above and the discussion is about “First amendment” versus “reserving a room on campus”.     However when the news cameras come and the 30 second report on this visit is presented nationwide the intricacies of this discussion will be lost and it will be spun into a First Amendment issue whether you like it or not.






        6. Roberta Millstein

          BP, please give examples of hate speech from the left.

          And you haven’t answered my question.  Is hate speech and white supremacy part of the Republican platform?

          JosephBielo, you may be right that allowing him on campus is the wiser course.  I wasn’t weighing in on that issue with my comments here.  Rather, I was weighing in on the First Amendment issue.  Yes, people will say that it’s an issue of free speech, but saying that doesn’t make it so.

        7. JosephBiello

          @Roberta, but you signed a letter that asked the admin to remove his campus platform.  This is just playing into the right wing narrative.

          By the way, I do think it is a free speech issue because I don’t know what he’s going to say on campus.  I only know what he has said in the past.

          I really think that the center/left (people I identify with) have lost all sense of political tactics.


        8. Eric Gelber

          Roberta – With all due respect, you are wrong. The issue here is not about reasonable time, place, and manner. It’s about conditioning access based on content. That directly implicates the First Amendment. As noted in David’s article this morning, we don’t need the First Amendment to protect non-controversial speech. It’s needed to protect speech that many or even the vast majority would find offensive. Google “Skokie” and “Nazis” to learn more about the issue.

        9. Roberta Millstein

          JosephBiello, yes, I just don’t have time to get into it now (I am out of town).  I think reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of him coming or not.  But I think when people assert that it is a First Amendment issue, they are mistaken, or at least, they are oversimplifying what is a complex legal issue.

          Eric Gelber, please read the page I posted.  Sorry, gotta go.

        10. Roberta Millstein

          Eric, here are the passages that I think support my position:

          Recent cases heard in the circuit courts focus on whether a college or university campus is open for use to the general public or reserved for students, faculty, and invited speakers. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in ACLU v. Mote (2005) and courts within the 5th Circuit have found college campuses to be limited public forums. This means that they are not traditional public forums such as public streets or parks available for anyone to use at any time, but have been opened to the public for limited use. Usually in such instances an individual or group must reserve time to speak and may speak only in designated areas. When a speaker does not follow the institution’s policy concerning uninvited speakers, he can be prohibited from speaking and asked to leave the campus.

          These restrictions are permitted in a limited public forum, but only if they are viewpoint-neutral and reasonable in light of the objective purposes served by the forum. In the case of a campus, this objective purpose is the education of the students. To accomplish this purpose the school focuses on the students and other members of the school’s community. “Accordingly, [the campus] has not been traditionally open to the public at large, but instead has been a ‘special type of enclave’ that is devoted to higher education” (U.S. v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 180 (1983)).

          Individuals who, for example, state that many of the women on campus do not belong because they are not capable of doing math and science are not serving any educational purpose and in fact are undermining the university’s educational purpose.

          I would like to think that racism and sexism are not exclusive to Republicans or Democrats, but can (unfortunately) be found on both sides.  But hey, if some of you want to maintain that racism and sexism are inherently part of a Republican viewpoint, and so limiting them limits a Republican viewpoint, who am I to argue?

          But the main thing that the article documents is that the rulings on these issues are conflicting and confusing.  So anyone who claims to know for certain that refusing to allow Yiannopoulos to speak on campus is a violation of the First Amendment is, well, hmm… what is the polite way to say it?  Claiming to know something that no one in fact really knows (because if it went to court the result would very much open to interpretation).

          To repeat myself a third time, “the legal situation is not as clearcut as you suggest.”

        11. quielo

          “the article documents is that the rulings on these issues are conflicting and confusing”


          Don’t see how. He is an invited speaker and you want to deny him the right to speak based on the content of his message.

      2. Eric Gelber

        One last try, Roberta. quielo is correct. The article you cite is about reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, which are permitted but must be “viewpoint neutral.” That means UCD can have rules about, for example, when and where people can speak on campus but can’t have rules that are different based on the viewpoint being presented. And they certainly can’t have rules that bar speakers because their viewpoints are controversial or offensive to some. Did you google Skokie and Nazis yet?

    2. Jerry Waszczuk

      Professor Millstein

      The manifesto entitled Principles of Community has no any legal  weight because this manifesto is not the  UC Davis or UC  policy . I don’t know if you are familiar or you recall the April 2012  David Siegel’s MD, MPH, FACP, FAHA Chief of Medicine case  in such matter .


      Letter to the editor: Anti-Semitic comments
      on Facebook
      Chief Of Medicine
      Published on April 5,2012
      Filed under Opinion
      In a Feb. 28, 2012 discussion on the official Facebook page of the UC Davis chapter of the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), members directed anti-Semitic slum at me.
      [moderator] edited to remove text; several parts activated our filter.

  30. Frankly

    And you haven’t answered my question.  Is hate speech and white supremacy part of the Republican platform?

    What about hate speech against Israel and by its very nature antisemitism?  Is that part of the Democrat platform?

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for