Davis College Republicans are the Real Cupcakes


by Sean Raycraft

A lot has happened in Davis over the last few weeks. Milo, the hate crime at the Islamic Center, the rallies at Garamendi’s office, the outpouring of unconditional love and support of the Muslim community, and of course Trump’s Islamophobic executive order that left hundreds of people stranded across the country at airports. Somewhere, in the deep recesses of my consciousness, I have always felt that Davis was better about creating and fostering a community of tolerance and inclusiveness. While I still feel that is mostly true, I have to admit I am ashamed and angered that these kinds of things can and do still happen here, in this community that I love. There are still those in our community who would seek to do others harm only out of ignorance, intolerance, bigotry and racism. There are also those who seek to downplay or co opt the outrage of a hate crime in our community, by attempting to draw attention to themselves. Enter the Davis College Republicans.

Here is the quote from the Davis College Republicans Facebook page, discussing the hate crime at the Islamic Center:

“The Davis College Republicans condemn the actions of the criminals who vandalized the Islamic Center, breaking windows and leaving bacon on site. We do not condone violence and/or hate crimes. The Islamic Center of Davis is a peaceful organization, and one of the few proponents of open discussion and education about their culture and religion. As fellow victims of violence and intolerance, we stand with the Islamic Center as they search for the perpetrators of this crime, and hope that they find the criminals so that we all may live in a peaceful atmosphere.

“The ASUCD Senate has made a statement today implying that our Milo event caused the vandalism at the Islamic Center of Davis. Our right to free speech was infringed when protesters became violent enough to force the UC Davis administration to stop our event. ASUCD, the body representing our students, has claimed that ‘[a]s a student government, it is our collective duty to protect our students.’ As a student government, it is your duty to protect the rights of all students, not just those with whom you agree. You should have publicly defended our right to free speech. Instead, you have wrongly cast blame on an organization interested in diversity of thought, alienating a minority group of students on campus. You are part of the reason why conservatives feel that they cannot openly express their beliefs.”

Instead of simply expressing outrage at the hate crime committed, and the hurt and pain of the Muslim community, the Davis College Republicans sought out to make themselves the victims of this heinous act. They also manage to toss in a slight against Muslims everywhere by implying their faith and culture are closed to discussion and education about their religion. So if this is what they are saying in public, what are they saying in their club meetings?

I recently sat down and interviewed someone who attended the Davis College Republican meeting immediately following the Milo event. This person shall be known as “M” for the rest of this article. “M” took notes of who said what, and when. Here are some more hits:

“I know that Davis Phoenix Coalition was the one who was leading the charge against our event.” This accusation is particularly absurd, given the Phoenix Coalition’s mission of inclusion, engagement and tolerance.

If good governance is more your thing, then how do you feel about public funds being used to host Milo? “The total cost for the security was $405 and we actually worked something out with the university they were going to pay half of that. We actually got them recently to waive the fee,” a Davis College Republican said.

The College Republicans also complained about lack of diversity in their teachers – as evidenced by this quote saying “one student actually talked about how republican professors needed affirmative action and compared their fear of talking about politics with being closeted.”

To bring this full circle, they openly joked about the recent hate crime. While they expressed disdain for vandalism, it was clear they were not taking the incident seriously. College Republicans were joking about cooking the bacon left at the Islamic center and that the vandals were “very lazy.” Hate crimes are not to be taken so lightly.

So why write about this? It is no secret I hold the Davis College Republicans in contempt. They are hypocrites in every sense of the word. They complain loudly and clearly about their free speech being violated, yet when engaged by the community to discuss their views, they refuse to do so. Many open letters have been written to them, as have emails, and Facebook messages. All go noticeably unanswered. They say they are not sexists, but when an elected official from their party makes a blatantly sexist joke, they do not call him out on it. They rail against affirmative action, but advocate for affirmative action for professors with a conservative worldview. They complain about safe space culture, but that is exactly what they have created for themselves. They have created a little bubble, where everyone has homogeneous political beliefs and convictions. They petulantly whine when they are not the center of attention, as they did with the hate crime Facebook post. What is next? Do they feel the intense need to retreat to their participation trophy rooms and cuddle with their favorite confederate flag?

While some of this may seem hyperbolic, I think it is worth discussing. The Davis College Republicans are responsible for a lot of what has happened in the last few weeks. I want to be clear, I do not blame them for the hate crime at the Islamic Center, but I do think they were unhelpful at best in the aftermath by trying to make themselves the victims of that crime. The problems of the Milo event are purely of their doing. Their participation in the re enactment of the pepper spray incident only shows their callousness to the suffering of others in the community. It is as if they live in a completely different world, where they are somehow victims, and the people of the community are their oppressors.

As many of you know, I was raised in a conservative household. I have many Trump supporter friends and family. They, like the College Republicans like to tell people they need to have thicker skins, and that harm caused to “feelings” or, as Alt-Right millennials say, “the feels” should be downplayed. Usually this narrative ends with something like “the greatest generation never dealt with this” or a totally irrelevant narrative like “socialism never works.” My personal favorites are when they make ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the underlying issues. They will call their opponents “cupcakes,” “socialists,” “snowflakes.” But when called out for doing, or saying, something racist or sexist, they become angry and lash out at those who called them out. I think they are the real “snowflakes,” thin-skinned, vain and above all hypocritical. It takes strength of character to admit fault, and make amends for wrongdoing. The Davis College Republicans have caused a lot of hurt and anger in our community, and they still have a lot to answer for.  I would like to thank “M” for sharing their notes with me. I am sure there will be those who are upset with their dirty laundry being aired.

Sean Raycraft is a lifelong Davis resident, and Shop Steward.


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

55 thoughts on “Davis College Republicans are the Real Cupcakes”

  1. Keith O

    I recently sat down and interviewed someone who attended the Davis College Republican meeting immediately following the Milo event. This person shall be known as “M” for the rest of this article.

    I never give any credibility to hearsay like this where the person isn’t identified.  Too easy to make things up.

      1. Keith O

        “I never give any credibility to hearsay like this where the person isn’t identified” — says the unidentified Keith O.

        What hearsay have I posted here?  Where are my supposed quotes from any mysterious “initial”?

  2. Tia Will

    You can deny credibility of an interview all you like. But what cannot be denied are the actions of Skrelli when he chose to engage in physical violence against one of the protesters as a speaker invited by the College Republicans, nor the childish and callous display by MY and his supporters the next day in mockery of the pepper spray incident. Turning actual harm into a mockery is despicable and although they are young and inexperienced, the College Republicans are old enough to know better.

    Also undeniable is the false equivalency put forward in the statement of the College Republicans, “As fellow victims of violence and intolerance” as though they were being subjected to anything even vaguely resembling what occurred at the mosque. To say nothing of their misrepresentation of their own choice to cancel the event as reported here on the Vanguard while stating repeatedly that it was the protesters and/or the university that decided upon the cancellation. I have repeatedly defended both their right to invite MY and his right to speak. However, I will call out as blatant hypocrisy either MY and/or the College Republicans right to cast themselves in a victimhood position when the have repeatedly made fun of the same comment about oppression and not feeling safe from those with whom they do not agree. Equal acts deserve equal judgement regardless of one’s political affiliation and this is what is being missed by our now “victimized” College Republicans.

    1. Keith O

       “As fellow victims of violence and intolerance” 

      This is true, they were victims of violence as was shown by the protesters at Milo’s event and they were also victims of intolerance as their free speech was shut down that night.  Twist all you want, those are the facts.

        1. David Greenwald

          It’s still an opinion. You are drawing a conclusion from a set of observations. That conclusion may logically follow from the observations, but that doesn’t elevate to “fact.”

          Sorry, it’s a pet peeve of mine that people don’t understand the different between what a fact is and what an opinion is. Opinion doesn’t mean wrong, but an opinion is inherently subjective.

        2. Howard P

          Your 7:56 post should be framed, given a prominent place on your desk, and shared with all your interns and guest contributors…

          But that is just my opinion…

        3. darelldd

          Full agreement with Howard here. Thank you David.

          ( to veer off topic into my own peeve area… This right here is the same reason we need to stop saying accident for every crash and collision.  Something I will continue to make a stink about when I find it. )

          Probably the single easiest way to spot an opinion is to search out the posts that include FACT in all caps.

        4. Howard P


          A big AMEN particularly when it comes to crash/collision vs. accident… an ‘accident’ should be used primarily when you are being ‘potty-trained’, or if you become incontinent… a crash when you are impaired for any reason, or ‘do a stupid’, is no “accident”… at least if you are a vehicle/bicycle driver or a pedestrian…

        5. Tia Will

          There is visible evidence that both sides participated in the violence. Unless you don’t consider featured speaker Skrelli shoving a protester when he could have simply stayed inside, violence. You have not commented on that act of violence.

        6. Dave Hart

          Howard P, I think the recipe goes like this:  Take one delicate snowflake and wrap it in a heavy layer of white male privilege (you can get it in bulk from mainstream news outlets like Fox News or local branch of the KKK), place it in a cheap aluminum pan and bake at room temperature making sure to keep it out of the sunlight.  Voila!  These cupcakes don’t taste very good, so you’ll probably end up dumping it in the organics bin.

    2. Howard P

      What constitutes ‘violence’ and ‘physical violence’? An unwanted/unanticipated tap of a finger on the shoulder?  A nudge to ‘cut in line’?  A gentle push to get thru a mass of folk who do not listen to a plea of  “excuse me, I need to leave”?  A more aggressive push than moves someone, but does not cause a fall nor an observable ‘injury’ (not counting ego, or ‘personal space violation’)?  Is a deliberate ‘physical space’ violation “physical violence”?  Please define terms so we can discuss rationally.

      But, for now, the UCD crowd of protesters clearly used language (chanted in unison, actually), that if acted on, would clearly be gross physical violence… one of the chants, (by your post on another thread) should be a no-bail felony if acted on… yet, it wasn’t (as far as I know).

      A “push or shove” does not rise anywhere near the property and personal injuries that occurred @ UC Bezerkley… there was demonstrable violence there…

      Using the definitions I use, there was no physical violence at the UCD event…  there was a huge amount of verbal ‘violence’, intended to intimidate… apparently, successfully…

        1. Keith O

          Who decides what’s hate speech and what isn’t?  When is it okay for a group to decide what is hate speech and shut it down?  Do you think what happened the other night at UC Berkeley was justified because a group of students didn’t want to allow Milo to speak?  What happens if some group decides what you have to say is hate speech?

        2. Keith O

          Who gets to decide what’s speech that’s protect and harassment, libel, slander, obscenity, etc.?

          If those are some of the considerations then I would have to say that the protesters definately exhibited many of examples that you cite while they were shutting down both Milo events and his free speech.

        3. Ron

          Keith (and David):

          That is the question.  Regardless of where one is on the spectrum of ideology and opinions.

          I believe that “unprotected” speech is that which actively encourages others to break the law.  (Something like that.)  I haven’t seen anything from Milo which meets this criteria.  (Granted, I only looked at a few of his comments.)

          I believe that some protestors do not understand what free speech means.  Of course, they’re also free to respond with “anger”, as long as it doesn’t break the law.  (And, that’s where some of them fail, which may be the goal of some of those who engage in controversial speech.)

          Engaging in free speech does not “cause” others to act out unlawfully (and perhaps violently), unless they choose to do so.

          To be honest, I couldn’t care less about what Milo and others like him say.  (Except maybe for amusement.) I didn’t even know who he was, until recently. I’m kind of saddened when others take it seriously, and act out. (Actually, it’s probably quite frightening, if you happen to be there.)


        4. Keith O

          Just last night the students at NYU shut down a conservative comedian.  I don’t like and often find offensive what Colbert, Stewart and a huge array of other liberal comedians have to say.  Should they be shut down too?

        5. David Greenwald

          Keith: It’s important to note that a lot of the people that shutdown the Milo event at Berkeley were not college students, but Antifa- anarchists, who not liberals and not students, but came there with the design on disrupting and doing damage.

        6. David Greenwald

          “If those are some of the considerations then I would have to say that the protesters definately exhibited many of examples that you cite while they were shutting down both Milo events and his free speech.”

          You completely missed my point – there are always lines in speech and there are always someone whether it’s the police or courts who have to determine where those lines are.  So your question “who gets to decide” is almost aside from the point – someone is always deciding.

        7. Karl Ronning

          I have the right to walk down the street making derogatory/hateful statements. If someone punches me in the nose, then I must acknowledge my injury was due in part to my irresponsible behavior. It is a matter of accepting the consequences of one’s person behavior on BOTH sides. So, when Milo goes to Davis or Berkeley or wherever and a “violent” protest irrupts it is not 100% his fault. However, when he refuses to admit he played any role in the violence that resulted it makes me think he has no moral compass. Likewise for the organizations that invited him to speak.

          1. David Greenwald

            “I have the right to walk down the street making derogatory/hateful statements.”

            That’s actually not clear and it becomes less clear when someone punches you in the nose.

        8. Ron

          Karl:  “I have the right to walk down the street making derogatory/hateful statements. If someone punches me in the nose, then I must acknowledge my injury was due in part to my irresponsible behavior.”

          I’m not sure that you’re right about this (legally, or otherwise).  In such a scenario, you’d be adhering to the law (and exercising your lawfully-protected rights), and would be a victim of an unlawful physical assault.  (I wouldn’t recommend trying it, though.)  🙂

          Got to run for awhile.

      1. Tia Will


        Ok, I will be precise in my language.

        the UCD crowd of protesters clearly used language (chanted in unison, actually), that if acted on…. But wasn’t acted on, and therefore does not constitute physical violence.

        Skrelli walking into crowd and pushing protester is physical violence.

        1. Howard P

          Given the camera angle, you may be assuming a ‘fact’ that can be a referee’s worst nightmare… it may well be you see the ‘payback foul’… as I watched the video, it is inconclusive… but I see it is very possible that (given camera angle), there was a foul that was responded to… I get that… for you to call it “physical violence” is a bit of over-reach… it may have been ‘aggressive’, or ‘defensive’… unless you saw it personally, suggest you tone down you rhetoric.  “Physical violence”=”assault” (crime)… I just don’t see that.  There was enough boorish behavior to go around… if you believe a crime was committed (physical violence) please share with UCD police and/or Yolo county DA… otherwise…

  3. Ron


    Point noted.

    I guess it’s “questionable” if Milo was actually shut down at UCD.  (But, less questionable at Berkeley.)

    Really, the protestors are helping him make his point.  (And, he does have a point, regarding intolerance of controversial free speech.)  Strange, how they can’t see that.

    It reminds me of when the KKK shows up somewhere, and the resulting violence. (I believe that the ACLU has assisted such groups, in the past – to help protect free speech.)

    1. Keith O

      Ron I always respect what you have to say because you come across in a level headed way.  But the protesters definitely shut down Milo at UCD.  If they had shown up and peacefully protested instead of throwing metal barriers, spitting on attendees, throwing smelly substance at people in line, pushing, shoving and creating a line trying to deny admittance to the people that wanted to see Milo the event would’ve gone on.  So yes, the protesters cancelled the event.

      1. Ron


        Thank you.  Maybe so, regarding the events at UCD.  (I just recall others making some counter-arguments regarding what happened.)  I don’t really have an opinion on it (other than being glad I wasn’t there).

        I am glad that UCD is generally not as extreme as Berkeley.  (I wonder how many of the protestors or attendees for the event were actually students at either campus.)

  4. Tia Will


    Since you state that you have only checked out a few statements about MY, I would like to assure you that this is about far more than his right to free speech or his rights as a comedian ( Like Stewart or Colbert as Keith might have one believe).

    MY was instrumental in the GamerGate controversy in which on line female gamers were threatened with rape and death and MY’s response after having stirred the internet social media pot was to respond that if they felt threatened, they should just stop gaming. At the time he took no action to disavow any of the hate filled and personally threatening activities of his fans and followers.

    The second instance of MY egging on his followers until there were many racist comments and threats of rape and violence to both her and her family was in the case of Leslie Jones, the black star of the remake of Ghostbusters. Likewise MY made no action to disavow any of the unleashed racism, sexism or even threats.

    MY is also known at his speeches, to single out an individual either on the campus or even in the audience to degrade.

    So when Keith is defending MY’s “right to speech”, it is important to understand that MY has deliberately created and fostered this hate filled atmosphere that surrounds his speeches  for personal profit. It was in this context that the College Republicans invited him to speak, not because of a desire for an exchange or promotion of ideas or the “truth” as MY proclaims.

    1. Ron


      Honest questions:

      Should Milo be shut down because some of his followers are apparently engaging in unprotected speech?  Does he need to disavow what they say, before he’s given permission to speak?  (Not necessarily on a college campus, but in general?)

      What about the KKK and the ACLU’s assistance to that group, to ensure that free speech is protected?

        1. Howard P

          Thank you for the cite… may need to work on my ‘searching’… fair response…

          I remember Skokie…

          And no, there may be a bit of overlap between KKK and ‘nazis’, but it’s probably more due to personality disorders than ideology…

  5. Sean Raycraft

    Y’all are missing the point. College Republicans are trying to claim they are the victims, after giving token solidarity to a group of people who actually suffered a hate crime. They whine incessantly about their victimhood, and have the audacity to call others thin skinned and whiny. The whole point of the article was to show that hypocrisy on display.


    They complain their free speech is infringed upon, yet when asked to participate in reasoned debate, they are utterly silent. They complain they cannot share their political views, because they will face backlash for them. Well what is that backlash? Invariably, the backlash is free speech from people who disagree with white nationalism.

    1. Keith O

      You can attempt to spin it all you want but the… [edited] were the protesters that shut down Milo’s free speech because they can’t stand having different points of views voiced.

      [moderator] edited for language

    2. Howard P

      The Islamic Center experienced vandalism… whether the bacon thing was a sign of  “hate”, or a ‘diversion’, mental illness, etc., remains to be seen… I contributed to the repairs, and deplore the vandalism, no matter what the ‘motivation’ was… no matter what the motivation was, the individual responsible should be apprehended, held accountable, and if a MH issue, should get treatment.

      You have already decided it is a “hate crime”… it may well be, but you have come to a conclusion without facts in evidence…

      I believe it is more important to focus on ‘never again’, than label the crime… but that’s just me…

      And Sean, the College Republican’s ‘me too, we’re victims’ was childish at best… would also use the terms ‘wimpy’, ‘impotent’, ‘self-serving’, etc.

    1. Howard P

      Not a ‘gesture’… not ‘charity’… doing what is right, as I see it, as a “neighbor” (I have gotten to know some of the folk), a citizen, and as a Christian (Catholic)…

      Definitely not a “pro-forma” gesture… just being a responsible human.  And caring for my brothers and sisters…

      [OK, probably 10% wanting to make a ‘statement’ that I do not tolerate the behavior of the vandal… it should not ‘stand’]

    1. Dave Hart

      Also I think this excerpt from a New York Times article by a former right wing radio commentator Charles Sykes, who now is recanting his misguided activities, answers some of the issue of “facts” and just what they are when dealing with people like Milo and his supporters:

      This may explain one of the more revealing moments from after the election, when one of Mr. Trump’s campaign surrogates, Scottie Nell Hughes, was asked to defend the clearly false statement by Mr. Trump that millions of votes had been cast illegally. She answered by explaining that everybody now had their own way of interpreting whether a fact was true or not.
      There’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts,” she declared. Among “a large part of the population” what Mr. Trump said was the truth.
      “When he says that millions of people illegally voted,” she said, his supporters believe him — and “people believe they have facts to back that up.
      Or as George Orwell said: “The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.” But Ms. Hughes’s comment was perhaps unintentionally insightful. Mr. Trump and company seem to be betting that much of the electorate will not care if the president tells demonstrable lies, and will pick and choose whatever “alternative facts” confirm their views.

      Facts, it turns out, are indeed terrible things.

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