The Effect Of Hateful Ideas On College Campuses

Where do we draw the line as to who is allowed to speak and who isn’t? How do we decide whose opinions are worth hearing and whose should be dismissed? And at what point does an opposing viewpoint become hate speech? These are questions that can’t easily be answered, but, with rising political tensions, need to be.
When imaging the type of person who would be invited to speak at colleges, most would picture a professional, knowledgeable in their studies, and able to back up their opinions with facts. This, unfortunately, is not always the case. More and more speakers invited to campuses now are individuals who are focused on spreading hateful ideas that result in the alienation of student groups and cause a disruption to the learning environment. These speakers who choose to use their influence to promote the spread of misinformation or attempt
to isolate parts of the student body have no right speaking on college campuses. Milo Yiannopoulos, a self-proclaimed “provocateur,” is someone who often comes up in the debate of free speech on college campuses. He is someone who intentionally provokes outrage with outlandish, and usually very offensive comments about Muslims, feminists, minorities, and the LGBTQ community (a community in which he is a part of). He has stated that rape culture on college campuses doesn’t exist and has gone after the Black Lives Matters movement. Milo was also the senior editor of Breitbart News, an alt-right news website, before being fired earlier this year for comments on pedophilia that sparked outrage among readers.
Is the author of articles such as “Gay Rights Have Made Us Dumber, It’s Time to Get Back in the Closet” and “Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy” really someone who should be speaking at universities across the country?
Milo Yiannopoulos’ tendency to say whatever will create the most outrage and attention is dangerous to have at institutions that promote open-mindedness and learning. Not only do the things he says cause violent reactions, like the shooting at the University of Washington or the riot at Berkeley, but it also encourages an “us versus them” mentality throughout the campuses. The “us” being Milo’s supporters, a predominantly white and male group, and the “them” being the groups they direct their hate to, feminist, LGBTQ, and minorities. Beth McMurtrie mentions in her article “How to Promote Free Speech Without Alienating Students?,” that after being labeled as a “radical professor” by Yiannopoulos, Valerie Johnson of DePaul University “received a barrage of hateful messages” from Milo’s supporters. Colleges should be supporting inclusiveness, not allowing someone like Milo to further fuel the
divide.
However, while Milo’s speeches are inappropriate for college campuses, that does not mean he should be not allowed to speak anywhere. If students did want to hear what Milo or any other unqualified, controversial speakers, they should be able to do so off school grounds. This is not a debate as to whether Yiannopoulos should be able to voice his opinions at all, it is questioning where delivering his message is appropriate. Banning someone entirely is not the solution, but standing by and letting the hatred of others fester in your environment isn’t either. As much as we dislike someone else’s opinions, completely prohibiting them from speaking only makes their voices louder. In their article “Free Speech as Battleground,” Christian Parenti and James Davis bring up the problems with completely shutting out people like Milo Yiannopoulos. They point out that censorship is a very slippery slope and that censorship used against people we disagree with is censorship that will soon be used against us.
If Milo Yiannopoulos was invited by a student organization to speak at NRCC, I think the best reaction the college could have would be to consider the well-being of all their students and encourage him to speak off campus. The amount of hostility and violence he would bring to the campus would not be easily forgotten, and the college’s allowance of his presence would not be easily forgiven.