In this letter, I will demonstrate as to why more consideration is required in determining whether we at USC should open a forum to Milo Yiannopoulos and Gavin McInnes. I have written 10 main points that I believe must be addressed. These range from the dangers of allowing political extremists to co-opt our social spaces in bad faith, to the fact that the organizers of this event have broken several key rules laid out within USC policy.
This address will not be partisan, as I do not believe that the ideals of the speakers represent any majority in the US. Furthermore, most of my qualms lay not with the political leanings of the speakers, but with the blatant disregard for acceptable social norms they exhibit. From sexual harassment to bullying, I struggle to find actions that less represent us here at USC.
While decrying censorship has long been a tool used by neo-fascist extremist groups to appeal to disenfranchised individuals, it is ultimately used to gain access to legitimate public forums.
Political extremists will always make themselves out to be the victims and, as such, they will always claim to be censored. Ironically, their words of victimhood will be seen in every facet of our media landscape as in reality, these people are never truly censored. As fascists do not act in good faith, it is pointless to be cowed into their demands.
Their attempts to speak at USC are not done to spread a political message, as their message is already available to their target audience. Instead, it is an effort to legitimize their vitriol by elevating their laughable ideas to ones worthy of debate in a scholarly scene. We have a duty to not elevate the words of extremists in the public eye.
The beliefs these speakers hold are not simply “political differences,” but instead are insidious ideals of supremacy. They do not stand for a political party; these speakers stand for misogyny, chauvinism, antisemitism, islamophobia, white supremacy and authoritarianism. Individually, extremists are weak, but their twisted views can fester into purulent wounds within our society if given an opportunity to grow.
It is impossible to hold a genuine debate with fascists as they will always co-opt societal values they refuse to follow. Attempting to talk with them in good faith will always result in the fascists appealing to their base. This is due to extremists craving the appearance of power and normalcy, while in reality, they have neither.
Gavin McInnes is a founder of the Proud Boys, an organization that seeks not to hold forums, but to use political violence and general thuggery to spread their hate. We must condemn not just acts of political violence, but those who attempt to wield it.
This event is advertised as “The Roast of CUMala Harris,” a disgusting display of sexual harassment. A 2021-2022 USC report stated that 53.8% of the student body was female. How can women at USC feel safe when our university sanctions an event led by individuals so comfortable with sexual violence? Would USC allow an event where somebody sexualizes a specific student?
Aside from how abhorrent this is morally; it is important to remember that sexual harassment goes against USC policy. Failing to uphold our own rules on sexual misconduct will result in other bad actors believing they can get away with this behavior, endangering both students and faculty.
How can we claim to be an inclusive community when we allow speakers who hold intensely bigoted views toward various minority populations on campus? Will our immigrant students walk the campus confidently knowing that we allowed a speaker who sees them as a scourge on our nation? Will our Black students feel safe if white supremacists come in to tell them they are lesser? Will our Jewish students feel welcome when the Proud Boys view them as the architects of our society's doom? Will our Muslim students feel comfortable in their faith knowing that there are those on campus who wish for their demise?
Milo Yiannopoulos is a man who rejected his homosexuality and proceeded to open a gay conversion camp. We cannot claim to support our LGBTQ+ students and staff when we give a forum to those who use harmful tools of queer erasure. Furthermore, the APA admonishes conversion therapy as dangerous and, as a credible university, we cannot allow dangerous medical pseudoscience.
The organizers of this speech have indicated that this event is nothing but a session for belittling a political candidate. “Roasts” are common on television, but these events are held with the consent and physical presence of all parties. Without that consent, the “roast” label loses its meaning of lighthearted fun, rather pivoting to the simpler concept of bullying.
We are taught that at USC we do not bully, we do not harass and we do not accost. In fact, we hold these principles so dearly that we espouse them every time we recite the Carolinian Creed. So why would we allow a forum dedicated to all three?
Simply stating that we do not share the views of these guests, while still giving them a forum, will never be the right call. It would be different if the speakers at least attempted to act within the confines of acceptable behavior, but even this they refuse to do. My values were forged by my nation, my family, my faith and of course USC.
It is through these institutions I learned that I should not crassly fit semen into the names of the women around me, or that I shouldn’t belittle those I disagree with politically. Any student at USC would be rightfully punished for this kind of behavior, and I doubt they would be given a space to air their grievances.