The culture war has turned from cold to hot in the past month on college campuses, all because of Milo Yiannopoulos, a subpar provocateur whose performance art consists of deportation jokes. At the University of Washington, a supporter shot a protester in the streets outside the performance. At the University of California, Berkeley, protesters destroyed multiple businesses in a riot against his invitation and speech.
Behind the headlines is a story of how to win the culture war without turning to violence.
Sarah Gamble and the rest of the College Republicans of the University of Washington, who invited Yiannopoulos to speak, are not the provocateur’s target audience. As the Chronicle of Higher Education reported on the affair at Washington, Gamble “had supported Rand Paul in the primaries,” and “[v]ery few of the Republican club members were fans of Mr. Trump.” But Gamble felt backed into a corner: the atmosphere on campus was one of complete social sanction for non-progressive viewpoints.
“You’re put into that position were you’re either quiet, or you fight back,” she says. And when you fight back, “It’s a bit more conservative than you intend to, and it’s a bit more rash than you intend to.”
College is a formative time for anyone, and an interesting time for those who are politically conservative. It means years spent in close quarters with people likely to be several degrees more liberal than the general population, and under authority figures on the faculty and in the administrative offices who are overwhelmingly politically left-wing. For conservatives, it can feel like a constant struggle merely to justify their existence.
Gamble, as president of the campus College Republicans, was the subject of fliers printed and distributed by a graduate student encouraging her harassment. The fliers printed her phone number and called her a racist, and encouraged other members of the community to call her up and tell her that personally. They also printed the phone number of her father. She was deluged with calls and threats and forced to change her number.
The result of that tactic? Gamble believed more than ever that bringing a provocateur to campus was the right thing to do.
Many on the modern Left, even if acknowledging that this is not right, shed few tears for conservatives who are victims of harassment campaigns like this. Some outright excuse the violence that results.
The years spent in college are an odd time for those on the political Left, as well: they’re used to being in the minority, many of whom have been marginalized for their entire lives and will continue to be marginalized in the future. It’s odd for some of them to be in a position of power and be able to do real harm to their targets, particularly political conservatives who have never faced that kind of an atmosphere.
The instinct when faced with such intense social sanction is to circle the wagons, and that’s what many campus conservatives do.
I was president of my College Republicans chapter myself, and the impulse is to go for provocation over dialogue, outrage over construction. In my time at college, we brought Ann Coulter (and her hefty speaking fee) to campus – a pre-Yiannopoulos provocateur beloved by College Republicans because of the attention she brings.
College Republicans opt for controversial speakers or events (like “affirmative action bake sales“) because they feel besieged.
It’s important to say that, even if they feel this way, they still should not do these things. Provocation for provocation’s sake is a bad tactic that will not convince anyone. But bad tactics on the part of College Republicans does not excuse bad tactics on the part of the empowered progressive power structure that exists at colleges across the country.
A counter-example comes from former white nationalist Derek Black.
As the Washington Post reported last year, Black is the son of notorious white supremacist Don Black, and went to college indoctrinated with those views. He mostly hid his upbringing from his fellow students, but they eventually found out. Rather than ostracizing him, or printing fliers encouraging other students to harass him, his fellow students and teachers engaged him in dialogue. They reached out and, through inclusion, got through to him. He did not retreat, and his views moderated.
Of course, College Republicans are not white supremacists. They don’t deserve the scorn and derision usually reserved for white supremacists. Their views are far less hateful.
But the example is instructive: the way to change peoples’ views are through inclusion and dialogue, not derision and ostracism. This is a difficult message for many college progressives, who are used to being in a minority position without authority figures on their side, but it’s one they should heed. There’s a way to win the culture war, but it’s not through no-platforming, shaming, and other tactics frequently favored by campus leftists.
Kevin Glass (@KevinWGlass) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is director of outreach and policy at The Franklin Center and was previously managing editor at Townhall. His views here are his own.
If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.
