Despite intense pressure from SJWs, California Polytechnic has doubled down on its pro-free speech position and remains committed to MILO’s January 31 speaking event on campus, causing radical progressives to work themselves into a frenzy.
Student organizers are quickly running out of new tactics as their obnoxious cries continue to fall on deaf ears. After previously targeting gay pro-free speech Cal Poly academics, they have now trained their sights on college President Jeffrey Armstrong.
On Monday, the Cal Poly Queer Student Union, a school-sponsored club that supposedly seeks to actively improve “Cal Poly’s campus climate for queer identified students,” posted a photo on Facebook comparing President Armstrong’s comments about the MILO event to those of Texas A&M President Michael Young, with this message:
“President Armstrong, do you really think the blending of white nationalism and lousy intellectualism should be apart [sic] of the “global marketplace”? We think not.”
The post first quotes President Armstrong’s response to calls for the cancellation of the MILO event:
Cal Poly’s campus is an open environment where opinions, ideas and thoughts are freely shared—even those that some may find distasteful and offensive. Censoring viewpoints that we don’t agree with violates free speech and does not represent what we stand for as a university. Rather, free speech and the open exchange of ideas and opinions—even those that conflict with our own—is an important part of student growth and preparation for success in today’s global marketplace.
This quote is juxtaposed with President Young’s words about a completely different speaker, the self-proclaimed alt-right leader Richard Spencer, who recently spoke at Texas A&M.
Spencer, part of the hardline racist wing of the alt-right, shares little in common with MILO, who has had no involvement with the movement beyond reporting on it. Yet progressives and the mainstream media insists on linking MILO to the movement, in an attempt to discredit him and smear him as a racist.
I find the views of the organizer—and the speaker he is apparently sponsoring—abhorrent and profoundly antithetical to everything I believe. In my judgement, those views simply have no place in civilized dialogue and conversation…Outrage and indignation are emotions understandably running high; I share these sentiments. At the same time, I am also truly heartened by the clear message that the Aggie community is sending in reaction to their intrusion—the firm resolve to speak up in opposition to these views, the resounding affirmation that they do not represent the Aggie values we espouse and to which we aspire, and the call to action to reject these views…
The latter quote shows clear pandering to progressive sensitivities on campus. It also seems to suggest that, unlike Cal Poly, A&M’s chief prioritizes “Aggie values” over the right to free speech, but that’s not entirely true.
As one skeptical commenter pointed out, a very important line was omitted from the quote, hence the dot-dot-dot. In the same address, Young also stated:
[B]arring a breach of contract and/or unresolvable safety concerns, we have no plans to prohibit the speaker from using the room he has rented. Freedom of speech is a First Amendment right and a core value of this university, no matter how odious the views may be.
Once again, progressives have been caught ignoring reality out of political convenience.
Armstrong’s unwillingness to cave to progressive demands have made him a sworn enemy of leftist groups like the Cal Poly Queer Student Union and SLO Solidarity, whose members and supporters have previously called for him to resign.
In a comment, MILO said:
“I welcome President Armstrong’s clear defence of free speech on campus. It’s a decision that’ll bring him some trouble in the short term, but in the long term will pay huge dividends for his college’s reputation. He has wisely chosen the route of the University of Chicago, not the University of Missouri — still in crisis after sacrificing intellectual integrity on the altar of short-term political expediency.