Well, I was asking the person in question because I'm curious about how university attendants feel this impacts them personally.
As for your example, I don't know enough about the situation to assess whether Berkeley should have him speak or not.
But a quick google search shows me he did speak at Berkeley in Sep 2017.
But regardless, a university, like any other similar institution, should be able to decide whether or not it is in their best interest to have any particular person speak at their grounds. That can include things like cost, and whether or not most of their audience would be interested in it in the first place.
Threats of violence should never be tolerated though, and I doubt they ever were. But if there is a perceived risk that required multi million dollar investments, then it would not be out of the ordinary for someone to pass on that for something closer to their intended budget.
As for 'anti hate groups', I believe you're referring anti hate in regards to discrimination, bigotry, etc.
They in turn may very well hate people who hate someone because of the color of their skin. But the difference is, they have a good reason.
Already corrected that I got the speaker wrong, it was milo.
Universitys can make invitations and cancel them at any point sure. They can offer money to who they like to speak and offer nothing to thouse they deemed hateful. I got no problems with that. But if the university does not incetivice anybody to come and they say thats ok Ill do it for free, I dont even need a stage or anything and you still have a problem and say completly ban the person, then that is just insane.
Do you mean that as long as someone is willing to do something at your institution, you need to let them do it?
And no. It should not require a majority vote. If 100 out off 20000 want to invite a certain person, if they can afford it then just let them.
I'm not sure I follow you here?
If 100 out of 20000 want Justin Bieber, and 19900 out of 20000 want Beyonce, Justin Bieber should get the spot?
I dont really mind hate. Im hispanic living in a 99% white state. If people hate me I could not care less. As long as they dont do anything to me they can say what they want. This is the problem I have with what you say. even if I hated someone who hates me, that still gives me no wright to attack them if they have done nothing to me yet. Fighting back in self defense I got no problem with. But the riots i have seen, the destruction, the people getting hurt by antifa and other extremist just because someone is talking and they dont like it is not acceptable. Thats child like behavior.
I didn't say they have a good reason to attack someone. In fact, I said "Threats of violence should never be tolerated though".
What I said was, they have a good reason to hate people who for example hate others due to the color of their skin.
Hate and violence are not the same thing, even if they often go hand in hand. You can hate someone without wanting to physically hurt them.
A person who hates someone that hates others due to the color of their skin would by definition not be anti-hate if you take the term literally. But that term is usually used to describe people who are against discrimination and hate based on ethnicity, sexuality, religion, etc.
When you say that you're fine if people hate you for being hispanic, I'm sure you do to a degree. When it's just words. But those kind of words are often meant to encourage action.