Last week, a violent protest erupted on campus, in response to a scheduled speaking event by Milo Yiannopoulos. Many people soon began to decry the protesters. Here are a few arguments in favor of the use of violence in protests.

Op-ed: Check your privilege when speaking of protests

To people with platforms who decide when a protest should and should not be violent: You speak from a place of immense privilege. As I recently wrote in a tirade against this brand of idiocy, asking people to maintain peaceful dialogue with those who legitimately do not think their lives matter is a violent act.

— Nisa Dang,
UC Berkeley alumna

Op-Ed: Violence helped ensure safety of students

We share our stories and provide insight to the reality of the flawed immigration system. To out us is to remove that agency from us. It allows those with power  —  for example, those with a million followers  —  to twist our stories against us.

— Juan Prieto,
undocumented student, organizer and former layout designer at the Daily Californian

Op-Ed: Black bloc did what campus should have

The bloc was made up of people with the most to fight for and the most to lose.

— Neil Lawrence,
former Daily Cal columnist

Op-Ed: Condemning protesters same as condoning hate speech

I put my safety and my freedom on the line because letting Yiannopoulos speak was more terrifying to me than potential injury or arrest.

— Desmond Meagley
reporter and illustrator for Youth Radio

Op-Ed: Plurality of tactics contributed to cancellation of Milo Yiannopoulos event

In short: The principle of freedom of speech should not be extended to envelop freedom of hate speech, for the unchecked normalization of hate speech will have real consequences.

— Josh Hardman,
UC Berkeley student