Milo Yiannopoulos. Ann Coulter. Charles Murray. The Dalai Lama? One of these things is not like the other. Or are they?

On June 16th, the Dalai Lama spoke and held a Q&A at the University of California-San Diego, but faced stiff resistance from Chinese students, who believe that his presence alone is "an affront to the peace and unity he preaches," reported Quartz.

While Yiannopoulos, Coulter, and Murray were all shut down from speaking in front of college students on campus, all four speakers were protested against for being controversial, divisive, and intolerant.

But how is the Dalai Lama intolerant?

Chinese students at UCSD, which is represents approximately 14 percent of the student body, believe that not only is His Holiness a separatist attempting to divide the Chinese, but he's also a "fraud, criminal and power-obsessor."

In a statement, the Chinese Students and Scholars Organization (which oversees all registered Chinese student organizations in college) said, "UCSD is a place for students to cultivate their minds and and enrich their knowledge. Currently, the various actions undertaken by the university have contravened the spirit of respect, tolerance, equality, and earnestness—the ethos upon which the university is built."

What did UCSD say in response? Thanks, but no thanks.

This is actually a great response to campus protesters and should be a metric for how other school administrators handle these instances of resistance. The Communist Party controls the Chinese government, and by most social justice warrior standards, they're far superior to American democracy and capitalism.

If UCSD can say go through with letting the Dalai Lama speak without any type of violence or disruption to occur, what's stopping them and other schools, for that matter, from allowing conservative personalities like Yiannopoulos, Coulter, or Murray from speaking?