As an assistant prof at Princeton in African-American studies, it was probably a big deal that Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor was asked to give the commencement address at Hampshire College. She used the opportunity to condemn President Trump.

That she did so isn’t exactly novel. Some may think it inappropriate for a graduation speech. Some may be offended at the disrespect shown the president. Fair enough, though she doesn’t need your permission or approval to speak her mind. Disagree with her all you want. That’s what the marketplace of ideas is all about.

But some couldn’t stand it, and so they did what vile people do.

I argued that Donald Trump, the most powerful politician in the world, is “a racist and sexist megalomaniac,” who poses a threat to their future. Shortly after the Fox story and video were published, my work email was inundated with vile and violent statements. I have been repeatedly called “nigger,” “bitch,” “cunt,” “dyke,” “she-male,” and “coon” — a clear reminder that racial violence is closely aligned with gender and sexual violence. I have been threatened with lynching and having the bullet from a .44 Magnum put in my head.

Taylor made a point that has been widely misconstrued.

I am not a newsworthy person. Fox did not run this story because it was “news,” but to incite and unleash the mob-like mentality of its fringe audience, anticipating that they would respond with a deluge of hate-filled emails — or worse. The threat of violence, whether it is implied or acted on, is intended to intimidate and to silence.

Her point wasn’t that she was not newsworthy to invoke a defamation exception, but more that what she said didn’t get airtime because her words would somehow change the world. Rather, she was used as the moment’s posterprof as a lightning rod for Trump supporters’ fury. Let’s be real, nobody was otherwise asking themselves, “I wonder what Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor has to say today.”

That putting her on the block produced such a vile reaction, bringing out the scum and nutjobs that populate politics, comes as no surprise. There is no reason to doubt that she received the threats as claimed, whether there was any potential for it happening or it was just to intimidate her. And it’s hard to expect her not to be intimidated.

But I am releasing this statement to say that I will not be silent. Their side uses the threat of violence and intimidation because they cannot compete in the field of politics, ideas, and organizing. The true strength of our side has not yet been expressed in its size and breadth, and so they believe they are winning. We have to change this dynamic and begin to build a massive movement against racism, sexism, and bigotry in this country. I remain undaunted in my commitment to that project.”

A brave conclusion, but belied by her opening:

“Concerning my public talks this week:

It is with great regret that I have decided to cancel my public lectures scheduled at Seattle’s Town Hall and at the University of California, San Diego this week. I am canceling my appearances for fear of my safety and my family’s safety.

And so she was silenced, even as she says she won’t be. I don’t blame her, and while she said what she said, there was no reason for her to suspect it would make her a national target of alt-right hatred. She just wasn’t otherwise newsworthy.

But then comes the tu quoque riposte, because no horrible thing can happen without its being used as sword as well as shield.

Where is the outrage for Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor?

Princeton University professor Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor has been forced to cancel speeches in Seattle and at the University of California, San Diego due to violent threats from the right wing. As The Seattle Times reported on Thursday, the threats started after Fox News covered her May 30 commencement speech at Hampshire College. In it, she correctly calledDonald Trump “a racist, sexist megalomaniac.”

Why does the New Republic raise this question?

But Taylor’s crisis hasn’t received much attention outside local news. When Middlebury College students protested Charles Murray, pundits protested. As Osita Nwanevu noted at the time, a Washington Post column even compared his situation to that faced by the Little Rock Nine. See also: Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopolous.

There are some distinctions to note: Taylor is not being no-platformed in the sense that we commonly understand it, and the fervor she now fights developed in response to a campus speaking engagement to which no one objected at the time.

Nevertheless, it’s striking that her situation has garnered almost no outrage from the usual free-speech defenders. There are no columns in The New York Times or The Atlantic or New York magazine. There are no fevered tweets, no hand-wringing on her behalf. Instead, we have yet another Times column about the excesses of college liberals.

The answer is both simple and banal. This was not at all the same, not at all comparable. What happened to Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor did not implicate the First Amendment. She was threatened, but not physically harmed. While she can’t be blamed for being intimidated, she wasn’t affirmatively denied police protection. Fox News was disingenuous in its use of her to evoke outrage, but just as she had the right to speak out publicly against Trump, they had the right to note her public attack.

Yet, there is one further distinction, non-legal in nature, that differentiates what happened to Taylor from others. Taylor was attacked by the lowest, stupidest, craziest, most vile our society has to offer. In contrast, the expectations are not the same as of those being educated to be the leaders, the future, of America. The hope is that college students will use the opportunity, the education, to be better than the worst of society.

Instead, the New Republic asks why they are not treated the same. Even in that regard, the New Republic is wrong. Taylor was the recipient of vile words and threats. The college kids are the perpetrators of actual violence. It’s not the same.