Hate the speakers as much as you want, but at least they come to campus to be shouted down, if not physically attacked. Then again, it’s hate speech, so you say, and speech is violence, so you say, and you’re entitled to use violence to stop violence. So you say.

But scholarship?

Third World Quarterly ( TWQ ) is the leading journal of scholarship and policy in the field of international studies. For almost four decades it has set the agenda on development discourses of the global debate.

So it planned to publish Bruce Gilley’s peer-reviewed essay on colonialism. And now it won’t.

Bruce Gilley’s eyebrow-raising essay in favor of colonialismhas been scrubbed from the scholarly record, but not for any of the reasons cited by its critics. (Among them: that it was historically inaccurate, that it ignored the vast literature on colonialism and colonial-era atrocities, that it was rejected by three peer reviewers, and that Gilley himself requested it be pulled.)

That the essay was politically incorrect and academically unacceptable for disputing the prevailing social justice narrative, as reflected in its rejection by woke peers, and Gilley’s own choice to withdraw his essay rather than suffer the fury of the Academy, was not the reason.

Rather, the article has been withdrawn because the editor of Third World Quarterly, the journal in which it appeared, has received credible threats of violence. That’s according to a note posted online by journal’s publisher, Taylor & Francis.

“Following a number of complaints, Taylor & Francis conducted a thorough investigation into the peer-review process on this article,” the note reads. “Whilst this clearly demonstrated the essay had undergone double-blind peer review, in line with the journal’s editorial policy, the journal editor has subsequently received serious and credible threats of personal violence.”

The editor of TWQ didn’t sign up to die. Whether Gilley’s essay was brilliant scholarship or not, it was pulled.

The Guggenheim is one of New York’s premier modern and contemporary art museums.

Committed to innovation, the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation collects, preserves, and interprets modern and contemporary art, and explores ideas across cultures through dynamic curatorial and educational initiatives and collaborations. With its constellation of architecturally and culturally distinct museums, exhibitions, publications, and digital platforms, the foundation engages both local and global audiences.

Perhaps “committed” is the right word, if you use an alternative definition.

It was no surprise that some people were upset by a few works involving animals in the Guggenheim Museum’s new show, “Art and China After 1989.” What was surprising — and in our view badly mistaken — was the Guggenheim’s hasty, thinly justified decision to then censor its own show.

The show must go on, until it musn’t.

The protest, which was spurred by animal-rights activists and grew quicklyover a few days late last month, was aimed at three works: a video showing two heavily tattooed pigs mating before an audience; another showing pit bulls straining to fight while chained to nonmotorized treadmills; and a clear dome filled with hundreds of insects and reptiles. As The Times wrote in its preview, “some creatures will be devoured; others may die of fatigue.”

While my taste in art veers more toward Picasso, the Goog found these exhibits sufficiently artsy to put on a show. Hey, modern art, right?

Was this “an apt spectacle of globalization’s symbiosis and raw contest,” as the museum’s introduction to the exhibition claimed? Or was it, as Rudy Giuliani might say, “sick stuff”? Visitors to one of New York City’s most important cultural institutions won’t have the chance to decide for themselves. On Sept. 25, the museum’s director, Richard Armstrong, decided to remove the three works from the exhibition, which opened Oct. 6. Mr. Armstrong defended the decision as a necessary response to “explicit and repeated threats of violence,” and said that the museum was acting in the interest of “the safety of its staff, visitors and participating artists.”

The doyennes didn’t sign up to die any more than the journal editor did.

There are places where the battle for free speech will be joined, even if the forces of violence clad in black and wielding bike locks, or clad in khaki and wielding tiki torches, would fight to silence others. But journals and museums aren’t battlegrounds. Or, at least, they didn’t use to be, until “credible threats” put them in the position of deciding whether the people involved were prepared to risk physical harm.

Certainly the physical safety of staff members and visitors is as important as any work of art, but then why didn’t the museum ask the city for an increased police presence, or beef up its own security measures?

Oh, New York Times. Don’t ever change. Security measures treat the symptoms of this cancer that’s metastasized through the outrage of the unduly passionate, which keeps an ever-changing list of what speech, what ideas, others should be allowed to hear, to think. But the Times is disingenuous, as it “blames the victim.” What of the disease?

Threats of violence in response to controversial art are abhorrent. They can’t be allowed to dictate what art the public is allowed to see, lest a few deranged would-be saboteurs are encouraged to shut down exhibits at their whim. In an age of social-media campaigns that can reach millions in an instant, the problem is only going to get worse.

Are the censors “a few deranged would-be saboteurs”? Not that the Times suffers from a flagrantly unprincipled love/hate relationship with free speech and the First Amendment, and gushes its love for the brave “would-be saboteurs” who silence people whose ideas it despises, but the Frankenstein monster it feeds on a daily basis refuses to do as the Times would instruct.

Do SJWs and their enablers really think they control the violent mobs? This is the monster you created, and it’s now going after your sacred icons, like scholarly journals and one of the world’s premier modern-art museums. It was hubris to believe that the woke would follow your editorial lead and surrender to your sensibilities on good and evil.

Do you think it won’t be coming for you, dear New York Times, soon enough when you no longer adhere to the latest social justice orthodoxy? And you, dear editors, didn’t sign up to die either. How quickly will you surrender to the “credible threats” from the “deranged would-be saboteurs”?