By Spencer Gassman’19, Staff Writer

On Monday, October 17, Newark Academy welcomed our first Global Speaker of the year, who seemed to be no different than the usual repertoire we see. However, Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) provided a presentation that strayed from the pack. Instead of sticking with the script of pure social justice, Mr. Lukianoff challenged the NA community to accept freedom of speech in its totality. He described a few scenarios in which many people might question whether freedom of speech is applicable. Lukianoff was a standout global speaker by communicating assertions that were more thought provoking than any of the other speakers in recent memory.

Lukianoff first covered issues where the allowance of freedom of speech was undeniably deprived. His stance was relatively not controversial. The main subject here were the speech codes being imposed on some college campuses (that his organization combats). The codes, he argued, were blatant attempts to silence the voice of political opponents to the university, despite the fact that universities should be hotbeds for dissention and discussion.

Public universities are legally mandated to grant free speech, and so must any private university receiving federal funding, yet the lines become slightly blurrier with private institutions. An important debate currently forming in the United States is over Religious Liberty bills, which allow store owners to deny service to someone if performing the service would violate their religious or other beliefs. Proponents of the bills argue that denying service is a first amendment right. Opponents, such as Summer Peace ‘19 say “it is simply discrimination.”

There are good reasons to believe both arguments. Theoretically, a store owner could argue that serving a gay customer a cup of coffee is violating his/her religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. In our country, we cannot allow a public store to discriminate so blatantly, as it is not far off from Jim Crow era discrimination. On the other hand, as Mr. Lukianoff noted, a Nazi group could walk into a Jewish bakery demanding a cake be baked with a swastika on it. Many people may see it sensible that the Jewish store clerks could deny service to the Nazi group, but some argue that if the owner finds it objectionable, they can have another employee bake it. Zach Burd ‘19 endorses the words of Reverend Sandra Nikkel of Conklin Reformed Church: “I have to advocate in favor of religious freedom which is guaranteed by the first-amendment…If a baker refuses to make me a cake in the shape of a cross I take my business to another baker.”

A middle stance can still be found on this issue. I believe that there is a way that neither group can lose their freedoms. In the Jewish baker analogy, the Jewish clerk would not have to bake the cake with the swastika, but would have to provide a regular cake to a customer, even if that customer was a Nazi.

Mr. Lukianoff inspired new categories of debate at our school, as seen in the Think Tank meeting about his presentation, which dove into a thoughtful discussion on specific First Amendment issues, especially religious liberty bills. Lukianoff was informative with his lecture on the intricacies of freedom of speech, and ultimately fulfilled his purpose by enlightening the community to a new perspective.