By Roman Wright ’19 and Spencer Glassman ’19, Commentary Writer and Editor

During Spirit Week, the administration sent out a letter to all upper-school parents detailing an incident and the response they felt it necessitated. One student brought in the Gadsden Flag, one of the first symbols of the American republic’s independence. While the intentions were to express his support for the founding ideals of the country during USA Day, he ended up arousing feelings of fear in many students. The issue was framed not as one of free speech, but as a conflict between impact and intent.

It is agreed that academic environments are meant to challenge students, and put them in potentially uncomfortable situations. However, the administration felt that this incident went beyond mere discomfort and qualified as a real threat to student safety, warranting a response. The logic behind this categorization was the use of the Gadsden Flag by some white-nationalist protesters at the Unite the Right rally just over a year ago in Charlottesville, Virginia. While we do not agree with the views of those present at the march, we of course acknowledge their right to be aired. We likewise do not support the violence that ensued in the chaos during the rally.  However, the unfortunate use of the flag by these groups does not automatically associate all who wave this flag with their views, nor with the violence in which some of them engaged. The administration’s reaction to this issue is in many ways similar to calls to ban the burqa in several European countries. Because some who wear the burqa engage in extremist activities, many Europeans believe that all who wear the burqa are equally a threat to society. The logic in both cases is that because people with hate and violence in their hearts use these symbols, they must be banned, even though the majority of users with both symbols are not creatures within whom the fire of hatred burns. Both Europe and Newark Academy are not compelled to provide free speech. Nevertheless, it is morally right, by the premise of free expression, for the Europeans to allow Muslim women to wear the burqa, just as it is morally right for Newark Academy to allow students to hold the Gadsden Flag.

The counter-argument that has been provided is that the impact of the flag outweighs the intent of brandishing it. While the student carrying the flag may have not posed a reasonable threat to safety, the fact that many students thought otherwise was enough to make his actions reprehensible in the eyes of the administration. The intent of women wearing the burqa is to express their religious convictions. This is true regardless of what perceived threat Europeans may feel. The intent of carrying the flag in this case was to celebrate American independence. This is true regardless of what perceived threat students may feel. For a threat of potential violence to exist, intent is necessary. The neo-Nazi supporter who killed a counter-protester at Charlottesville intended to inflict physical damage on the crowd. The responsibility to make this point clear to students falls squarely on adults, whose superior education, experience, and knowledge of the world ought to show them that feeling unsafe must be supported with evidence to have action taken against it. If one interprets everything with a loose connection to a threat as bona fide violence, he or she will live in an unnavigable and chaotic world.

We propose as an alternative course of action to the one taken by the administration (for it would be foolish and unproductive to criticize one course without providing another) that the wisdom of the crowd be allowed to address this issue, that is to say, the organic social structures of the students. If the Gadsden flag were truly a hate symbol, one who shows it would surely be subjected to incredible social ostracization, as one who wore a swastika would be. The threat to one’s reputation and the threat of rejection from society are among the most powerful motivators of human behavior, and therefore, were the Gadsden flag to be a symbol grossly deviant from mainstream ideology, the effects of that would be seen in the societal reprimand to anyone who celebrated the flag. Essentially, administrators acting in such a rash way–without even allowing time for tempers to cool and passions to fade, nor attempting to aid in those processes–creates a controversy where one ought not to exist. This issue was entirely solvable through informal means; adults could have calmed the passions of students on both sides, and then allowed for the student body to determine for itself whether this symbol was one of hatred or of patriotism.