Martin Luther King questionable luminary
Lance Turlington is a columnist for the Oklahoma Daily at the University of Oklahoma.

On Martin Luther King Day, I read a King biography, “I May Not Get There With You,” by Michael Dyson. It was interesting, but disturbing. I followed it with “Pillar of Fire” by Taylor Branch, a Pulitzer Prize-winning civil rights author. These books celebrate King as a passionate and persuasive leader. They also make me reluctant to celebrate Martin Luther King Day as an appropriate federal holiday. Here’s why:

Dyson, a minister and a professor at DePaul University, acknowledges King’s flaws, including what Dyson calls “rampant womanizing” and “relentless infidelity.” These charges were brought to public view in 1989 by a King associate, Ralph Abernathy, in “The Walls Came Tumbling Down.” Professor Dyson seems to excuse the adulterous behavior, explaining the “subculture of promiscuity” among the clergy of all faiths. This subculture encourages good sex to be “pursued with nearly the same fervor as believers seek to be filled with the Holy Ghost.”

Dyson then tackles the issue of King’s plagiarism with the same nonchalant attitude. The charge: Dr. King plagiarized most of his academic writings, including his doctoral thesis at Crozer Theological Seminary. Dyson does not refute the allegation; it has been proven by Stanford University and acknowledged by the King family. So Dyson defends the plagiarism by referring to King’s “egregiously unfair academic situation,” and describing King as “a black man confronting his self-doubt in a majority white culture.”

Having my fill of moral relativism, I moved on and read “Pillar of Fire.” Branch avoided the plagiarism issue, but spared no detail in lurid personal affairs. Apparently, J. Edgar Hoover supported segregation and thought King was a communist. Hoover’s suspicions were due in part to King adviser Stanley Levison’s membership in the American Communist Party. So, Hoover devised a plan to “bug” King’s personal life and blackmail him into silence.

Bobby Kennedy approved the wiretap. The FBI recorded some of King’s adultery, and then sent King an ultimatum to step down or be exposed. Political pressure kept Hoover from following through with the threat, but the surveillance continued. The last “bug” recorded King with two women the night before he was assassinated. You can get the highlights of that tape in the Jan. 19, 1998, edition of Newsweek, if you are interested.

So what? Does it matter? What good, if any, does it do to examine heroes with a critical eye? Dyson claims that King’s personal flaws should be studied, because they make him more human and accessible.

As for the holiday, I ask: Should we have a “Civil Rights Day” and reflect on the 14th Amendment, civil rights and constitutional rights, instead of one man?

Two members of the Black American Law Students' Association answered. James Warner said, “There were a lot more people than just Martin Luther King in the movement. There were people in the trenches, like Eldridge Cleaver, Stokeley Carmichael, Huey Newton, Bobby Seale and others that are not in the spotlight.” James thought that a “Civil Rights Day” might be more inclusive of the aggressive elements in the civil rights movement.

The personal dirt only verifies that we shouldn’t be idolizing men, be it King or Columbus. After all, a holiday is a modern version of a holy day, and none of us are worthy of such adulation. I’ll keep my holy days biblical. Next “MLK Day,” you may choose to gather around his portrait, sing hymns and conduct candlelight vigils. As for me, I’ll read a book.

Lance Turlington is a columnist for the Oklahoma Daily at the University of Oklahoma. This column was distributed by U-Wire.

credits

TCU Daily Skiff © 2002