Cooley, Kiefer: Diversity

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a prominent figure in the American Civil Rights movement.  One while imprisoned in a jail in Birmingham Alabama, he wrote a letter to his fellow clergymen, not to explain his wrongdoing, but to explain why he did what was necessary.  He held a meeting in town, without a parade permit (which he was denied several times.)  It was necessary for the African-American community to stand up and fight this injustice now, rather than wait for the right time as civil rights leaders had told them.  This was very noble what King did.  He knew the consequences, and broke the law simply because he was dedicated to the cause.

King fought the law, but can a law demand respect simply because it’s a law?  Shouldn’t there be probable cause to create the law in the first place?  King fought with the Alabama law because it was unjust.  This law was created simply to keep the status quo in favor of the White supremacists.   Should an unjust law be respected and followed?  Sometimes you must break the law for the right reason, as in King’s case.

Eight White clergymen challenged King’s letter by writing “A Call for Unity” in response.  They reasoned that the African Americans of the town should not be rallied by some ‘outsider’.  They were being led by someone of another belief system than them, and this was absurd in their eyes. The White clergymen agreed with local African American political groups, and stated they should wait as King’s intervention was ‘unwise and untimely’.  The White clergymen were writing as if they were for the African-American citizens of Birmingham, but they were saving themselves from national criticism.  King was right in his timing, because there is no time like the present for momentous changes in society.  Had he not, the speed of change to the status quo of White supremacy would have taken longer and the Black people of the South may still be “waiting” for the right time to be treated as equals.