Acharya, Prashant: Diversity

The two letters: "A Call for Unity" and "Letters from Birmingham Jail" offer two 

distinct solutions to a pressing problem of that time, 1963 to be specific. These two 

letters written at the height of the racial tensions and civil rights movement divided 

people roughly into two groups. One group believed that the civil disobedience 

campaign of Dr. Martin Luther King was legitimate and was the right thing to do, whereas 

other group strongly disagreed with this notion and thought it was morally and legally 

inappropriate.

          For me, Dr. King's letter was inspiring on all levels. From his choice of words to 

the reasoning he provided in the letter; they were all simply astounding. The letter 

overflowed with his vast knowledge and ideas. Take for an example: "justice too long 

delayed is justice denied." Dr. King has explained his ideas in a very elaborate way with 

many perfectly fitting examples. The letter is of the highest quality and I think it should be 

read by everyone to lead them to the righteous path by separating just and unjust laws 

and standing against the moral wrong doings in the society.

  
          Now talking about "A Call for Unity," I can see where these clergymen are coming 

from and kind of understand their points of view. But I cannot in any way agree with their 

opinions or support them. These clergymen, in a way, wanted peace and harmony in 

the society but their stance on this artificial peace would have only ignited a fire of 

disgust and hatred leading to a violent retaliation against the status quo.  


          It's ethically acceptable to stand against morally unjust laws. When certain 

segments of the population are suppressed on the basis of the color of their skin and 

there are people who oppose such notions for equality, then it's a moral obligation of 

every citizen to join in the protest. Even if it means crossing few legal boundaries. In their 

letter, these clergymen talked about going to courts and using negotiations to resolve the 

issue at hand. But that was ridiculous because the legal system back then still saw 

Black people as second-class citizens and those negotiations never resulted in anything 

conclusive enough to not require those street demonstrations. 

  
          These kind of issues are never solved by waiting and hoping for time to bring the 

winds of change along. When people are deprived of their rights, it's their obligation to 

demand them. These two letters clashed. Just by reading them, I could 

vividly envision those days of struggle. Overall, these letters were definitely significant in 

1963 and even today they have not lost their place.