In December 1963, as part of their "Conscience of America" lecture series, Western Michigan University invited Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to speak. This event followed an appearance on campus a few months earlier by Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett, a pro-segregationist. At that time, as now, college campuses represented an arena for larger socio-political debate.
Earlier this week, we honored Dr. King by observing his birthday as a national holiday. Yesterday, we started our journey together exploring issues related to diversity in higher education. Juxtaposing these two moments, let us consider the themes of this particular campus speech from Dr. King and how it relates to our understanding of the persistent issues of diversity, community, inequality and education.
I was not sure what my response to Dr. King’s speech would be focused on prior to the reading, but when I read the paragraph, which started with the sentence “The world in which we live is geographically one. Now we are challenged to make it one in terms of brotherhood.” I couldn’t resist commenting on that further because of our community discussion in class.
ReplyDeleteIn a sense, the first sentence alludes to a “community” that has a connection, as we talked about in class. A connection, which may not be something deep or voluntary. The second sentence talks about a community that has a connection and a bond. I believe brotherhood is a much stronger word than community, nonetheless, in his text there is a hope that we, as a world (or larger community with a connection), can transition into a more bonded group of people. He goes on to say that we can have this community at large or “neighborhood” because of man’s scientific advances and genius, but in order to transition to brotherhood we need “our ethical and moral commitment”. I think “commitment” is key in a community that shares a bond. In this sense, it seems to me that a community with a bond is more voluntary than involuntary or can at a point become more voluntary than involuntary.
This part of this speech spoke to me because scientific advances have been vast and can influence or make our communities, even if the initial communities are superficial.
I think it’s important to frame the speech given by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. at WMU in the context of 1963. During that year, the vitriolic outburst of oppressed communities, political discomfort with regard to President Kennedy’s death, and widespread civil unrest in America warranted different rhetorical ideologies from America’s civil rights leaders and left-wing supporters. What was more surprising, arguably, was Dr. King’s authentic complexity of thought, and contradictory remarks. During my perusal of the document, I immediately recalled and recognized the oratorical hypocrisy, cognitive insecurity, and radical emergence of Dr. King’s voice brilliantly implanted throughout his speech. The sincere apology frontloaded in the beginning of Dr. King’s speech at WMU further supports claims of ingenious insecurity woven in the fabric of his character (especially toward the end of his life). Although some would argue otherwise, I certainly recognized the subtle revolutionary posture displayed in Dr. King’s speech and his call for “an emerging new age” in the context of social justice. The historical reverence in Dr. King’s speech pays respect to the “old order” while exploiting the weaknesses of the dated oligarchic doctrine. Issues of diversity, equity, and education are sprinkled throughout his speech with reformatory persuasion urging American’s to change the oppressive syllogism and archaic arguments that have historically deprived African American men and women from social egalitarianism. Furthermore, Dr. King shares his radical narrative with those in the “Academy” (i.e. Faculty). One of the most powerful mandates articulated by Dr. King requires faculty, and higher education administrators to go beyond the walls of academe. According to Dr. King, social justice reforms are often recorded by scholars; however, many scholars refrain from participating in contemporary movements. As such, Dr. King also reports on the importance and relativity of time. According to Dr. King, “…somewhere along the way we must see that time will never solve the problem alone…we must help time”. Perhaps, Dr. King’s urgency in the WMU speech represented a foreshadowing of events to come, even today. Dr. King’s remarks surrounding legislation and policy as forms of social injustice interventions are critical to the advancement of racial politics in America. The de facto segregation articulated in his speech were implanted as bookmarks for the audience to revisit. Dr. King’s final segment, whereby, he reiterates the nonviolent response skirted with the “eros” or aesthetic love of his (and many who have pledged allegiance to social justice) enemies is brilliantly placed at the end of his speech to soften the gorilla pulpit tactics of his nonviolent, yet militaristic urgency for equality.
ReplyDeleteI am challenged to identify one topic to discuss (from the many meaningful points made in the reading). What should I focus on? I am further challenged in my approach to this reading since I am ignorant about the context of this speech (more fully discussed in post #2) or have a thorough understanding of the civil rights movement. However, as instructed by Dr. Baber, my analysis focused on how the reading relates to diversity in higher education, where once I again I fear I may have fallen short. In this post, I identify concepts from the reading that I believe translate to HE.
ReplyDeleteI would like to echo Renata’s post and the importance of community (as a concept explicitly discussed in the reading that relates to our class discussion). The bond community members develop and share is imperative for them to stay united. The sharing of a ‘common purpose’, perhaps even values, allows a community to develop a deeper bond and perhaps become a ‘brotehrhood’. A bond allows the maintainence of the group, work toward common goals, achieve, etc. In the case of this speech, King calls for a brotherhood to confront the challenge of segregation by developing a wider, global perspective to help broaden their community and reach their goals. Broadening ones perspective sounds like ‘valuing others reality and experience’ - a major discussion point from our class conversation about how we expand our knowledge by valuing and incorporating others perspectives.
Below are a list of other concepts I identified in the reading that I think relate to diversity in HE.
(Concept – ties to education)
1) Freedom – personal, intellectual, self-actualization
2)Respect of others – valuing others opinions/experiences
3) Being part of a whole – educational philosophically, campus climate, broadly/socially
4) Hierarchy and oppression – administration, faculty, curriculum, ethnicity, college preparation in k-12
5) Personal vs structural change – HE policy vs grass roots/student movement for change
Oppose to going into each of these topics, I figure I would offer them as fuel for future posts. I am interested to read how others see these topics relating to both Kings speech as well as HE. I look forward to hearing others views on how the reading relates to diversity in HE.
There were several sections of this speech that spoke to me while reading it. One section in particular involved a quote. In the third paragraph of the speech’s fifth page, King Jr. stated, “…I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. You can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be.” I quoted this statement because it expresses how our success (as human beings) is, to an extent, dependent on the success of others. Personally, I believe the “individualistic” mentality of many people will continue to hinder the progression of equality (racially, educationally, economically, etc.) in addition to the advancement of humankind. Although we have made significant strides towards parity (in this country), we still have much room for improvement.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the last sentence in CerebrallyPrudent's post, I thought Dr. King was explaining in his speech that "eros" was more about romantic love, and the Greek word for love that Dr. King sees as the kind of love for this nonviolent discipline is "agape." It sounded like Dr. King was differentiating the three types of love, and explaining that in this nonviolent movement, agape is the redemptive, understanding, and overflowing love that is more than "eros" (romantic love) and "philia" (friendship).
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the idea of embracing the global community, our interconnectedness, and the concept of "brotherhood" that Dr. King envisions, which Renata and John commented on. Our visions of ideal communities is valuable and significant for our Diversity of Higher Ed community of learners to be cognizant about in our discussions and research. I would like to point out that the language we use is often revealing of our values, the dominant social structure, and who is privileged. Specifically, I noticed that Dr. King's use of the word "brotherhood" is masculine and is supposed to be understood as inclusive of men and women, but the use of the word instead of "sisterhood" or a gender-neutral word upholds the reality of a patriarchal society then and even now. I understand that I'm picking at small details in his speech, and I understand that these details are important to look at in context, so I am not trying to fault him or let his use of the word take away from the main point of his speech. I find it important to point out details that expose the hierarchy of social identities, which do marginalize communities and individuals. Thus said, I also want to point out the dominance of Christian privilege in the United States then and now. While I highly respect Dr. King's role and work as a pastor, and see his faith as something that clearly drove him toward social justice, I do want to point out that his references to Christianity in his speech were plentiful, and mainstream American education and society tends to privilege and recognize Christian leaders over those of "other" faiths. I hope these points I raise do not take away from the key points and overarching message in his speech, which are critically important even today.
His message about having an attitude of reconciliation is crucial when considering issues of diversity in Higher Education on multiple levels. Does anyone have more theoretical or concrete ideas of what reconciliation might look like throughout Higher Ed now?
Chris, I agree with you that the individualistic mentality often hinders social equality. So much of dominant American history and culture that is taught as true and normal in the public education system is embedded in ideas of individualism and meritocracy. Interdependence is undervalued, and so is the idea of the common good.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteConnie, your comments about the subtle presence of dominant social structures in the language of Dr. King’s speech were thought provoking. I too recognized the undertone of contemporary hierarchal narratives in such word choices as “brotherhood”. I think it’s worth noting, however, that for every patriarchal or Christian reference in his vernacular, Dr. King offers a contrasting perspective in his ideology. For example, he calls out to both men and women at least three times in his speech. In one instance, he challenges both men and women to develop a “world perspective”. In addition, as surely as he quotes from the Bible, he also notes, “I never intend to become adjusted to religious bigotry.” I found your comments very valuable because they illustrate a dual presence. Dr. King’s personal truths, similar to what we discussed in class, and his willingness to seek equality are both revealed simultaneously. His beliefs as a Christian did not cloud his ability to respect other religions. His status as a man did not negate the struggles of women. His challenges as an African-American did not funnel his perspectives on suffering, but were instead used a catalyst for adopting a world view. I think this is the challenge for a community of learners as we seek knowledge about issues of diversity. We must balance our personal perspectives with those of others. As classmates previously mentioned, Dr. King states that “we have made this world a neighborhood.” This statement is in the past tense. Which means that it has already happened. As Chris points out, the individualistic mentality of our society can conceivably have its toxic qualities. It’s also likely a delusional perspective to maintain, as Dr. King reveals. So, we better get to know our neighbors!
ReplyDelete*Decided to repost with my name! lol.
In response to Connie, you are accurate in your interpretation; However, I interpret much of Dr. King’s descriptive analysis as foundational knowledge that is requisite for the “agape” love for which he calls mankind to embrace in the latter portion of the paragraph. I understand this as a contemporary form of what many religious leaders would call “unconditional love” for mankind. Notwithstanding, I still subscribe to what Carl Jung referred to as “The concept of Eros as psychic relatedness” as an important foundation for the nonviolent movement and the way Dr. King negotiated his speech at WMU. I thought of Dr. King’s definition beyond his narrow textual reference at WMU and recalled what C.L. Lewis in “The Four Loves” did, as he disaggregated four levels of love and explored the relationships amongst them. In his concluding remarks, he simply provides readers with a pyramid-like related framework from which we can understand. As such, I saw Dr. King’s definition of Eros, Phila, and Agape similarly as a interrelated triangle
ReplyDeleteAlso, I figured I would post this video.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYsXyuzFqpE
ReplyDeleteOh, and this is
Terrance :-)
I think that this speech follows along with what we spoke about in class as well as with some of the other readings for this week and ones I have done on my own. There are many messages that stood out for me, but it was an unspoken message that I found myself being pulled towards. Reading Dr. King’s experiences and seeing the quotes he has pulled from others, it is very interesting how we each bring our own circumstances and experiences to the table. No one is the same, and this is something that brings great ‘awakenings,’ and brings conflict. As I read through this speech, I was thinking about how it relates to me, and that is a talent that I have always admired when reading speeches by Dr. King, you can relate on many levels. Many of his speeches are also timeless, something that is just as with the times today as it was when he spoke. In each of the passages I was able to relate something that I have been through or something that is happening in the news today. It is important that we do not substitute one oppressed group with another, but it seems to happen in one way or another. While we seem to learn from our mistakes of the past, it does not always appear that we are able to avoid the mistakes of the future.
ReplyDeleteI really liked the idea of love, or “agape” that he outlined, the “creative, understanding, redemptive good will for all men.” This is something that I feel the world needs more of, and I see how it can make a large difference in daily interactions. To me, this idea makes complete sense and helps me understand what some may see as “neutral” in some settings, when really it is more of an appreciation for different views. I do have an opinion and I do speak up when it is something that I am against, but there is an understanding, or agape for others. I think that this is something that I experience a great deal in higher education. Opinions and ideas are encouraged, we do not have to agree, but there should be appreciation and excitement that we have this freedom to speak about what we believe, and even have the ability to change our beliefs. This “new order of freedom and human dignity is coming into being” as Dr. King mentioned, is something that we know in modern day higher education, and what makes it so successful, and something that fits into the American way. In most cases, I believe that higher education is doing a better job than the United States in nurturing this idea of equality and appreciation.
I was somewhat surprised to see that this speech by Dr. Martin Luther King was delivered in 1963. Though King was well aware and articulate regarding the changes that the global society was going through, one must still be surprised that this was given in Kalamazoo in 1963. Kalamazoo in 1963, as it is today, is separated from the larger political activism that runs through Detroit and even Chicago. There is, to this day, a sign at the Kalamazoo train station that remarks upon the city’s equidistance between the two metropoles of reform. Indeed, this was a city that only two decades earlier had been the heart of what Dr. King calls the “old order,” as Glenn Miller sang fondly of his “gal” in Kalamazoo. Yet, I think this speaks to the type of reforms that King was a purveyor of, and what the world gradually came to accept. In this post, I pull from King’s poigniant words and consider their importance for our study of Diversity in Higher Ed.
ReplyDeleteKing writes, “Living with the conditions of slavery and then later segregation, many Negroes lost faith in themselves. Many came to feel that perhaps they were less than human, perhaps they were inferior.” One cannot help but notice that student self-appreciation must be an important concept. To improve persistence, we must create a comfortable atmosphere not only for people to persist, but to flourish. Further complexifying the issue, King rightfully acknowledges that social forces and other people have a massive power to change how people feel about themselves. I’m somewhat taken back to a famous comedian who once noted, “It’s called self-esteem, it’s esteem of your…self. How can I [affect] how you feel about you?” In reality, self-esteem as King seems to intimate has very little to do with the self.
Another discussion that King engages in is the beauty of the collective knowledge of the whole of the world. Indeed, one important lesson I took from Dr. Baber’s last class is that people often need an economic argument to supplement the moral argument. Here is King, though not explicitly, making a superb economic argument for diversity. Accept change or perish. In institutions of higher education, the possibilities are endless. I couldn’t agree more and look forward to discussing King further in class. But, I must leave off saying that I believe that institutions of higher education are simply mini societies. Any winds of change in the world must be taken up by the university and nurtured, if not innovated.
After reading Dr. King's WMU speech, given in December 1963, I followed up on Dr. Baber's suggestion to compare it with Dr. King's "The Other America" speech given in March of 1968. While parts of the written rhetoric were identical, the tone, environment and reception for these two speeches were very different. I found the comparisons fascinating. One thing that struck me was the timing. Dr. King delivered his WMU speech less than 4 weeks after the assassination of President Kennedy and just days after President Johnson gave his first address to the Nation. Both Dr. King and President Johnson invoked the name of the late President Kennedy to pass proposed Civil Rights legislation. In retrospect -- as morbid as this may sound -- if our nation had not been in mourning for President Kennedy and united behind the tragedy of his assassination, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may not to have passed -- at least, not then. Dr. King's speech at WMU was an incredible moment of opportunity.
ReplyDeleteBy contrast Dr. King's "The Other America" speech, given on March 14, 1968 amidst the turmoil of riots in urban cities (in stark contrast to Dr. King's nonviolent discipline) and at a time when Dr. King's opposition to the Vietnam War was highly publicized. This speech was interrupted several times by hecklers. Dr. King's incredible talent for rhetoric was not as apparent here. Several times he lost his point and was pulled off track, replying to those shouting against him. He seemed to be hurrying toward his conclusion from the start. Dr. King's language appeared more strained. Gone was much of the talk about loving our oppressors. A great deal more time was spent responding to critics of the Movement.
We know now that this speech was given less than 4 weeks prior to Dr. King's assassination on April 4, 1968. Many things were different. The FBI's efforts to discredit Dr. King had reached a peak. The nation had moved from conversations about "Negros" to that of "Black Power." Many young African-Americans were finding Malcolm X more relatable than Martin Luther King. White America feared leadership based on Islam more than leadership based in Christianity. In retrospect, with so much change occuring during those few years, it should not be surprising that Dr. King's rhetoric had also changed.