News MLK plagiarized his dissertation and cheated on his wife.

  • Thread starter Thread starter gravenewworld
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dissertation
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the controversial legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., particularly regarding allegations of plagiarism in his academic work and infidelity in his personal life. Participants question why King, unlike other PhD holders, has not faced repercussions for significant instances of plagiarism found in his dissertation and speeches, suggesting that societal reverence for his civil rights contributions may shield him from typical academic scrutiny. The conversation also touches on King's character, with some arguing that his personal failings do not diminish his monumental role in advancing civil rights, while others assert that his status as a minister holds him to a higher moral standard. Comparisons are drawn to other historical figures, highlighting the complexity of separating personal flaws from public achievements. Ultimately, the thread reflects a broader debate on the nature of heroism, accountability, and the legacy of influential figures in American history.
  • #31
Art said:
First off nobody claimed him to be a saint so this is a classical strawman argument and secondly to argue he was wrong to cheat on his thesis and wrong to cheat on his wife therefore everything he said and did was wrong is the quintessential ad-hominem argument.

Flat out wrong. He has already been canonized into a saint

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1052-1151(200022)10%3A2%3C123%3AHMTOCO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0

As for cheating on his wife, what does that have to do with his accomplishments? Those who discount what he accomplished because of that are using ad hominem arguments.
But he went around with the title REVEREND while simultaneously cheating on his wife. How hypocritical is that? In case you don't remember, the civil rights movement never started or ended with King (see Brown vs. the Board of Education for example). To say that African Americans would have been incapable of winning their civil rights without one man (i.e. King) is, IMO, more offensive.To give the vast majority of the victory of civil rights for African Americans to King belittles the entire civil rights movement. Many minorities died for civil rights, not just King, but you don't see or hear about them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
gravenewworld said:
Flat out wrong. He has already been canonized into a saint

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1052-1151(200022)10%3A2%3C123%3AHMTOCO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-09
You realize that's a joke, right? :rolleyes:

But he went around with the title REVEREND while simultaneously cheating on his wife. How hypocritical is that?
He's not the first, won't be the last.

In case you don't remember, the civil rights movement never started or ended with King (see Brown vs. the Board of Education for example). To say that African Americans would have been incapable of winning their civil rights without one man (i.e. King) is, IMO, more offensive.

To give the vast majority of the victory of civil rights for African Americans to King belittles the entire civil rights movement. Many minorities died for civil rights, not just King, but you don't see or hear about them.
MLK had the ear of politicians, and the Press, he couldn't be ignored. He rallied he black people together.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Evo said:
You realize that's a joke, right? :rolleyes:

Did I misread it?

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news.../12/20/learn-about-martin-luther-king-jr.html
MLK had the ear of politicians, and the Press, he couldn't be ignored. He rallied he black people together.
What is the NAACP then? Were they not a rally of minorities for a cause? Sorry, but they formed well before King began his work. The entire African American community was able to rally for a cause before King ever became involved. Sure King was a catalyst while he was active, but way too much credit is given to King for the civil rights movement. African Americans rallied and struggled TOGETHER for civil rights long before King was ever involved.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
People who obsess on the "Reverend" aspect fail to recognize that ministers are humans, just like the rest of us. There are few people who get to interact with their female followers in times of weakness like preachers, and they probably get more opportunities for "flings" than any of us know. When I was a kid, the church sent our little parish a priest who brought along a live-in housekeeper. They were inseparable, though discrete. At least he wasn't buggering little boys.

Yes, King's philandering was a stain on his character. Such behavior would be a stain on the character of ANY individual, IMO, regardless if they are religious or not and regardless if they profess their faith publicly. Infidelity is a character-trait that I have little tolerance for. Singling him out because he was a minister is not reasonable, though. Ministers are human. I am not a religious person, and I don't hold ministers in any higher regard than any other humans, nor do I hold them to higher standards of conduct, unless perhaps they have built their careers on gay-bashing and preaching against drug use, then get outed for snorting meth and having sex with a male prostitute. Then I can manage a bit of indignation.
 
  • #35
turbo-1 said:
People who obsess on the "Reverend" aspect fail to recognize that ministers are humans, just like the rest of us. There are few people who get to interact with their female followers in times of weakness like preachers, and they probably get more opportunities for "flings" than any of us know. When I was a kid, the church sent our little parish a priest who brought along a live-in housekeeper. They were inseparable, though discrete. At least he wasn't buggering little boys.

Yes, King's philandering was a stain on his character. Such behavior would be a stain on the character of ANY individual, IMO, regardless if they are religious or not and regardless if they profess their faith publicly. Infidelity is a character-trait that I have little tolerance for. Singling him out because he was a minister is not reasonable, though. Ministers are human. I am not a religious person, and I don't hold ministers in any higher regard than any other humans, nor do I hold them to higher standards of conduct, unless perhaps they have built their careers on gay-bashing and preaching against drug use, then get outed for snorting meth and having sex with a male prostitute. Then I can manage a bit of indignation.

It is reasonable. ANY PERSON WHO CLAIMS TO BE A LAY PERSON SHOULD CONDUCT THEMSELVES IN SUCH A MANNER. It is hypocritical to preach one thing to everyone and do the exact opposite yourself. No matter what, if own the title "Reverend" you open yourself up to such criticism. PEOPLE LOOK UP TO YOU FOR MORAL GUIDANCE. You will therefore be held to a higher standard than everyone else. The excuse that pastors are "human" is weak. If they know they are weak then they shouldn't be a reverend in the first place.
 
  • #36
gravenewworld said:
Did I misread it?

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news.../12/20/learn-about-martin-luther-king-jr.html
Yes, you mis-read it, they're just playing on the symbolism of the word
The book notes that the canonization of King as an American hero
He has not been canonized by the Catholic Church, to be a saint, one of the prerequsites is having performed a miracle.

What is the NAACP then? Were they not a rally of minorities for a cause? Sorry, but they formed well before King began his work. The entire African American community was able to rally for a cause before King ever became involved. Sure King was a catalyst while he was active, but to say way too much credit is given to King for the civil rights movement. African Americans rallied and struggled TOGETHER for civil rights long before King was ever involved.
Since I lived during that time period, I can tell you he was the focal point and driving force that made people take notice.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #37
gravenewworld said:
Sure King was a catalyst while he was active, but to say way too much credit is given to King for the civil rights movement. African Americans rallied and struggled TOGETHER for civil rights long before King was ever involved.
Organizers always have challenges. One of the challenges that the blacks faced in the south in the 60's was that civil disobedience was a capitol crime (strange fruit and chuch bombings) and that rallies and peaceful marches were met with overwhelming force. Southern blacks in the '60s were often very poor and they did not have the resources (even telephones) to network like we can today. What they did have was their faith and their churches, where they could congregate and hear messages from inspirational speakers who WERE more closely affiliated with the NAACP, voter's rights groups and other people who wanted to help the black communities. In this way, black preachers often became pivotal in motivating their people and getting this movement jump-started in a manner that was impressive enough to make the national news. King and others knew what buttons to push, and where and when to push them, and they were hugely influential. The NAACP could have tried to work within the system for decades and never have accomplished a fraction of what King and his brethren did.

For the record, my nephew (who is career Navy, and has been sailor of the year for too many ships, task forces, etc for me to count) married a lovely black woman (also career Navy) and adopted her daughter from a previous marriage, who is very dear to us. They tread carefully when they are away from San Diego - even Maine is not guaranteed to be safe for a guy who's whiter than rice and has a black family. He is not physically in danger - he fights boredom on long deployments in the weight-room and sparring, but verbal abuse is still hurtful, especially when directed at his ladies.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
gravenewworld said:
It is reasonable. ANY PERSON WHO CLAIMS TO BE A LAY PERSON SHOULD CONDUCT THEMSELVES IN SUCH A MANNER. It is hypocritical to preach one thing to everyone and do the exact opposite yourself. No matter what, if own the title "Reverend" you open yourself up to such criticism. PEOPLE LOOK UP TO YOU FOR MORAL GUIDANCE. You will therefore be held to a higher standard than everyone else. The excuse that pastors are "human" is weak. If they know they are weak then they shouldn't be a reverend in the first place.
A lay person is a person who is not an ordained minister (you can look it up). And as I stated above, non-religious people who don't give any special status to clergy should not expect them to be any better or any worse than the rest of us. It would be nice to see some "religious" folks actually adhere to the tenets of the faiths to which they ascribe, including the white "Christians" I know in the south who send their children to "Christian Academies" so they can be in all-white schools. Whenever Republicans tout the "need" for school vouchers, they are not promoting the interests of inner-city black kids that they usually trot out as "beneficiaries", because inner-city schools are so up to capacity that they could not withstand any meaningful migration from one school system to another. The Republicans are pandering to the segregationists in the South and the Bible Belt who want the US taxpayers to foot the bill to send their children to segregated "Christian" schools.

As for moral guidance, that is a matter of interpretation, while ethical guidance is much more clear. If your religion does not specifically proscribe an act, you can pretend to be acting morally, while you are engaging in fragrantly unethical practices. The de-humanization of blacks in North America throughout the colonial period through the Civil War and reconstruction and continuing on through modern times allows this particular vicious dichotomy (moral vs ethical) to continue to damage human rights and human lives.
 
  • #39
Ministers of faith are expected to know about religion and biblical teachings; not to be perfect. In fact our implicit imperfection is the basis for Christianity.

Do we expect economics professors to all be rich as well?

King is recognized for his brave and historic actions that helped to change a nation. But he probably left the toilet seat up once in a while, so we had better dethrone him as a civil rights leader.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Good luck finding many followers of your cause, graven. Surely, you can find worse injustices by people that are still alive.
 
  • #41
gravenewworld said:
It is reasonable. ANY PERSON WHO CLAIMS TO BE A LAY PERSON SHOULD CONDUCT THEMSELVES IN SUCH A MANNER. It is hypocritical to preach one thing to everyone and do the exact opposite yourself. No matter what, if own the title "Reverend" you open yourself up to such criticism. PEOPLE LOOK UP TO YOU FOR MORAL GUIDANCE. You will therefore be held to a higher standard than everyone else. The excuse that pastors are "human" is weak. If they know they are weak then they shouldn't be a reverend in the first place.
If the requirement for reverend or any religious leader was perfection, then there wouldn't be any reverends or religious leaders.

I have yet to meet or know of a perfect person.
 
  • #42
Astronuc said:
If the requirement for reverend or any religious leader was perfection, then there wouldn't be any reverends or religious leaders.

I have yet to meet or know of a perfect person.
Infidelity is a grave sin in any Christian Church, not a small one. Yeah a preacher could cuss like a sailor and still be a good Christian preacher. Something like that is forgivable. Infidelity is a much bigger sin. Ever read the 10 commandments?

"YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY"
It is ok though, MLK was involved in the civil rights movement therefore he is allowed to be held to a different moral standard than everyone else in a Christian Church.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
Astronuc said:
If the requirement for reverend or any religious leader was perfection, then there wouldn't be any reverends or religious leaders.

I have yet to meet or know of a perfect person.
Nor I. I have been privileged to know people with whom I have life-long connections and great respect. Some, I would trust with my life. That's good enough. I place no more trust in a minister than I would in an insurance salesman or a carpenter. (Actually, the carpenter would win out here, in my mind!)
 
  • #44
gravenewworld said:
Infidelity is a grave sin in any Christian Church, not a small one. Yeah a preacher could cuss like a sailor and still be a good Christian preacher. Something like that is forgivable. Infidelity is a much bigger sin. Ever read the 10 commandments?

"YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY"



It is ok though, MLK was involved in the civil rights movement therefore he is allowed to be held to a different moral standard than everyone else in a Christian Church.
Not to take this off track too much, but do you think that the Christan proscription against murder ought to have constrained our current president from starting a war that has killed hundreds of thousands (perhaps more than a million) of people? Set your standards and make your case. Like Bill Clinton, King's infidelity diminishes him. That does not undo the good that he did.
 
  • #45
turbo-1 said:
Not to take this off track too much, but do you think that the Christan proscription against murder ought to have constrained our current president from starting a war that has killed hundreds of thousands (perhaps more than a million) of people? Set your standards and make your case. Like Bill Clinton, King's infidelity diminishes him. That does not undo the good that he did.



All I am saying is, maybe King gets too much credit for the person he was. I never said he shouldn't get any.
 
  • #46
gravenewworld said:
It is ok though, MLK was involved in the civil rights movement therefore he is allowed to be held to a different moral standard than everyone else in a Christian Church.
No one has exhonerated MLK with respect to those indiscretions. No one said adultery was OK. We hold MLK to the same standards (not higher standards) as anyone else.

It's unfortunate if he gave into temptation, but that does not negate the good that he did.

Also, in the Christian tradition, there is the principle of redemption. And forgiveness is the prerogative of Mrs. King and their children.
 
Last edited:
  • #47
gravenewworld said:
Infidelity is a grave sin in any Christian Church, not a small one. Yeah a preacher could cuss like a sailor and still be a good Christian preacher. Something like that is forgivable. Infidelity is a much bigger sin. Ever read the 10 commandments?

"YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY"



It is ok though, MLK was involved in the civil rights movement therefore he is allowed to be held to a different moral standard than everyone else in a Christian Church.

Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.

According to Christian standards, you are positioning yourself as being perfect. Are you perfect? If not may we ignore your pitiful contributions here?
 
Last edited:
  • #48
Ivan Seeking said:
Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.

According to Christian standards, you are positioning yourself as being perfect. Are you perfect? If not may we ignore your pitiful contributions here?

No, but I have never committed adultery while parading around as a PREACHER lecturing other people on morals.
 
  • #49
gravenewworld said:
All I am saying is, maybe King gets too much credit for the person he was. I never said he shouldn't get any.
You slammed him repeatedly for not adhering to standards of conduct to which many modern political leaders cannot attain. That's OK, but let's separate the ad-hom attacks on a fantastic political strategist from the work that he was able to accomplish. If you refuse to acknowledge his importance in the civil rights movement, then OK, but I feel that you are either are way too young too have lived through it, or you are willfully ignorant of the truth and choose to embrace a revisionist interpretation of King's contributions that minimalizes his work. I mean no offense, but I have a very hard time parsing your posts without seeing a strong bias against MLK.
 
  • #50
Who among us is not guilty of plagiarism?

Who here is perfect?

We all stand on the shoulders of giants.

MLK got me the day off yesterday, amongst other things.

I say; "He was a greater man than I"

He led us somewhere, and I'm glad that he was there to lead me.
 
  • #51
turbo-1 said:
You slammed him repeatedly for not adhering to standards of conduct to which many modern political leaders cannot attain.


But many modern political leaders are not REVERENDS. If you are a lay person you are going to be held to the highest moral standards possible, even to a higher standard than politicians. Why is this hard to understand?


I'm sorry, but I don't like hypocrites.


That's OK, but let's separate the ad-hom attacks on a fantastic political strategist from the work that he was able to accomplish. If you refuse to acknowledge his importance in the civil rights movement, then OK, but I feel that you are either are way too young too have lived through it, or you are willfully ignorant of the truth and choose to embrace a revisionist interpretation of King's contributions that minimalizes his work. I mean no offense, but I have a very hard time parsing your posts without seeing a strong bias against MLK.

What I am questioning is why is it that whenever the phrase "civil rights in America" comes up, the first thing that pops into anyone's head is MLK. Did MLK really do that much or are we just brainwashed into believing he did?

How come other things like

-Brown vs. the Board of Education
-the establishment of the UNIA/conference attended by 20,000 in MSG set up by UNIA/ and the Declaration of the Rights of the Negro Peoples of the World
-Kansas Exodus
-other black ministers like Bernard Lee and Shuttlesworth
-Booker T. Washington's work
-DuBois and Trotter's call for suffrage and end to segragation

all are completely forgotten by the majority of Americans? IMO way too much emphasis is placed on King's work and on the person who he was. The massive amounts of media attention to King belittle the work of many others who struggled and even died before him.
 
  • #52
gravenewworld said:
Did MLK really do that much or are we just brainwashed into believing he did?

It depends on how old you are.
Really old people remember a lot of things. (Death due to color)
Not so old people remember a few things. (Violence due to color)
Younger people don't remember any of what you are saying.(What on Earth are you talking about?)

Hence my; "The world will not be a decent place to live until the last child of the last bigot is dead"
 
  • #53
gravenewworld said:
Did MLK really do that much or are we just brainwashed into believing he did?
Let me counter with a similar question. Recently, there is a trend to vilify beloved characters in the past (both real and fictional); did MLKJ really do as little as you imply, or are you just riding this bandwagon?
 
  • #54
Hurkyl said:
Let me counter with a similar question. Recently, there is a trend to vilify beloved characters in the past (both real and fictional); did MLKJ really do as little as you imply, or are you just riding this bandwagon?

Answering a question with a question are we now?

But I will oblige to the game. Personally I feel the work of MLK is exaggerated (not saying he didn't contribute). He was just the right man at the right time. He was able to take advantage of the enormous work of the civil rights activists that came 20, 30, 40 years before him. And what is this bandwagon you speak of? How is it wrong to question tradition or revered figures?
 
Last edited:
  • #55
Questioning revered figures is fine, as long as you have some evidence for your claim. You are essentially smearing the guy by pointing out his faults that are unrelated to what he is revered for. If you had said he was secretly employed by the KKK or something that completely went against what he did and had evidence, then you could say something.

But as it stands, you're only pointing out that he had faults. Big whoop.

Yes, pretty much all "great" people in history were there at the right place and the right time, but they also had to be willing to sacrifice a lot for their goals. Can you honestly say you'd go through what MLK went through? I don't think I'd have the fortitude. Even if it fell in my lap.
 
  • #56
Poop-Loops said:
Questioning revered figures is fine, as long as you have some evidence for your claim. You are essentially smearing the guy by pointing out his faults that are unrelated to what he is revered for. If you had said he was secretly employed by the KKK or something that completely went against what he did and had evidence, then you could say something.

But as it stands, you're only pointing out that he had faults. Big whoop.

Yes, pretty much all "great" people in history were there at the right place and the right time, but they also had to be willing to sacrifice a lot for their goals. Can you honestly say you'd go through what MLK went through? I don't think I'd have the fortitude. Even if it fell in my lap.

Smearing? What for brining back MLK down to Earth from the elevated infallible pedestal he has been put on by the media? MLK was definitely a good speaker, but he spoke of ideas and words that weren't even his which he plagiarized from other people. Sorry, but I don't weigh benefiting from fortuitous circumstances set up by the hard work of other people before you very much. You want to talk about sacrifice? What about the sacrifices of someone like Shuttlesworth who had two assassination attempts against him, the first when his house bombed with dynamite the second when he was attacked by a mob with weapons? You never hear of his sacrifices.

MLK played a role in the civil rights movement, he gets far too much credit though.
 
Last edited:
  • #57
gravenewworld said:
MLK played a role in the civil rights movement, he gets far too much credit though.
If that is really what you mean to assert, it makes one wonder why you would open the thread with claims that are entirely unrelated.
 
  • #58
I don't understand why anyone would be surprised that MLK was not a perfect man. It is part of human nature to have "faults", but you have to ask yourself, does it really hurt me that he may have cheated on his dissertation, or committed adultery. The short answer is no. But his fight for individual rights that includes poor whites, Jews, Native Americans, Asians and other minority groups besides blacks (myself), has done more for me than all of his vices could have done to harm me.

It is pointless and a waste of energy to place the cross on MLK.

But if one wants to get religious then take it from the original barrier of the Cross "Let he who committed no sin, cast the first stone".
 
  • #59
t-money said:
But if one wants to get religious then take it from the original barrier of the Cross "Let he who committed no sin, cast the first stone".

THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY. I'd expect any preacher to know that. Despite what the media tells you and what pop cultural says, according to the Christian tradition, adultery is not something casual but is very sacrilegious. I'm sorry but anyone who is going to preach morals will be held to a higher standard than everyone else.
 
  • #60
gravenewworld said:
What for brining back MLK down to Earth from the elevated infallible pedestal he has been put on by the media?
No one is putting MLK on a pedestal. It's certainly true that the media simplifies and sensationalizes, but that's what the majority of viewing public wants. The problem seems to be one of separating the person from the accomplishments. It would seem the problem arises with the personification of deeds, as in the deeds are the person or the person is the deeds.

I think the majority understand that MLK accomplished what he did despite being just as fallible as the rest of us.