“TO REDEEM THE SOUL OF AMERICA:” THE LEADERSHIP CHALLENGES MARTIN
LUTHER KING, JR. FACED AND MANAGED AS LEADER OF A SOCIAL MOVEMENT*
by
HILDA RAYE TOMPKINS
(Under the Direction of BRADLEY COURTENAY)
ABSTRACT
Adult education is a key component to social movements and leadership is crucial to the success of
social movements involving adult education. However, there is a gap in the literature relative to the
specific challenges leaders face and how they manage these challenges when leading social
movements involving adult education. This study adds to the literature about leadership in social
movements involving adult education by examining one of the most widely known and successful
movements in the world the civil rights movement (CRM). The purpose of this study was to examine the leadership challenges Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) faced and addressed as he led a nonviolent
movement for social change. This dissertation study was conducted using a basic qualitative design.
Data was collected from interviews from a purposeful sample of seven participants. Data collected
was triangulated through document analysis and member checks. The findings of this study reveal the
personal (reluctance to lead and threats), internal organizational (egos and competition from African
American leaders and criticism from African American and White leaders) and external movement
(resistance to the use of nonviolence and leadership succession plan) challenges MLK faced as leader
of the CRM. The findings also reveal the strategies, skills and ideals he used to effectively manage
these challenges. He managed the personal challenges by using his personal relationship with God.
He managed the internal organizational challenges by turning to humor, explaining decisions in
writing and practicing team leadership. He managed the external movement challenges by providing
education and training, relating scripture to the nonviolent approach and practicing what he professed and offering leadership development opportunities.
. INDEX WORDS: Adult Education, Civil Rights Movement, Leadership, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Social Movements
*The phrase, “To Redeem the Soul of America,” was mentioned by C. T. Vivian in an interview for this study. Vivian noted that Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote the phrase on a window at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) headquarters. Dr. King viewed the mission of SCLC as the transformation of a society, not simply social change.
“TO REDEEM THE SOUL OF AMERICA:” THE LEADERSHIP CHALLENGES MARTIN
LUTHER KING, JR. FACED AND MANAGED AS LEADER OF A SOCIAL MOVEMENT
by
HILDA RAYE TOMPKINS
ABJ, University of Georgia, 1983
M.Ed., Georgia State University, 1998
A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
ATHENS, GEORGIA
2009
© 2009
Hilda Raye Tompkins
All Rights Reserved
“TO REDEEM THE SOUL OF AMERICA:” THE LEADERSHIP CHALLENGES MARTIN
LUTHER KING, JR. FACED AND MANAGED AS LEADER OF A SOCIAL MOVEMENT
by
HILDA RAYE TOMPKINS
Major Professor: Bradley Courtenay
Committee: Ronald Cervero Maurice Daniels Juanita Johnson-Bailey
Electronic Version Approved:
Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia December 2009
DEDICATION
To My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ from Whom all Blessings flow. To my mother and father
Johnnie Mae and A.J. who taught me everything I know. To my sisters and brothers for their unconditional love and prayer. To my aunts, uncles and cousins for their guidance and care. To all my children: nieces; nephews; gods; and grands. To my ancestors on whose strong shoulders I stand. To my friends around the world for their support and loyalty. To the heroes and heroines who sacrificed that we may all be free.
iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the person who was my number one fan not only in this effort but in
many of my life’s endeavors my mentor, my inspiration, my friend Mrs. Coretta Scott King. To my
dear friend who showed unwavering confidence in me by celebrating this work before it was completed Yolanda Denise King. To those who gave generously of themselves to help bring this dissertation to fruition: Mrs. Xernona Clayton; Rev. Dr. Bernard LaFayette; Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery;
Rev. Dr. Otis Moss; Rev. James Orange; Rev. C. T. Vivian; and Ambassador Andrew Young. To the
man whose life and work served as the impetus for this dissertation the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr. To my major professor, Bradley Courtenay for his unwavering and consistent guidance and support. To my committee Ronald Cervero, Maurice Daniels and Juanita Johnson-Bailey for staying
the course.
v TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... v
LIST OF TABLES ...... i x
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION ...... ………………..………………………………………….……..1
Who was Martin Luther King, Jr.?...... 2
Adult Education and Social Movements...... ……………………………………..5
Statement of the Problem...... …………………………………………………….8
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions...... ………………………………..9
Significance Statement...... ……..………………………………………………..9
2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... …………..………………………………..12
Introduction……………………………...... ……………………………………12
Leadership and its Challenges…………………...... …………………………….13
Overview of Social Movements………………………...... ……………………..19
Adult Education Leadership and Social Movements ...... 25
Prelude to Civil Rights Movement…………………………………… ...... ……..33
Civil Rights Movement……………………………………………………...... 35
Civil Rights Movement and Leadership……………………………………...... 44
Martin Luther King Jr.’s Leadership...... 45
Women in the Civil Rights Movement ...... ……………………………55
Summary……………………………………………… ...... ……………………57
3 METHODOLOGY...……………………………………………… ...... …………...58
vi Design of the Study………………………………………………………...... ….58
Sample Selection………………………………………………………… ...... ….59
Data Collection………………………………...... ……………………………....61
Data Analysis…………………………………………...... ……………………..65
Validity and Reliability……………………………………… ...... ……………...66
Subjectivity Statement………………………………………………...... ………69
Summary……..……………………………………………………………...... 70
4 PARTICIPANT BIOGRAPHIES.……………...... ………………………………...72
Rev. James Orange………………………………… ...... ………………………..72
Ambassador Andrew Young……………………………… ...... ………………...74
Rev .Dr. Bernard LaFayette.………………………………………...... ………...76
Rev. Dr. Otis Moss…..……………………………………………………...... …78
Rev. C.T. Vivian………………………………… ...... ………………………….80
Xernona Clayton………………………………………… ...... ……………….. ..82
Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery…..……………………………………… ...... …………84
Summary………………………………………………………………… ...... ….86
5 FINDINGS..…………………………………… ...... ……………………………. ...88
Overview…………………………………………… ………………… .. 88
Personal Challenges……………………………………………...... …………….89
Internal Organization Challenges……………………………………… ...... ……105
External Movement Challenges……………………………...... ……………..…117
Managing Personal Challenges……………………………………...... ………...122
Managing the Internal Organizational Challenges…………………………...... 126
vii Managing External Movement Challenges………………...... …………………135
Summary…………………………………………………………...... ………...148
6 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS AND
RECCOMMENDATIONS...…………………………………………...... …149
Overview………………………………………...... …………………………..149
Summary..……………..……………………………… ...... …………………..149
Conclusions And Discussions..………………………………… ...... ………...... 150
Implications for Practice………. ………………………………………...... …..156
Implications for Research………...... ………………………………………...... 157
REFERENCES…………………………………………...... …………………………………162
APPENDICES………………………………………………… ...... ………………………….173
A Consent Form………………………………………………...... …………………173
B Interview Guide……………………………………………………...... ………….175
C Documents………………………………………………………………… ...... ….176
vii i LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Leadership Challenges and How They were Managed...... 89
i x CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
One of the prominent themes of adult education is social justice. Education about social justice is often found in social movements that involve adult education. Some movements are influenced by their leader as in the case of Miles Horton and the Highlander Movement. Perhaps one of the most well known social movements where adult education occurred is the Civil Rights Movement led by
Martin Luther King, Jr. The next few paragraphs describe his vision of the movement.
August 28, 1963, was a warm and muggy day in our nation’s capitol, I am told. Late in the morning hours, people began to gather at the Lincoln Memorial for a peaceful demonstration for freedom, justice and equality. By the time the program began, 250,000 people of all races, creeds and color would have gathered to hear the messages brought by preachers, teachers, politicians, celebrities and the likes. But no words would be repeated as much, remembered as well and quoted as often as those that sprang from the lips of the last speaker who took the podium. He was a young African-
American Baptist preacher from Atlanta, Georgia. What he said that day would become a mantra for movements across the world.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its
creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.” I have a dream
that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave
owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day
even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and
oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my
four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their
skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today. (King, 1963, p. 81)
1 The event was the historic March on Washington and the speaker was none other than Martin
Luther King, Jr. Oh, how I wish I could have been there on that day. How I wish I could have
experienced the hope and faith that must have been shared by those who gathered. How I wish I had
more than the black and white video footage to replay in my head. How I wish I could have heard
firsthand the voice of Martin Luther King, Jr. shouting the words, “Free at last! Free at last! Thank
God Almighty, We are Free at Last!"
It was on this day that MLK shared his vision for America with the world. By articulating his
vision, MLK was able to: persuade and inspire his followers; advocate that the future can be better
than the past; and tie the goals of the Civil Rights Movement to the American Dream - a noble dream
of a beloved community where people lived together in peace and harmony and enjoyed justice and
equality for all.
Who Was Martin Luther King, Jr.?
Martin Luther King, Jr. was born January 15, 1929, in Atlanta, Georgia, to the late Rev.
Martin Luther King, Sr. and Alberta Williams King. He was the second oldest of three children. His brother, A.D. Williams King, mysteriously drowned a year after MLK was assassinated. His sister,
Christine King Farris, is an educator who teaches at Spelman College in Atlanta and is a member of the Board of Directors of The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change (The King
Center). In June of 1955 MLK wed Marion, Alabama native Coretta Scott. To their union four children were born, Yolanda, Martin III, Dexter and Bernice.
Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) earned a PhD in his own right and was awarded 20 honorary doctorates. In 1963, he was Time Magazines’ Man of the Year. At the age of 35, he was the youngest man to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. He was co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference, which continues today to fight for equal justice through nonviolent demonstrations.
2 MLK successfully led a nonviolent movement that transformed the leaders, the followers, the nation and the world. Most importantly, it was under his leadership that African Americans were able to renounce their title as second class citizens and to gain passage of the Civil Rights Act and Voting
Rights Act. For the purpose of this study the Civil Rights Movement is defined as those years, 1955 –
1968, that MLK served as its leader.
Even though MLK is known as a preacher, teacher, leader, and great speaker, he only asked to be remembered as a “drum major for justice.” In his Drum Major Instinct speech, which he delivered on April 3, 1968 MLK, in essence, preached his own eulogy when he stated:
If any of you are around when I have to meet my day, I don’t want a long funeral. And
if you get somebody to deliver the eulogy, tell them not to talk too long. And every now and
then I wonder what I want them to say. Tell them not to mention that I have a Nobel Peace
Prize—that isn’t important. Tell them not to mention that I have three or four hundred other
awards—that’s not important. Tell them not to mention where I went to school. I'd like
somebody to mention that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to give his life serving
others…. I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity. Yes, if you want to say that
I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice. Say that I was a drum major for
peace. I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not
matter. I won't have any money to leave behind. I won't have the fine and luxurious things of
life to leave behind. But I just want to leave a committed life behind. (King, 1968, p. 365)
On April 4, 1968, one day after delivering his Drum Major Instinct speech Martin Luther
King, Jr. was assassinated on the balcony of his room at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee.
James Earl Ray was convicted of the crime and sentenced to serve 99 years in federal prison.
However, in 1999, a Tennessee jury, ruling in favor of the King Family, found that Lloyd Jowers, who
3 owned a restaurant near the Lorraine Motel; other unknown conspirators and governmental agencies including, the City of Memphis, the State of Tennessee, and the federal government, were party to the conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr.
Indeed MLK did leave behind a committed life so much so that, in 2005, when the Discovery
Channel asked, who are the individuals who have made (and continue to make) this country great,
MLK ranked number three behind Presidents Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln. Most major U.S.
cities have a street, school, building, or other public space that bears his name. He is the only African
American for whom a national holiday is named and the only African-American for whom an
international memorial is dedicated.
Even with all of his accomplishments, accolades, successes, and degrees, MLK remained
committed to the elimination of what he called the triple evils-- poverty, racism and war. According
to Coretta Scott King (2004), after the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott, MLK had offers from around
the country to pastor churches some paying salaries ten times what he was earning, but he turned them
all down because he felt that “a people’s leader should not be interested in personal wealth and he had
to live in the segregated south if he hoped to change it” (p. 4). As MLK predicted he left no money
behind, yet today, ironically, more than forty years after his assassination, his collected papers and
other personal memorabilia are valued in excess of $30 million.
MLK authored six books, developed and delivered countless sermons as well as some of the
most powerful, moving and memorable speeches of the 20th century. By the time he was 39 years old,
MLK had led millions of people in a nonviolent movement that led to the dismantling of segregation
in the south. Yet, with all of his accomplishments, Martin Luther King, Jr. has not earned a rightful place in the study of leadership. Case in point: during my doctoral studies, I took a class entitled
Leadership. While former New York city Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s book was required reading,
4 neither MLK nor his leadership was ever a topic of discussion. The only person in the class who
talked about MLK was me. When I had to do a book report on leadership, I read about him. When I had to write about a great leader, I wrote about him.
This lack of study of MLK as a Social Movement (SM) leader is not unique to him. In fact
there is a lack of research of any SM leaders. This study will help to close the gap in the literature by
studying movement leadership in one of the most effective and widely recognized movements in the world, the Civil Rights Movement.
One field of study where SMs are not new is Adult Education; therefore, one area of this
literature review is devoted to the relationship between Adult Education and Social Movements. The
literature is then narrowed to a specific social movement, the Civil Rights Movement during the years
MLK led from 1955 - 1968, and finally to the movement’s leadership and specifically that of MLK’s.
The following abbreviations will be used throughout this dissertation: MLK for Martin Luther King,
Jr;. CSK for Coretta Scott King; DK for Martin Luther King, Sr.; AE for adult education; CRM for the
civil rights movement during the King Years 1955 - 1968; SM for social movements; and NSM for
new social movements.
Adult Education Leadership and Social Movements
Darkenwald and Merriam (1982) define adult education as “a process whereby persons whose
major social roles are characteristics of adult status undertake systematic and sustained learning
activities for the purpose of bringing about changes in knowledge, attitudes, values and skills” (p. 7).
While researchers tend to agree on what adult education is, their views differ on its purpose. There is
one school of thought held by researchers like Mezirow (1998) and Kett (1994) who see the primary
purpose of adult education as personal development. Others like Lindeman (1929), Coady, (1939)
and Houle (1972) suggest that adult education should extend beyond an individual’s personal growth
5 and development to include a commitment to social change. Fisher (1997) suggests that Lindeman
came to his goal of adult education because he was heavily influenced by the social gospel resulting
from his positions in the Congregational Church, the extension movement, and the YMCA all of
which had been strongly influenced by the social gospel. As such Lindeman devoted himself to social
concerns, the greater good, and the need for social change.
In short, according to Wallace (2002), Lindeman saw the principal aim of adult education to
reform society. Merriam and Brockett (1997) posit that Lindeman’s insight into the link between adult
education and social change remains the cornerstone of contemporary practice. With this in mind, the
foundation of this study is grounded in the purpose of adult education as expressed by Lindeman who
is heralded as one of the founders of the field of adult education.
In addition to the purpose of adult education mirroring the purposes of social movements,
social movements are also important to adult education because they can be rich learning
environments. Hall and Clover (2005) suggested that this learning can be informal through participation, or intentional through educational interventions. Both of these learning paths were evident in the CRM. Whether they were attending workshops on how to be nonviolent, engaged in
voter registration campaigns or attending speeches delivered by MLK, participants of the CRM found
themselves in the midst of rich learning experiences.
The CRM also challenged existing laws upholding segregation and separate but equal
doctrines creating learning opportunities. In order to challenge these and other unjust laws, movement
activists had to be knowledgeable about the law as well as the U.S. Constitution, both of which served
as the basis for court challenges. According to Martin (1999), participants in social movements
prepare for change or for resistance to change by challenging or confirming the ways in which they
think, feel and act politically. In more intimate settings, learning opportunities were created for
6 movement participants through lively debates on the issues, the planning of meetings, the
development of agendas for meetings, the preparation for demonstrations and marches and the
distribution of materials. These activities allowed participants to voice their own opinions on the
issues as well as to hear challenges and rationales to their beliefs, whether political, religious or
ideological. In their resolutions, participants learned the art of compromise, the power of persuasion
and the need to present a unified front.
MLK’s leadership was crucial to the learning that took place in the CRM. Under his
leadership, participants in the CRM were constantly engaged in nonviolent workshops, voter
registration and education campaigns and planning and attending meetings and retreats. His speeches gave historical perspectives on: the forefathers’ intent of the Constitution, court decisions on racism, segregation and Jim Crow. In addition to the speeches he delivered as leader of the CRM as a minister he preached a relevant social gospel that not only uplifted and inspired but also gave a Christian perspective on how to deal with some of the problems in their daily lives such as racism and Jim
Crow.
Adult education is a key component to social movements. According to Grayson (2005) there
are strong historical linkages between social movements and adult education. “In my view, popular adult education has always been, and still is, central to movements pledged to social and political change” (Grayson, 2005, p. 8). SMs are where adult participants are able to utilize the knowledge they’ve gained to promote social change. The amount of education that takes place in SM is largely dependent on the movements’ leadership. While there is a plethora of literature on learning in social movements that involve adult education such is not the case when it comes to leadership in social movements that involve adult education. For example we know from Miles Horton’s leadership of the
Highlander Movement and Fathers Tompkins’ and Coady’s leadership of the Antigonish Movement
7 that adult education was used to bring about social change. We also know that a wealth of knowledge
took place in each. We know that each of the leaders of the movements was committed to the social
gospel and that the movements were founded on Christian principles.
We know that their leadership was crucial to the success of the movements. Some researchers
might say the movements may not have survived or been successful without them. According to
Nepstad and Bob (2006) leadership plays an important role in its participant’s ability to bring about
social change. What we don’t know is what challenges they face as leaders of social movements that
involve adult education and what strategies, skills and/or ideals they used to manage these challenges.
Statement of the Problem
Adult education has long embraced SMs because learning within the movement is a major
component. The amount of learning that takes place is largely dependent on the movement’s
leadership. In this way Nepstad and Bob (2004) tell us that leaders are central to social movements,
however little scholarly work has been devoted to understanding the concept of leadership or its
effects on social movements. Kouzses and Posner (2002) maintain that “the study of leadership is the
study of how men and women guide us through adversity, uncertainty, hardship, disruption,
transformation, transition, recovery, new beginnings and other significant challenges” (p. 176). This
statement suggests that in order to study leadership one must study the challenges leaders face. Why?
Because examining the challenges and the leader’s response to them helps us discover the essence of the leader. However, there is a gap in the literature relative to the specific challenges leaders face when leading social movements that involve adult education. Equally as important, there is little research that speaks to how leaders manage the challenges they face when leading social movements
that involve adult education.
This gap in the literature relative to leadership in social movements that involve adult
8 education is evident when searching for books and research articles on the topic. While searches of
scholarly articles using the key words “social movements” and “leadership” independent of each other
yielded a plethora of results, an advanced search using the three words together-- social movements +
leadership-- produced no results. This gap in the literature prevents us from answering questions
relative to leadership of social movements that involve adult education, the challenges leaders face and how they effectively manage these challenges.
Stuff happens in organizations and in or lives. Sometimes we choose it, sometimes it chooses
us. People who become leaders don’t always seek the challenges they face. Challenges also
seek leaders. It’s not so important whether you find the challenges or they find you. (Kouzses
& Posner, 2002 p. 182)
What is important however is identifying these challenges and the leaders’ response to them.
An examination of the leadership of one SM, the civil rights movement, provides an opportunity to answer these questions.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to examine the leadership challenges MLK faced and addressed as he led a nonviolent movement for social change. This study asked the questions:
1. What personal challenges did MLK face in his leadership for social change?
2. What internal organizational challenges did MLK face in his leadership for social change?
3. What external movement challenges did MLK face in his leadership for social change?
4. How was MLK able to effectively manage these challenges?
Significance Statement
Leadership is crucial to the success of social movements that involve adult education, yet we don’t know that much about the nature of leadership in adult education SM. Nepstad and Bob (2006)
9 posit “that despite leadership’s significance it remains an understudied topic among collective action researchers” (p. 1). Because of this gap in the literature, we don’t know what challenges leaders face and how they manage their challenges to make their movements successful. This study adds to the literature about leadership in social movements that involve adult education by expanding our understanding of MLK’s leadership of the CRM, the challenges he faced and how he managed these challenges.
Morris (1999) echoes Nepstad and Bob’s (2006) sentiment regarding the lack of study of leadership in SM:
Current social movement theory has made little progress in the analysis of social
movement leadership…the CRM reveals; however, that movement leadership is a complex
phenomenon that remains relatively unexplored theoretically. Little is known about how
individuals are chosen to lead movements or how factors internal to the movement constrain
the strategic options available to them. Thus, as the CRM reveals, movement leadership is a
complex variables phenomenon that should receive attention from social movement scholars.
(p. 535)
To date, there has been one book written about MLK’s leadership Martin Luther King, Jr. on
Leadership. In it author Donald T. Philips offers a historical analysis of MLK’s leadership and why it
was successful during the Civil Rights Movement. Phillip chronicles the life and work of Martin
Luther King Jr. from his childhood to the Civil Rights Movement to his assassination in Memphis,
Tennessee. The book answers many questions regarding MLK and his leadership including: Why
Martin Luther King, Jr.; Why did he rise from the great masses of people? What made him different?
and Why did people follow his lead. It offers a diagnostic of the major components of the movements
and some of the lessons learned from each. What it does not do, however, is identify any challenges
10 that MLK faced during his leadership of the CRM or how he managed these challenges.
While there have been countless other books and articles written about MLK, very few of them focus on his leadership. Those that do are primarily concerned with his nonviolent methodology, his oratorical skills and his charisma--all of which have contributed to the larger-than-life image we have admired but dared not emulate, choosing instead to wait for another like him to descend on earth.
We have an opportunity to do more than study MLK’s leadership and admire him from afar.
The findings of this study have practical utility. For example this study helps us understand how
MLK addressed the problem of succession of leadership within the structure of the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference (SCLC). As a result of his ability to effectively manage this challenge, SCLC is one of the few remaining civil rights organizations from the CRM.
If we can get a better understanding of the challenges faced by leaders of social movements that involve adult education and how they can effectively manage these challenges we can began to teach people early how to lead SM that are effective in bringing about social change that can positively impact some of the ills currently plaguing our society. Through his own words and deeds,
Martin Luther King, Jr. left an example for effective leadership for social change.
The findings of this study are significant because they add to the literature of leadership of social movements that involve adult education. Specifically the findings reveal the personal, internal and external challenges MLK faced as leader of the CRM. It also reveals the strategies, skills and ideals he used to effectively manage these challenges. In short this study answers the call of Nepstad and Bob (2006), Morris (1999) and others who have recognized the need for more in-depth study of leadership of social movements.
11 CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Overview
According to Galvan (2004), “the literature review in a thesis or dissertation is usually meant to establish that the writer has a thorough command of the literature on the topic being studied” (p. 7).
Having a command of MLK’s leadership means grounding this study in literature that speaks to the complexity of leadership in social movements. As such, the researcher reviewed a plethora of literature on Adult Education and Social Movements, New Social Movements, the Civil Rights
Movement and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Leadership.
The chapter begins with a review of the literature on leadership and its challenges. The next sections review the literature on social movements and adult education in social movements. The literature is then narrowed to include a review of the civil rights movements and the leadership of the civil rights movement. Finally the literature is narrowed to focus on the leadership of MLK.
The sources referenced in this literature review are a combination of textbooks and scholarly research articles. Books on MLK and the Civil Rights Movement were borrowed from university libraries across the state as well as from The King Center Archives. In addition, the researcher has a personal collection of books by and/or about MLK. The majority of the research articles were obtained from GALILEO through Academic Search Premier at EBSCOhost and Research Library at
Proquest. Specific data bases accessed include ERIC, Psycinfo, Psychology & Behavioral Sciences
Collection, and PsycARTICLES. Additional research articles were gathered from the GIL system available from the University of Georgia. Key words used in the search in GALILEO and GIL were
Martin Luther King, Jr. + leadership, Civil Rights Movement, Social Movements, New Social
Movements, Adult Education + Social Movements and Leadership + Challenges. Advanced searches
12 of Social Movements + leadership and social justice + leadership yielded zero results.
The purpose of this study was to examine the leadership challenges MLK faced and addressed as he led a nonviolent movement for social change. This study asks the questions:
1. What personal challenges did MLK face in his leadership for social change?
2. What internal organizational challenges did MLK face in his leadership for social change?
3. What external movement challenges did MLK face in his leadership for social change?
4. How was MLK able to effectively manage these challenges?
Leadership and Its Challenges
Leadership is a word on everyone's lips. The young attack it and the old grow wistful for it.
Parents have lost it and police seek it. Experts claim it and artists spurn it, while scholars want
it. Philosophers reconcile it (as authority) with liberty and theologians demonstrate its
compatibility with conscience. If bureaucrats pretend they have it, politicians wish they did.
Everybody agrees there is less of it than there use to be. (Bennis & Nanus, 1997, p.1)
The concept of leadership has been studied from a number of different angles producing a
variety of results. It has captured the attention of corporate CEO’s, directors of non-profit
organizations, educators and government officials alike. Defining the word leadership is as
complicated and complex as defining other non-tangible words such as peace and harmony.
According to Northouse (2004) a “recent study turned up 130 definitions of the word” (p. 71). Even with all of this attention, the topic of leadership remains as popular today as it was 50 years ago.
Educational Leadership, Global Leadership and Leadership Development are just a few of the post
graduate programs currently being offered at colleges and universities across the nation. Whether in
theory or practice, the subject of leadership has been the topic of many books, articles, dissertations,
web discussions, etc. Its appeal to academia has transcended psychological, sociological, and
13 scientific research.
As such the definition of leadership varies based on who you ask, what you ask and when you ask. Who you ask varies based on whether they represent the sociological, theological or psychological point of view. What you ask varies because of the different ways in which we study leadership as a theory, concept, style or practice. When you ask varies because the definition of leadership has evolved over the years and what was defined as leadership in the 1960s is quite different from what would be considered leadership today.
According to Stogdill (1974), “there are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept” (p. 7). Kouzes and Posner (1997) define leadership as “the art of mobilizing others to want to struggle for shared aspirations” (p. 30). Northouse (2001) defines leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 3). In the past 50 years, there have been as many as 65 different classification systems developed to define the dimensions of leadership (Fleishman, Mumford, Zaccaro, & Levin,
2004). These classifications have ranged from the trait approach which suggests that leaders possess innate qualities to the skills approach which emphasizes a person’s skills and abilities.
Northouse (2004) describes the trait approach as a theory that suggests that certain people are born with special traits that make them great leaders. Stodgill (1974) recognizes that the trait approach was the first systematic attempt to study leadership; it focuses on the Great Man theories: it identifies innate qualities and characteristics; it maintains that individuals were born to leadership; and that no consistent set of traits differentiate leaders from nonleaders. Kouzes and Posner (2002) take issue with the trait approach suggesting that:
…rather than view leadership as an innate set of character traits – a self-fulfilling prophecy
that dooms society to having only a few good leaders – it’s far healthier and more productive
14 to assume that it’s possible for everyone to learn to lead. (p. 387)
Bennis and Nanus (1985) share Kouzes and Posner’s (2002) sentiments about the
trait approach which emphasis that leaders are born and not made citing it as one of the myths of
leadership. They also identify other myths about leadership including: leadership is a rare skill;
leaders are charismatic; leadership exists only at the top of an organization; and the leader controls,
directs, prods, manipulates.
Like the trait approach the skills approach also takes a leader-center focus. However, while the trait approach emphasis innate characteristics the skills approach focuses on skills and abilities that can be learned and developed. “Rather than emphasizing what leaders do, the skills approach frames leadership as the capabilities (knowledge and skills) that make effective leadership possible”
(Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Owen, Jacobs & Fleishman, 2000, p. 12). Northouse (2004) identifies three strengths of the skills approach to leadership: it is leader-centered and stressed the importance of developing particular leadership skills; it is intuitively appealing because it makes leadership available to everyone; and finally it provides an expansive view of leadership by incorporating a wide variety of components.
But for Retired Army Colonel Dandridge M. Malone none of the definitions or approaches to leadership is as important as its purpose. “The very essence of leadership is its purpose. And the purpose of leadership is to accomplish a task. That is what leadership does and what it does is more important than what it is or indeed, how it works” (as cited by Gallagher, 2002, p. 24). Kouzes and
Posner (2002) agree that when it comes to evaluating leaders traits, skills, and behaviors are inconsequential. When Kouzes and Posner (2002) asked people to think of historical leaders they most admired and would willingly follow. They all named:
…individuals who served during times of turbulence, conflict, innovation, and change.
15 They’re people who triumphed against overwhelming odds, who took initiative when there
was inertia, who confronted the established order, who mobilized people and institutions in the
face of strong resistance. (Kouzses & Posner, 2002, p. 182)
In learning to lead Kouzes and Posner (2002) identify a number of behaviors that leaders must embrace if they are to be effective and exemplary. These behaviors include: providing training to the participants; soliciting and listening to others advice; creating an environment conducive to learning; and leading by example. Nepstad and Bob (2004) describe the leadership skills and abilities that effective movement leaders possess as leadership capital.
We believe that effective movement leaders typically possess: (1) cultural
capital in the form of knowledge, skills and abilities that are useful both in the aggrieved
community and among external audiences; (2) social capital embodied in strong ties to
activist communities and weak ties to broader mobilizing networks; and (3) symbolic
capital, including charisma, that reflects respect, social prestige, and moral authority. We
make no claim that all leaders must possess all of these characteristics. Nor do we argue
that these traits are exclusively those of individuals who are seen as leaders. Given
leadership’s relational quality, there is no doubt that many of these characteristics “arise”
through interaction with a movement’s mass base, third parties, and the media.
Nonetheless, we believe the concept of “leadership capital” is analytically useful as we
explore the dynamics of social movement development. (p. 5)
Bennis and Nanus (1985) agree with other researchers like Conger (1989) and Leavitt (1986) that successful managers are visionaries with strong views on what their organizations should be and the values which should guide their organization’s actions. These values are anchored in their own strong personal beliefs (Bass, 1985) Likewise Kouzes and Posner (2002) identify visionary as one of
16 the five practices of exemplary leaders. The other four are: model the way; challenge the process;
enable others to act; and encourage the heart.
Javidan (1991) also identifies visionary in his six managerial roles. “As visionaries, top managers bring a sense of order to their subordinates by developing and communicating a picture of where the organization is headed” (Javidan, 1991, p. 50). The other five roles are: mobilizer, maintaining a pool of skilled managers and subordinates who feel a sense of ownership, self confidence, and purpose; auditors, are in touch with their subordinates and aware of their performance level and provide timely and useful feedback and encourage self-monitoring; ambassador, success is dependent on their ability to represent their unit to other members f their network; and innovators, take risks and challenges the status quo.
Javadin’s (1991) findings revealed that effective top managers need to demonstrate what Bass
(1985) referred to as transformational leadership. While the term transformational leadership may be new, the factors associated with transformational leadership can be seen in the early writings of
Chinese classics such as Confucius and Asoka. Both of whom encouraged leaders to “become moral forces for the good of followers and their development” (Humphreys & Einstein, 2003, p. 87). This same concept of moral leadership was also espoused by Aristotle, Plato, Xenophon and Ajax as told by Homer (Humphreys & Einstein, 2003).
Contrary to some scholars (Bass, 1985; Liontos, 1993) the term transformational leadership was not coined by James McGregor Burns in 1978 but rather was first mentioned in J.V. Downton’s
1973 sociological treatise, Rebel Leadership. In 1978, Burns further conceptualized the term in his book, Leadership (Maranville, 1995).
While the formal and empirical study of leadership began in the 1930s, the early 80s witnessed a major paradigm shift in approaches to leadership, from “transactional” to
17 “transformational” (Alimo-Metcalf & Alban-Metcalf, 2001, p.1). This shift in paradigm opened a flood gate of research and discussion on transformational leadership. In a content analysis for articles published in the Leadership Quarterly, (as cited by Northouse, 2004) Lowe and Gardner (2001) found
that one third of the research was about transformational leadership. However, Humphreys and
Einstein (2003) offer a historical perspective of transformational leadership that predates the 80s.
These authors purport that the characteristics and components of the leadership style can be seen in psychology and scientific management theories which date back to the early 1900s.
So what is transformational leadership? According to Northouse (2004), transformational
leadership is a process that changes and transforms individuals whereby they engage with others and create a connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower.
“It is concerned with emotions, values, ethics, standards, and long-term goals, and includes assessing followers’ motives, satisfying their needs, and treating them as full human beings” (p. 169). Unlike
transactional leadership which focuses on mutually beneficial relationships or an exchange for
services such as pay for work or other extrinsic rewards, transformational leadership appeals to the
followers since of community and relies on their willingness to forsake their own self interest to
achieve a more global goal.
Bass (1990) discusses the characteristics of both transactional and transformational leaders.
He describes the transactional leader as one who relies on contingent rewards and manages by
exception whether active or passive. Contrary to these characteristics, he describes the
transformational leader as: charismatic, inspiring, intellectually stimulating, and engaging in
individualized consideration.
Another distinction between transactional and transformational leadership is presented by
Leithwood (1992). In transformational leadership he sees hope, optimism and energy that lead to
18 renewal of the followers’ commitment and restructuring of their systems for accomplishing goals. It also provides incentive for people to attempt improvements in their practices. This is why Bass and
Aviolo (1993) refer to transformational leadership as “value added” (p. 9).
Richard (1979) “suggest that in small and new SMOs, leadership style may be the most significant influence in the group’s development” (p. 120). The next section provides an overview of
SMs including a definition, a brief history, and a review of new social movements (NSM).
Overview of Social Movements
When it comes to defining social movements (SM), most researchers identify two key components of the movement -– participants and action. For example, Rucht and Neidhardt (2002) define social movements as “mobilized networks of groups which, based on a collective identity, participate in collective action to bring about social change mainly by means of protest” (p. 9).
Likewise, Wieviorka (2005) singles out these two elements in his definition of social movements which is “the rational behavior of collective actors attempting to establish themselves at the level of the political system, maintaining this position and extending their influence by mobilizing all sorts of resources including, if necessary, violence” (p. 1).
While Giugni (1998) identifies these same key elements in his definition of social movements, he is more descriptive of participants when he defines SMs as “sustained challenges to power holders in the name of a disadvantaged population living under the jurisdiction or influence of those power holders” (p. 377). Rose (1997) echoes Guigni with his definition of SMs identifying them as oppressed classes that mobilize around common conditions against the power of the dominant class that oppresses them.
Researchers also agree that SMs are more likely to occur when certain preconditions exist.
Rucht and Neidhardt (2002) identify these conditions as individual experience, collective framing and
19 societal structure. They maintain that these movements are likely to emerge when political parties and
interest groups are not able to sense the mood of public opinions, develop overly bureaucratic forms of
organization that tend to estrange their clienteles and neglect certain concerns because of pressures to
aggregate issues and to compromise. “Empirical evidence can be found that the emergence of extra-
institutional protest campaigns and mobilization in the past have been closely related to deficits in the
functions and performance of political parties and interest groups” (Rucht & Neidhardt, 2002, p. 20).
Although there is a casual relationship between SM and political parties and interest groups, it is important to make a distinction between the two. Whereas SMs often have as a goal the
manipulation of or influence over political parties and special interest groups, they themselves are not
considered political parties or special interest groups. According to Rucht and Neidhardt (2002) SMs
“follow a different mode of operation and depend primarily on different resources than parties or interest groups. They include organizations, but are not themselves organizations” (p. 20). This distinction is necessary because:
If the concept of a “movement society” implied the dominance of movements over parties and
interest groups, it would be untenable. However, the concept can express the idea that
movements will develop into a “normal” aspect of modern societies and become part of their
institutional inventory-and, in part, movements have already become this. (Rucht &
Neidhardt, 2002, p. 24)
Once SMs emerge, there exists another set of circumstances that helps to determine their impact and effectiveness. The purpose of Gamson’s 1990 study was to examine the impact and effectiveness of social movements. To do so, he studied the careers of 52 American challenging groups active between 1800 and 1945. He concluded that:
(a) groups with single-issue demands were more successful than groups with multiple-
20 issues demands, (b) the use of selective incentives was positively correlated with success, (c)
the use of violence and generally disruptive tactics was associated with success, while being
the objects of violence made it more difficult and (d) successful groups tended to be more
bureaucratized, centralized, and unfactionalized, which is the most important point for the
present purpose. (Gamson, 1990, p. 19)
While it may be surprising that Gamson’s (1990) study provides empirical evidence that the use of violence and other disruptive tactics increased chances for success, Button (1978) warns that acts of violence alone are not enough to ensure success. Rather they must be correlated with five general conditions:
1. when powerholders have enough public resources to meet the demands of the movement. 2
when violent actions and events are neither too frequent as to cause massive societal and
political instability, nor severe enough to be noticed and to represent a threat 3. when a
relevant share of powerholders and the public are sympathetic to the goals of the movement
and the violence is not so severe as to undermine this sympathy 4. when the aims and
demands of the movement are relatively limited, specific, and clear, and 5. when violence is
adopted in combination with peaceful and conventional strategies. (Button, 1978, p. 378)
New Social Movements
According to Rose (1997), the term New Social Movement (NSM) originates from European literature referring to a host of post-1960s, largely middle-class movements such as the peace, environmental and feminist movements. Other movements that are typically studied by NSM researchers are the urban social struggles, ecology movements, gay liberation and cultural revolts lead by student and youth activists (Rose, 1997).
According to Rose (1997) “NSM demands are believed to have moved away from the
21 instrumental issues of industrialism to the quality of life issues of postmaterialism and are qualitatively different” ( p. 412). Inglehart (1977) sees a new postmaterialist generation discovering new values given their freedom from material want suggesting that the more affluent middle class is making this shift first, while those with greater material needs are still struggling to survive. Rose (1997) challenges that assertion, saying that Inglehart’s theory “overstates the shift away from material conflict; human nature defines a hierarchy of needs that are first material and then, once these are met, cultural and social…Greater material abundance has not brought the end of wants but rather an ever increasing demand for material goods” (p. 471). Gouldner (1979) suggests that the NSM represents a change in values due to the growing wealth of society.
Differences between SM & NSM
According to Rose (1997), NSMs are a product of the post material age and are seen as fundamentally different from the working class movements of the industrial period. Offe (1985) distinguished old movements from NSMs by their actors, issues, values and modes of action. Rose
(1997) echoes the differences in the issues and values of the old SM versus the NSM by positing that the former mobilized as socio-economic groups pursuing selective interests, while NSMs promote goals that cut across lines such as gender, race and locality. Thus, “NSMs represent the shift to postmaterial values that stress issues of identity, participation, and quality of life rather than economic matters” (p. 421). Evers (1985) suggests that what is new about NSMs is that the transformatory potential within new social movements is not political but socio-cultural aiming to reappropriate society from the state. Eder (1985) disagrees with this suggestion; he sees NSMs as embracing two types of phenomenon, “cultural movements that oppose present social life and political movements that challenge modern state domination” (p. 5).
Even with this evidence to support all of the aforementioned differences between the two
22 movements, there still are researchers who deny that there are any differences. D’Anieri, Ernst, and
Kier, (1990) argue that there is no difference between utopian movements of the 1800s and present- day movements. Likewise, Calhous (1991) sees no stark differences between movements of the last two centuries, challenging the assertion that social movements of the nineteenth century were dominated by economic organizations. Holst (2005) agrees that “many of the NSMs are not actually new (feminism, identity-nationalist movements, community autonomy movements)” (p. 50). While
Rose (1997) supports the claim that there are legitimate distinctions between old and new SMs he rejects the claim that these differences are due to either a rise of a post materialistic society or to a new stage of capitalist intrusion in people’s lives. Rather, he asserts “the post 1960s movements are a reflection of the professional middle class from which most of their active members originate” (Rose,
1997, p. 482).
Participants in NSMs
According to Rose (1997), “by measures of occupation, education, and income, memberships in NSM organizations are disproportionately upper middle class” (p. 464). Further, he suggests that these participants are not corporate employees but rather that they work in areas that are highly dependent upon state expenditures such as academia, the arts, and human service agencies, and that they tend to be highly educated. Gouldner (1979) identifies participants of NSMs in general as intellectuals and professionals rebelling against established authorities as they find opportunities restricted and access to political power blocked. According to Eder (1985), “NSMs manifest a form of middle-class protest which oscillates from moral crusade to political pressure group to social movements” (p. 881).
Gorz (1982) writes that “ultimately, the aim of participants in NSMs is not to seize power in order to build a new world, but to regain power over their own lives by disengaging from the market
23 rationality of productivism” (p. 75). Wievoirka (2005) agrees that “the aim is not to challenge a
relationship of domination but to maintain a way of life with includes this relationship” (p. 3). While
researchers agree that NSMs are primarily made up of middle class activists, they cannot explain why.
Rose (1997) posits that it is because “the middle class has the leisure time and security to pursue nonmaterial goals” (p. 468). Croteau (1985) echoed this sentiment when he suggested that the middle class are more likely to participate in NSMs because they have resources and skills that the working class lacks.
However, Offe (1985) disagrees that NSM participants are primarily middle-class noting that participants also are drawn from elements of the old middle class (farmers, shop owners, and artisan- producers), and a peripheral population consisting of persons not heavily engaged in the labor market
(students, housewives, and retired persons).
In addition to most researchers agreeing that participants of NSMs are primarily middle-class, they agree that these participants usually are not members of a minority. As Rose (1997) explained
“the lack of minority participants is equally true of most other NSMs, including the animal rights, feminist, peace, and gay and lesbian movements” (p. 418).
Because waves of middle class protest have occurred since the early 1800s including the
abolition, prohibition, suffrage, and progressive (as well as a number of natives’ movements),
whether the middle class is only newly involved in social movements is indeed open to
question. (Rose, 1997 p. 418)
Summary
Leadership takes place in any organization including social movements. SM are groups of people who work together to bring about social change. The leaders are crucial to the effectiveness of any SM. However, there is a lack of research on social movement leadership.
24 AE has long embraced SMs because of the amount of learning that takes place in SM. In addition, the purpose of SM also mirrors that of AE which is to promote social change. The next section is on social movements that involved adult education with an in-depth overview of three SM including the CRM
Adult Education in Social Movements
One of the relationships between AE and SM can be seen in their purposes which are ultimately to bring about social change. In addition, SMs are important to adult education because of the wealth of learning that occurs within them. According to Martin (1999), participants in social movements prepare for change or resistance to it by challenging or confirming the ways in which they think, feel and act politically. Because of this change or resistance, Eyerman and Jamison (1991) posit that a great deal of learning takes place in social movements. They suggest that “social movements are not merely social dramas; they are the social action from where new knowledge including worldviews, ideologies, religions, and scientific theories originate” (p. 14).
However, a lot of this learning is not recognized because oftentimes--when these “activists engage in explicitly educational activities-study groups, speaking and lecturing, leafleting, and so forth-they often label it party or movement work without separating it out as specifically adult education”( Holst, 2000, p. 5). In this sense, Martin (1999) maintains that “social movements are intrinsically educative both for the participants and for the broader society” (p. 10). Hall and Clover
(2005) suggest that this learning can be informal through participation or intentional through educational interventions.
English (2005) agrees that social movements are exceedingly rich learning environments in which participants can learn that collective action and solidarity is the most effective approach to overcome social and economic hardships. Walters (2005) adds that “knowledge is produced
25 through debates over meeting agendas, the planning of meetings, campaigns and demonstrations,
and exchanges over strategies and tactics” (p. 60). Holst (2005) agrees that “there is much
educational work internal to social movements, in which organizational skills, ideology, and
lifestyle choices are passed from one member to the next informally through mentoring and
modeling or formally through workshops, seminars, lectures, and so forth” (p. 81).
Finally, some of the same African-Americans who, according to Merriam (1997), made
significant contributions to adult education also made significant contributions to social change. They include Booker T. Washington, Marcus Garvey, Septima Clark and W.E.B. DuBois. English (2005) summarizes all of the above regarding adult education and social movements in the following
passage:
If adult educators can move beyond the polarized views of education and training,
spirituality and religion, we have much to teach the world about how it balances,
negotiates, and embraces difference and how it moves beyond binaries to effect spiritual
growth and social change…In a world struggling to understand the aftermath of the war
in Iraq, the threat of further violence, and the vain struggles of world leaders to negotiate
the complex politics of religion and its relationship (if any) to the violence, the time is
ripe for adult educators to contribute to a wide variety of purposes and causes, yet to
establish some core concerns and commitments. (p. 1188)
Over the years social movements that involve adult education have indeed contributed to a wide variety of purposes and causes. According to English (2005) “some of the most significant social movements in adult education began with a spiritual impulse, often spurred on by the social gospel values” (p. 1178). These movements include: Sri Lanka's Shramadana movement, Europe's Mondragon movement, Canada's Antigonish movement, the 'United States'
26 Highlander and Chautauqua Centers, and the United Kingdom and Australia's Workers
Education Association all of which were influenced by the social gospel.
Two of the largest, most popular and most researched of these movements: The
Antigonish Movement in Canada and the Highlander Movement in Tennessee are highlighted in
this chapter. Both grew out of the Christian and spiritual convictions of its leaders and both of
which were founded on Christian principles.
Antigonish Movement
The Antigonish Movement of Nova Scotia was founded by Father Jimmy Tompkins.
Although his second cousin, Moses M. Coady, born in 1882, has received most of the
limelight in the popular accounts of the Antigonish Movement, the restless and brilliantly
intuitive Tompkins was actually the creative spearhead of the reform initiatives that
eventually crystallized in a coherent co-operative project under Coady’s direction in the
1930s. (Welton, 2005, p.118)
Tompkins and Coady were both faculty and administrators at St. Frances Xavier University in
Canada. As adult educators both were interested in change and improvement in society as part of the
common good (Selman, 1998).
Tompkins and Coady saw social change and adult education as intricately related to
spirituality (Gillen, 1998). As Roman Catholic Priests they saw their leadership of the movement as part of their social and spiritual responsibility. Documentation of Tompkins’ and Coady’s use of adult
education to promote spiritual growth and social change in Nova Scotia has been documented by Lotz
and Welton (1997). As a result of their Christian and Spiritual convictions, the Antigonish Movement
was founded on Christian principles.
According to Welton (2001) the purpose of the Antigonish Movement was to transform social
27 and economic conditions in Nova Scotia. Specifically Selman (1998) suggests that Tompkins and
Coady maintained that miners and fishers could be independent, productive, and united in social and economic interests. Tompkins and Coady carried out their work by building study clubs, sponsoring learning institutes or people's schools, distributing study pamphlets, and other activities that led to the organization of workers' cooperatives (Gordon & Selman, 1998).
English (2000) agrees that they both acknowledged the significance of community groups, but they also knew that it would require more than study clubs and savings groups to bring about lasting social change. This shift in power would require the people to control their own social and economic institutions. The program of adult education and economic cooperation was the means by which this ambitious goal would be realized (Alexander, 1997; Lotz & Welton, 1987, 1997). However,
Tompkins encountered resistance from the Catholic Church when he refused to curtail or soften his radical ideas for change.
Tompkins, the educational radical and proponent of progressive ideas, was about to hear
some startling news. In mid-December of 1922 Bishop Morrison of the Diocese of
Antigonish removed the 52-year-old Father James J. Tompkins from his position at St.
Francis Xavier College and sent him to Canso, a small and rather desolate fishing village,
where he would become a parish priest for the first time in his religious life. (Welton,
2008, p. 133)
In spite of the troubles that Tompkins encountered, Nesbitt (2006) identifies three main and enduring traditions of Canadian adult education:
a set of unyielding social purposes, informed by passion and outrage and rooted in a concern
for the less-privileged; a systematic and sustained philosophical and critical analysis that
develops the abilities to connect immediate, individual experiences with underlying societal
28 structures; and a keen attention to the specific sites, locations, and practices where such
purposes and analyses are made real in the lives of Canadians. (p. 17)
However, Welton (2001) questions the success and contributions of the Antigonish
Movement. He maintains that Moses Coady and the Antigonish Movement have been so deeply mythologized in both St. Francis Xavier University’s and the Canadian adult education movement’s story that it is difficult to penetrate beneath the “something added” to the realities beneath (Welton,
2001).
The Antigonish Movement glows with a soft halo, and Canadian adult educators have spun
the story in such a way as to accentuate the importance of adult education to social and
economic life. We even use Coady as an exemplary model for contemporary practice. After a
while, it no longer really matters whether the Movement actually did emancipate the
Maritimes in any deep and lasting way or even what Coady actually thought and did. The
Movement’s truth lies in the myth itself, and Coady’s metaphorical and metaphysical
language, which easily leads to ambiguities of interpretation, is not scrutinised carefully,
becoming a kind of carapace on thought. The myth of Coady teaches us that adult education is
an instrument of great magical power, a kind of golden key that unlocks the blocked potential
of human beings. (Welton, 2001, p. 77)
Highlander Movement
One of the best examples of adult education for social change in the United States can be seen in Myles Horton’s establishment of the Highlander School in Tennessee in 1932 with a grant from the
International YMCA. Myles Horton was born in the rural south and spent two years in New York
City's liberal Union Theological Seminary with the goal of becoming a minister. According to
Kennedy (1981), Horton abandoned his plan to become a minister when he realized that his real
29 dream was social change (via public activism), which organized religions, by and large, did not support.
Unique in many ways, Highlander was a school for working adults in the rural south. It was a
school “where poor people, drawing on their own life experiences, could learn how to make decisions,
solve problems, and improve society” (Egarton, 1990, p. 41). According to Kohl (1991) Horton spent
his life doing adult education programs “aimed at helping working people govern the major decisions
in their own lives. Highlander, though unique, is part of a movement in adult and workers’ education”
(Kohl, 1999, p. 36).
Highlander’s mission statement appears on its website: “The Highlander Center works with
people struggling against oppression, supporting their effort to take collective action to shape their
own destiny. It seeks to create educational experiences and empower people to take democratic
leadership toward fundamental change” (The Highlander Center, 2008). Green (2004) compares
Horton’s approach to empowering citizens and progressive pedagogy in higher education to Friere’s
critical theory.
Man's ontological vocation is to be a Subject who acts upon and transforms his world, and in
so doing moves toward ever new possibilities of fuller and richer life individually and
collectively. Every human being, no matter how "ignorant" or submerged in the culture of
silence he or she may be, is capable of looking critically at the world in a dialogical encounter
with others. Provided with proper tools for this encounter, the individual can gradually
perceive personal and social reality as well as the contradictions in it, become conscious of his
or her own perception of that reality, and deal critically with it. (Freire, 1998, p. 14).
Highlander played an important role in the Labor Movement in the 1930s and 1940s,
worked with poor people in Appalachia in the 1970s and continues its work today as a progressive
30 center for adult education. Hilliard (1991) maintains that Highlander’s most dramatic role was the role it played in the Civil Rights Movement (CRM). “Imagine a group of people in the early 1950s, living in Tennessee, who had the courage and commitment to risk their lives repeatedly by attempting to bring together fighters for freedom, black and white” (Hilliard, 1991, p. 78). These fighters oftentimes included some of the more public leaders of the CRM including Martin Luther King, Jr.,
Andrew Young, Rosa Parks and Septima Clark. These and others were constantly threatened when participating in Highlander activities.
In response to the courage and commitment shown by Myles Horton and others: Highlander
was threatened, raided, and infiltrated by the Klan and other opponents of desegregation,
leading to the revocation of its charter and seizure of its property by the state of Tennessee in
1961. The folk school survived the 1960s amid continued harassment including arson
attempts, assaults on staff and vandalism (Edwards & McCarthy, 1992, p. 544)
Horton’s methodology of adult education as an instrument of progressive social change mirrors the work of his more widely known peer and collaborator, Brazilian educator Paulo Freire
(Edward & McCarthy, 1992).Together the two maintained that even in the realities of day-to-day work, adult educators can find what they referred to as little pockets of hope and adventurism, which can provide the context for education for social change (Horton & Freire, 1990). In this way, the challenge for progressive adult educators is to "find and foster and serve" these pockets of hope
(Miles, 1996, p. 277). Horton and Freire (1990) argue that this was "a process of being involved," which could also be understood as a process of working "to be that answer," to commit to life values, and to initiate dialogue and discussion that will open these pockets of hope into opportunities for change (p. 94).
Nepstad and Bob (2006) suggest that” if social movements sometimes make it possible for
31 the weak to change social and political structures, leadership plays an important role in this” (p.
18). Barker, Johnson, and Lavalette (2001) join Nepstad and Bob (2006) acknowledging that
leadership plays an important role in SM that involve adult education. Their support of Nepstad
and Bob (2006) can be seen in the following quote.
Leaders play a critical role in collective action, shaping movements in numerous ways. They
define goals and advance strategies. They mobilize followers, galvanize indigenous
organizations, and forge coalitions. They influence responses to external repression, and their
action, rhetoric, and style affect conflict outcomes. (Barker, et. al., 2001)
Not only do scholars agree that leaders play an important role in SM hat involve adult education, they also agree that not enough research has been devoted to the study of leadership of SM. Nepstad and Bob (2004) maintain that “leaders are central to social movements, yet scholars have devoted relatively little attention to understanding the concept of leadership or its effects on movements” (p. 1). Barker, Johnson, and Lavalette (2001) echoes the sentiment that not enough leadership research has been devoted to SM that involve adult education. Finally, Morris (1999) agrees that there hasn’t been much study of leadership in SM:
Current social movement theory has made little progress in the analysis of social movement
leadership…the CRM reveals; however, that movement leadership is a complex phenomenon
that remains relatively unexplored theoretically. Little is known about how individuals are
chosen to lead movements or how factors internal to the movement constrain the strategic
options available to them. Thus, as the CRM reveals, movement leadership is a complex
variables phenomenon that should receive attention from social movement scholars. (p. 535)
As a result of this lack of study of SMs that involve AE leadership there are several unanswered questions relative to leadership of SM that involve AE. The multi-faceted nature of SMs
32 that involve AE suggests that leaders are constantly being challenged to meet the needs of the
movement. However we don’t know what challenges leaders of SMs face. We also don’t know what
leadership abilities they use to manage these challenges, be they personal, organizational or movement
related. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to one SM that involves AE, the CRM and its leader
MLK.
Prelude to the King Years (1955 – 1968) of the Civil Rights Movement
The CRM is similar to SMs that involve AE because like its predecessors its goal was to bring about social change. Also as is the case with all SMs that involve AE, the CRM was a rich learning environment for its participants. Finally, as was the case with many other SM such as the Antigonish and Highlander Movement, the CRM was founded on Christian principles. Its leader MLK was a
Baptist minister with strong Christian convictions.
According to Rose (1997), every SM must frame its goals in “moral terms that appeal to the wider community…social justice, equality and claims of right justify these interests as legitimate, in contrast of groups with power whose interests are illegitimate” (p. 480). This is exactly what the
African American religious intellectuals of the 1930s and 1940s did. Mordecai Johnson, longtime
president of Howard University; Benjamin Mays, president of Morehouse College; Howard Thurman,
professor at Howard; and George Kelsey, professor at Morehouse, were ordained Baptist clergymen
who helped to frame the language that would be used to set the stage for the rise of the Civil Rights
Movement (CRM).
This language referred to racism and segregation and all of their counterparts as evil, sinful,
ungodly and immoral. At the 1937 Church Conference on Church, Community, and State in Oxford,
England, Mays (1937) commended his fellow conferees for recognizing that this sin of man asserts
itself in racial pride, racial hatreds, and persecutions, and in the exploitation of other races. Kelsey
33 (1948) preached that the elimination of racism “is associated with the elimination of a whole pattern of
ungodliness” (p. 1) According to Dickerson (2005) African American religious intellectuals in the
1930s and 1940s not only denounced the sins of racism and segregation but also sought moral means by which to destroy them. These moral methods included boycotts, a tactic that was supported by
Kelsey and others because it allowed blacks to respond to the sin of segregation without abandoning
Godly principles such as faith, hope, and love.
The disciples of these African American religious intellectuals, including a young Martin
Luther King, Jr. and other religious activists, “inherited these ideas and spearheaded movements to
perfect them within the nation a Kingdom of Heaven” (Dickerson, 2005, p. 235). When MLK (1963)
preached that the problem of race and color prejudice remains America’s greatest moral dilemma, he
was echoing the sentiments of his predecessors. Mays and Kelsey continued to influence MLK while
he was a student at Morehouse College, helping to shape MLK’s view “that ministry could blend
proficient and relevant preaching, effective praxis, and intellectual reflection all aimed toward
attacking the sin of segregation” (Dickerson, 2005, p. 236).
When the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was
founded in 1909, it “was an important development because the NAACP was the first national protest
organization organized specifically to attack the Jim Crow regime and racial inequality” (Morris,
1999, p. 520). Still it would be another 30 years before a major movement would be planned by
African Americans in opposition to Jim Crow. It happened in 1940, and it was the March on
Washington Movement (MOWM) organized by A. Philip Randolph. According to Morris (1999),
“Randolph became convinced that a mass nonviolent movement of African Americans was the central
force needed to overthrow racial inequality” (p. 520).
Randolph called the March on Washington because he was targeting racial discrimination in
34 the defense industry at a time when the country was fighting racism abroad during World War II. The
idea was to gather thousands of African Americans in the nation’s capital to embarrass America and
President Roosevelt. In order to avoid the possibility of embarrassment, on June 25, 1941, Roosevelt issued an Executive Order that banned racial discrimination in the nation’s defense industries. Thus,
“the very threat of protest by a massive Black nonviolent direct action movement bore fruit in the early 1940s” (Morris, 1999, p. 521).
The Civil Rights Movement – The King Years (1955 – 1968)
Even after Randolph’s victory, the Jim Crow regime remained firmly intact into the 1950s with no sign of weakening. Earlier in the century, W.E.B. Dubois had predicted that the problem of the twentieth century would be the problem of the color line. By 1950, Jim Crow was a staple of
American society, particularly in the South. When slavery was officially ended, Jim Crow laws became the means by which whites would continue to oppress blacks. Jim Crow’s primary weapon of oppression was segregation--keeping African Americans separated from white society by forcing them to use separate and unequal facilities often marked “White” and “colored.” “The Jim Crow system went to great lengths to impress on African Americans that they were a subordinate population by forcing them to live in a separate inferior society-all these resulted in serious psychological damage” (Morris, 1999, p. 518).
In 1954, the Supreme Court delivered a ruling that threatened the existence of Jim Crow. In
Brown versus the Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of “Separate but
Equal” was unconstitutional, paving the way for the integration of public schools and other public facilities. In 1955, the citizens of Montgomery, Alabama, decided to put the Supreme Court ruling to
the test by trying to integrate the city bus system.
35 Montgomery Bus Boycott
On Thursday, December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery
city bus to a white man, and police jailed her for violating state segregation laws. The NAACP
decided to take her case to court. Contrary to popular belief, it was the Women’s Political Council not
the newly formed Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) that called for the bus boycott. The
MIA led the boycott and MLK, who was 27 years old at the time, was elected as the spokesperson for the organization. Of the boycott, he stated, “I neither started the protest nor suggested it. I simply responded to the call of the people for a spokesman” (MLK, 1958, p. 111). From the first day of the boycott, no African-Americans rode the city buses.
According to Bermanzohn (2000) white officials in Montgomery criticized the boycott for using what they called the same tactics as the White Citizens Council accusing African Americans of fighting to improve themselves in the same manner as whites who wanted to “improve” themselves.
But MLK (1955) was determined to distinguish the tactics of the CRM from those of White
Supremacist saying:
There will be no crosses burned at any bus stop in Montgomery. There will be no white
persons pulled out of their homes and taken out on some distant road and murdered. There
will be no one among us who will stand up and defy the Constitution of this nation….We are
not here advocating violence…The only weapon we have in our hands this evening is the
weapon of protest. (p. 140)
White segregationists responded to the boycott by holding the largest segregationist rally of
the century. Ten thousand segregationists rallied at the Montgomery Coliseum in hopes of
intimidating the boycotters. According to Bermanzohn (2000), when their intimidation tactics failed,
white racists resorted to violence, attacking the homes of boycott leaders including MLK’s.
36 While the marchers for and against segregation were lining the streets, there was another less
visible but more potent battle being waged in the courts. By May 1956, the lawsuits against
segregated buses had reached the U.S. Federal District Court which MLK (1958) called “a great
relief…Here the atmosphere of justice prevailed” (p. 151). The legal staff of the NAACP argued
against the constitutionality of segregation and the validity of the “separate but equal” doctrine. In a
2-2 vote, the federal court declared that the Montgomery city bus laws were unconstitutional. The city attorneys quickly appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled on the case without listening to any arguments. The federal courts ruling was that “the motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed” (King, 1958, p. 151).
Despite MLK’s emphasis on nonviolence and moral fortitude, there are some who believe that the core of the Civil Rights Movement was constitutional and political. Watson (1991) believes that
MLK’s nonviolent tactics alone could not have destroyed the South’s racial system. He credits the
NAACP with breathing new life into the 14th and 15th Amendments through the courts and by
executing legislative strategies that led to passage of the civil rights law and all subsequent laws.
MLK, too, recognized that the struggle had one goal but many ways to accomplish it, referring to the
CRM as:
a three-lane road with some emphasizing the way of litigation and mobilizing forces for
meaningful legislation, and others emphasizing the way of nonviolent direct action and still
others like the National Urban League, moving through research and education and building
up forces to prepare the Negro for the challenges of a highly industrialized society. (King,
1958, p. 9)
When analyzing the success of the boycott, Phillips (2002) found five key elements which
would become staples for MLK’s future approach to leadership: 1). set goals and create a plan of
37 action; 2). create a new formal alliance; 3). involve the people; 4). seek dialogue and negotiation; and
5). innovate.
At the same time that the NAACP was battling Jim Crow in the courts, a lynching in Alabama was receiving national media attention. While lynchings were scare tactics that whites used to intimidate African Americans this lynching and beating was of a child. Emmit Till’s lynching was punishment for him allegedly whistling at a white woman. Till’s mother and the African American press exposed the lynching to the national media.
Because of the widespread attention this lynching received, the brutality and raw racism of the
Jim Crow regime were placed on a national stage where it was debated and denounced. The
hope generated by the Brown Ruling and the outrage caused by Till’s lynching, helped set the
stage for the emergence of the modern civil rights movement. (Morris, 1991, p. 521)
CRM and Social Conditions
According to Tarrow (1994), social protest is more likely to occur if there is a favorable political opportunity structure. The favorable political opportunity structure that helped to give rise to the CRM included the northern black vote and the politics of the Cold War. Another favorable opportunity structure came by way of modern communication technologies. In 1958, over 83% of
American households owned television sets. By the early 1960s, communication satellites were launched into orbit, making it possible for marches, demonstrations and other protests as well as the
white responses to them to be viewed internationally. According to Garrow (1986), demonstrations and the repressive measures used against demonstrators generated a foreign policy nightmare as they were broadcast by foreign media in Europe, the Soviet Union and Africa.
However, Morris (1999) warns that “the existence of favorable conditions does not guarantee
that collective action will materialize…Structural prerequisites may be conducive to collective action,
38 but without human agency such conditions will not even be recognized, let alone exploited” (p. 523).
A classic example of the use of the media and human agency to help further the cause of civil rights in the segregated south can be seen in the protest movements in Selma, Alabama.
Selma, Alabama
In early 1965, the SCLC had set their sights on Selma, Alabama. The goal in Selma was to force government officials to abide by the Voting Rights Act by allowing African Americans to register to vote. The strategy in Selma was the same that had been used all over the South--“to stir up feelings outside the South by putting on a show--a dramatic clash between violent whites and nonviolent Negroes that would arouse the press, the pulpit, the politicians, and the president”
(Fariclough, 1997 p. 226). SCLC had a better chance of implementing this strategy in Selma than in anywhere else in the state primarily because of the tensions that existed between county Sheriff Clark who was hell bent on keeping the blacks out of the voting polls and city police Chief Baker who had advised his troops to obey the Civil Rights Act. In the end Clark would prevail arresting African
Americans who gathered at the courthouse to register to vote including MLK.
While in jail, MLK sent a letter to Andrew Young outlining twelve points for keeping national attention on Selma. The twelve points included continuing the marches to the courthouse in hopes that
Clark would eventually show his true violent nature (Fairclough, 1997). When government officials in Selma continued to harass and arrest African Americans who tried to register to vote, organizers planned a march from Selma to Montgomery across the Edmund Pettis Bridge to see Governor
Wallace.
As soon as the marchers, led by John Lewis and Hosea Williams, crossed the bridge, they were teargased, clubbed and trampled as 200 state troopers charged at them. Clark’s troopers continued to pursue the marchers as they stumbled and fled to Brown Chapel Church. When the
39 chaos ended, 78 of the marchers needed medical attention including 17 who were hospitalized, among them John Lewis, who suffered a brain concussion (Fairclough, 1997). The day of the march--
Sunday, March 7, 1965-- became known as Bloody Sunday, and the pictures of the violence against the marchers were broadcast around the world. Bermanzohn (2000) noted that because the marchers were willing to endure violence without retaliation, terror lost its effectiveness. While it may have taken its toll on the victims, it could not derail the movement for equality and won the sympathy of
African Americans and whites from around the world.
MLK’s strategy to get Clark to show his true colors had worked and across the nation people of all races, creeds and colors were holding their own peaceful demonstrations to denounce the tactics of Sheriff Clark and to support the actions of the brave marchers. When MLK was accused of provoking Sheriff Clark and his men to violence, he responded by saying that blaming the peaceful marchers for the actions of the oppressors was the same as “condemning the robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery” (MLK, 1963, p. 8).
According to Reagin and College (1968), “the cooperation of other organizations in a movement makes possible some actions and makes others impossible (p. 90). Morris (1999) agrees that when “SMOs compete and cooperate they can produce great volumes of collective action by sharing knowledge and resources, and by triggering tactical innovations. SMOs can be destructive to social movements when they engage in intense conflict and generate warring factions” (p. 532). The
CRM experienced such destruction during the protests in Albany, Georgia.
Albany, Georgia
In 1961, the SCLC was invited to Albany, Georgia to help to organize African American adults and students against segregation. While African Americans in Albany enjoyed better race relations than African Americans in some other major southern cities, they still were victims of
40 segregation, violence and the other ills of racism. They could vote, but none held public office; police
were not too brutal, but none were black, the Klan was weak, but public accommodations were still
segregated (Fairclough, 1987). Even more challenging, however, to a successful Albany Movement
was the strife among the NAACP, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and other
African American organizations that had been or wanted to be actively participating in and controlling
the city’s first movement.
It was this strife that weakened the Albany Movement and led to embarrassment for MLK and
the SCLC. When MLK arrived and announced that he would lead a march, he was either not
informed of or ignored information about pending negotiations between African American leaders
and city officials. According to Fairclough (1987), African American leaders who were aware of the
negotiations intended to use MLK’s presence to pressure city officials to move quickly on the
negotiations and offer more liberties, but instead city officials responded with resentment and called off negotiations.
When negotiations were called off, local leaders blamed MLK and the SCLC for the setback.
In keeping with his character, MLK did not speak out about the troubles in Albany; however,
Solomon Walker, chairman of the black negotiating committee, said that what occurred in Albany was not the fault of MLK or the SCLC. Rather, he accused SNCC of exploiting MLK’s publicity
value, taking the SCLC’s money, and then attempting to exclude the SCLC from the decision-making
process (Fairclough, 1987).
MLK’s participation in the Albany Movement violated the first step in what he later followed
as the six steps of nonviolent social change. Step one is information gathering. Had MLK gathered
all of the necessary information prior to joining the fight in Albany, he might have learned about the
infighting among African American leaders and organizations and adjusted his participation
41 accordingly or declined to participate altogether. Not getting all the information was clearly a mistake.
Kouzes and Posner (2002) maintain that leaders can make mistakes and still retain their authority, the respect of their colleagues, and their credibility by being humble; they can take risk and learn from their mistakes. According to them, after an unsuccessful project a good leader will ask
what can be learned from the experience. In this way, he or she validates the worth of the project,
failed or not, and signifies to the project participants that their contributions to the project were not in
vain. They may not have succeeded at this particular endeavor, but what they have learned will
contribute to the successes of future endeavors.
Such was MLK’s response to the Albany Movement. MLK used Albany as a learning tool for
the success of future movements. From Albany he learned several things: goals must be few and
clearly defined; negotiated agreements must be in writing; the black community must be united
behind the movement; its leaders must be recognized by all; and there must be no factional quarrelling
(Patterson, 1989). In addition to warring factions among SMOs, “political pressures that may be
brought to bear from a national level onto a local movement can make real differences in the course of
action” (Reagin & College, 1968, p. 90). Such was the case with the pressure the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) exerted on the CRM.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Garrow (1987) has demonstrated rather conclusively that the origin of the Bureau’s suspicion
of MLK was its discovery in January 1962 that a wealthy New York businessman named Stanley
Levison had emerged as one of MLK’s closest advisers. The FBI interpreted Levison’s close
association to mean that the Communist Party was out to gain control over the SCLC and the CRM.
According to Powers (2003), before the 1963 March on Washington, the FBI agents conducted hostile
but passive surveillance of MLK. After the March, “they shifted to an aggressive--at times violently
42 aggressive--campaign to destroy him” (p. 43). It was a campaign they would continue to wage against
MLK as long as he lived. “It would continue, obsessively almost maniacally, even after King was dead” (Powers, 2003, p. 42). The campaign intensified after the March on Washington based on a memo dated August 30, 1963 written by William C. Sullivan, head of the Bureau’s powerful domestic intelligence division. A portion of the memo read:
Personally I believe in the light of King’s powerful demagogic speech yesterday he stands
head and shoulders over all other Negro leaders put together when it comes to influencing
great masses of Negroes. We must mark him now, if we have not done so before as the most
dangerous negro of the future in this nation from the standpoint of communism, the Negro and
national security…it may be unrealistic to limit ourselves as we have been doing to legalistic
proofs or definitely conclusive evidence that would stand up in testimony in courts or before
Congressional Committees that the Communist Party, USA, does wield substantial influence
over Negroes which one day could become decisive. (Powers, 2003, p. 42)
Later, when Sullivan declared that the investigation revealed no evidence of Communist
infiltration into the CRM, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover rejected Sullivan’s report and started to treat
him with disdain. Sullivan then retracted the first report and provided Hoover with the report he
wanted (Powers, 2003). Sullivan’s new memo included the following:
We were completely wrong about believing the evidence was not sufficient to determine some
years ago that Fidel Castro was not a communist or under communist influence. On
investigating and writing about communism and the American Negro, we had better
remember this and profit by the lesson it should teach us. (Powers, 2003, p. 43)
Over the next four years, there would be about 25 separate illegal attempts by the FBI to
discredit MLK. These ranged from efforts to keep universities from awarding him honorary degrees,
43 interfering with the publication of his writings, to attempting to disrupt his relationships with religious
leaders and leaking the tapes of 16 secret recordings of MLK’s private activities in hotel and motel
rooms to congressional figures and the media (Powers, 2003, p. 44).
MLK’s response to the FBI’s vendetta was, “they are out to break me. They are out to get me, harass me, break my spirit” (MLK, 1957, p. 382). The FBI’s mission to destroy MLK may have had some impact on his personal and professional life, but it did little to destroy his legacy. While the FBI of today has suffered public humiliation for its role in gathering the faulty intelligence that lead to the
War in Iraq, MLK has become the only African-American for whom a national holiday is named. Just this year, when the Discovery Channel asked: who are the individuals who have made (and continue to make) this country great MLK ranked number three behind Presidents Ronald Reagan and
Abraham Lincoln. His ranking is a result of his leadership of the CRM
CRM and Leadership
In 1931, Mays called for better trained ministers to serve black churches and hoped that they would be prophets of the new day, fearless and courageous. His colleagues agreed that one of the major tasks of the African American church was to develop a type of leadership that would do for
America and the African American race what Gandhi did for India and what Jesus did for the world.
According to Gordon (1984) SM formed around or start by strong charismatic leaders. Dickerson
(2005) suggests that “King’s charisma among African Americans stems from his sermonic rhetoric and its resonance with black audiences” (p. 217). Braxton (2000) adds that:
For King scripture was storybook whose value resided not so much in the historical
reconstruction or accuracy of the story in the text, but rather in the evocative images, in the
persuasive, encouraging anecdotes of the audacious overcoming of opposition and in its
principles about the sacredness of the human person. (p. 379)
44 Barbuto (1997) posits that charisma is defined as the leader’s “ability to generate great symbolic power with which to identify “(p. 689). According to Northouse (2004) charismatic leaders articulate ideological goals that have moral overtones. Reagin and College (1968) agree that “leaders are selected on the basis of their capacity to articulate ideological symbols” (p. 89). An outstanding example of MLK’s ability to generate great symbolic power is his last sermon preached the night before he was assassinated. In speaking of the future world for African Americans MLK (1968) said:
Like anybody, I would like to live a long life-longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned
about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And he’s allowed me to go up to the mountain.
And I’ve looked over, and I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I
want you to know tonight that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land. (p. 222)
Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Leadership
According to Carson (2003), more than a thousand scholarly articles concerning MLK have been published in journals and anthologies representing various disciplines. Even with this magnitude of research, scholars including doctoral students, like me, continue to write about the life and legacy of
Martin Luther King, Jr. Forty years after his assassination, there are still many people who feel that there is more to be said about the man who led a nonviolent movement against African American oppression in the United States. Scholars are not the only ones who are keeping the legacy of MLK alive. In 1983 congress passed a bill making him the only African American for whom a national holiday is named.
MLK possessed an uncanny ability to inspire and to motivate large numbers of individuals from all walks of life to forsake their own personal needs for the advancement of the human race.
Some people would attribute this ability to MLK’s oratorical skills for he was without a doubt, one of the greatest speakers of the 20th century. However, MLK was much more than a dynamic speaker.
45 He was highly educated, he possessed a clear and inclusive global vision, he articulated the vision, and
he had genuine concern and consideration for his followers. The literature about his leadership
suggests that there were several major factors that contributed to his leadership style – his Christianity,
his commitment to nonviolence and his vision.
Christianity
Every aspect of MLK’s life, home, education and profession, was rooted in a keen awareness
of God. He was the son, grandson and great grandson of preachers. He received a doctorate in
Theology from Crozier Theological Seminary. MLK began his leadership in a pulpit in Montgomery,
Alabama. Throughout his lifetime, he would refer to himself as a Christian and just as his personal
philosophy was rooted in the Christian faith so, too, was his approach to leadership.
MLK saw his role as doing more than living a Christian life. He felt obliged by his belief to
take an active stand against the injustices being perpetrated against African Americans. It was this
commitment to humankind that made MLK feel that leading the Civil Rights Movement was his
Christian duty. He explained:
The Christian ought always to be challenged by and protest against unfair treatment of the
poor, for Christianity is itself such a protest, nowhere expressed more eloquently than in Jesus’
words: the Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to
the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and
recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable
year of the Lord. (King, 1958, p. 94)
John Lewis has said that he could see that MLK’s sense of his Christian duty led him to become active in the Civil Rights Movement. According to Lewis (as cited by Carson, 2005) MLK’s
“singularity of leadership initially, and almost until the end, also derived from forces external to
46 himself” (p. 8).
Mickelson (1990), like others, has argued that MLK’s understanding of God was based on
him being a black religious leader. However, MLK’s relationship with God was not based on his race
or his religion but on his personal, spiritual and intellectual understanding of God. While MLK was
indeed a Baptist minister it is important that he not be regarded as a religious leader but as a Christian
leader. This is important because while MLK found no fault with God, he expressed fundamental problems with religion. According to Nall (2005), these concerns were that the church had failed to
fight for peace and social and economic justice; they had done little to fight segregation and racism,
and had morally sanctioned war.
Mickelson (1990) explains that MLK’s understanding of God had four essential aspects: God
as moral; God as powerful and able; God as loving; and fellowshipping with God in the struggle for
justice as “cosmic companion.” Each of these aspects would become crucial to MLK’s philosophical
and practical approach to leadership. Just as the Bible identifies love as the most important one
among the virtues of love, hope and charity, so did MLK identify love as the foundation for his
relationship and understanding of God. In illustrating the power of God and love to motivate people
to advocate for social change, MLK said:
From the beginning a basic philosophy guided the movement. This guiding principle has
since been referred to variously as nonviolent resistance, noncooperation, and passive
resistance. But in the first days of the protest none of these expressions was mentioned; the
phrase most often heard was Christian love. (King, 1958, p. 93)
When it comes to describing MLK’s leadership in Biblical terms, Lischer (1995) goes so far
as to compare MLK and the Civil Rights Movement to the Bible’s book of Acts. “What the book of
Acts claims for the earliest Christian preaching could be said of King and his colleagues in Alabama,
47 Mississippi, and Georgia. So mightily grew the Word of God and prevailed” (p. 12).
MLK’s Christian faith is the most important contributing factor to his leadership style. It is
the foundation on which all of the other characteristics of his life and leadership were built. As
important as his faith is to his legacy, it is not always recognized as a valuable characteristic of his
leadership. Horst (1994) recognizes that there are some researchers and scholars who give little or no
credit to the role of Christianity in MLK’s leadership.
When pundits discuss the work of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. the only member of the
clergy whose life we celebrate with a national holiday, the fact of his religious calling is
usually treated as a relatively unimportant aspect of his career, if, indeed, it is mentioned at all.
(Horst, 1994, p. 446)
To MLK, the CRM was as much about freeing white Americans from the bondage of immorality as it was about freeing black Americans from the bondage of servitude. The goal of the
Movement MLK said was to “awaken a sense of shame within the oppressor and challenge his false sense of superiority. The end is reconciliation; the end is redemption; the end is the creation of the beloved community” (Mattson, 1999, p. 29).
Nonviolence
It was from MLK’s deep spiritual belief in God’s love and power and the creation of the
Beloved Community that he developed the 6 principles of Kingian Nonviolence. The six principles are: Nonviolence is a way of life for courageous people; Nonviolence chooses love instead of hate;
Nonviolence seeks to win friendship and understanding; Nonviolence seeks to defeat injustices not
people; Nonviolence holds that unearned suffering is redemptive; and Nonviolence holds that the
universe is on the side of justice (King, 1958).
Phillips (2002) explains that there have been three revolutions in American history, spaced
48 approximately one century apart. The first, the American Revolution (1776-1783), was a violent war fought to achieve independence from Great Britain. It ended with the establishment of the United
States of America as a free nation governed by democracy. The second, the Civil War (1861-1865), was an extraordinarily brutal armed conflict waged primarily over America’s enslavement of human beings of African descent. The third revolution was the American Civil Rights Movement (1954-
1968). While each of these revolutions helped to transform America, there is one major distinction-- the latter one was able to do so without declaration of war. MLK embraced and practiced a method that was not used in the two American revolutions before him.
In order to appreciate the power and significance of MLK’s nonviolent stand against racial oppression, it is important to have some understanding of the segregated climate in the southern states at the time and the extremes to which white supremacists were willing to go in order to maintain the status quo. “Between 1882 and 1968, newspapers reported 4,742 lynch murders in the U.S., 73% of which were black. 81% occurred in 12 southern states” (Bermanzohn, 2000, p. 34).
According to Bermanzohn (2000), wherever civil rights activity developed, Klan violence followed. Bombing became the weapon of choice, targeting homes, schools, churches and synagogues. In Birmingham, 21 bombs were detonated against blacks over the course of eight years and the city became known as Bombingham. Even with this prevalence of violence, many historical accounts downplay the role of violence and ignore one of the CRM’s greatest achievements: “forcing the state to combat racist violence” (Bermanzohn, 2000, p. 32).
These bombings and countless acts like them were the reason that MLK came “perilously close to resenting all white people,” (King, 1958, p. 4). At first, he too thought like others that violence was needed to win equal rights. “When I was in theological school I thought the only way we could solve our problem of segregation was an armed revolt” (King, 1958, p 6).
49 MLK was first introduced to the concept of nonviolence when he was a freshman at
Morehouse College. The introduction came in the form of Henry Thoreau’s essay Civil
Disobedience. MLK’s fascination with Thoreau’s idea of not cooperating with an evil system would send him on a life journey in search of “a method to eliminate social evil” (King, 1958, p. 4). MLK’s quest would lead him to study some of the best known philosophers and thinkers in the world. He read and studied Rauschenbusch, Karl Marx, Muste and Nietzsche “from a dialectical point of view, combining a partial yes and a partial no” (King, 1958, p. 95).
One Sunday afternoon, MLK traveled to Fellowship House in Philadelphia to hear a sermon by Dr. Moedecai Johnson, President of Howard University. MLK wrote of that trip:
Dr. Johnson had just returned from a trip to India, and to my great interest, he spoke of the life
and teachings of Mahatma Gandhi. His message was so profound and electrifying that I left
the meeting and bought half-dozen books on Gandhi’s life and works. (King, 1958, p. 96)
In Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence, MLK found what he had not been able to find in the philosophies of others, the love ethic of Jesus. MLK embraced this powerful philosophy as a guide for governing one’s individual actions, but now, through Gandhi’s writings he saw it elevated to a powerful instrument for “social and collective transformation…It was in this Gandhian emphasis on love and nonviolence that I discovered the method for social reform that I had been seeking for so many months” (King, 1958, p. 97). In 1955, MLK would have an unexpected opportunity to put the philosophical teachings of Gandhi’s nonviolent social change to the test, asking himself if the method of social resistance that had freed India from British rule could be successful in freeing African
Americans from the evils of racism and segregation in the American South.
When the protest began, my mind, consciously or unconsciously, was driven back to the
Sermon on the Mount, with its sublime teachings on love, and the Gandhian method of
50 nonviolent resistance. As the days unfolded, I came to see the power of nonviolence more and
more. Living through the actual experience of the protest, nonviolence became more than a
method to which I gave intellectual assent; it became a commitment to a way of life. Many of
the things that I had not cleared up intellectually concerning nonviolence were solved in the
sphere of practical action. (King, 1958, p.101)
While some may find it ironic that MLK would develop a nonviolent strategy to combat the violence of racial oppression in the South, Bermanzohn (2000) noted that not only was MLK’S nonviolent tactics a matter of life and death for activists but also it was the means by which MLK could engage the support of white liberals and other sympathizers. MLK’s nonviolent strategy caught on because “it was effective, spurring millions into action and rallying support from around the country and the world” (Bermanzohn, 2000, p. 44). In short, keeping the Civil Rights Movement on moral ground was necessary to gain support outside the African American community.
From MLK’s writings and speeches, six steps for nonviolent social change were developed: information gathering; education; commitment; negotiation; direct action; and reconciliation
(LaFayette & Jensen, 1996). To bring about nonviolent social change it is not always necessary to go through all six steps. On some occasions, merely educating the opposition is enough or, change might occur in step four during negotiations. Regardless, of how many steps are engaged to bring about change, the sixth step has to be completed, for it is only through reconciliation that MLK’s dream of the beloved community can be created.
MLK’s Personal Challenges to Nonviolence
While it is clear that MLK’s philosophy was based on nonviolent social change, there are some who thought that his words were often contradictory to his method. One of these accusations stems from MLK’s participation in the New Politics Convention in 1967 in Chicago. One
51 unsubstantiated report was that MLK joined in a chant with other revolutionary activist shouting “Kill
Whitey” (Murphey, 2003 p. 337).
Others like, Lokos (as cited by Murphey, 2003) point out inconsistencies in MLK’s philosophy relative to his support of violent acts perpetrated by others. Lokos wrote:
King never hurled a Molotov Cocktail but he never stopped faulting society for those who did.
King never looted a store, but he never stopped defending those that thought that poverty gave
them a license to kill. King never hid on a roof with a rifle and sniped at a police but he never
stopped picturing the police department as a sort of home-grown Gestapo. (p. 342
Murphey (2003) also declares that some of MLK’s language promoting nonviolence was threatening and violent by its tone. He cites the following examples from 1968 when MLK said “we seek to say to the nation in our campaign that if you don’t straighten up, then you’re writing your obituary” (p. 343). When pressing for the need for economic justice, MLK (1968) wrote, “if it fails, nonviolence will be discredited, and the country may be plunged into holocaust…” (p. 343). In the same year, MLK also wrote, “if our nonviolent campaign doesn’t generate some progress, people are just going to engage in more violent activity, and the discussion of guerilla warfare will be more extensive” (p. 343).
Perhaps MLK’s greatest contradiction was the fact that his home once was protected for a time by armed guards. He dismissed the guards after Bayard Rustin “explained Satyagraha (Gandhi’s philosophy of Nonviolence) to him in detail, arguing that the presence of guns in the home of a self- proclaimed leader of a nonviolent struggle was a contradiction of beliefs” (Carboda & Weise, 2004, p.1166)
External Challenges to MLK’s Nonviolence
In 1960, the press often referred to nonviolence as passive resistance and the sight of people
52 not striking back when attacked tended to reinforce the word passive (Ling, 2003). It was this kind of
reporting that led some leaders of the black radical movements to ridicule MLK and his philosophy of
nonviolence. Malcolm X and other black radical leaders were portrayed as militants, with their
fingers jabbing at the crowds while they spoke, stern facial expressions and depictions of some
holding guns or other weapons.
While MLK was preaching nonviolence, Malcolm and some other black radicals were calling
on African Americans to defend themselves from their oppressor and to win their freedom by any
means necessary. Malcolm further encouraged “if a man puts a hand on you-send him to the
cemetery” (Ling, 2003, p. 29). Fighting back, he maintained, would win the opponents respect. To
these calls for violence, MLK (1967) responded:
During the fifties, many voices offered substitutes for the tactics of legal recourse. Some
called for a colossal blood bath to cleanse the nation’s ills…But the Negro of the South in
1955 assessing the power of the force arrayed against him, could not perceive the slightest
prospect of victory in this approach. He was unarmed, unorganized, untrained, disunited, and
most important, psychologically and morally unprepared for the deliberate spilling of blood.
Although his desperation had prepared him to die for freedom if necessary, he was not willing
to commit himself to racial suicide with no prospect of victory. (p. 24)
Malcolm X went so far as to claim that what had forced President Kennedy to intervene in the
Birmingham confrontation was not MLK’s nonviolent approach but the inter-racial violence which had erupted in May 1964 (Ling, 2003). He used this claim to further his argument that African
Americans should unify and organize in a militant fashion. Later in life after Malcolm left the Nation of Islam, visited Mecca and started the Organization of Afro-American Unity, he began to soften his rhetoric and his stand against MLK and his nonviolent movement stating that, “MLK wants the same
53 thing I do – Freedom!” (as cited by Vernell, 2000, p. 74). In an interview with MLK Halberston
(1967) suggested that MLK sounded like a “nonviolent Malcolm” (p. 147). These commonalities and differences between the two men are the reason that Cone (1991) said:
Martin and Malcolm are important because they symbolize two necessary ingredients in the
African American struggle for justice in the United States. Anyone, therefore, who claims to
be for one and not the other does not understand their significance for the black community,
for America, or for the world. (p.316)
However, not all of the challenges to MLK’s nonviolent strategy came from leaders of black
radical movements. One of his greatest critics was the president of the Monroe, North Carolina,
NAACP, Robert Williams, and he was not the only African American active in the Civil Rights
Movement who disagreed with MLK’s philosophy of nonviolence. Some of the others were Ella
Baker a NAACP worker and Connie Lane a Greensboro activists.
Visionary
According to Kouzes and Posner (2002), exemplary leaders inspire a shared vision. When it
comes to inspiring a shared vision, Phillips (2002) places MLK among great leaders such as George
Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Winston Churchill and Harry Truman. Phillips (2002) recognizes
vision as a powerful thing. He maintains that it is the only effective mechanism that can truly
overcome the natural human tendency to resist change. By articulating his vision, MLK was able to
persuade and inspire his followers, advocate that the future can be better than the past, and tie the
goals of the Civil Rights Movement to the American Dream. While MLK was a master of imagery
and alliteration, his vision for America was never better articulated than in his now famous I Have A
Dream Speech in which he described the America in which he dreamed his children would grow up.
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons
54 of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood…I have a
dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged
by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today. (King,
1963)
Another aspect of MLK’s visionary leadership can be seen in his willingness to embrace and
recognize the contributions of all of the people around him including women
Women in the Civil Right Movement
In 1957, according to Brinkley (2003), Rosa Parks and her husband Raymond decided to
move form the segregated South, not just because of Jim Crow but also because of the male
chauvinism and sexism she faced from leaders of the Civil Rights Movement. The sexism in the
movement made her the victim of unflattering remarks, from the men in the movement and that kept
her and other women from being on the program for the 1963 March on Washington and kept them
from marching up front with the men.
There was at least one man who Mrs. Parks exempted from this male chauvinistic behavior
and he was MLK. According to Brinkley (2003), Mrs. Parks felt that MLK was one of the few men
who seemed to truly appreciate her and the contributions she had made to the civil rights struggle.
Partial proof of this appreciation was seen in the inscription MLK wrote to Mrs. Parks when he sent
her a copy of his book, Stride Toward Freedom. He inscribed it, “To Rosa Parks: whose creative
witness was the great force that led to the modern stride toward freedom” (Brinkley, 2003, p. 49).
Mrs. Parks, though, seems to stand alone in her assessment of MLK’s value and appreciation for women in the Movement. Other women such as Septima Clark, Ella Baker and Carolyn Hoover, to name a few, offer different experiences with MLK and the SCLC. Even though Ella Baker was one of the few women who held an official position in the SCLC, she still considered herself devalued
55 relative to the men in the organization. She expressed this realization when she said “in the first place,
I had known, number one, that there would never be any role for me in a leadership capacity with
SCLC. Why? I’m a woman. Also, I’m not a minister” (cited by Robnett, 1996, p.1671). Septima
Clark expressed a similar experience.
I was on the Executive staff of SCLC, but the men on it didn’t listen to me too well. …But
those men didn’t have any faith in women, none whatsoever. They just thought that women
were sex symbols and had no contribution to make. That’s why Rev. Abernathy would say
continuously, Why is Mrs. Clark on this staff? (Robnett, 1996, p. 1671)
Even though there is little if any evidence that MLK did anything personally to ease women’s participation in the organization and the Movement from his own writings, we know that he was aware of their struggle. Evidence of this awareness can be seen in the inscription he wrote in Mrs.
Clark’s book, Echo in My Soul,
Echo in My Soul epitomizes the continuous struggle of the Southern Negro woman to realize
her role as a mother while fulfilling her forced position as community teacher, intuitive fighter
for human rights and leader of her unlettered and disillusioned people. (Robnett, 1996, p.
1672)
Keys (1997) maintains that Baker’s assertion that she was not a minister was closer to the reason that she and other women were excluded from leadership positions in the CRM. Their exclusion he maintains from the pulpit excluded them from leadership roles not their gender.
The earlier phase of the movement had a number of charismatic, articulate, and able black
men who never ascended to the role of “civil rights leader”, as we think of it now, because
they lack the moral mantel of a man of God. (Keys, 1997, p. 1697)
Keys (1997) further maintains that women’s exclusion from leadership was a way of keeping
56 them safe. “African-American ministers were among the best educated and most respected members
of their communities, along with the fact their role as clergymen gave them a partial immunity from
racial violence that other African-Americans did not enjoy” (p.1694).
Summary
This chapter provides an overview of social movements and its relationship to adult education.
It detailed the significance of adult education to social movements relative to the learning that takes place and its purpose of promoting social change. It outlined the differences in social movements and
new social movements, highlighted some of the major social movements and its leaders and provided
an in-depth overview of the civil rights movement and the leadership of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Finally, this chapter provided evidence for the need for more scholarly research of the leadership of
SMs that involve AE.
We know that leaders of SMs are important to the effectiveness of the organization. We know
that the amount of learning that takes place in SMs that involve AE is largely dependent on the leader.
We also know that leaders of SMs face many challenges and have to develop strategies for meeting
these challenges. What we don’t know is what the challenges are or how leaders manage these
challenges. By studying the leader of one SM, the CRM, we can get a better understanding of the
challenges leaders of SM face and how they addressed these challenges.
57 CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Overview
This chapter gives a step by step account of the methodology that was used to conduct this study. The chapter starts with an overview of the design of the study and why the qualitative design was the most appropriate. It then provides details of how and why a purposeful sample was selected. The data collection and data analysis process is described before the validity and reliability are assured. The chapter concludes with a subjectivity statement which speaks to the potential of any biases related to the researcher.
The purpose of this study was to examine the leadership challenges MLK faced and addressed as he led a nonviolent movement for social change. This study asks the questions:
1. What personal challenges did MLK face in his leadership for social change?
2. What internal organizational challenges did MLK face in his leadership for social change?
3. What external movement challenges did MLK face in his leadership for social change?
4. How was MLK able to effectively manage these challenges?
Design of the Study
This research study was conducted using a basic qualitative design. According to
Polkinghorne (2005), “qualitative research is an umbrella term under which a variety of research methods that use language data are clustered” (p. 137). This study lends itself to a basic qualitative design because the researcher is searching for meaning and understanding relative to the challenges
MLK faced as he led a movement for nonviolent social change. Constructing meaning and understanding the challenges MLK faced is important because the knowledge gained could have a tremendous impact on the development of future leaders and their effectiveness at promoting social
58 change. In addition, this study was needed because there is a lack of theory that adequately explores leadership in social movements. The researcher used the data collection and analysis process to build concepts and themes to help identify the challenges Martin Luther King, Jr. faced as he led a movement for nonviolent social change.
In keeping with Merriam’s (2002) description of qualitative research, the researcher was the primary instrument for data collection. As such, the researcher conducted interviews with seven participants chosen from a purposeful sampling. Any shortcomings or biases that need to be considered because the researcher was the primary instrument will be discussed later in the chapter in the Subjectivity Statement.
Finally, a basic qualitative research design was chosen for this study because the end product of this study reflects the thick, rich, descriptive language associated with qualitative research. The researcher used language instead of numbers to reveal her findings to the reader. The findings in the study are supported with data from participant interviews, the words of his wife Coretta Scott King, his father Martin Luther King, Sr., and MLK’s own words.
Sample Selection
As discussed in the design of the study, qualitative research is concerned with understanding the meaning of a phenomenon. As a result, the search is for quality of meaning and understanding rather than the quantity or frequency of the phenomenon. In qualitative research, it is important to select a sample from which the most can be learned. Therefore, the best sample for qualitative research is purposeful sampling (Merriam, 2002).
Crookes and Davis (1998) define purposive sampling as judgmental sampling that involves the conscious selection by the researcher of certain subjects or elements to include in the study. According to Patton (2002), purposeful sampling yields information-rich cases about issues
59 of central importance to the purpose of the research. When examining the challenges MLK faced and
addressed as leader of the CRM, it is important to consider the criteria for selecting participants for the
purposeful sample. The researcher’s goal in selecting a sample is to identify those participants who
will provide the most complete and accurate information relative to the phenomenon being studied. In
this particular study, this means identifying those individuals who could help the researcher paint a
complete picture of MLK and the challenges he faced in promoting social change. As such, a
purposeful sampling of participants was chosen that had first-hand knowledge of MLK and the challenges he faced as he led a nonviolent moment for social change. Specifically, the participants were chosen based on the fact that they were: one of MLK’s closest advisers; they held leadership positions within SCLC, Ebenezer Baptist Church and/or the CRM; and they worked closely with
MLK for at least 3 years.
Through her many years of work at The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social
Change and her close personal relationship with the King family, the researcher established and maintained significant and meaningful relationships with a number of the civil rights activists who served with MLK. The activists interviewed for this dissertation were: MLK’s disciple and former
Ambassador to the United Nations, Andrew Young; MLK’s disciple and Kingian Scholar, Dr.
Bernard Lafayette; disciple and grassroots organizer, Rev. James Orange; SCLC staffer and disciple,
Rev. C.T. Vivian; disciple and fellow Morehouse alumnus, Rev. Dr. Otis Moss; colleague and co- founder of the SCLC, Rev. Joseph Lowery; and SCLC staffer and friend Mrs. Xernona Clayton.
Complete biographies of each participant can be found in Chapter 4 of this dissertation. All participants signed a release form giving the researcher permission to use their name in the study (see
Appendix A).
The fact that the researcher is acquainted with the subjects to be interviewed does not in itself
60 create a conflict or bias for the researcher. In fact Van Manen (1988) suggests the researcher’s own
experience is a source of data to be reflected on to enhance interpretation and understanding. Further,
as Polkinghorne (2005) posits, participants are often restrained in their initial session with the
researcher due to a lack of rapport and trust. Having existing relationships with the participants
reduces this barrier, allowing participants to offer more in-depth and intimate responses to questions.
Data Collection
Polkinghorne (2005) writes that “the purpose of data gathering in qualitative research is to provide evidence for the experience it is investigating” (p. 138). There are three primary means by
which data is collected in qualitative research, interviews, observations and documents. This study used two of these means, interviews and documents, for the production of data relative to this study.
Interviews
According to Polkinghorne (2005), interviewing is the most widely used approach to the production of data. Patton (2002) posits that “the purpose of interviewing is to allow us to enter into the other person’s perspective. Qualitative interviewing begins with the assumption that the perspective of others is meaningful, knowable, and able to be made explicit” (p. 311). As such, the researcher used interviews to construct meaning and build theory relative to the challenges MLK faced in promoting nonviolent social change.
When conducting the interviews, the researcher applied House’s (1990) three basic ethical principles, mutual respect, non-coercion, and support for democratic values. Interviews were conducted using the open-ended, semi-structured approach. This means that the researcher used a fully developed interview guide (see Appendix B) with a list of open-ended questions with possible follow-up questions. All participants were asked the same questions in the same order. According to
Patton (2002), by asking respondents the same questions in the same exact order, interviewer bias is
61 reduced; the instrumentation used in the interview is available for review by evaluators; and it
facilitates the organization and analysis of the data. However, the interview guide did not hinder
participants from full participation in the interviews as each was encouraged to speak freely and to offer any comments that they thought would be helpful in explaining the leadership of MLK.
In preparation for interviews, the researcher made initial telephone contact with each
participant. After the initial phone conversation, the researcher sent a letter of invitation to the
participants requesting an interview. The letter offered a brief description of the research project and
was accompanied by the consent form and interview guide. The researcher made a follow-up phone
call to the participant 7 to 10 days after the letter was sent. Interviews were conducted in locations
convenient for each participant. These locations included their homes, offices, restaurants, and even a
convalescent home so that one of the participants would not have to leave the bedside of his ailing
spouse.
Participants were asked to commit to an initial hour and a half face-to-face, telephone or, e-
mail interview. The participants also were asked to be available by phone or e-mail for any follow-up
questions or clarifications. Interviews with Andrew Young, Bernard Lafayette, Rev. James Orange,
Rev. C.T. Vivian, and Mrs. Xernona Clayton were conducted in person. Rev. Otis Moss was
interviewed by phone. Rev. Joseph Lowery was interviewed by e-mail.
According to Minchiello, Aroni, Timewell and Alexander,(1995), “in-depth interviewing is
defined as conversation with a specific purpose--a conversation between researcher and informant
focusing on the informant’s perspective of self, life and experience and expressed in his or her own
words” (p. 61). The participants were each asked ten initial questions with probing and follow-up
questions asked when needed. The questions were a combination of experience and behavior
questions, opinion and values questions and knowledge questions (Patton, 2002).
62 When conducting the interviews, the researcher’s goal was to establish a rapport with the participants and to communicate a sincere appreciation for their comments and not to be judgmental.
With the participants’ consent, the researcher used a small tape recorder so that she could maintain
sufficient eye contact and engagement with the participant. As a result, her notes consist primarily of
key words and phrases that allowed her to see at a glance similarities in the participants’ responses.
Immediately after the interviews, the researcher transcribed the tapes word-for-word.
Personally transcribing the interviews served a number of significant purposes for the researcher.
First, it allowed the researcher to totally immerse herself in the data and to begin formulating
preliminary approaches to analyzing the data. Second, it allowed the researcher to provide the reader
with direct quotes from the participants thereby developing the thick, rich, descriptive language
associated with qualitative research. Third, personally transcribing the interviews put the researcher in
a better position to use member checks to help authenticate the validity and reliability of the study.
In order to be sure that the researcher was getting the proper understanding and interpretation
of the participants’ responses, she used summarizing transitions during the interview (Merriam, 2002).
This means that she listened carefully and thoughtfully to the participants and then succinctly
summarized their responses for accuracy. Using summarizing transitions also let the participants
know that the researcher was actively listening. When participants did not directly or completely
answer questions the researcher used clarifying probes or follow-up questions to further clarify the
participants’ meaning.
Interviews were brought to a close with a final or closing question that asked if the participants
had anything else they wanted to add. This strategy proved to be very valuable as each participant
took the opportunity to contribute additional information. The researcher also used this technique
throughout the interview to help participants feel comfortable freely expressing themselves. One of
63 the challenges to the researcher during the interviews was providing adequate and appropriate
reinforcement and feedback to the participants while maintaining neutrality. According to Patton
(2002), this is one of the common mistakes made by novice researchers.
Interviews were conducted to the point of saturation, which means until participants were
giving the same answers to the same questions. This duplication of responses came early in the data
collection process and continued with each interview. It was almost as though the participants had
devised their responses collectively. In fact many of them began to use the same word or phrase to
answer a question. One example of this occurred when participants were asked what MLK’s personal
response was to his call for leadership. Each of the participants began their answers with one of two
words: reluctance or acceptance.
Documents
According to Hodder (2004), documentary evidence can consist of written, oral, visual (such
as photographs), or cultural artifacts. In order to triangulate the data collected during the interview
process, the researcher reviewed relevant documents in the form of books, speeches, sermons and
audio and videotapes. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote six books, countless sermons and delivered some
of the most powerful, moving and memorable speeches in the 20th century. In addition, many of the people who were closest to him have written books about their experiences with him and the CRM.
These persons include his wife, Coretta Scott King; his father Martin Luther King, Sr.; and his close
friend, Ambassador Andrew Young.
MLK’s own writings combined with those of his family and friends formed a plethora of
documents that were used to support the findings of this study. A large number of the documents
reviewed are part of the researcher’s own personal library of books, speeches, sermons, interviews and
audio and videotapes of MLK, many of which were given to the researcher as personal gifts from
64 Coretta Scott King. Documents that were not part of the researcher’s collection were easily accessed
through The King Center’s archives, the King family archives, the University of Georgia libraries and
public libraries (see Appendix C).
Data Analysis
According to Patton (2002), the purpose of qualitative analysis is to “transform data into
findings” (p. 432). The researcher began the data analysis process by creating an inventory of the data
that was collected during the data collection phase of the research. During the inventory, the
researcher created a checklist to make sure that all interview tapes were properly labeled with who,
what, when, where, how, etc. The checklist also made note of the fact that all interviews were
completely and totally transcribed.
After completing the inventory, the researcher reviewed the questions that she formulated to
guide the study to make sure that the data collected was reflective of the questions asked. The review
of the questions also helped the researcher to identify themes and categories that might emerge from
the data. The data the researcher collected from interviews yielded 127 pages of verbatim transcripts.
The researcher’s task was to take the vast amount of data and reduce it down to a manageable
size so that it could be analyzed properly. In order to reduce the amount of the text and make meaning
of the data, the researcher used the constant comparative method of analysis. This essentially meant analyzing the core content of the interviews, looking for similar ideas and thoughts and organizing them by a descriptive code. The researcher followed Merriam’s (2002) suggestion and analyzed the interview material line-by-line, searching for emerging themes and giving each discrete incident, idea, or event a name or code word that represented the concept underlying the observation. Strauss and
Corbin (1990) refer to this identification of the themes emerging from the raw data as open coding.
Bogdan and Biklen (1982) define qualitative data analysis as "working with data, organizing
65 it, breaking it into manageable units, synthesizing it, searching for patterns, discovering what is
important and what is to be learned, and deciding what you will tell others" (p. 145). This is the exact method the researcher used to analyze the data collected from the interviews.
During open coding, the researcher identified themes that appeared to be similar and grouped them into categories. Specifically, the researcher read each transcript a minimum of six times. The first read was for completeness and coherence. The second read was to search for themes that spoke to the first research questions. The third read was for themes for the second research question and the fourth and fifth read was for themes that spoke to the third and fourth research questions. The sixth read was for themes that related to any of the four research questions. This process was repeated until no new themes emerged from the data.
As she read the transcripts the researcher made notes in the margin of emerging themes that spoke to the research questions. After the sixth read the researcher compiled the themes into categories. The grouping of these like themes formed a preliminary framework for analysis. The categories continued to be refined until the preponderance of the evidence was translated into findings.
The researcher used document analysis to triangulate the data that was collected from interviews. The books, speeches, sermons and audio and videotapes reviewed were by or about MLK.
After analyzing the transcripts and organizing the themes that emerged into categories the researcher continuously reviewed the documents listed in appendix C searching for evidence to support the findings.
Validity and Reliability
It has been more than fifty years since MLK and the citizens of Montgomery boycotted the city’s segregated bus system and more than forty years since his assassination. Over that time, many
people who marched with him have made their transitions from this life to the next. Among those are
66 his wife, Mrs. Coretta Scott King; his parents, affectionately called Mamma and Daddy King; his brother, A.D. King; and his close friend, colleague and participant in this study Rev. James Orange.
The colleagues who remain, like Bernard LaFayette and Andrew Young, were teenagers or young adults when the bus boycott started are now in their seventies and eighties. In addition, to the lapse in time the fact that there is a national holiday honoring MLK an international memorial dedicated to his memory and public spaces that bear his name contribute to a larger-than-life image that some have of MLK.
Consequently, the question for the researcher was how to deal with the possible memory lapses of participants and the “halo affect” that some might possess. In order to answer this question, the researcher had to remember the purpose of qualitative research in general and interviewing in particular. According to Patton (2002), the purpose of qualitative research is to “transform data into findings” (p.432). Polkinghorne (2005) posits that the purpose of interviewing is to construct meaning from the participant’s past experiences through rich and inclusive accounts.
In order to obtain interview data of sufficient quality to produce worthwhile findings,
researchers need to engage with participants in more than a one-shot, 1-hr session; they need
to attend to establishing a trusting, open relationship with the participants and to focus on the
meaning of the participants life experiences rather on the accuracy of his or her recall. (p. 141)
Therefore, it was important for the researcher to remember that the participant’s accounts were not necessarily “mirrored images of the participants’ experience as it actually occurred in the past”
(Polkinghorne, 2005, p.141). Rather each account was an interpretation of the meaning of the events that the participant experienced, experiences which, according to Polkinghorne (2005) may vary based on the participant’s mood and emotional state. More important than the accuracy of the participant’s account is the researcher’s interpretation of the meaning of his or her experience. In order to
67 authenticate the validity of the findings, the researcher used member checks to ensure that her interpretation was indeed reflective of the participant’s meaning. Table 1 that listed the findings for each research question was shared with four of the participants, the three that responded to the request for feedback all agreed with the findings.
To guard against the challenges, flaws and disadvantages of data analysis, the researcher took additional measures to ensure the validity of the findings. She followed Holsti’s (2002) advice and made sure that the themes assigned to categories of ideas and thoughts actually represented the elements of the investigator’s theory; that they were exhaustive, by ensuring that every item relevant to the study was classified; and that they were mutually exclusive, so that no item was scored more than once within a category set.
According to Merriam (2002), internal validity asks how congruent one’s findings are with reality. Because the researcher was the primary instrument for data collection, “we are closer to reality than if an instrument had been interjected between the researcher and the researched. For this reason, internal validity is considered a strength of qualitative research” (Merriam & Simpson, 2000, p. 102). In order to further ensure the validity of this study, the researcher employed a number of other strategies including peer reviews (feedback from the researchers dissertation committee); and a statement of subjectivity (revealing the researchers experiences, assumptions and biases) that follows this section.
Guba and Lincoln (1981) suggest that reliability should not be thought of in terms of whether or not findings can be replicated, but whether or not the results are consistent with the data collected.
Again, peer reviews were used as one strategy for ensuring the reliability of this study. In addition, the researcher used an audit trail detailing how data was collected and how themes were assigned.
Finally, external validity asks to what extent the findings from this study can be generalized to other
68 situations (Merriam & Simpson, 2000). According to Patton (2002), the thick, rich descriptive language generated by the data collection process in a qualitative study is a valid method for ensuring the external validity of this study.
Subjectivity Statement
The Bible says to whom much is given, much is expected and it is better to give than it is to receive. John F. Kennedy, Jr. said ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said a man that has not found a cause for which to die is not fit to live. I have taken all of these sayings to heart and have tried my best to incorporate them into both my personal and my professional lives.
In keeping with my life philosophy, I have shied away from working with for profit and other corporate entities, choosing instead to serve in non-profit or government agencies committed to the delivery of meaningful and significant services for the betterment of humankind. To this end, the first half of my professional career was dedicated to the elimination of what MLK called the triple evils– poverty, racism and war.
As an employee of The King Center, I served in a number of challenging positions that allowed me to educate thousands of people about the courageous life of MLK as well as to train youth from around the world in his philosophy of Nonviolence. The more I studied MLK and taught
Kingian Nonviolence, the more intrigued I became with his uncanny ability to inspire and motivate large numbers of individuals from all walks of life to forsake their personal needs for the advancement of the human race. I know that the type of leadership that MLK embodied was special and studying it is in keeping with my own personal commitment to promote social change.
I am an African American woman who has greatly benefited from the struggles and sacrifices of my ancestors. I am standing on the shoulders of the brave men and women who had freedom on
69 their mind, justice on their side, and a song in their heart as they tirelessly marched against racial
oppression while declaring, “I Ain’t Gonna Let Nobody, Turn Me Around!” I may not have been
there with them, but three decades after the Montgomery Bus Boycott I was blessed to serve in the
organization that was established by Coretta Scott King as a living memorial to continue the legacy of
the man whose name has become synonymous with great leader.
Do my past experiences make me biased? Absolutely! However, I agree with Krieger (as
cited by Merriam, 2002), who argues that we “ought to develop our different individual perspectives
more fully in social science, and we ought to acknowledge more honestly, than we do, the extent to
which our studies are reflections of our own inner lives” ( p. 198). I honestly acknowledge that this
study is a clear reflection of my inner life.
To further reduce the appearance of bias and to ensure that my bias did not interfere with data
collection and data analysis the researcher took one of the participant’s transcripts to a meeting with
her major professor and walked him through the manor in which the transcripts were analyzed and
coded. It is because of my personal and professional philosophy and my commitment to make
meaningful contributions to society that I have chosen to examine the leadership of Martin Luther
King, Jr. Therefore, I respectfully submit to the reader that my desire to produce an honest and
authentic product that can be used to create leaders with high moral character who are committed to
social change will far outweigh any of my perceived biases or assumptions.
Summary
This research study was conducted using a basic qualitative design. The researcher was the primary instrument for data collection. She conducted interviews with seven participants chosen from a purposeful sampling. Data was collected from interviews and document analysis.
The researcher used the constant comparative method to analyze interview material.
70 Document analysis was used to triangulate the data collected from interviews. The researcher
employed a number of strategies to ensure the validity of this study, including peer reviews member checks, and a statement of subjectivity.
71 CHAPTER 4
PARTICIPANTS’ BIOGRAPHIES
As was expressed in Chapter 3 a purposeful sample of participants was chosen to interview for
this dissertation. Criteria for selecting participants were based on the fact they were: one of MLK’s
closest advisers; they held leadership positions within SCLC, Ebenezer Baptist Church and/or the
CRM; and they worked closely with MLK for at least 3 years. As a result of their positions and
relationship with MLK, these participants were instrumental in helping to bring about social change through the CRM.
In addition to their valuable contributions to the CRM, each of these participants has achieved prominence with outstanding accomplishments in their own right. Collectively they have each
continued to work on behalf of civil rights through existing organizations or organizations that they
founded. Individually they have achieved prominence as: mayor of a major city, ambassador to the
United Nations; recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom; and as the first Black woman in the
south to host a television show just to name a few.
As a result of these accomplishments and a host of others the researcher felt that the
participants deserved more attention than sample members usually receive. Consequently an entire
chapter has been devoted to the participants. Following are the biographies of: Rev. James Orange;
Ambassador Andrew Young; Rev. Dr. Bernard Lafayette; Rev. Dr. Otis Moss; Rev. C.T. Vivian; Mrs.
Xernona Clayton; and Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery.
Rev. James Orange
Rev. James Orange was hired by the late Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. as one of the first field staffers, he was instrumental in mobilizing youth throughout the Civil Rights
Movement. His organizing skills with the young people were key to their involvement with the
72 movement and essential in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In 1968, as Northeast coordinator, he was responsible for bringing over 300 bus loads of
participants to Washington, D.C. for the Poor Peoples’ Campaign, which was a campaign to draw
attention to the economic plight of the impoverished people in the United States. This campaign led
to the establishment of the food stamp program.
He has participated in several crucial movements throughout the United States, as well as
abroad. Assignments leading a voter registration drive in Texas lead to his involvement with the labor movement. After the death of MLK, he assisted with a hospital workers strike in Charleston, South
Carolina.
He was the coordinator for the J.P. Stevens campaign at all three plants in Great Falls, South
Carolina; Clark Equipment, Rockingham, North Carolina. He developed, organized and directed
grassroots, education/mobilization campaigns that lead to the passage of the Workplace Fairness Bill
(S.55/H.R.5). He also developed and directed a regional conference on “Organizing Worker’s Rights and Coalition Building.” These conferences involved bridging labor, religious, civil rights, women’s
and environmental and other community based groups together on common concerns.
In Spring of 1992 he coordinated a STOP THE VIOLENCE Conference in Atlanta, Georgia and in Los Angeles, California helping to solidify the truce between the Cripps and the Bloods street
gangs. He created and supervised the Atlanta Olympic Community Intervention Team, which put 80
trained and seasoned advocates of non-violent conflict resolution on the streets of the city to provide
public safety monitoring and crowd control during the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games.
He accompanied Bill Lucy to Brazil for the INSPIR and CUT convention. He has mad
numerous trips to South Africa and was involved in the election of Nelson Mandela as the first
President at the end of the Apartheid regime that brought to South Africa its first free elections.
73 Rev. Orange is now retired from the AFL-CIO. Born in Birmingham, Alabama on
October 29, 1942 to the late Calvin and Ida Orange, he is a graduate and outstanding athlete of
Parker High School. He attended the former Bishop College in Dallas, Texas and is recipient if a
Doctorate degree from the A. P. Clayton Theological College. He is married to the former
Cleophas Brown, father of five children: Jamida, Deirdre, Tamara, Cleon, and Pamela who is
now deceased. Two grandchildren, JaClea Iraine and Brandon. Rev. Orange passed away on
February 16, 2008. He was 65 years old.
How he met MLK
In 1963 during the movement I went to one of the rallies at 16th Street Baptist Church to get
involved with a co-church member who was a member of the choir and took a seat on the wrong
bench on the bench that sent you to the jail the next day which I didn’t know I just saw an empty seat.
And in his speech and in Rev. Abernathy’s speech they made notice that I was up there early couldn’t
wait till they called folks. (Orange)
Ambassador Andrew Jackson Young
The Honorable Andrew Young is chairman of Atlanta-based GoodWorks International, a
specialty consulting group that provides strategic services to corporations and governments operating
in the global economy. He serves as a public affairs professor of policy studies at Georgia State
University's Andrew Young School of Policy Studies. Young also is a member of the boards of
directors of numerous businesses and organizations, including Delta Air Lines, Argus, Host Marriott
Corp., Cox Communications and Thomas Nelson Publishing.
He served as president of the National Council of Churches in 2000-2001, and was appointed
by the Secretary of Defense as a member of the National Security Study Group. In 1994, President
Bill Clinton appointed Young as chairman of the Southern Africa Enterprise Development Fund, a
74 $100 million privately managed fund to provide equity to businesses in 11 countries. Young has
published two books, A Way Out of No Way (Thomas Nelson Publishing) and An Easy Burden
(Harper Collins). His awards include the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Legion d'Honneur and more
than 45 honorary degrees from such universities as Yale, Notre Dame, Emory and the University of
Georgia.
Young is an ordained minister, international businessman, sports enthusiast, human rights
activist, published author and former public servant. He was elected to three terms in the United States
House of Representatives from the Fifth Congressional District of Georgia, and, in 1977, President
Jimmy Carter named him Ambassador to the United Nations. He served two terms as mayor of
Atlanta and was co-chairman of the Centennial Olympic Games in 1996.
A top aide to Martin Luther King Jr. during the civil rights movement, Young was involved in
the movement's inception and served as vice president of the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference. He presently serves on the board of the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Non-Violent
Social Change. A father of four, Young lives in Atlanta with his wife, Carolyn.
How he met MLK
I had known of MLK, of course, from the Montgomery Bus Boycott and then I was pastoring
a little church in Thomasville in Beachton, Georgia , from 1954 to 1957 and in 1957, he
invited us, I mean, well, we were both invited to Talladega College to do a religious emphasis
week program sponsored by the Alpha Fraternity and when we got there we realized, and my
wife had never mentioned this before, that I guess we knew it but that she and Coretta both
had grown up in Marian, Alabama. So I think our first child had just been born and Yoki had
just been born and he invited us to stop back by on our way back to Thomasville driving. And
we stopped and had dinner with them and that was the beginning. Of course, he had already
75 been on the cover of Time Magazine and I knew about the boycott. I knew his work in
nonviolence. And I had read Gandhi, also I wasn’t particularly committed to nonviolence at
that time but, it was, I had an interest in it. And so we really didn’t talk about anything but
children. He was crazy about his little baby, his new baby Yolanda. And, of course, I think
our Andrea is a little older so Andrea was about a year old. Yolanda was about 4 or 5 months.
(Young)
Rev. Dr. Bernard LaFayette
Bernard LaFayette, Jr. has been a Civil Rights Movement activist, minister, educator, lecturer, and is an authority on the strategy on nonviolent social change. He co-founded the Student Nonviolent
Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in 1960. He was a leader of the Nashville Movement, 1960 and on
the Freedom Rides, 1961 and the 1965 Selma Movement. He directed the Alabama Voter Registration
Project in 1962, and he was appointed National Program Administrator for the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference (SCLC) and National Coordinator of the 1968 Poor Peoples’ Campaign by
Martin Luther King, Jr. In addition, Dr. LaFayette has served as Director of Peace and Justice in Latin
America; Chairperson of the Consortium on Peace Research, Education and Development; Director of
the PUSH Excel Institute; and minister of the Westminster Presbyterian Church in Tuskegee,
Alabama.
An ordained minister, Dr. LaFayette earned his B.A. from the American Baptist Theological
Seminary in Nashville, Tennessee, and his Ed.M. and Ed.D from Harvard University. He has served
on the faculties of Columbia Theological Seminary in Atlanta and Alabama State University in
Montgomery, where he was Dean of the Graduate School; he also was principal of Tuskegee Institute
High School in Tuskegee, Alabama and a teaching fellow at Harvard University.
His publications include the Curriculum and Training Manual for the Martin Luther King, Jr.,
76 Nonviolent Community Leadership Training Program, his doctoral thesis, Pedagogy for Peace and
Nonviolence, and Campus Ministries and Social Change in the ‘60’s (Duke Divinity Review) and The
Leaders Manual: A Structured Guide and Introduction to Kingian Nonviolence with David Jehnsen.
Bernard LaFayette has traveled extensively to many countries as a lecturer and consultant on peace
and nonviolence.
Dr. LaFayette is a former President of the American Baptist College of ABT Seminary in
Nashville, Tennessee; Scholar in Residence at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent
Social Change in Atlanta, Georgia; and Pastor emeritus of the Progressive Baptist Church in
Nashville, Tennessee.
He is the Founder and National President of God-Parents Clubs, Inc., a national community
based program aimed at preventing the systematic incarceration of young Black youth; a member of
Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, and founder of the Association For Kingian Nonviolence, Education and
Training Works.
Dr. LaFayette is currently a Distinguished-Scholar-in-Residence and Director of the Center for
Nonviolence and Peace Studies at the University of Rhode Island. He is the chairperson for the
International Nonviolence Executive Planning Board. He has been re-appointed by Rhode Island
Governor Donald Carcieri as the chairman for the Rhode Island Select Commission on Race and
Police-Community Relations. A native of Tampa, Florida, Dr. LaFayette is married to the former Kate
Bulls.
How he met MLK
I first became acquainted with Martin Luther King in 1960 when I was a student in Nashville
at The American Baptists College and we participated in the sit-in movement and Martin
Luther King came to speak to the mass meeting that we had at Fisk University and that was
77 my first time meeting him directly. I read some of the readings and that sort of thing, etc.
That summer of 1960 the Congress of Racial Equality had a workshop in Miami, Florida and
Martin Luther King was invited as a resource person to that workshop and during the break
many of the students who were there as participants went out to that beach and that type of
thing, etc. and I stayed at the hotel, the St. John Hotel, and visited with Martin Luther King
around the pool and he was in his short sleeves and that’s when we really got a chance to get
acquainted and I got a chance to listen to him and ask him a lot of questions and he got a
chance to know me a little bit better. That was our first time, you might say, that he got to
know me but I meet him in Nashville first. (LaFayette)
Rev. Dr. Otis Moss, Jr.
The Reverend Dr. Otis Moss, Jr., was called to the ministry at the age of 17 and entered
Morehouse College (Atlanta, Georgia) on the same day he gave his initial sermon. (He completed his Tenure as Chairman of the Board of Trustees at Morehouse in 2005). His quest for knowledge and pursuit of educational excellence led him from Morehouse College as a
Bachelor of Arts graduate and onward to Morehouse’s School of Religion/Inter-Denominational
Theological Center where he received the Master of Divinity degree. Reverend Moss selected a further course of Special Studies at the Inter-Denominational Theological Center and ultimately achieved his goal of the Doctor of Ministry Degree from United Theological Seminary in 1990.
During his early days as a minister, Dr. Moss was blessed to sit at the feet within the inner circle of many phenomenal persons such as Dr. Benjamin E. Mays and Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. Both of these persons provided friendship, leadership and spiritual guidance and helped to shape the thinking and model for leadership
Dr. Moss represents today. He is recognized across the nation and globe as an eloquent
78 spokesperson and spiritually-grounded man of God, carrying the banner for love, justice, equality, and human rights for all.
As Dr. Moss so aptly states: “My decision to enter the ministry is a gift…a special calling from God.” His ministry is truly a gift; held up before the world as shining light for all to see. This gift was first discovered in his pastorates at several congregations in the LaGrange and
Atlanta areas (including a co-pastorate with Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr., at Ebenezer Baptist
Church), further developed at Mt. Zion (Cincinnati, Ohio), and reaching full fruition at the Olivet
Institutional Baptist Church, Cleveland, Ohio, where he has just celebrated his 31st Pastoral
Anniversary.
Dr. Moss has consulted with presidents, been honored for his work in civil rights and has delivered the Word of the Gospel all across the globe. He is recognized and revered for his dedication to all humankind. The accolades and achievements of The Reverend Dr. Otis Moss,
Jr. are great in number; they supersede the barriers of color, race and religion. His love and respect for obtaining knowledge have earned him the respect of many in the academic community. Dr. Moss has been awarded six honorary doctorate degrees from the following:
Cleveland State University, Shorter College (Arkansas), Morehouse College, Temple Bible
College, LaGrange College and Myers University (Cleveland). Rev. Moss has also taught at the
University of Cincinnati, United Theological Seminary and Ashland Theological Seminary. He has received many national honors and gave the 2004 Lyman Beecher Lectures at Yale
University (The Yale Divinity School) in addition to being a Guest Participant for the Oxford
Round Table, Oxford University, Oxford, England. In 2006, Dr. Moss was awarded the prestigious Living Legend Award by the Hampton Ministers Conference (Hampton, Virginia).
79 How he met MLK
Rev. Moss first became acquainted with MLK when he was a student at Morehouse College and got involved with the student movement in Atlanta.
Rev. C. T. Vivian
A close friend and lieutenant of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Reverend C. T. Vivian was born
Cordy Tindell Vivian, July 28, 1924 in Howard, Missouri. As a small boy he migrated with his mother to Macomb, Illinois, where he attended Lincoln Grade School and Edison Junior High School.
Vivian graduated from Macomb High School in1942 and went on to attend Western Illinois
University in Macomb, where he worked as the sports editor for the school newspaper. His first professional job was recreation director for the Carver Community Center in Peoria, Illinois. There,
Vivian participated in his first sit-in demonstrations, which successfully integrated Barton's Cafeteria in 1947.
Studying for the ministry at American Baptist College in Nashville, Tennessee in 1959,
Vivian met Rev. James Lawson, who was teaching Mahatma Ghandhi's nonviolent direct action strategy to the Student Central Committee. Diane Nash, Bernard Lafayette, James Bevel, James
Forman, John Lewis and other students from American Baptist, Fisk University and Tennessee State
University executed a systematic non-violent campaign for justice. On April 19, 1960, 4,000 demonstrators marched on City Hall where Vivian and Diane Nash challenged Nashville Mayor Ben
West. As a result, Mayor West publicly agreed that racial discrimination was morally wrong. Many of those students became part of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). In 1961,
Vivian, now a member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) participated in
Freedom Rides replacing injured members of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE).
Vivian was appointed to the executive staff of the SCLC in 1963, when Dr. Martin Luther
80 King, Jr., named him national director of affiliates. Two years later, in an incident that would make national news, Vivian confronted Sheriff Jim Clark on the steps of the Selma courthouse during a voter registration drive. After an impassioned speech by Vivian, Clark struck him on the mouth, portraying Clark to the world as a racist. In 1969, Vivian wrote the first book on the modern-day Civil
Rights Movement, entitled Black Power and the American Myth. During these years, he also started a program entitled Vision, sending students from Alabama to college; the program later came to be known as Upward Bound. By 1979, Vivian had organized and was serving as chairman of the board of the National Anti-Klan Network, which is known today as the Center for Democratic Renewal.
Vivian is also the founder of the Black Action Strategies and Information Center (BASIC), a workplace consultancy on race relations and multicultural training. In 1999, Vivian turned the leadership of BASIC over to one of his sons. Vivian recently launched a new organization (Churches
Supporting Churches) in response to the help needed for the victims and churches affected by
Hurricane Katrina.
How he met MLK
When I was editor at the Sunday School Publishing Board of the National Baptist Convention
in Nashville, Tennessee I did a 24-page piece on Martin King not for the publishing house,
because they wouldn’t publish it, the politics of it all and the fear at the time. They wouldn’t
but I did. The wife and I published it and put it out and we got 16 features to go with it. He
came to get an honorary doctorate from Fisk while I was working on it and so I went to
interview him and that’s when I first met him. Then later, as I joined the prayer pilgrimage to
Washington and I met he and Abernathy on the train and those were the first two times I meet
Martin. It was only later that we had real, real association. (Vivian)
81 Mrs. Xernona Clayton
Xernona Clayton is the Founder, President and CEO of the Trumpet Awards
Foundation, Inc. and Creator and Executive Producer of the Foundation’s Trumpet Awards. The
Trumpet Awards is a prestigious event highlighting African American accomplishments and contributions. Initiated in 1993 by Turner Broadcasting, the Trumpet Awards has been televised annually and distributed internationally to over 185 countries around the world.
Ms. Clayton began her television career in 1967 and became the south’s first Black person to have her own television show. The Xernona Clayton show was a regular feature on WAGA-TV, CBS affiliate in Atlanta.
Xernona Clayton was employed at Turner Broadcasting for nearly 30 years where she served as a corporate executive. In 1988, Xernona Clayton was appointed Corporate Vice President for
Urban Affairs with Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. In this capacity, she directed internal and external projects for the Corporation, and served as liaison between Turner Broadcasting (TBS
SuperStation, CNN, Headline News, TNT, Atlanta Braves and Atlanta Hawks) and civic groups in
Atlanta and across the country. As a corporate executive, Ms. Clayton was one of the highest-ranking female employees in Turner Broadcasting System.
Xernona moved to Atlanta in 1965 where she accepted a position with the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference and worked closely with the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Ms. Clayton also traveled extensively with Mrs. Coretta Scott King on her nationwide concert tours.
Dedicated to promoting racial understanding, Xernona Clayton has been a leader in civic projects and civil rights activities for several years. In 1966, she coordinated the activities of Atlanta’s
Black doctors in a project called Doctors’ Committee for Implementation, which resulted in the
82 desegregation of all hospital facilities in Atlanta. This project served as a model and a pilot for other states throughout the country and received national honor from the National Medical Association for its impact. Her persistent fight against the dragons of prejudice and bigotry was never more apparent than in 1968, when the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan denounced the Klan and credited
Xernona’s influence with his change.
Ms. Clayton’s dedication to the community is reflected in the many hours she spends promoting human relations through bi-racial groups devoted to improving racial understanding. A recipient of numerous media awards, Xernona has been widely honored for her contributions to humanity. She is included in various editions of some very impressive biographical publications.
The Peaceful Warrior a biography of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. authored by her late husband Ed
Clayton and co-authored by Xernona in the revised editions, has been published in several languages.
Xernona Clayton’s autobiography, I’ve Been Marching All the Time, was published in 1991.
In private life, she is married to Judge Paul L. Brady. She is a member of Ebenezer Baptist
Church, formerly co-pastored by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr. and a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority. In recognition of Xernona’s contribution to broadcasting, her community and the nation, the American Intercultural Student Exchange (AISE) has created a scholarship in her honor. Each year, since 1987, Ms. Clayton chooses an outstanding minority high school student to spend a year living abroad with a European family, all expenses paid. The Xernona
Clayton Scholarship is dedicated to increasing open relationships, internationally, through a global high school student exchange program. Additionally, the Atlanta Association of Black Journalists named its scholarship in her honor and annually presents the Xernona Clayton Scholarship to a student pursuing a career in communications.
NAMIC (the National Association of Minorities in Cable) presented, to Ms. Clayton, its
83 highest award, the Mickey Leland Award, which honors the late United States Congressman.
Xernona, along with former Congressman Kweisi Mfume and the late Commerce Secretary Ronald
Brown, was awarded the 1996 Distinguished Leadership Award by NAFEO (The National
Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education) at impressive ceremonies in Washington,
D.C. She also received NAFEO's 2003 Corporate Award. In 2000, Clark/Atlanta University conferred an Honorary Doctorate of Letters Degree on Ms. Clayton.
She was additionally honored in 2004 with two very impressive awards. Spelman College presented Ms. Clayton the first Local Community Service Award, for her continued dedication to leadership in the community. The State of Georgia Commission on Equal Opportunity presented her with the Leadership and Dedication in Civil Rights Award.
Along with her other honors, she has received the first Coretta Scott King Award from the
SCLC (Southern Christian Leadership Conference) the Madam C. J. Walker Award from EBONY’S
Outstanding Women in Marketing and Communications, the Outstanding Corporate Professional
Award from the PowerNetworking Family and in 2006 an Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters
Degree from Tennessee State University.
How she met MLK
Mrs. Clayton became acquainted with MLK when she and her first husband moved from Los
Angeles to Atlanta to work on SCLC’s staff, her husband to write speeches for MLK and she to
accompany Mrs. King on her nationwide concert tours.
Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery
Outspoken civil rights activist the Reverend Joseph Lowery was born on October 6, 1921, in
Huntsville, Alabama. Considered the dean of the civil rights movement, Lowery began his education
in Huntsville, spending his middle school years in Chicago before returning to Huntsville to complete
84 high school. From there, he attended Knoxville College, Payne College and Theological Seminary,
and the Chicago Ecumenical Institute. Lowery earned his doctorate of divinity as well.
Dr. Lowery began his work with civil rights in the early 1950s in Mobile, Alabama, where he headed the Alabama Civic Affairs Association, an organization devoted to the desegregation of buses and public places. During this time, the state of Alabama sued Lowery, along with several other prominent ministers, on charges of libel, seizing his property. The Supreme Court sided with the ministers, and Dr. Lowery's seized property was returned. In 1957, Dr. Lowery and Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), and Lowery was named vice president. In 1965, he was named chairman of the delegation to take demands of the Selma to
Montgomery March to Alabama's governor at the time, George Wallace.
Dr. Lowery is a co-founder and former president of the Black Leadership Forum, a consortium of black advocacy groups. The Forum began protesting apartheid in South Africa in the mid-1970s and continued until the election of Nelson Mandela. In 1979, during a rash of disappearances of Atlanta's African American youth, Dr. Lowery provided a calm voice to a frightened community. After becoming president of the SCLC in February of 1977, Dr. Lowery negotiated covenants with major corporations for employment advances, opportunities and business contracts with minority companies. He has led peace delegations to the Middle East and Central
America. In addition to serving as pastor to several churches over the years, Dr. Lowery's efforts to combat injustice and promote equal opportunities has led to the extension of provisions to the Voting
Rights Act to 2007, the desegregation of public accommodations in Nashville, Tennessee and the hiring of Birmingham, Alabama's first black police officers.
After serving his community for more than forty-five years, Dr. Lowery retired from the pulpit in 1997. He also retired in January of 1998 from the SCLC as president and CEO. Despite his
85 retirement, Dr. Lowery still remains active. He works to encourage African Americans to vote, and
recorded a rap with artist NATE the Great to help spread this message.
Dr. Lowery has received numerous awards, including an NAACP Lifetime Achievement
Award, the Martin Luther King Center Peace Award and the National Urban League's Whitney M.
Young, Jr. Lifetime Achievement Award in 2004. Ebony has twice named him as one of the Fifteen
Greatest Black Preachers. Dr. Lowery has also received several honorary doctorates from colleges and
universities including, Dillard University, Morehouse College, Alabama State University and the
University of Alabama. Dr. Lowery is married to Evelyn Gibson Lowery, an activist in her own right.
How he met MLK
First met Martin at some kind of seminar in Boston...don’t remember dates...then next after he
came to Alabama to pastor Dexter in Montgomery...I was Pastoring Warren Street Methodist in
Mobile...we both were speakers at an Alabama Council on Human Relations meet in Montgomery.
We immediately liked each other...we exchanged the usual preacher exaggerations about our speeches...he preached for me in Mobile and I preached for him at Ebenezer in Atlanta....I carried several thousand dollars to him FOR THE BOYCOTT as he headed the Montgomery Improvement
Association...while I was head of the Ministerial Alliance in Mobile...we remained close friends and associates until his untimely death...as u know we founded SCLC together in 1957. (Lowery)
Summary
The participants in this study made significant and valuable contributions to the struggles of the CRM. While this study focuses on the leadership of MLK, it is important to note that the
contributions and support of his close advisers, including the participants of this study, were crucial to
his success. As their biographies attest, they have each continued to promote nonviolent social change
in their individual lives and work. They are the eyewitnesses to the phenomenon we know as the
86 CRM and while their legacies will live on, their human bodies are aging and many who served with them have already passed away. Such is the case with Rev. James Orange one of the participants of this study.
87 CHAPTER 5
FINDINGS
Overview
This chapter provides the details of the findings of this study. The findings are presented as answers to the research questions. The first set of findings reveal the personal, internal organizational and external movement challenges MLK faced as he led a movement for nonviolent social change.
Following the challenges are the strategies that MLK employed to manage the personal, internal and external challenges.
The purpose of this study was to examine the leadership challenges Martin Luther King, Jr. faced and addressed as he led a movement for nonviolent social change. This study asked the questions:
1. What personal challenges did Martin Luther King, Jr. face in his leadership for social change?
2. What internal organizational challenges did Martin Luther King, Jr. face in his leadership for
social change?
3. What external movement challenges did Martin Luther King, Jr. face in his leadership for
social change?
4. How was Martin Luther King, Jr. able to effectively manage these challenges?
The first three research questions ask what personal, internal organizational and external movement challenges did MLK face as he led a movement for nonviolent social change. Table 1 identifies these challenges. His personal challenges were those that were germane to his person which included his reluctance to lead and threats to him, his family and followers. His organizational challenges were the challenges that emanated from his leadership of the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference (SCLC). These challenges were the egos and competition from African
American leaders that were close to him and criticism from other African American and White
88 leaders. The external movement challenges resulted from his leadership of the CRM and included resistance to the use of nonviolence and a leadership succession plan.
Table 1 Leadership Challenges and How They Were Managed Personal Challenges Managing Personal Challenges
Reluctance to Lead Using his Personal Relationship with God
Threats to MLK, Family and Followers
Incarceration Violence Reputation
Internal Organizational Challenges Managing Internal Organizational Challenges
Egos and Competition from African American Turning to Humor Leaders Criticism from African American and White Explaining Decisions in Writing Leaders Practicing Team Leadership
External Movement Challenges Managing External Movement Challenges
Resistance to the Use of Nonviolence Providing Education and Training
Relating Scripture to the Nonviolence Approach
Leadership Succession Plan Practicing What he Professed
Offering Leadership Development Opportunities
Personal Challenges
In 1944, MLK entered Morehouse College in Atlanta at the age of 15. Going from
Morehouse to Colgate Theological Seminary and then on to Boston College, he would prepare
himself for a life in the ministry with the possibility of academic appointments. However, when he
89 accepted the pastoral responsibilities at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama his life would take a detour from its original course to a path that would cause him to ponder whether or not he should go back to his original plan or acquiesce to what might be a call from a higher power.
This conundrum would bring about personal challenges that MLK would have to face early in his adult life. These personal challenges would be his reluctance to lead and the threats that would be brought against him, his family and his followers should he accept the challenge to lead.
Reluctance to Lead
“I neither started the protest nor suggested it. I simply responded to the call of the people for a spokesman.” (1958, King, p. 33) Martin Luther King, Jr.’s (MLK) closest colleagues describe him as a reluctant leader who accepted his call to leadership as payback for his “privileged” life and as an extension of his humanitarian and ministerial responsibilities. According to LaFayette,
Martin Luther King’s response to his call for leadership was one where he felt that because of
his training, because of his experience growing up in the home that he grew up in, growing up
in the environment and having the opportunity to have the kind of education he had, he felt an
awesome responsibility to take leadership and try to change these conditions that he found
himself born in as a human being, but most specifically African American in the United
States. So he did not shirk from that responsibility.
MLK grew up in a middle-class family in a middle-class neighborhood in Atlanta. His mother was a certified teacher but became a stay at home mom after marrying Martin, Sr. His father was pastor of a large, influential African-American Baptist church, Ebenezer. Ebenezer was the church home for many of the city’s doctors, lawyers, educators, and other community leaders. In addition to the make-up of the congregation, Ebenezer often hosted noted African-Americans from around the country who came to Atlanta.
90 Both MLK’s birth home and Ebenezer Baptist Church are located on Auburn Avenue which
at the time of MLK’s upbringing, was considered the richest Negro street in the world. The street was
the site of many African-American churches, businesses and social activities, all within a three-mile
radius of MLK’s home and church. Moss painted a picture of what MLK would have seen as a boy
strolling down Auburn Avenue from his home towards downtown Atlanta. According to Moss MLK
would have passed businesses like Atlanta Life Insurance, the second largest black insurance
company in the United States, the Rucker Building, Atlanta's first black-owned office building, and
the Atlanta Daily World, the first black-owned daily newspaper. He would also pass social clubs like
the Royal Peacock which showcased the likes of B.B. King, the Four Tops, the Tams and many other
African American artists, singers and musicians. It was because of this cultural richness that John
Wesley Dobbs, who because of the political and civic leadership he provided to the African American citizens in the Atlanta community was known as the unofficial mayor of Auburn, coined Auburn
Avenue “Sweet Auburn.”
As a result MLK and his siblings often were exposed to the crème de la crème of the African
American community from around the country. In addition, MLK’s parents, affectionately known as
Mamma King and Daddy King, worked hard to insure that all three of their children would be college educated. So why, with all of this privilege, would MLK make a deliberate decision to struggle through the challenges he faced as leader of the CRM. According to CSK (1969), it was because
MLK felt that these were privileges “he had not earned” (p. 62). LaFayette explained it this way, “he was not selfish in the sense of thinking only of himself and his own personal comfort or his personal gratification” (LaFayette).
MLK himself admitted, “I didn’t have to worry about anything. I have a marvelous mother and father. They went out of their way to provide everything for their children …I went right on
91 through school; I never had to drop out for work or anything. And you know, I was about to conclude that life had been wrapped up for me in a Christmas package” (King, 1958, p.5).
Despite his privileged life, MLK had a strong sense of personal and ministerial responsibilities. According to Clayton, he was “reluctant initially, but he had a strong commitment to the injustices in the land.” Young added, “I think that he accepted the call but he had a very rough time with it and people don’t recall that.” The “it” that Young is referring to is his call to leadership.
MLK’s personal goal for himself was to complete his dissertation before pursuing a career on a college campus, perhaps as a chaplain. As a matter of fact, Young recalls:
He went to New Orleans to apply for a job as the Chaplin at Dillard and he didn’t get the job.
The President said … his personality wasn’t strong enough to be a leader which says
something about him …but you also have to remember that they gave Martin Luther King a
“C” in public speaking. (Young)
CSK (1969) confirms that after MLK completed his dissertation,
He began looking for a pastorate which would not only be personally rewarding, but would
give him an opportunity to work toward improving the conditions of the black masses. He
had several good offers. Two northern and two southern churches were interested in talking
with him. In addition, he was offered a deanship in a small college and teaching jobs in two
others. Martin and I both would have enjoyed living in an academic atmosphere, but this did
not coincide with Martin’s commitment to work for his people. (p. 94)
Ironically, according to Young, MLK:
…went to Montgomery because he was trying to escape the responsibilities of leadership until
he finished his dissertation. When he arrived in Montgomery, he was asked to take on the
leadership role of the NAACP and he refused under the auspices of completing his
92 dissertation. He wanted to finish his Ph.D. And he went to Montgomery rather than stay in
Atlanta because Dr. Mays had tried to get him to stay at Morehouse; his daddy wanted him to
stay at Ebenezer. (Young)
As divine intervention would have it, about a month after MLK mailed in his dissertation,
Rosa Parks refused to relinquish her seat on the bus to a white man in Montgomery, thus igniting the spark that fueled the flame that would become the CRM. At the time, MLK was a 26-year-old ordained minister, husband and doctor of theology.
LaFayette agreed that MLK was reluctant at first but saw how his leadership was needed:
His leadership, he recognized, was unique, and it was needed, and it did make a difference.
And once he saw the response that other people had towards him, it put a greater burden on
him to fulfill the goals that they had set to make changes in the U.S. (LaFayette)
MLK slowly overcame his reluctance to lead by taking on more and more responsibility for the movement issues. As his responsibilities grew, the expectations of the movement followers grew as well:
As I became involved, and as people began to derive inspiration from their involvement, I
realized that the choice leaves your own hands. The people expect you to give them
leadership. You see them growing as they move into action, and then you know you no
longer have a choice, you can’t decide whether to say in it or get out of it, you must stay in it.
(King, 1956, p. 122)
MLK indeed did stay involved with the CRM until his violent and tragic end. It was because of his awesome sense of responsibility, his overwhelming commitment and his recognition of his personal opportunities that MLK accepted the call to leadership. However, Orange maintains that
MLK had no choice in answering his calling “we basically were placed in a position to do whatever
93 our calling was to do “and that MLK “wasn’t trying to be a leader he was trying to serve God.”
Orange’s sentiments echo those written by MLK (1958) regarding his reluctance to lead.
This is not the life I expected to lead. But gradually you take some responsibility, then a little
more, until finally you are not in control anymore. You have to give yourself entirely. Then
once you make up your mind that you are giving yourself, then you are prepared to do
anything that serves the Cause and advance the Movement. I have reached that point. I have
no option anymore about what I will do. I have given myself fully. (p. 164)
It is important to note that even though MLK was a reluctant leader of the CRM it should not be concluded that he was not interested in contributing to social change. On the contrary, he was interested, but had thought that his contributions would be made in a different, less public and less leading way. According to CSK (1969):
When Martin first went to Morehouse he intended to become a doctor or a lawyer. His interest
in intellectual matters and his strong social consciousness, together with his normal youthful
rebellion against tradition, had decided him against the ministry. He was strongly motivated
towards religion but was opposed to the emotionalism of the church he knew, and he believed
in a relevant social gospel which few ministries preached at the time. Even at that young age
Martin intended to dedicate his life to improving the conditions of the black masses, but he
thought he could do this more effectively in a profession outside the ministry. (p. 85)
But MLK’s impression of the ministry was about to change thanks to the man he later would refer to as his spiritual leader, the Rev. Dr. Benjamin E. Mays, who was president of Morehouse
College when MLK entered at the age of 15. According to CSK (1969), MLK first showed signs of being pulled into the ministry in Connecticut (while working the tobacco fields) when his friends asked him to lead the devotion.
94 I think it was from this experience that he began to feel an insistent call to the ministry.
However, the decision that finally led to that path was largely due to the example of Dr.
Benjamin E. Mays, the President of Morehouse College. It was not so much that he
deliberately guided him toward the ministry as that he influenced Martin by his own example.
For although Dr. Mays was brilliant, he was not removed from the heart of the people. In the
pulpit he talked a great deal about social justice; you might say he preached a social gospel.
This conformed exactly with Martin’s ideas, and it helped to form them. Later, in his own
ministry, he believed that helping people solve the problems they faced in their daily lives was
as important as the salvation of their souls. (CSK, 1969 p. 86)
Armed with his preparation as an ordained minister, his method of nonviolence, his inspiration from Jesus Christ, his intellectual curiosity and his ministerial and humanitarian responsibilities, MLK led African Americans and their sympathetic supporters through the streets of Alabama, Mississippi,
Georgia, Illinois and Tennessee. As he grew in prominence and as African Americans began to straighten their backs and demand the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United
States his opposition also grew.
Threats to MLK, his Family and Friends
“I have had to confront the brutality of police officers, an unwarranted arrest, and a near fatal stab wound by a mentally deranged woman” (MLK, 1958, p.117). With the law on their side, white
Americans who were resistant to change began to retaliate against MLK and his followers with threats: threats of incarceration and threats of violence. When those failed to serve as deterrents to
MLK his opponents attacked his reputation. But in spite of it all, MLK continued to persevere. As
CSK (1969) observed:
The people knew, and Martin knew, that the post was dangerous, for it meant being singled
95 out to become the target of the white people’s anger and vengeance. Martin said, I don’t mind.
Somebody has to do it, and if you think I can, I will serve. (CSK, 1968, p. 116)
Incarceration. In the 1950s and 1960s, African-Americans in the South were subjected to a number of local, state and federal laws that did not apply to white citizens. For example, it was unlawful for an African-American to drink from a water fountain labeled “Whites only,” or to utilize public accommodations marked the same. In Montgomery, Alabama, it was unlawful for an African-
American not to relinquish his or her seat to a white bus rider, a law that led to the arrest of Rosa
Parks, the forming of the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA), the Montgomery Bus
Boycott, and the call for MLK to be its leader.
MLK was 26 years old in 1955 when he reluctantly accepted the call to leadership of the MIA.
In 1968, his life was cut short by an assassin’s bullet as he spoke to colleagues from the balcony of the
Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee. During his 13 years of leadership, he was arrested 29 times.
Criminal charges against MLK ranged from defying a court order to speeding to violating probation.
His first arrest came on January 26, 1956, during the Montgomery Bus Boycott. MLK’s arrest was intended to serve as a deterrent to him and his followers. However, it did not and in February of the same year, about 100 protesters were arrested for violating Alabama’s anti-boycott law. Because of the large numbers of African Americans arrested, national media attention focused on Montgomery.
Not only did MLK’s arrest fail to serve as a deterrent, but the national media broadcast of the arrest helped to increase the number of sympathetic supporters for the Movement. In September1958
MLK was arrested again in Montgomery for disobeying an officer as he tried to enter a courtroom. He was ordered to serve 14 days in jail or to pay a $14 fine. By this time, MLK had decided that he would no longer pay the fines, but instead serve the time for breaking the law. “Martin realized that his imprisonment would arouse sympathy for our Movement” (CSK, 1968, p.163). MLK started to use
96 his arrests as a tactic for furthering the cause of the Movement. Such was the case on April 12, 1963,
when it was decided that “because of its symbolic significance, April 12, Good Friday, would be the
day that Ralph Abernathy and I would present our bodies as personal witness in this crusade” (King,
1969, p. 181). After his arrests, MLK had a difficult first night in solitary confinement, but over the next few days, events began to justify his decision. National support grew and money for bail flowed in. The entertainer Harry Belafonte, for example, managed to raise $50,000. (MLK, 1963)
As the Movement continued to benefit from MLK’s arrest he continued to refuse to pay his
fine when was arrested. Since MLK’s arrest was meant to serve as a deterrent, when MLK chose to
serve his time rather than pay the fine, the Montgomery police commissioner paid the fine to keep
MLK and the CRM from garnering more national media attention for their cause. CSK tells how the commissioner responded to MLK’s arrest.
Police Commissioner Clyde Sellers had a keener sense of public relations than his
subordinates. He realized what bad publicity Montgomery and its public officials would get
when that nation learned that MLK was in their jail. He paid the fine out of his own pocket
and issued a statement that he wanted to save the taxpayers the expense of feeding MLK for
fourteen days. (CSK, 1968, p.165)
MLK continued the tactic of getting arrested to draw attention to the movement. Details of additional arrests of MLK are chronicled here: On October 2, 1960 MLK was arrested in Atlanta during a sit-in waiting to be served at a restaurant. On this night, MLK spent his first night in jail. He
was sentenced to four months in jail, but after intervention by John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy, he
is released. On July 27, 1962 MLK was arrested and jailed during the unsuccessful Albany, Georgia
Movement. On Good Friday April 12, 1963 MLK and Ralph Abernathy were arrested in Birmingham for demonstrating without a permit. It is during this eleven day jail stay that MLK writes his famous
97 Letter from a Birmingham Jail. On February 2, 1965 MLK was arrested in Selma, Alabama during a voting rights demonstration for demonstrating without a permit (Gale, 1996).
These incidents are only a few of the 29 times that MLK was arrested. While none of the arrests served as a deterrent, there was one incident that caused MLK to rethink how he went to jail.
On October 2, 1960, MLK reluctantly joined in a renewal of sit-ins at Rich's Department Store in
Atlanta. MLK tells how he became involved.
I took part in the lunch counter sit-ins at Rich’s department store as a follower, not a leader. I
did not initiate the thing. It came into being with the students…they wanted me to be in it, and
I felt a moral obligation to be in it with them. (MLK, 1960, p. 145)
MLK was arrested along with the 280 student protesters and spent his first night ever in jail.
He refused to pay his fine, choosing to serve his time. The students followed suit. “When they came to see after five or six days that we were not coming out and that the community was getting very much concerned, the merchants dropped the charges which meant that everybody was released without bail immediately” (MLK, 1960, p. 145). Everyone was released that is except MLK, who was held for violation of probation for an earlier traffic ticket. Sentenced to a four-month term in prison, he was taken to the state prison at Reidsville, Georgia. MLK recalls the experience.
I didn’t know where they were taking me…that kind of mental anguish is worse than dying,
riding for mile after mile, hungry and thirsty, bound and helpless, waiting and not knowing
what you are waiting for. And all over a traffic violation. (MLK, 1960, p. 147)
Young‘s reflection of this incident further revealed the horror of MLK’s experience.
Rolling around on the floor, not able to stand up, not able to sit up, he was sure that he was
going to his death, and I think that he felt that it was a battle for him to stay sane for those six
hours and that was traumatic … The interesting thing is, in the eight years that I knew him
98 very well, that he talked about everything--I mean he loved to stay up all night, shoot the
breeze, philosophize and he talked about anything and everything--but only once in eight
years did he mention that [ride]and it was because …he was really afraid. (Young)
The ride to Reidsville was just the beginning. When he reached the prison, MLK was placed
“in a segregated cell block, a place where inmates who had attacked guards, psychotics and other special cases were housed” (MLK, 1960, p. 147). MLK remained in Reidsville for eight days until presidential candidate John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert intervened on his behalf.
But not even this harrowing incident would deter MLK from future arrests and incarcerations.
It did cause him, however, to make a strategic decision about how he would go to jail in the future.
CSK (1969) posits “my husband hated being alone. It was always hard for Martin to be in prison, and this would be such a long stay without Ralph or his other companions in the struggle with him” (p.
195). Young agrees that, after the Reidsville incident, MLK decided that he “never wanted to go to jail alone.” This decision would put him in a vulnerable situation with one of his closest friends.
That [decision] was the hold that Ralph had on him. He wanted to go to jail and he and Ralph
had been close and he usually convinced Ralph to go to jail with him. But then Ralph got out
of joint…he wanted half of the Noble Prize and half of the Noble Prize money and so Ralph
wouldn’t go to jail with him…And that was a crisis for him, he had to bribe Ralph. Ralph said
he had to get this new house and Martin helped him with the new house. Martin helped him
buy all the furniture. (Young)
MLK’s relationship with Ralph Abernathy will be discussed in more detail in a later section under Egos and Competition from African American Leaders.
Oftentimes the threats of incarceration were accompanied by threats of violence to MLK and his family. “Almost immediately after the protest started we had begun to receive threatening
99 telephone calls and letters. They increased as time went on. By the middle of January [1956], they had risen to thirty or forty a day” (MLK, 1956, p. 76).
Violence. We are on the move now. The burning of our churches will not deter us. We are on the move now. The bombing of our houses will not dissuade. We are on the move now. The beating and killing of our clergymen and young people will not divert us. We are on the move now. The arrest and release of known murders will not discourage us. We are on the move now. (King, 1964, p.
285)
Vivian also spoke of the threats against MLK and his family:
He knew early that they were to kill him, that they would kill his family. The telephone was
daily ringing with people at the other end breathing heavy or telling him, we’re going to kill
you, to his wife or to his children. When you’re out to transform a society, you can expect to
be killed because his Master was. (Vivian)
The Master that Vivian is referring to is Jesus Christ. CSK (1996) confirmed that they were the victims of constant threats:
At any hour, day or night, the phone would ring and some man or woman would pour out a
string of obscene epithets, of which nigger son of a bitch was the mildest. Often the women
callers raved on about sex, accusing Martin and me of incredible degeneracies. Frequently the
call ended with a threat to kill us if we didn’t get out of town. (p. 123)
As the callers had warned, the threats soon escalated to actual physical violence: “As the weeks passed, I began to see that many of the threats were in earnest” (MLK, 1956, p. 76). On
Monday, January 30, 1956, MLK’s house was bombed while his wife, infant daughter and a family friend were inside. Neither were hurt. In 1958 MLK was stabbed while signing books in a department store in Harlem. In 1959 while leaving church “as Martin came out, a gas bomb whizzed by, within a
100 few inches of his head. One of his aides who was very close to him, Rev. Fred C. Bennett, picked up
the bomb and threw it over Martin’s shoulder” (CSK, 1969, p. 200).
One of the letters that MLK received in 1956 following the bus boycott “threatened to burn down fifty houses, including his, unless he kept his people off the buses” (CSK, 1969, p. 144). “One night someone fired a small caliber-rifle through our front door” (CSK, 1969, p. 147). In 1957 “a smoking pile of fourteen sticks of dynamite was found smoldering on our porch” (CSK, 1969, p. 148).
The threats were not limited to MLK’s home and church. The threats and acts of violence seemed to follow him wherever he went. CSK (1969) recalls,
In Selma a white man that had followed Martin all day followed him into the Hotel Albert,
and as Martin was registering, the man came up behind him and said something. Martin
turned around to answer, and the man hit him as hard as he could in the head. Martin
staggered and almost fell but members of his staff supported him...we were all made very
aware of how easy it is for an assailant to get close enough to injure my husband. (p. 254)
LaFayette also spoke of the threats of violence against MLK his family and followers:
Involvement in the movement was risky for all and that death could happen to anybody at any
time, but he was aware that he could be targeted specifically for assassination. I remember
hearing one time, I think Mrs. King told me this that he was at the dinner table and that’s when
Kennedy was killed. And the news was playing it over and over again, of course, and MLK
commented “that’s what’s gonna happen to me.” He was constantly aware of that and that
would be a formidable challenge (LaFayette).
CSK (1969) confirmed that her husband was very cognizant of the physical violence against him and how it could end his life. “At the announcement of Kennedy’s death Martin said this is what is going to happen to me also. I keep telling you, this is a sick society” (p. 245). On another occasion,
101 MLK said to his wife:
You know, I probably won’t live a long life, but if I die I don’t want you to grieve for me.
You go on and live a normal life. But death was not something he was morbid about; he just
talked about it as he would any experience. As the civil rights struggle went on he saw the
danger clearly. His knowledge of history made him realize that most men that had taken a
strong moral position had to pay the price for their conviction. (CSK, 1969, p. 303)
The price was steep and for MLK it not only included threats of incarceration and physical violence but character assassination as well.
Reputation. Many powerful and influential men have been brought down by their greed for money or their lust for women. You don’t have to go back far in history to recall the falls of the Rev.
Jesse Jackson, Rev. James Bakker, former leader of Praise the Lord (PTL) Ministries in South
Carolina, former Mayor of Atlanta Bill Campbell or Former Governor of New York Elliott Spritzer.
Given his prominence it is no wonder that rumors involving greed and lust would surface about MLK during his leadership of the CRM. MLK had survived incarcerations and violence but, unbeknownst to him his greatest threat was yet to come. The first attempt to discredit him and impugn his character was related to his use or misuse of finances. This accusation would be harder on him than both the incarcerations and the threats of physical violence. Young described this tumultuous time as follows:
So he was thrust into leadership by Rosa Parks and not long after he was elected his home was
bombed and then the next year they confiscated all of his property and the year after that they
charged him with income tax evasion and wanted him to pay taxes on all of the collections of
the Montgomery Improvement Association. (Young)
According to CSK (1968):
This attack was the most serious attack on his reputation he had ever endured. A Montgomery
102 Grand Jury indicted him on a charge of falsifying his Alabama state income tax returns for
1956 and 1958. The implication was that Martin had received money from MIA and SCLC
that was unaccounted for. Though the accusation was utterly false, it caused Martin more
suffering than any other event of his life up to that point. “Many people will think I am guilty.
You know my enemies have previously done everything against me but attack my character
and integrity. Though I am not perfect, if I have any virtues, the one of which I am most
proud is my honesty where money is concerned.” (p. 185)
On May 28, 1960, after a three-day trial, to everybody’s surprise, MLK was found not guilty
of falsifying his Alabama state income tax returns for 1956 and 1958 by an all-white jury. If it was
money that MLK had wanted he had an opportunity to earn much more than was being paid to him as a southern Baptist preacher. According to CSK (2000):
After the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Martin was offered Pastorates and churches across the
country, a couple of which paid ten times his income. But he turned them all down because he
felt a people’s leader should not be interested in personal wealth and he had to live in the
segregated south if he hoped to change it. (p. 4)
In addition, according to CSK (2000), “he knew of preachers who had enriched their coffers
from stealing, and he was extremely concerned that all of his dealings be above-board and open to
scrutiny” (p. 4)
MLK had escaped the character assassination attempt as it related to his honesty in dealing
with money. But there was one more attack that would be leveled against his character by the
government. According to MLK’s father, Daddy King (1980), “in the United States, a campaign to
destroy his leadership was conducted within the government. J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI, made
no secret of the fact that he held M.L. and his work in contempt” (p. 184).
103 Young posits that the accusations leveled from the government were based on false information gathered and distributed by the FBI, such as the story that MLK was unfaithful to his wife. This rumor grew out of an incident that occurred when MLK allowed a colleague to stay in a hotel suite that was registered to him. When MLK and his colleagues travelled they would often reserve a suite or an extra hotel room for their meetings. Because the meetings often lasted late and
MLK woke up early, he would stay sometime’s in the extra room rather than disturb Mrs. King, asleep in their room. However, on the night that the FBI claimed that MLK was unfaithful to his wife he did not stay in the extra room but rather joined his wife in their hotel room. Young explained what happened:
Coretta had a room down the hall, so when we got through clowning and fooling around, he
went to Coretta’s room, and another friend of ours ended up bringing some girl into that
bedroom. Coretta knew who it was [in the bedroom] and she knew it wasn’t Martin, but the
FBI didn’t have sense enough to know that. (Young)
Because these “fabricated” FBI files were left intact, several researchers, including David
Garrow and Taylor Branch, have published books based on the contents of these files thereby, perpetuating the false rumors - particularly those that centered on MLK’s alleged infidelity.
The reason I don’t appreciate the attention that they give to Taylor Branch and David Garrow
is that they took a lot of that FBI stuff as factual when a lot of it was fabricated and there were
things that they had in those files that I know was not true. And actually, when we were in
Congress, the Congress held hearings on the FBI and decided that this was a shameful time in
the history of the FBI. But nobody went through all of those records and took out the stuff
that was untrue. (Young)
104 Internal Organizational Challenges
As MLK was conquering his personal challenges by accepting his call to leadership and enduring the threats leveled against him, his family and his followers, he was met with additional challenges that were the result of his leadership of the Montgomery Improvement Association and his subsequent establishment and leadership of the SCLC. These internal organizational challenges would include the egos and competition from African American leaders and criticism from African
American and White leaders.
MLK (1968) saw egotism and competition from African American leaders that were close to him as manifestations of what he called the drum major instinct, an instinct that makes an individual want to stand out in front of others:
The final great tragedy of the distorted personality is the fact that when one fails to harness this
instinct, he ends up trying to push others down in order to push himself up. And whenever you
do that, you engage in some of the most vicious activities. You will spread evil, vicious, lying
gossip on people, because you are trying to pull them down in order to push yourself up. And
the great issue of life is to harness the drum major instinct. (King, 1968, p. 3)
Egos and Competition from African American Leaders
“Your job is too great and the days are too bright to be bickering in the darkness of jealousy, deadening competition, and internal ego problems” (MLK, 1964, p. 311). In public, MLK was seen fighting against the triple evils of poverty, racism and war; however in his office, meeting rooms and at mass gatherings, he often faced opposition from those who were not the usual suspects. Orange thought that “the main challenge that he [MLK] faced was dealing with us as a people. Some of his biggest obstacles were dealing with African Americans.” Some of whom according to Moss were resentful of MLK, who was only 26 when the CRM began, “going so far so fast beyond expectations
105 that they felt threatened by his presence and envious of his charisma” (Moss).
The goal in Montgomery had been to desegregate the buses, but the Montgomery Bus Boycott
turned out to be the beginning, not the end. Within 13 years MLK had led African Americans and
their sympathetic supporters through a nonviolent movement that resulted in the passage of a national
Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act. In the process MLK’s name had become synonymous with the
Civil Rights Movement.
This fame did not sit well with many of the movement’s local leaders. Because MLK had
moved to Alabama from Atlanta, many people in Montgomery saw him as an outsider and referred to
him as an outside agitator. There were leaders in the community that already had been challenging
segregation and Jim Crow laws before MLK arrived in Montgomery, but, they, as Vivian explains,
had not had much success:
I mean we tried everything. You have to realize there was nothing we had not tried in order to
convince America first, that we were just good human beings--and you had to even convince
this nation that you were human--but there was nothing we had not done to be able to have
complete and total citizenship in this. (Vivian)
Therefore, Vivian posits that the opposition MLK faced was the result of those whose egos made them covet MLK’s rise to become leader of the CRM. One of the most glaring examples of this jealousy came from someone who was very close to MLK, Ralph Abernathy whom he referred to as his “abiding friend” (MLK, 1963, p.174). “He [Abernathy] had a love-hate relationship with Martin.
He loved Martin, but he was envious of Martin and he wanted to be Martin. And that’s why you had that bull____ in his book” (Young). What Young is referring to are the allegations of infidelity
Abernathy leveled at MLK.
Orange spoke about another close ally who was envious of MLK’s prominence. “In the South
106 Fred Shuttlesworth really thought that he should have been the chosen one for Birmingham.” Without revealing a name, Vivian also admitted that “one of the ministers in the movement was upset because he was not chosen and he tried to create problems for Martin both in the White and the Black community.” Young adds “there were those who thought that they should be the leader because they had been there for a long time and a number of them had struggled with this” (Young).
But the egos that constantly challenged MLK were not confined to the South. In other places around the country there were African Americans whose egos created challenges to MLK’s leadership of the CRM. For example, as Orange remembers there were, “some hell of some egos in Chicago,
Illinois, when Jesse [Jackson] got involved.” Orange goes on to explain that when the struggle for civil rights and more specifically, economic justice reached, Chicago, the people in Chicago tried to elevate Jackson’s leadership over MLK’s. This attempt was rebuked for one simple reason, according to Young:
Jesse had his own agenda, an agenda which was separate from the goals of the Movement. It’s
why I never felt comfortable with Jesse. Jesse was too anxious to be a leader and that always
makes me suspicious of one’s motives. (Young)
It wasn’t just Jackson. Clayton maintains that “there were other leaders whose agendas point back to themselves.” Like Wyatt T. Walker, “Wyatt was anxious to be a millionaire by the time he was 40. See, that didn’t fit with Dr. King’s agenda” (Young).
Vivian shared how some of the leaders who had egos and were in competition with MLK tried to entice him into competition as well:
For instance, I had done nonviolence nine years before Montgomery, but I was in the North.
Sometimes people have said to me, well, yea but you were there before Martin King. Why
didn’t you this and why didn’t you that. There’s a gang of reasons, but one of them is I had the
107 law on my side in the North it’s just that the law wasn’t obeyed. I was making them obey a
law that was already there. There wasn’t any law on Martin’s side. (Vivian)
Not only was the law not on MLK’s side, but southern politicians were running on pro- segregation platforms like that of the 1962 gubernatorial candidate for Alabama, George Wallace, whose slogan was “Segregation Forever.”
Some prominent white citizens also tried to undermine MLK by appealing to the egos of some
African American ministers.
Saying if there has to be a protest, you should be the leaders. It’s a shame for you who have
been in the community for so many years, to have your own people overlook you and choose
these young upstarts to lead you. Certain members of the white community tried to convince
several of the other protest leaders that the problem could be solved if I were out of the
picture. (MLK, 1955, p. 71)
The question of MLK’s leadership of the CRM is still questioned to this day. During my research for this chapter, Rev. Joseph Lowery, another of MLK’s closest lieutenants and co-founder of the SCLC, took issue with my reference to MLK as leader of the CRM. He wrote: “not sure what u mean by CRM??? Martin led SCLC and strategy was for that organization…u sound as though he headed some coalition/conglomerate…”
As this study shows MLK indeed led a movement not just an organization. MLK led the citizens of Montgomery during the bus boycott before SCLC was founded. When hundreds of thousands of people gathered behind MLK to protest segregation in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi,
Washington, D.C. and other parts of the country, they were representing a conglomerate of organizations, churches, civic groups, families and a host of other associations. MLK’s commendations also suggest that he was seen as more than an organizational leader: recipient of the
108 international Nobel Peace Prize; the only African American for whom a national holiday is named; and most recently, the erecting of a statue in his honor on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., just to name a few.
Lowery’s attitude may reflect that of others who struggled with MLK through the CRM but who received little or no recognition for their sacrifices:
Martin became the focal point of news stories despite his own efforts to avoid it. This caused
problems, quite naturally, since other people were also hard at work and sharing the dangers.
At one point, saddened and discouraged by self-defeating rivalries, he was ready to resign, “I
am willing to decrease,” he said, “so that others may increase. (CSK, 1969, p. 112)
Criticism from African American and White Leaders
“Having to take so much abuse and criticism, sometimes from my own people, sometimes I feel discouraged” (King, 1968, p. 354). Some of those who envied MLK’s leadership would announce their opposition to him and his strategies publicly. According to Clayton, “the criticism was constant.”
It came from all directions. In addition to fending off attacks from white supremacists, law enforcement officials and other government agents, MLK had to fend off attacks from those who should have been in support of his Christian philosophy, his fellow clergy. Orange maintains that this opposition proved to be the most hurtful to MLK:
I think when he had to have discussions explaining why he did Birmingham, or why he’s
doing Selma, or why he chose to go into Chicago to a James Jackson who headed up the
National Baptist Convention, I think that [hurt] him personally [because they were] fellow
clergymen in opposition to the movement.
LaFayette agrees that:
The spiritual challenge had much more to do with the lack of support from the national church
109 bodies. Even though they were collective church bodies in many cases, there were individual
church groups or area church groups that were involved as opposed to these national
organizations.
Not all of the local churches were involved. According to Young, “out of 400 churches [in
Birmingham] only about 14 of them would even let us have mass meetings.” Moss likened these and others who claimed to be Christians but criticized MLK to Jesus’ disciples--“they were great but they had issues.”
I have been disappointed because we have not received the cooperation of the Church. I
remember saying that so often the Church in our struggle had been a taillight, rather than a
headlight. The Church had so often been an echo, rather than a voice. (King, 1963, p.187)
Vivian felt that “the challenge professionally was of other ministers who were trained in the myths and attitudes of the entire South.” These myths and attitudes included adhering to segregation because it was the law and the custom of describing the efforts of the nonviolent protestors as extreme.
Orange agreed, explaining that:
Most of his fights came with folk who supposedly were the teachers of the Gospel…but they
were the ones who were bowing down to Pharaoh, they were the ones who were bowing
down to things that weren’t Godly. But then he was able to go back and relate to what took
place with Jesus. (Orange)
Young adds that the criticism from his fellow clergy, both black and white, was so profound that they “published the attack on him this whole page ad.” The ad that Young is referring to is the full-page newspaper ad that appeared in the Birmingham News, on April 12, 1963, the day after
MLK’s arrest. MLK describes how he learned about the ad:
I was placed in the cell in solitary confinement, a newspaper was slipped in to me. I turned it
110 over and found a kind of advertisement that had been placed there, taken out by eight
clergyman of all of the major religious faiths in our nation. They were criticizing our
demonstrations. They were calling us extremists. They were calling us law breakers and
believers in anarchy and all of these things. (King, 1963, p. 187)
MLK was no stranger to criticism; he faced it on almost a daily basis. “If I sought to answer
all of the criticism that crossed my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than
such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work” (King,
1963, p. 188). But the ad from the clergy was different “and when I read it, I became so concerned and
even upset and at points so righteously indignant that I decided to answer the letter” (King, 1963, p.
187). MLK’s answer to the ad will be discussed later in the chapter under Explaining Decisions in
Writing. Not all of the criticism came from whites.
CSK (1969) offers some explanation as to why MLK might have faced so much criticism:
Martin found some resistance to SCLC’s program in the black community itself. Under the
system of complete segregation, this attitude was not uncommon. There were several reasons.
One was that the black masses had been brainwashed into accepting the idea that it was
impossible to fight the system. The second was a few of the Birmingham Negro leaders felt
that timing was poor-that the new [mayor] Boutwell government should be given a chance.
Also there was slight resentment among local leaders of “outsiders” running the show. Martin
spoke at meeting after meeting to counter these objections. As he said later, Somehow God
gave me the power to transform the resentments, the suspicions, the fears, and the
misunderstandings. ..into faith and enthusiasm. (p. 221)
The criticism was not confined to the South. According to Orange, “when we went to
Philadelphia and to New York, it was the Cecil Moores of the world and the Adam Clayton Powells
111 who said this [was] their turf and they publicly criticized MLK to let him know that he was not welcome on their turf.” These attacks were personal and sometime vicious. For example, Moss says that Powell who referred to himself as “the most powerful Black man in America” referred publicly to
MLK as “Martin ‘Loser’ King.” Roy Wilkins, President of the NAACP, and a man who Vivian maintains, thought of himself as “President of Black America,” had a “tendency to try and make fun of certain things he did.”
According to LaFayette, this is exactly what happened when MLK announced the 1963 March on Washington: “there were leaders who criticized Martin Luther King----who in the very beginning, when the March was conceived, in the planning of it, discouraged him from trying to execute a March in Washington in 1963.” “It took daring and boldness to embrace the idea…Complicating the situation were innumerable prophets of doom” (King, 1963, p. 220). LaFayette recalls that “MLK went ahead with his efforts and eventually they joined with him.”
As a result of his efforts, 250,000 people, black and white, Jews and gentiles, rich and poor, gathered at the Lincoln Memorial for a peaceful demonstration for racial justice. Millions more from around the world tuned their televisions and radio to the march and witnessed the deliverance of what would become MLK’s most famous, most quoted, most recognizable speech, I Have A Dream.
Even though MLK went against his critics on the issue of the March on Washington, this did not mean that he did not take the critics or their criticism seriously. On the contrary, CSK (1969) explained that:
Of course Martin never merely dismissed disagreement or criticism. He constantly
reevaluated his position and himself in the light of each new circumstance. He was quick to
say, if he felt he had erred, I was wrong that time. But as I have explained, he criticized
himself more severely than anyone else ever did. (p. 274)
112 Such was the case with the Albany Movement during which nonviolent protesters were
arrested and the goals of the movement were derailed. After which many declared that nonviolence was dead. MLK accepted responsibility for the failed attempted and spoke about his error in the call
for a protest. “If I had to do again, I would guide that community’s Negro leadership differently than I
did. The mistake I made there was to protest against segregation generally rather than against a single and distinct facet of it” (King, 1961, p. 168).
This revelation would become key to the future direction of the CRM. Prior to Albany, protest had been focused on a single goal. In Montgomery, it was integrating the buses; in Selma it was registering to vote; in Atlanta it was integrating lunch counters. Albany, to the contrary, focused on a much broader goal of defeating racism in general. When the attempt failed, MLK learned a valuable lesson that he incorporated into all of his future campaigns.
In 1966, criticism of MLK and his leadership was elevated to an international level when he expanded his denouncement of violence and injustices across the ocean to include Vietnam. MLK suffered internal strife before making the decision to denounce the Vietnam War publicly. His supporters had warned him against speaking out against the war. They feared that there would be political repercussions, that his focus on the Vietnam War would detract from the struggles of the
CRM and that he would be labeled anti-American. MLK (1967) proclaimed, however, that it was his love for America that made him speak out against the war:
I oppose the war in Viet Nam because I love America. I speak out against it not in anger but
with anxiety and sorrow in my heart, and above all with a passionate desire to see our beloved
country stand as a moral example to the world. I speak out against this war because I am
disappointed with America. There can be no great disappointment where there is no great
love. (p. 20)
113 Young (1996) puts MLK’s stance on the war in the context of the broader African American community:
Martin’s decision to oppose the war was courageous, but it did not run counter to the
prevailing sentiments in the black community. Negative attitudes toward the war were widely
prevalent among blacks well before massive protests began. Few black leaders, however, were
willing to come out and give public expression to such community sentiments for fear they
would alienate the president and the federal government and be charged with a lack of
patriotism. (p. 427)
Initially MLK spoke out against the War in 1965.
However this action brought such criticism from other black leaders, who wanted to
concentrate all their efforts on improving the Negro conditions in America, that Martin
said no more, rather than risk creating disunity among his people. By 1966 it had become
apparent to Martin that not only was the Vietnam War wrong, but that it was engulfing
huge sums of money that could otherwise be spent fighting poverty. In January, 1967,
after long and serious deliberation, he decided to speak out. (CSK, 1969, p. 291)
With all of the criticism that was leveled at MLK for his stand against the Vietnam War, one might wonder how he came to the decision to denounce it. “You know I made a statement back in
1965, and I was criticized and I held back. But this time I vowed I would not compromise” (MLK,
1967, p. 292). According to Young (1996), “Martin Luther King came to his position on Vietnam as he had come to his position on segregation, through an examination of his own heart, the teachings of
Jesus Christ, and his commitment to nonviolence” (p. 422).
With MLK’s colleagues being so committed to nonviolent social change in America, the question is why they would not support the elimination of the violence and injustices that were being
114 perpetrated by the Vietnam War. Again Young (1996) offers an explanation.
The SCLC Board was uncomfortable with the issue of the war and they didn’t think they
should be criticizing Johnson because of what he had done to further the Civil Rights
Movement through the passing of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. The one
exception was James Bevel who was constantly after MLK to speak out against the war.
(Young, 1996, p. 424)
As this section attests MLK was no stranger to controversy or criticism and he graciously accepted the criticism leveled at him for speaking out against the Vietnam War. While he understood that some people might suggest that he was on the wrong side of the war issue he was disturbed by another aspect of the criticism:
He was most hurt by the Washington Post and New York Times editorials. They didn’t
say he was wrong or that his criticism was not well founded; they challenged his very
right to take a position. They said he was a civil rights leader and didn’t have any
business talking about foreign affairs. (Young, 1996, p. 433)
“Martin believed that a leader must not try to curry favor, but must take the responsibility of showing his people what he sees as the proper course” (CSK, 1969, p.292). History would prove that MLK indeed was on the right side of the Vietnam War issue. By 1971, Senator Mike
Mansfield would label the war a “tragic mistake.” In that same year, Vietnam Veterans against the War and others protestors would gather in Washington in crowds that often reached 200,000.
In addition, public opinion polls posted on “The Lessons of the Vietnam War” website show that today two of every three Americans agree with Senator Mansfield. Even Robert McNamara
(1995), who was considered the architect of the Vietnam War, says that when it comes to the question of the validity of the Vietnam War, America was wrong. While MLK defied his critics
115 by speaking out against the Vietnam War, he was very conscientious about making the right
decisions.
My husband was what psychologists might call a guilt-ridden man. He was so conscious of
his awesome responsibilities that he literally set himself the task of never making an error in
the affairs of the Movement. He would say I can’t afford to make a mistake, though he knew
that as a human being he was bound to. (CSK, 1969, p. 171)
It was this sensitivity to criticism that led MLK to change where he planned to stay in
Memphis on April 4, 1968 - a change that may have helped to make possible his assassination at the
Lorraine Motel. MLK had been invited to Memphis, Tennessee to lead a march on behalf of the
striking sanitation workers, who were demanding better pay and working conditions. MLK had
visited Memphis before and each time had stayed at the Holiday Inn. On April 4, 1968 he changed his
routine.
Martin had been criticized in Memphis for staying at the Holiday Inn, which was considered
too fancy. The staff felt that it was the safest place for him, since it was away from where the
demonstrations would be held. However, sensitive to criticism, Martin reserved rooms in the
Negro-owned and operated Lorraine Motel. (CSK, 1969, p. 314)
This change of hotels would seal MLK’s fate and bring truth to the words he spoke on April 3,
1968: “I just want to do God’s will. And he has allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve
looked over, and I’ve seen the promise land. I may not get there with you…” (King, 1968, p. 365).
Summary
As leader of the CRM, MLK faced personal challenges and internal organizational challenges.
His personal challenges were those that were germane to his person, his family and his followers.
They were his reluctance to lead and threats of violence, incarceration and threats to his reputation.
116 His internal organizational challenges were those that emanated from his leadership of the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference. His internal organizational challenges were the egos and
competition from African American leaders and criticism from African American and White leaders.
External Movement Challenges
As MLK grew in status and leadership so, too, did his challenges--from personal to internal to
the organization to external to the movement. The external movement challenges were those that
resulted from his leadership of the CRM. Overcoming the external movement challenges was critical
not only to the maintenance of the CRM but, also to its future development and sustainability. If the
CRM was to continue in the vein in which it had begun, then MLK would have to face the challenges
of resistance to the use of nonviolence and having a leadership succession plan.
Resistance to the use of Nonviolence
Through violence you may murder a murderer but you can’t murder, murder. Through
violence you may murder a liar but you can’t establish truth. Through violence you may
murder a hater, but you can’t murder hate. Darkness cannot put out darkness. Only light can
do that. (1967, King, p. 67)
Part of the criticism leveled at MLK by his colleagues and others stemmed from his chosen
method to bring about social change. The South in the 1950s was a desperate place for African
Americans in their struggle for civil rights. They were the constant victims of beatings, lynchings and burnings in cities like Birmingham, descriptively, referred to as Bombingham. According to
LaFayette:
The next challenge related to that is helping people to believe that even if there were those
who lost their lives taking a stand would it be feasible to continue to take a stand, or would the
same thing happen over and over again?
117 With this question in mind, the oppressed people of the South were growing restless and hopeless.
We have been consistent about standing up for nonviolence. But more and more we are faced
with the problem of our people saying, What’s the use? And we find it a little more difficult to
get over nonviolence. And I am convinced that if something isn’t done to give the Negro a
new sense of hope and a sense of protection, there is a danger we will face the worse race riot
we have ever seen in this country. (King, 1963, p. 233)
LaFayette confirmed that observation:
Another barrier that MLK had to deal with was the hopelessness of the people themselves
because they had seen so many examples where people stood up. And there was a common
phrase that if you stand up, you’re gonna get your head cut off and nobody is going to do
anything about it. In other words, your sacrifices will be for naught if you did take a stand
against injustices. So one of his challenges was to convince people that they could take a
stand and they could accomplish the goal. It was high risk because we know many people
who did take a stand and they were killed.
Therefore, when MLK came with his proposition of nonviolence, it was no wonder that he was met with some skepticism. As Moss recalls, asking people, “to be committed to nonviolence in a violent age” would naturally evoke criticism, and some of the skepticism came from people closest to
MLK. Clayton maintains that even his “friends didn’t quite understand.” Lowery agrees that “there were a lot of people who followed Martin Luther King who did not necessarily believe in nonviolence.” Even Young admitted, “I wasn’t particularly committed to nonviolence at that time, but
I had an interest in it.”
The response of MLK’s colleagues’ to nonviolence as a way to combat racial oppression in the
118 South was no different from MLK’s own first response to a nonviolent solution. Initially, MLK, too thought that violence was needed to win equal rights, “when I was in theological school I thought the only way we could solve our problem of segregation was an armed revolt” (MLK, 1956, p. 121). That was before MLK heard Mordecai Johnson preach at the Fellowship House of Philadelphia.
Not fully understanding the principles and philosophy of nonviolence, many thought that it was a method for cowards. CSK (1969) reports that “some of the ultra-militants criticized Martin and tried to identify him as an ‘Uncle Tom.’ They sought to depict his compassion and humanity as weakness and cowardice” (p. 273). As Vivian recalls, people questioned MLK’s method saying:
Your method is going to involve us not being able to defend ourselves, aren’t you questioning
our manhood so the challenge was to make them see that their manhood was not defined by
violence but by nonviolence that there manhood was defined by character.
Orange also remembers “he had to defend nonviolence where people were verbally attacking him for being nonviolent and a lot of these folks were provocateurs, were paid by the government to do it and a lot of that’s coming out now.” Vivian reflected on MLK’s challenge of getting others to accept nonviolence like this:
How do you convince, this is still the mystery to me, how do you convince a whole
community of Black people that have weekly seen people destroyed--killed, shot down at the
will of white men, particularly the policemen but white men period, and in a community
where you can’t even go sit on a toilet? How are you going to convince 30,000 people that
have watched people destroyed and know that their very lives were disrespected? How are
you going to get them to walk out and face the violence of that when they never heard of it
except by somebody in Asia and it took him 25 years or some very, very, long time and you
expect us to walk out and face these murderers--cause that’s what they are, that’s what they
119 were, that’s what they are. (Vivian)
Lowery also talked about the enormity of the task:
[A] constant challenge was keeping non-violence as style and substance…some who did not
accept non-violence from philosophical nor spiritual perspective had to be persuaded to
embrace as tactical essential…externally there were continuing problems and pressures from
forces that were critical of non-violence and posed a serious threat to maintaining a
commitment to nonviolence…
In addition to the spiritual rationale MLK used to support his method of nonviolence, there
was a more practical rationale for employing nonviolence during the CRM. MLK (1957) explained:
Violent revolutions can succeed only when the rebels are the majority, or at least constitute a
large minority of a population. In the case of the American Negro, constituting less than
twelve percent of the United States and possessing a minuscule percentage of available
weapons, it is suicidal. (p. 153)
According to CSK (1969), when James Meredith was shot in Mississippi, “for the first time there appeared persons among his ranks who questioned the effectiveness of the Nonviolent approach” (p. 277). This questioning led to a crisis in the leadership of the CRM. There were some leaders who were ready to give up on nonviolence in order to fight fire with fire. Such was the case with the President of the Monroe, North Carolina, NAACP, Robert Williams, who declared, “We must meet violence with violence, lynching with lynching” (Bermanzohn, 2000, p. 45).
Leadership Succession Plan
The biggest job in getting any movement off the ground is to keep together the people who form it. This task requires more than a common aim; it demands a philosophy that wins and holds the people’s allegiance; and it depends upon open channels of communication between the people and the
120 leaders. (King, 1959, p. 136)
In LaFayette’s opinion the job of keeping the Movement’s executive leadership unified posed a tremendous task for MLK:
The next challenge he had is the most important challenge: how do you keep the leadership
together in a struggle long enough to achieve the goal? That was always a challenge because
most movements did not succeed because of internal dissention and disintegration and it lost
power from within rather than the onslaught without.
Reflecting on his past thoughts from the CRM, Vivian agreed, “our real problem now is do we have leadership that can hold what Dr. King put in place.” Moss recalls wondering if MLK was forced to make the ultimate sacrifice was “who will take up the cross? Who will struggle and produce a land that’s more promising?”
These are good questions, considering the sacrifices that leaders of the CRM endured and the petty issues that plagued its leadership. Ministers and other community leaders were displaying signs of jealousy and envy. Clergy and other leaders were criticizing the existing leadership. The government was infiltrating organizations and wire tapping the leaders’ telephones. Law enforcement officers and white supremacists were beating and killing leaders like MLK, James Meredith and John
Lewis, all of these things were contributing to the destruction of the leadership. As MLK (1965) observed:
The American Negro cannot afford to destroy its leadership. Men of talent are too scarce to
be destroyed by envy, greed, and tribal rivalry before they reach their full maturity. Like the
murder of Patrice Lamumba in the Congo, the murder of Malcolm X deprived of the world of
a potentially great leader. I could not agree with either of these men, but I could see in them a
capacity for leading which I could respect and which was only beginning to mature in
121 judgment and statesmanship. (p. 268)
Summary
As pastor and leader and founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, MLK faced personal and internal organizational challenges. His personal challenges were his reluctance to lead and threats – threats of violence, threats to his freedom and threats to his character and reputation.
He also faced external movement challenges that were a direct result of his leadership of the CRM.
These external movement challenges included resistance to the use of nonviolence and a leadership succession plan.
Managing the Personal Challenges
The fourth question in this research study asks: how was MLK able to effectively manage these challenges? As displayed in Table 5 at the beginning of this chapter, MLK managed his personal challenges by using his personal relationship with God. He managed his internal organizational challenges by turning to humor, explaining decisions in writing and practicing team leadership. He managed his external movement challenges by providing education and training, relating scripture to the nonviolence approach, practicing what he professed and offering leadership development opportunities.
Using his Personal Relationship with God
As previously discussed, it was MLK’s commitment to humankind that made him feel that leading the Civil Rights Movement was his Christian duty. As a Baptist minister who got his inspiration from Jesus Christ, MLK’s life and work were grounded in Christian principles.
From the beginning a basic philosophy guided the movement. This guiding principle has
since been referred to variously as nonviolent resistance, noncooperation, and passive
resistance. But in the first days of the protest none of these expressions was mentioned; the
122 phrase most often heard was “Christian love.” (King, 1958, p. 93)
This Christian Love would be institutionalized by changing the name of the organization that had been established to fight racism in the South. Originally, the organization was called the Southern
Conference on Transportation and Nonviolent Integration.
The name of the organization was changed to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference
or SCLC. Most of the delegates were activist leaders of their southern black communities but
more importantly to us, they were also ministers. Our organization was, from the first,
church-oriented, both in its leadership and membership and in the ideal of nonviolence – a
spiritual concept in deep accord with the American Negroes Christian beliefs. (CSK, 1969, p.
152)
As was written in Chapter 2, MLK was the son of a minister, the grandson of a minister and the great grandson of a minster. He was raised in the Baptist church, constantly surrounded by ministers and other men of the cloth. He himself became a Baptist minister. MLK often remarked that he got his motivation to continue in the struggle from Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is no surprise that
MLK would manage the constant threats of incarceration, physical violence and character assassination with his personal relationship with God and, more specifically, his faith in and obedience to God. CSK (2000) confirms the conclusion:
When enduring threats of violence and even death are part of one’s leadership commitment,
we can understand why faith in God, become essential for day to day survival. We cultivated a
deep faith in God as a source of strength, which helped us get through the most difficult times.
(p. 6)
As was described in the previous sections, the difficult times were many. It was during this time, that according to CSK (1969) he prayed intensely for guidance. On Friday, January 27, 1956,
123 when the difficult times became overwhelming for MLK, he turned to God for strength:
It was about midnight…And I discovered then that religion had to become real to me, and I
had to know God for myself. And I bowed down over that cup of coffee. I never will forget
it…I prayed a prayer, out loud that night. I said Lord, I’m down here trying to do what’s right.
I think I’m right. I think the cause we represent is right. But Lord I must confess that I am
weak now. I’m faltering. I’m losing my courage. And I can’t let the people see me like this
because if they see me weak and losing my courage they will begin to get weak. (King, 1967,
p. 11)
This prayer would serve as a pivotal point in MLK’s life. What happened after he prayed
would solidify his personal relationship with God, give him the courage he needed to continue to fight
and inspire him to instill courage in the masses of people to fight against their oppressors.
And it seemed at that moment that I could hear an inner voice saying to me, Martin Luther,
stand up for righteousness. Stand up for justice. Stand up for truth. And lo I will be with you,
even until the end of the world…I heard the voice of Jesus saying still to fight on. He
promised never to leave me, never to leave me alone. No never alone. No never alone. He
promised never to leave me, never to leave me alone. (King, 1967, p. 11)
As was consistent with his faith, MLK relied on his personal relationship with God to deliver
him in his weakest hour. Moss describes MLK as a “deeply spiritual, praying person…born of the
prophetic teachings of the Holy Spirit…nurtured by the love ethic of Jesus” and that he was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice if necessary. Because MLK saw his leadership of the Movement as an extension of his Christian duties, he could not be deterred, not even by the threat of death. Vivian agrees that MLK’s faith was the context for everything he did:
He met these challenges by his faith. He met these challenges by his deep concern to live by
124 that which he was asking other people to commit their lives to. I think he met this challenge
basically because he understood the cross as basic not simply to change but through
transformation of the society.
To further illustrate this point, Vivian offered the following quote:
Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by
hope. Nothing which is true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate
context of history: therefore we must be saved by faith. Nothing we do however virtuous can
be accomplished alone therefore we are saved by love. No virtuous act is quite as virtuous
from the standpoint of our friends or foes as it is from our standpoint. Therefore we must be
saved by the final form of love which is forgiveness. That’s great stuff, isn’t it? I’m telling
you, this is Reinhold Niebuhr and this is one of Martin’s great heroes, theological heroes.
(Vivian)
MLK’s great hero, indeed. Why? Because Reinhold Niebuhr, who was a Protestant theologian, set a precedent of relating the Christian faith to the realities of modern politics and diplomacy, a precedent that MLK continued through his efforts with the CRM. Young also offered a quote to explain how MLK was able to continue in the struggle in the face of many threats. He said that there was a Danish theologian who said, “purity of heart is to will one thing. And that one thing is to be obedient to God. And to do so in such a pure, unadulterated fashion that nothing else matters.
There was another theologian which called it Holy Obedience” (Young). Vivian agreed that MLK was being obedient when he accepted his call to be the leader of the CRM.
His call to leadership was a call to the pulpit--was a call to the ministry, is the word you would
use. It was his call to the ministry which at the time he thought was a call to the pulpit and he
obeyed immediately. (Vivian)
125 CSK (2000) confirmed that “he was obedient to God’s will and purpose for his life” (p. 2). It
was because of his strong faith in and obedience to God that, according to CSK (1969), “Martin
always felt that unearned suffering and personal sacrifice was redemptive. He stressed this in the
movement to give his followers courage; and in his personal life, it was this belief that enabled him to
endure” (p. 150).
Managing the Internal Organizational Challenges
Even though the CRM was founded on MLK’s theological understanding of Christian
principles, it was still a dark and violent time for African Americans. The challenges they faced
against the white establishment and white supremacists were no laughing matter. There was nothing
funny about being beaten to the ground with billy clubs, knocked down with water from hoses, or
being bitten by police dogs. So, it is no wonder that MLK’s public persona was one of “a serious,
studious almost shy intellectual. But then, if you got him alone with just a bunch of his boys, then he was a clown” (Young).
Turning to Humor
When Young described MLK’s public and private personas, it was as though he were describing two different people. While the world knew him as a charismatic, courageous, Baptist minister, the people closest to MLK were privy to another side of this man of God; a side that revealed
a wonderful and witty sense of humor. To deal with the stresses that came from being leader and
spokesperson for the Movement, MLK would relieve some of his tension among his family and closest friends with laughter.
According to CSK (1969), MLK “was also so alive and funny, and so much fun to be with”
(p. 69). She thought that MLK probably inherited his sense of humor from his mother, whom she
described as “extremely fashionable and well dressed and [with] a keen sense of humor” (p. 79). “He
126 loved laughter and socializing with friends. He had a wonderful sense of humor and knew how to make his friends and family laugh” (CSK, 2000, p. 4). And when it came to family and close friends, all were targets for MLK’s humor. “He was a great tease; how he loved to tease me when we were courting by pretending to like some other girl until I rose to the bait, my eyes spitting fire. How he would laugh at me then” (CSK, 1969, p. 62).
Lowery admits that he, too, was often the brunt of MLK’s humor:
I was one of the too few Methodists in the inner circle, and he loved to tease me about the
itinerant nature of Methodist ministry. He would often say: "this is my good friend, the
Reverend Joseph Lowery, a MOVING figure in the Methodist church.” (Lowery)
“The most brilliant men I’ve known have had a great sense of humor,” said Vivian. Apparently MLK was no exception. However he didn’t show his humorous side to everyone. According to Vivian:
“Only we who knew him well would see him laughing. Other people never saw him laughing.”
Vivian explains that MLK’s humor was not the “ha ha” kind, but rather a more insightful humor. “He used jokes to get over serious ideas.” LaFayette echoed the words of his former colleagues:
MLK did not use humor in his public speaking or his sermons, but among his colleagues he
did use humor. He used to sometimes use British humor, dry humor, where it was subtle and
if you got the point you could laugh. If you didn’t you took it seriously.
Lowery agreed adding:
Dr. King had a great sense of humor and could and did, keep us laughing for long periods of
time...in friendly surroundings and company. He loved to tease those he liked. His teasing
was never degrading but pointed and hilarious. He seldom, to my recollection, told jokes, but
found humor in situations.
One of the situations where MLK used humor was dealing with the egos of his colleagues.
127 According to Young:
He’d play the dozens with you on a sly, not in the sense of talking about yo’ mamma, but
cracking on you in the sense of saying things that were really true and that you were
vulnerable to and he’d have everybody laughing….And you had the feeling that MLK was
cracking on you all around you and he was really getting to you. And he was really cutting on
you all around you. And he was really getting to you and he was really cutting you down to
size but you didn’t realize it until he quit. (Young)
Another example Young remembers is when Rev. Abernathy became upset with MLK because Abernathy “wanted half of the Noble Prize and half of the Noble Prize money.” Not only did
MLK refuse to share the prize and the money with Abernathy, but also he teased Abernathy about his drum major instinct or the desire to be out front. Young recalls MLK saying:
I know, Ralph, we’re going to have an organization that you gonna be the president of and he
said I got it. He said there’s an organization we can form and nobody can challenge your
leadership. And Ralph we gonna make you the international president of the International
Association for the Advancement of Eating Chicken. (Young)
Young also told of how MLK responded to all of the ministers who gathered to pray for him
when he was stabbed in Harlem by a deranged woman.
He’d say, all the preachers came in to pray over me…It was like I was in an out of body
experience I was looking down on them. I knew all of those Negroes wanted me to die
because I was interfering with their leadership. He said I know they after me, but y’all always
jumping in front of the camera, trying to get your picture taken, so one of you all probably
gonna take a bullet for me and then he started preaching your funeral and clowning. (Young)
When it came to managing the challenge of the egos and competition from African American
128 leaders, who were close to him, MLK turned to his sense of humor. When it came to managing the challenge of criticism from other African American and White leaders MLK choose to explain his
decisions in writing.
Explaining Decisions in Writing
“When you have the time, respond to unjust criticism” (MLK, 1963, p. 175). In addition to
being a full time pastor, president of the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA), a husband
and father of four, MLK was a prolific writer. He was the author of six books and countless speeches,
sermons and articles and as much as this sounds like work, Young insists that MLK used writing
much as he used humor--to de-stress and relax.
He had very few ways of relaxing and one of them was really just writing. He’d get away like
every year for his birthday after Christmas. He’d go down to Jamaica and he’d stay down
there till his birthday. But he usually wrote a book or at least did the first draft of it. (Young)
It was during one of these trips in 1967 that MLK wrote his fourth book, Where Do We Go
From Here, which according to CSK (1969) he wrote in six weeks. LaFayette maintains that relaxing
was not the only purpose that MLK’s writings served:
The other way he was able to manage the challenges that he faced is that he was a prolific
writer, so he was able to express his ideas and his thoughts in such a way that those who had
an intellectual approach had the opportunity to listen to his thoughts by reading them and his
ideas. So those who did not have time to have a one-on-one dialogue with him, or listen to him
in a mass meeting of some sort, there was no opportunity for dialogue in a mass meeting, but
he was able to share these ideas in a permanent way. So he wrote a lot. (LaFayette)
Vivian agreed that MLK managed some of his challenges by explaining his decisions in
writing. This he thought was particularly true when it came to criticism. One specific example of
129 how MLK managed criticism through his writing was when he was publicly attacked by his fellow clergy. It was 1963, and MLK had been in jail in solitary confinement for eight days for his participation in the Birmingham Movement. While in jail, a group of eight white Alabama clergymen took out a full page ad in the Birmingham News calling the protest “unwise and untimely” and referring to MLK as an “outside agitator” who had come to Birmingham seeking publicity. The fact that MLK did not have access to writing pens or paper in jail did not keep him from explaining his decision in writing:
I didn’t have anything at my disposal like a pad or writing paper. Begun on the margins of the
newspaper in which the statement appeared, the letter was continued on scraps of writing
paper supplied by a friendly Negro trusty, and concluded on a pad my attorneys were
eventually permitted to leave me. (King, 1963, p. 188)
CSK (1969) points out that in the letter MLK didn’t deny any of the accusations, but rather framed them in the teachings of Jesus Christ and the responsibilities of men of the clergy:
There was a time when the church was very powerful--in the time when the early
Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those
days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of
popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the
early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately
sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside
agitators." But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of
heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in
commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their
effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and
130 gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a
weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an arched defender of the
status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of
the average community is consoled by the church's silent--and often even vocal--sanction
of things as they are. (King, 1963, p. 184)
For Vivian the Letter from a Birmingham Jail, as it came to be known, served as the ultimate proof that MLK met the challenge of criticism by explaining his decisions in writing. He points out that “the letter from a Birmingham Jail which is now literature, American literature taught to high school and college kids as a must, so that when we see this, we see how he met the challenges that came from within his profession” (Vivian).
LaFayette added that MLK’s writings were read around the world:
[They] were read worldwide translated, into different languages. People all over the world
were exposed to Dr. King’s philosophy and strategy for bringing about social change. I’ve
been told that when we had the Poor People’s Campaign there were 17 other countries and
when we say Poor People’s Campaign, we mean people who were marching from their local
areas to their national capital because the whole idea of the Poor People’s Campaign was to
make poverty visible by bringing it to the seat of government. So they themselves [people
from other countries] were marching just to hear about MLK’s announcement.
LaFayette’s point is a good one because MLK’s writings have served to do more than answer his critics. By taking the time to put his thoughts, deeds, beliefs and values in writing, MLK has ensured that his words would not only outlive the CRM, but would serve as words of wisdom, inspiration, encouragement and guidance for generations to come. Leaving a legacy of writings allowed MLK’s words to transcend the South, the nation, and the continent to inhabit countries around
131 the world.
Because MLK left a rich legacy of writings, King scholars have been able to extract two
important doctrines. The Six Principles of Kingian Nonviolence serves as the spiritual foundation that
undergirds an individual’s commitment to nonviolent social change. The Six Steps of Kingian
Nonviolence outlines the process for bringing about social and interpersonal change. Future scholars, like this researcher, will continue to benefit from his legacy by being able to study MLK’s life and leadership using his own words as a primary resource rather than having to rely solely on secondary sources.
Practicing Team Leadership
“When considering a major decision, assemble trusted advisers together and confer with them” (MLK, 196 p. 193). There were major decisions that had to be made during the CRM almost on a daily basis, decisions that, in some instances, could have meant the difference between life and death. This type of decision-making could be a heavy burden to bear on one man’s shoulder. That is why Moss insisted that, while MLK “was the symbol of the struggle, he was not alone in his leadership.” LaFayette agreed that MLK “believed in collective leadership.” Vivian, too, described
MLK’s leadership as “group leadership, team leadership.” It was this practice of team leadership that helped MLK to manage the challenge of criticism.
Describing MLK’s team leadership, CSK (1969) said that “he drained his closest friends for advice” (p. 334). One such occasion was when MLK was trying to decide whether or not to march in
Selma. “I consulted with my lawyers and trusted advisors both in Selma and other parts of the country and discussed what course of action we should take” (King, 1964, p. 280).
MLK often practiced this team leadership with his SCLC staff. LaFayette maintained that when major decisions had to be made MLK would gather his staff together and work to build a
132 group consensus. Vivian added that MLK practiced team leadership beyond his staff:
When I say team here, it’s not only a team of his staff. There were groups of people in the
country that talked to Martin on an ongoing basis and Martin heard them all and then made up
his mind of what he was gonna want us to do. (Vivian)
Moss agreed that this “group, team, collective leadership” was one of the ways that MLK was able to manage the negative criticism that was leveled against him. At these times and others, he would “consult with some of the best minds and greatest spirits, drawing wisdom from across age, color, and ethnic identity. MLK’s ability to dialogue and debate with them, plan strategy with them always kept him on his tip toes” (Moss). Clayton also revealed that “he had a core of advisers and he would call them in, tell them what he was considering, then ask them their opinions.”
According to CSK (2000):
Martin encouraged constructive criticism. He had a brain trust of advisers that he met with
regularly to discuss the state of the movement, which included some of the best and most
creative social critics in America….Martin felt that constructive critics, even when he
disagreed, could help him clarify his position. He would often let his staff express a range of
views, carefully listen and consider what they had to say, and then make his decision. But
once he made his decisions, the deliberations were over and the staff was instructed to carry
out his directives. (p. 5)
Orange identified some of the team leaders as Stanley Levison [Jewish Businessman from
New York and adviser to MLK], Bill Jones and Sandy Ray [minster and close friend of Daddy King] in New York. Clay Evans[founder of Fellowship Missionary Baptist Church] in Chicago and C.
Delores Tucker [civil rights activists] in Philadelphia.
He would even have country folk like Albert Turner down in Alabama that he would talk to
133 from his wife’s hometown. He listened to them and he would bump things off of them and
then he would get a James Orange, an Andrew Marsettie and bump things off of us. (Orange)
Even though MLK had the utmost respect for the opinions of his team leaders, he did not
accept their recommendations without thorough scrutiny. According to Moss, he would “listen
intently and debate.” He would quiz his colleagues carefully on all facets of the issues being
discussed, weighing the pros and the cons and considering the possible implications of each. “After
listening, he would then say, these are your suggestions, recommendations, but, ultimately, the
responsibility for making a decision would rest with him. But he showed them that their opinions mattered. He would get the best of their thinking” (Clayton). CSK (1969) agreed that whenever there were tough decisions to be made “Martin, in his usual fashion, began calling his trusted colleagues.
He posed questions; he studied answers. His mind was crystallizing a plan” (p. 297).
Young added that MLK got more than advice from practicing team leadership; he also got a strong sense of support and loyalty.
There were people around whose only agenda was to see the movement succeed and MLK
succeed. There were people like Fred Bennett that would do anything for him, that would’ve
laid down his life in a minute and Bernard Lee [MLK aide] was that way and Dora [MLK’s
secretary], Dorothy Cotton [Director of Education for SCLC]. I put myself in that category,
people who had no other agenda but to see him succeed. (Young)
Orange too added himself to this list saying, “I mean I would go through hell and high water for him.”
Also a part of MLK’s team leadership was his wife, Coretta Scott King. While some women in the CRM like, Rosa Parks and Ella Baker, often complained of their male counterparts’ sexism (see chapter 2 for more information), according to CSK (2000):
134 Martin was truly exceptional in that regard. He listened intently to people. Most of the men in
the civil rights movement were like men everywhere at that time, which was generally
chauvinistic. But Martin always sought my opinion, listened to them and respected what I had
to say, as he did with everyone. And I think this ability to really listen gave Martin both
wisdom and credibility. When people saw that he really cared what they had to say and what
they felt, they respected him all the more. And by listening to people with his heart, as well as
his ears, Martin gained wisdom beyond his years. (p. 5)
Managing External Movement Challenges
In addition to the personal challenges and internal organizational challenges, MLK also faced a number of external movement challenges. These external movement challenges were the challenges
he faced outside of the SCLC but within the CRM. The external movement challenges were resistance to the use of nonviolence and having a leadership succession plan. He managed these
challenges by providing education and training, relating scripture to the nonviolence approach,
practicing what he professed and offering leadership development opportunities.
Providing Education and Training
Vivian believes that part of the resistance to nonviolence was man’s tendency to equate his
manhood with his ability and willingness to meet violence with violence. “So the challenge was to
make them see that their manhood was not defined by violence but by nonviolence. That their
manhood was defined by character” (Vivian). MLK’s response to this way of thinking was to
emphasize that nonviolence was not a passive nonresistance method for cowards but rather a way of
life for courageous people.
First it must be emphasized that nonviolent resistance is not a method for cowards; it does
resist. If one uses this method because he is afraid or merely because he lacks the instruments
135 of violence, he is not truly nonviolent. This is why Gandhi often said that if cowardice is the
only alternative to violence, it is better to fight. He made this statement conscious of the fact
that there is always another alternative: no individual or group need submit to any wrong, nor
need they use violence to right the wrong; there is the way of nonviolent resistance. This is
ultimately the way of the strong man. (MLK, 1958, p. 60)
To get this message across participants in the CRM were required to attend educational workshops and other training sessions on nonviolence. “Nonviolent resistance is one of the most potent weapons available to oppressed people in their quest for social justice.” (MLK, 1958, p. 6). If participants in the movement were to use nonviolence as a weapon they had to be trained to do so.
According to LaFayette this is one of the messages MLK instilled in the leadership.
He said the next thing you must have is people trained to use the weapons. It’s not enough to
have weapons the people have to be trained so in terms of nonviolence your leadership had to
be trained to use the philosophy and the methods of nonviolence if you’re going be successful
in a nonviolent movement. (LaFayette)
What the media projected and what the mass viewers saw were nonviolent protesters participating in peaceful demonstrations. What they did not see was the preparation that had preceded the demonstrations and the training that participants had to undertake in order to be included.
Nonviolence did not come easily for most; without proper preparation and training demonstrations might have become as violent for law enforcement as it often was for the marchers. To this end, according to CSK (1969) SCLC staffers like Andy Young, James Bevel, Dorothy Cotton, and James
Orange would prepare the community for demonstrations through mass meetings and workshops on nonviolence.
“We made it clear, that we would not send anyone out to demonstrate who had not convinced
136 himself and us that he could accept and endure violence without retaliation” (King, 1963, p.178). Rev.
Orange experienced this requirement the first time he met MLK.
I went to one of the rallies at 16th Street Baptist Church to get involved with a co-church member
who was a member of the choir and took a seat on the wrong bench on the bench that sent you to
the jail the next day which I didn’t know I just saw an empty seat. And in his speech and in Rev.
Abernathy’s speech they made notice that I was up there early couldn’t wait till they called folks.
From that point I was rushed following “We Shall Overcome” downstairs to do a nonviolent
workshop with James Bevel and Dorothy Cotton. (Orange).
In addition to the training on nonviolence, demonstrators like Rev. Orange who were willing to go to jail were asked to sign a commitment card with the following pledge:
I hereby pledge myself -- my person and my body--to the nonviolent movement. Therefore, I
will keep the following Ten Commandments
1. Meditate daily on the teachings and life of Jesus.
2. Remember always that the nonviolent movement in Birmingham seeks justice and
reconciliation – not victory.
3. Walk and talk in the manner of love, for God’s love.
4. Pray daily to be used by God in order that all men might be free.
5. Sacrifice personal wishes that all men might be free
6. Observe with both friend and foe the ordinary rules of courtesy.
7. Seek to perform regular service for others and for the world.
8. Refrain from the violence of fist, tongue, and heart
9. Strive to be in good spiritual and bodily health
10. Follow the directions of the movement and of the captains on a demonstration (CSK, 1969 p.
137 218).
The workshop and the pledges were designed by the leaders of the Movement to help
maintain peace during the demonstrations. The training was not just for adults, elementary, high school and college students, attended mass meetings and training sessions in the philosophy and
techniques of nonviolence.
We taught them the philosophy of Nonviolence. We challenged them to bring their
exuberance, their youthful creativity, into the disciplined dedication of the movement. We find
them eager to belong, hungry for participation in a significant social effort. Looking back it is
clear that the introduction of Birmingham’s children into the campaign was one of the wisest
moves we made. (King, 1963, p. 206)
However, the philosophy and techniques of nonviolence was not the only thing participants were taught when they attended these workshops. “We started these workshops and talked about voter registration and voter empowerment and citizenship education training” (Orange). In these workshops,
Orange and others would utilize principles of adult education to impart knowledge to the participants.
The first rule of Septima’s adult education technique was to treat our students as adults,
experienced in the practical skills of life. We taught by asking questions “What do you think
is the purpose of the Constitution of the United States?” What does it mean to be a citizen of
the United States?” These were adults who knew a lot about life; it was merely certain
knowledge about citizenship they needed, basically because such knowledge had been denied
them….Practical civics is what we called what we were teaching, and we ourselves learned as
we taught. We tried to improve literacy skills by using the daily newspapers, common signs,
and labels as our textbook. The adults from farm communities were mostly functionally
illiterate, since they were only allowed to attend school when it didn’t interfere with farm
138 work. (Young, 1996, p. 147)
As is often the result of adult education participants in the movement in general and the
workshops in particular not only gained knowledge that was personally empowering but they also
gained knowledge that helped them to become better citizens.
In the process of citizenship schooling, the boycott, mass meetings, and demonstrations,
people grew in understanding and gained a sense of their own worth, power, and dignity. In
the end, Birmingham and its citizens, black and white, were transformed to the greater good of
all concerned. (Young, 1996, p. 252)
Relating Scripture to the Nonviolence Approach
Earlier in this section, I described how MLK used his personal relationship with God to
manage the personal challenges he faced as he led a movement for nonviolent social change.
Likewise, he used scriptural and other moral terms to inspire Christians and other people of good will to join in the CRM as a part of their Christian or humanitarian duties. Born into a family of ministers both on his maternal and paternal sides MLK was no stranger to the Bible or Christian principles. As
a matter of fact, according to his father Daddy King (1980), MLK learned to “recite scriptures before
he was five, years before he could read the Bible for himself” (p. 80). It was the scriptures and other
moral terms that he would use as the foundation for his message for promoting nonviolent social
change.
Remember this is the first moral and spiritual mass movement in America. All of them had
little stuff at the edges but the very heart of this movement was moral and spiritual. This was
use of a moral and spiritual movement to destroy an immoral and vicious society. (Vivian)
One of the reasons that MLK chose to model the protests of the CRM after the nonviolent
method that Gandhi prescribed was because it was based on Christian principles. MLK’s message,
139 however, stretched beyond that of the traditional southern Baptist preacher. "I had doubts that religion
was intellectually respectable. I revolted against the emotionalism of Negro religion, the shouting and
the stamping. I didn't understand it and it embarrassed me" (King, 1964).
Moss maintained that MLK “saw no conflict between the struggle for justice and his pastoral
duties. He accepted his responsibilities as a divine calling by history and humanity” (Moss). Vivian
agreed that MLK “understood the Scripture,” and understanding the Scripture means relating the
Gospel to the struggles of the CRM. So, drawing from the example set by his spiritual mentor
Benjamin E. Mays, MLK used scripture to convince the masses that they had a Christian and
humanitarian responsibility to fight against oppression and to do so in a nonviolent way.
Religion deals with both heaven and earth, …Any religion that professes to be concerned with
the souls of men and is not concerned with the slums that doom them, the economic
conditions that strangle them, and the social conditions that cripple them, is a dry-as-dust
religion. From the very first step, the Christian ministry provided the leadership of our
struggle, as Christian ideals were its source. (King, 1963, p. 17)
It was this type of social gospel that became the staple for MLK’s sermons.
They usually had a social message as well as a religious one, because of my husband’s belief
that a minister should also be a leader in social progress. I remember one occasion, some
years later, when he said to me, I’m going to preach on Sunday about how you deal with fear.
In the South that was one of our greatest problems. Racist groups like the Ku Klux Klan, and
even the police used fear as their weapon to keep the Negroes down. The Sermon called
Antidotes for Fear was later thought to be one of his best sermons. (CSK, 1969, p. 30)
Sermons like “Antidotes for Fear” (1963), “The Ways of God in the Midst of Glaring Evil”
(1957) and “Why Jesus Called a Man a Fool” (1967) lured John Lewis into the CRM. Lewis (2002)
140 recalled hearing MLK preach:
It was a strong, deep voice, clearly well trained and well schooled in the rhythmic, singing, old
style tradition of Black Baptist preaching. But even more than his voice, it was his message
that sat me bolt upright with amazement. I listened as this man explained how it wasn’t
enough for black people to be concerned only with getting to the Promised Land; how it was
not enough for people to be concerned with roads that are paved with gold and gates to the
Kingdom of God. He said that we needed to be concerned with the gates of schools that were
closed to black people and the stores that refused to hire or serve us. His message was one of
Love and the Gospel, but he was applying these principles to now, today. (p. 50)
LaFayette agreed that MLK managed the resistance to the use of nonviolence by relating scripture to the nonviolence approach:
MLK, of course, understood the relationship between civil disobedience and the fact that he
had to show the church that most of the Scripture in the New Testament they’re talking about
people, written by people who had gone to jail mainly for their activities on the street and
challenging the system. He was able to surgically interpret the scriptures in such a way that
people understood MLK’s point of view when it came to social change. None of his sermons
were without a current contemporary message, so he did not simply stay with the history of
the scriptures but he always interpreted them in a contemporary way. What the New
Testament was calling us to do today as opposed to reading what happened way back when
what was the relevance of the church today. . . And challenging the church to the extent that
they had to be involved in these social issues and social change and not just social services
because unfortunately many of the religious groups felt they had to feed the poor, but the
question is how can you get the poor to feed themselves and what about the economic
141 structure that conspired against people in their efforts to try and support themselves. So this
was an important kind of connection that MLK struggled to make with the church.
(LaFayette)
In this way, MLK’s writings, speeches and sermons were intended to connect the goals and methods of the CRM to the scriptures in the Old and New Testaments. As Vivian puts it “this is especially important, but more so in the South than any other place.” They were bible-toters because the Holy Scriptures had helped sustain African Americans in the South through the years of slavery, sharecropping, segregation and racism.
Practicing What he Professed
“Peoples are often led to causes and often become committed to great ideas through persons who personify those ideas. They have to find the embodiment of the idea in flesh and blood in order to commit themselves to it” (King, 1961, p. 1). During most of the demonstrations of the CRM, marchers were led by their fearless leader, MLK. When he did miss a march often it was because he had been arrested and was in jail. So, MLK did not just talk the talk about being committed to the struggle, he practiced what he professed. Vivian remembered how important it was to developing leaders to see MLK practicing what he professed:
He went straight into the streets without protection to keep with his nonviolent understandings.
He never had a bodyguard or bodyguards. But the important thing he did it, he didn’t just talk
it, he did it. My own stuff is that it’s in the action that we are saved. Let’s put it another way,
it’s in the doing. And answers to challenges that are solved come, serendipity, up out of the
action. That’s the saving grace part. (Vivian)
LaFayette agreed describing how practicing what he professed was crucial to MLK’s ability to develop leaders:
142 Not just the speeches, but his actions and his fearlessness. Martin Luther King had such
incredible courage, until it was impossible to describe. So it caused people to overcome some
of their fears when they saw Martin Luther King being their fearless leader.
Orange added that MLK did more than talk about nonviolence, “he did and that’s the difference.” Young recalled one of the times that MLK practiced what he professed.
We had a plan to have so many people arrested everyday and they would stay in jail for five
days and we would bond them out. Well, we’d been doing that for March and April and we
didn’t have any more bond money and we still had a lot of people in jail. So the leaders of the
community, A.G. Gaston and a couple of the preachers…went to jail with them. But most of
them were coming to tell him that he needed to admit that he’d failed and nonviolence
wouldn’t work in Birmingham and that he needed to call these demonstrations off and go
around the county speaking and raise enough money to bond everybody out. And he just said
he couldn’t do that and he got up from the meeting and he went into the bedroom and he came
back in his overalls and he said I’m sorry, you all are probably right, but I cannot leave
Birmingham with these young people in jail... He said, the only thing I can do morally is to go
with them. Now that’s the moment I think he assumed his leadership role. (Young)
LaFayette put it simply, “Martin Luther King, number one, was a leader who led rather than sending others. He himself was at the front and he felt that this type of leadership was important in terms of giving people hope.” Orange agreed adding:
[MLK] was a person to make other folk wants to get up and do stuff. He could inspire me and
I’ll go to Marian, Alabama, and preach and inspire folks in Marian. They [then] go and preach
and inspire folk in Selma and Greensboro, and Utah and the next thing you know, the whole
state fired up. But we got it, from the beginning, from that inspiration from him.
143 CSK (2000) elaborated on MLK practicing what he professed:
Another important reason for the credibility of Martin Luther King’s oratory is his
commitment to back it up with action. Martin was celebrated as a great public speaker. But
he was first and foremost an activist leader who put his life on the line again and again. A
leader who personally confronted racist mobs on numerous occasions. My husband held the
conviction that unearned suffering could be a mighty source for social change. He tested this
faith in the crucible of struggle and inspired thousands of his followers to do the same, and
that’s what gave his words legitimacy. He didn’t just talk the talk; he walked the walk...And so
the dreamer didn’t just dream; he walked the walk from Montgomery to Memphis, front and
center, back straight and head held high. (p.4)
MLK’s commitment to practice what he professed often placed him in situations where others feared for his safety. Such was the case in 1965 when the riots broke out in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles, California. “I had been warned not to visit. We were told that the people were in no mood to hear talk of Nonviolence. There had been wild threats hurled at all Negro leaders and many were afraid to venture into the area” (King, 1965, p. 290). MLK went anyway to visit the destruction first- hand and to talk to the rioters to get their point-of-view on the cause of the riots.
On another occasion, MLK subjected his entire family to the dangers of a hostile community.
In 1965, MLK was invited to Chicago to join Black leaders in their fight for quality integrated education. Not only did MLK accept the invitation, he moved his entire family into the slums of
Chicago.
So I thought the great challenge facing the CRM was to move into these areas to organize and
gain identity with ghetto dwellers and young people in the ghetto. This was one of the reasons
why I felt that in moving to Chicago I would live in the very heart of the ghetto. I would not
144 only experience what my brothers and sisters experience in living conditions, but I would be
able to live with them. (King, 1966, p. 300)
Offering Leadership Development Opportunities
“Set up a formal leadership training program in your organization” (King, p. 216). Orange
observed, “I think the mistake that a lot of us make is that we talk about only the folk who lead us instead of the folk who made us leaders.” According to Orange MLK managed the challenge of having a leadership succession plan by offering leadership development opportunities to local civil rights activists.
We were able to go out and develop community leaders. In Selma, Alabama, we made
leaders. We took folks from the Black Belt and just turned them into leaders. We were able to
go out and develop community leaders, leave those community leaders in Alabama, moved
over into Mississippi and other places and eventually ended up getting elected when we ran
for public office.
Young also remembered MLK managing the challenge of having a leadership succession plan by offering leadership development opportunities to local leaders:
And what we did, me and Dorothy [Cotton] and Septima Clark, we went around the South and
we picked key leaders in just about every county. And what we were looking for, we were
looking for somebody--we said people who had Ph.D minds who never had a chance to get an
education and they in every community just naturally brilliant people that everybody respects
because of their intelligence and their integrity and their courage, but they’re not necessarily
formally educated. Sometimes it was a beautician or a barber, a farmer. Very seldom was it a
doctor, a lawyer or an undertaker or a preacher. It was usually somebody that didn’t have
anything to lose.
145 LaFayette remembered MLK’s motivation for offering leadership development opportunities:
MLK believed in developing leadership and that was the difference in his leadership. Rather
than his being the leader, MLK was more concerned about what was going to happen to the
Movement when he was no longer able to be the leader for whatever reason, so he made
vigorous efforts in training leaders.
A lot of this training was provided by MLK himself. Orange remembered that MLK “had put us on a training ground that a lot of us didn’t know we were on.” LaFayette agreed pointing out that
MLK used to personally give instructions on leadership.
In fact, MLK use to take us to Frogmore, Beaufort, South Carolina and in his shirt sleeves he
would get up to the blackboard and he would teach us basic concepts. Most of the things I
learned, if it were not from Jim Lawson out of the Nashville Movement, it was from MLK. I
feel very privileged to have had MLK be my direct teacher and lecturer. I remember his going
to the blackboard or newsprint and teaching us things. I remember him talking about a simple
definition of power. MLK said the simple definition of power is the ability to either withdraw
or supply needed resources. You can’t get any more simple than that. So, in his movement, it
wasn’t simply just an appeal to the conscience of the opponent, but it was the ability to build a
power base that would either withdraw or supply needed resources. So, the Bus Boycott in
Montgomery was a way of withdrawing needed resources. (Lafayette)
Young further maintained that one of the ways that MLK met the challenge of having a
leadership succession plan was by creating “an institution, a nonviolent institution” SCLC. LaFayette
added that it was not just creation of the organization but, also the organizational structure that helped
MLK manage the challenge of having a leadership succession plan.
Let’s start with the board. His board of directors had a chairman of the board, then a vice-
146 chair, then he had a third person in line of leadership. Then, when it came to the staff structure,
MLK was the President, paid a dollar a year or whatever, but nevertheless the President. He
had also a Vice President, Executive VP, which was a staff position, then he had a third VP.
And then, within the year before he was killed, he created a new position. Although Rev.
Abernathy was the treasurer, national treasurer and a board member, MLK appointed him as
VP at-large. So, he had four VPs. I don’t know too many organizations that had that many
people in the leadership. But remember, all these people marched with MLK and
accompanied him on campaigns and went to jail with him. So he had to make sure he always
had reserves in terms of VPs who would be able to continue to lead this movement.
(LaFayette)
MLK’s strategy for maintaining his organization obviously worked because while MIA or SNCC no longer exist in 2008 the SCLC celebrated its 50th anniversary and had a ribbon-cutting ceremony for its newly-built headquarters on historic Auburn Avenue.
MLK’s commitment to offering leadership development opportunities as a way to mange the challenge of having a leadership succession plan played an important role in attracting young people to the civil rights struggle.
As the protest spread, it was proposed that SCLC sponsor a meeting of student leaders to
organize them and set a keynote of nonviolence. Martin was enthusiastic, and money was
appropriated by SCLC to finance it. The three-day meeting was held at Shaw University. At
the meeting, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) was formed. (CSK,
1969, p. 188)
According to CSK (2004), “what Martin wanted more than anything was to empower people to become leaders themselves” (p. 2). The best example of MLK’s commitment of offering
147 leadership development opportunities to manage the challenge of having a leadership succession plan can be seen in Chapter 4 in the biographies of the persons whom were interviewed for this study, three of whom James Orange, C. T. Vivian and Bernard LaFayette, came out of the student movement.
Summary
The findings from this study emerged from the data collected from interviews and document analysis add to the knowledge bank of leadership in social movements that involve adult education. The findings identify the challenges faced by the leader of one social movement, the Civil Rights Movement, and how the leader, MLK, used his leadership abilities to manage those challenges.
In particular MLK faced personal, internal organizational and external movement challenges.
His personal challenges were his reluctance to lead and threats to him, his family and his followers.
He managed his personal challenges by using his personal relationship with God.
His organizational challenges were the challenges that emanated from his leadership of the
Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). These challenges were the egos and competition from African American leaders that were close to him and criticism from other African American and
White leaders. He managed his internal organizational challenges by turning to humor, explaining decisions in writing and practicing team leadership.
The external movement challenges resulted from his leadership of the CRM and included resistance to the use of nonviolence and a leadership succession plan. He managed his external movement challenges by providing education and training, relating scripture to the nonviolence approach, practicing what he professed and offering leadership development opportunities.
148 CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overview
Chapter six provides a summary of the findings as well as relevant conclusions that can be
drawn from the findings and related to the literature. Following the summary and the conclusions are
implications for practice and recommendations for future research.
The purpose of this study was to examine the leadership challenges MLK faced and
addressed as he led a movement for nonviolent social change. This study asked these questions:
1. What personal challenges did Martin Luther King, Jr. face in his leadership for social change?
2. What internal organizational challenges did Martin Luther King, Jr. face in his leadership for
social change?
3. What external movement challenges did Martin Luther King, Jr. face in his leadership for
social change?
4. How was Martin Luther King, Jr. able to effectively manage these challenges?
Summary
As revealed by this study, the challenges that MLK faced can be categorized as personal, internal organizational and external movement. His personal challenges were those that were germane to his person which included his reluctance to lead and threats to him, his family and followers. His internal organizational challenges were those that emanated from his leadership of the
Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). These challenges were the egos and competition from African American leaders that were close to him and criticism from other African American and
White leaders. The external movement challenges resulted from his leadership of the Civil Rights
Movement (CRM) and included resistance to the use of nonviolence and the need for a leadership
149 succession plan.
The fourth question in this research study asked; how MLK effectively managed these challenges. This study revealed that MLK managed his personal challenges by using his personal relationship with God. Specifically MLK accepted his call to leadership of the CRM as an extension of his Christian duties and responsibilities. He managed his internal organizational challenges by turning to humor, explaining decisions in writing and practicing team leadership. He managed his external movement challenges by providing education and training to followers in the CRM, relating scripture to the nonviolence approach, practicing what he professed and offering leadership development opportunities.
Conclusions and Discussions
The findings of this study lead to two conclusions: 1) leaders of social movements are likely to face personal challenges and internal challenges which are the most difficult to understand. 2) leaders of social movements involving adult education may employ a variety of leadership strategies to meet their challenges.
Conclusion 1) leaders of social movements are likely to face personal challenges and internal challenges which are the most difficult to understand
As this study has shown, MLK, his family and his followers faced numerous threats as participants in the CRM. The review of the literature revealed that leaders of other social movements involving adult education faced similar threats. One such leader was Miles Horton who founded the
Highlander Movement. According to Hilliard (1991), Horton and his supporters repeatedly risked their lives when they attempted to unite poor people both black and white in the fight for freedom and social justice. Their attempts were met with threats, raids, arson attempts, assaults on staff and infiltration by the Klu Klux Klan. The threats were continuous and escalating ultimately leading to
150 the revocation of Highlander’s charter and seizure of its property by the state of Tennessee in 1961.
However, the Highlander School survived the 1960s amid continued harassment (Edwards &
McCarthy, 1992).
In addition to the physical and violent threats that MLK faced as leader of the CRM, he also faced threats to his freedom, more specifically incarceration which was also intended to deter him and his followers and ultimately derail the goals of the movement. Likewise, the leader of another SM that involved adult education faced threats to his personal freedom. Father Jimmy Tompkins, founder of the Antigonish Movement, was fighting for social reconstruction in Canada. When his ideas were met with opposition he openly criticized those he referred to as the powers that be. When Father
Tompkins failed to heed the command of his governing Bishop to cease and desist with the promotion of his radical educational and progressive ideals Bishop Morrison made good on his promise to exile him to the remote fishing village of Canso for insurrection. According to Welton (2005) “Tompkins’ exile cannot be reduced to a personality conflict…Morrison was seeking to block the new social philosophy from gaining the upper hand in the Diocese” (p. 132).
As was revealed in the significance of this study there is a lack of research relevant to the challenges leaders face not only when leading social movements that involve adult education but in leadership in general. Rather than explicitly identifying the challenges, researchers like Kouzes and
Posner (2002) reveal how leaders responded to the challenges they faced. As a result in order to compare this conclusion to the challenges other leaders face inferences have to be made.
When Kouzes and Posner (2002) asked people to think of historical leaders they most admired and would willingly follow, they all named:
…individuals who served during times of turbulence, conflict, innovation, and change.
They’re people who triumphed against overwhelming odds, who took initiative when there
151 was inertia, who confronted the established order, who mobilized people and institutions in the
face of strong resistance. (p. 182)
Because these exemplary leaders led during tumultuous times, it could be inferred that these tumultuous times were directly correlated to the threats. Social movements are aimed at bringing about social change; therefore, they are often met with resistance from those who directly oppose the desired changes and who benefit the most from the current status quo.
As this study has shown such was the case with the CRM. According to Welton (2003), it was also the case with the Antigonish Movement. “Many interpret the Movement as a threat to their interests because they both fail to understand the Movement’s principles and distrust the intentions of the proponents of social reconstruction” (p. 84).
Those in opposition may feel threatened enough to create personal challenges to the leaders of the movement, challenges which may result in threats to their position, power or authority. In this way, the personal challenges that leaders of SMs face are the same as other leaders. However in contrast, as this study has revealed, the personal challenges that some leaders of SMs faced were different in that their personal challenges may extend beyond their influence to include threats to their physical safety including violence and death.
As dangerous and unsettling as the physical threats of violence were to MLK, some may be surprised to learn that these personal threats were not the most troublesome and disappointing to him.
Why, because as leader of the CRM, MLK was very much aware of the dangers associated with promoting social change for African Americans particularly in the deep south where segregation was not only embraced but was legal. As the literature revealed other leaders before him had faced similar threats and been victims of violence.
What was not revealed from the literature but is a clear conclusion from this study is that the
152 leader of this social movement also faced internal challenges that came from the very individuals that should have been expected to support the social injustices that were being addressed by the movement. These individuals included those that shared MLK’s race and profession – African
Americans and the clergy. According to those closest to MLK, it was these challenges, and not the personal threats, that weighed heaviest on him. He had been prepared to face the personal threats, as were all of those who openly supported and participated in the CRM. However, he found it puzzling, at the very least, to have to face opposition from other African Americans whose envy and jealousy made them openly criticize MLK and the CRM.
To those watching the events of the CRM unfold and those who may reflect on its success today, it may be a common belief that all African Americans were in support of the CRM. After all the goal of the movement was to advance African Americans from second class citizenship, however, there were some African Americans like Adam Clayton Powell and Roy Wilkens, whose drum major instinct, the desire to be out front, kept them from supporting MLK and his leadership of the CRM.
Other African Americans opposed MLK and his leadership of the CRM in support of a more radical and even violent approach to social change for African Americans.
In addition to an expectation of all African Americans supporting the CRM, an even greater expectation for MLK was to have the support of his fellow clergy. MLK maintained that the CRM was a Christian movement founded on the Love ethic of Jesus. He accepted his leadership of the
CRM as his Christian duty and he encouraged others to participate as a part of their Christian responsibility. Therefore, it is no wonder that he would be totally taken aback by not only the lack of support from Christian churches and organizations but their out right criticism of his leadership and the CRM.
Just as not all African Americans supported MLK and his leadership of the CRM neither did
153 all who professed to be Christians – Black or White. As was revealed in the findings, out of the
hundreds of churches in Birmingham less than 15 would allow meetings of the CRM. Further it was a group of clergy, both Black and white, which published a full page ad in the Birmingham newspaper criticizing MLK’s efforts and referring to him as an outside agitator. According to those closest to him it was the challenges from his fellow clergy that MLK found to be the most difficult to understand, especially since they too professed not only to be Christians but also preachers of the gospel. He expressed his disappointment is his response to the clergy’s ad which is famously refereed to as “The
Letter From A Birmingham Jail” where he pointed out that while the clergy claims to deplore the
demonstrations taking place in Birmingham they remain silent on the conditions that brought about
the demonstrations.
It is this portion of the conclusion that adds to the literature regarding leadership of social
movements. While current literature does support the conclusion that leaders of social movements
face personal threats, the conclusion that leaders of social movements face internal challenges from
those who should be or were expected to support the cause is a unique contribution to the literature.
Leaders have an expectation of loyalty from those who expressed support of the goals of the movement. In the case of the CRM, from the outside it might have appeared that all African
Americans and all clergy were supporting the efforts. However from the inside, the leader of the
social movement was encountering internal challenges from those considered his own kind, African
Americans and clergy.
Conclusion 2: Leaders of social movements involving adult education may employ a variety of
leadership strategies to meet their challenges.
The second conclusion drawn from this study is that leaders of social movements involving
adult education appear to employ a variety of leadership strategies to meet their challenges.
154 Because the literature on leadership in social movements that involve adult education is limited,
the literature that relates to this conclusion is drawn from writings on both social movement
leadership and leadership in general.
Early research on leadership suggests that leaders possess innate qualities, the trait
approach, or skills and abilities, the skills approach. This either or approach to leadership
suggest that you don’t combine the strategies but rather that they stand separate and apart and
that leaders may employ one strategy or the other as they lead social movements that involve
adult education. However, this study revealed that the leader of one SM had to move beyond a one dimensional approach to leadership and rely on a multiplicity of approaches to leadership in order to effectively manage the challenges he faced.
Kouzes and Posner (2002) reject the one strategy approach to leadership and this study supports Kouzes and Posner’s (2002) rejection. This study reveals that in order to face the challenges of one social movement involving adult education, the leader had to rely on personal qualities such as his humor, skills and abilities (writing and listening to others), as well as behaviors (leading by example and developing leaders).
The strategies employed by MLK were inclusive of those identified by Kouzes and
Posner (2002) as being crucial if leaders are to be effective and exemplary. These behaviors include: providing training to the participants; soliciting and listening to others advice; creating an environment conducive to learning; and leading by example.
Likewise, Nepstad and Bob (2006) agree that in order to be effective social movement leaders must possess varying kinds of what they call leadership capital. This capital may be cultural in the form of knowledge, skills and abilities that are useful in the aggrieved community and among external audiences; social capital embodied in strong ties to activists’ communities and symbolic capital,
155 including charisma, which reflects respect, social prestige, and moral authority. While Nepstad and
Bob (2006) do not claim that social movement leaders must possess all of these characteristics, their research does suggest that leaders must employ a variety of skills, abilities and behaviors in order to be effective. In addition, Nepstad and Bob’s (2006) categorization of characteristics mirrors those used by the leader of the CRM to bring about nonviolent social change.
As discovered in the case of MLK, the need to use a multiplicity of traits, skills and abilities to be an effective leader of one SM that involved adult education is also true of other leaders. Javidan
(1991) found that in order for a senior executive manager to be considered effective they must possess a particular set of behaviors and personal attributes. These behaviors and attributes include: personal tenacity and dedication; being transformational; serving as mobilizer to instill a sense of ownership, self-confidence and purpose in subordinates; and serving as ambassador satisfying constituents needs and demands. While these traits and abilities are not the same as those identified for leaders of SMs the concurring point is that in order for any leader to be effective they must embody a multiplicity of skills and abilities. Like Kouzes and Posner (2002), Javidan (1991) also believes that all of these necessary characteristics can be trained and nurtured.
Implications for Practice
This study revealed the challenges that one leader of a social movement that involves adult education faced. The review of the literature suggests that leaders of other SMs have faced similar if not identical challenges. Even if these challenges are not exactly the same as other social movements that involve adult education leaders will face, it is highly likely that the challenges will at the very least fit into one of the three identified categories of challenges revealed by this study: personal, internal organizational and external movement challenges.
In addition, this study also revealed possible strategies for effectively managing these
156 challenges. If we believe as Kouzes and Posner (2002), Bass (1985) and others believe that it’s possible for individuals to learn to lead, the results of this study can be used to help teach leaders of
social movements that involve adult education what challenges they may face and how they can effectively manage these challenges. It can also help those who want to educate and train others to lead to develop training modules to help future leaders to anticipate the challenges they may face and possible strategies for facing and addressing the challenges.
Simulation strategy and case study analysis would be useful instructional techniques to incorporate into the training modules. As would retreats, such as the ones held by leaders of the CRM at Highlander and other locations, where MLK taught followers simple definitions like the meaning of
power –the ability to supply or withhold resources. A part of the training module could also
emphasize the need for in-depth discussions with all levels of the leadership brainstorming about the future sustainability of the movement including a leadership succession plan.
Implications for Further Research
As was stated earlier in the chapter, this study is poised to add to the research regarding
leadership in social movements that involve adult education. In addition, the study also identified gaps
in the literature that need further research. These gaps include: 1) The role of the leader’s worldview in addressing challenges in social movements that involve adult education; 2) The role of adult education in leading social movements; and 3) Are social movement leaders transformational leaders?
Recommendation 1: How the role of the leaders’ worldview impacts their leadership styles and approaches.
One of the findings of this study which made a connection to other social movements that involve adult education leadership is the importance of the leaders’ worldview in the life of the leader.
In this study the importance of the leader’s worldview for addressing challenges was discovered.
157 In particular, this leaders’ worldview was a direct result of his personal relationship with God and specifically his Christianity. This leaders’ worldview was closely connected to the worldview of other leaders of social movements that involved adult education.
We also know that Miles Horton’s leadership of the Highlander Movement and Fathers
Tompkins’ and Coady’s leadership of the Antigonish Movement were the result of their Christian conviction. We know that each of the leaders of the movements was committed to the social gospel and that the movements were founded on Christian principles. “Far from being an innocent and simple documentary of the Movement, the Antigonish Movement is invented by Coady through biblical tropes. Two sets of biblical metaphors—harvest/garden and light/darkness—are the most
prevalent in the text.” (Welton, 2003, p. 85)
Even though this study revealed the critical role that Christianity played in MLK’s leadership, its role is not sufficiently researched. Horst (1994) acknowledges that there are some researchers and scholars who give little or no credit to the role of Christianity in MLK’s leadership. This study
supports English’s (2000) assumption that there is a need to further explore the role of Christianity in
the leadership of social movements involving adult education.
The leaders’ worldview is not just of significance in social movements. Bennis and
Nanus (1985) and Bass (1985) agree that the executive’s values that guide the organization are
anchored in their own strong personal beliefs. By constantly preaching and living these values,
they provide a sense of purpose to their subordinates. We know that leaders of social
movements as well as other leaders are all influenced by their worldview. What we don’t know is
how their worldview impacts their leadership styles and approaches.
Recommendation 2: The role of adult education for leading a social movement.
Adult education is a key component in some social movements. According to Grayson
158 (2005), there are strong historical linkages between social movements and adult education and adult education is central to movements pledged to social and political change. Likewise, this study discovered that adult education was a factor in the leadership of the civil rights movement. MLK used education and training not only to educate his followers on the philosophy and techniques of nonviolence but also to educate them about voter registration, voter empowerment and citizenship education training. In these workshops, MLK and others utilized the principles of adult education to impart knowledge to the participants.
However, this study did not reveal to what extent adult education was a factor in the success or
failure of the CRM. An in-depth study of the CRM, the Antigonish Movement and the Highlander
Movement, as well as other social movements could be conducted to determine to what extent adult
education was an influential factor.
Recommendation 3: Are social movement leaders transformational leaders?
This study revealed that the leader of one social movement had to employ a number of
different leadership traits, skills and abilities and behaviors. Many of these behaviors mirror those
employed by transformational leaders. Transformational leadership treats leadership as a process that
occurs between followers and leaders; it provides a broader view of leadership that augments other
leadership models; it places strong emphasis on followers’ needs, values, and morals; and there is substantial evidence that transformational leadership is an effective form of leadership (Northouse,
2004). By focusing on the followers needs, transformational leadership validates the followers and
their value as individuals. By focusing on their values and morals, transformational leadership lifts the
followers up from their own personal concerns to a more global and humanistic concern.
This study revealed that the leader of one SM that involved adult education incorporated the
description of transformational leadership noted above in his leadership approach. Specifically, MLK
159 emphasized his followers’ needs, values and morals by: soliciting and listening to their advice; relating scripture to the goals of the CRM; and by providing education and training.
Bass (1990) presents research that demonstrates how transformational leadership can be taught. He strongly suggests that it should “be the subject of management training and development”
(p. 27). However, Bass (1990) is quick to point out that training alone cannot turn a purely transactional leader into a transformational leader because it takes more than skill development and should be regarded as “an art and a science” (p. 30). Because transformational leadership can be taught, it suggests that almost anybody can reach the height of becoming a transformational leader which is a real important strength to any leadership practice. While some of the earlier forms of leadership focused on innate skills and abilities which suggested that leadership was reserved for the select few who were born with the necessary qualities, transformational leadership levels the playing field for all potential leaders by offering it as a learned ability rather than an innate ability.
Recommendation 4: Do SM leaders perspectives change over time?
It has been more than 40 years since MLK was assassinated. Those who worked closely with him are close to or well into their seventies and eighties. Their perspectives are a reflection of past memories and experiences. In addition, to the lapse in time the fact that there is a national holiday honoring MLK an international memorial dedicated to his memory and public spaces that bear his name contribute to a larger-than-life image that some have of MLK. Consequently, there may be memory lapses of participants and the “halo affect” that some might possess.
This study was conducted using a basic qualitative design. Data was collected from interviews of those who worked closely with the leader of one SM involving adult education, the
CRM. MLK’s leadership of the CRM spanned 13 years from 1955 to his assassination in 1968. The data collected from the interviews was triangulated with the leaders own writings all of which reflect
160 the leader’s perspective as of 1968.
This research could be enhanced by conducting a study of other SM where the leader is still alive. Both the leaders and their followers could be interviewed to get the current thinking of the leaders and the followers’ views. The questions that could guide this research would include: Do SM leaders perspectives change over time? How do leaders of SMs communicate these changes to their followers? How do followers adjust to these changes?
161 REFERENCES
Aronowitz, S. (2000). Misidentity politics. Nation, 271(14), 28-32.
Barbuto, J. E. (1997). Taking the charisma out of transformational leadership. Journal of Social
Behavior & Personality, 12(3), 689.
Bagwell, O. (Writer/Director). (2004). Citizen King. [DVD]. Hollywood, CA: WGBH Educational
Foundation and ROJO Productions.
Barker, C., Johnson, A., Lavalette, M. (Eds.) (2001). Leadership and social movements. Manchester
University Press: Manchester.
Barzun, J., & Graff, H. (1992). The modern researcher. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Javonovich.
Beale, B., Cole, R., Hillege, S., McMaster, R., & Nagy, S. (2004). Impact of in-depth interviews on
the interviewer: Roller Coaster ride. Nursing and Health Sciences, 6, 141-147.
Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. (1985). Leader: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper-Row.
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1997). Leaders: Strategies for taking change (2nd ed.). New York:
Harper Business.
Bermanzohn, S. (2000). Violence, nonviolence, and the Civil Rights Movement. New Political
Science, 22(1).
Bogdan, R., & Biken, S. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and
methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Branch, T. (1988). Parting the waters: America in the King Years 1954-63. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Braxton, B. (2000). Martin Luther King, Jr.: Heir of the African American interpretive legacy. A.M.E.
Church Reviews, 117, 379-380.
Button, J. (1978). Black violence. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
162 Carboda,, D. & Weise, D. (2004). The civil rights identity of Bayard Rustin. Texas Law Review,
82(5), 1133-1195.
Carless, S. (2001). Assessing the discriminate validity of the leadership practices inventory. Journal
of Organizational Psychology, 74 (2).
Carson, C. (2005). Paradoxes of King historiography. OAH Magazine of History, 7- 10.
Carson, C. (Ed.). (1998). The autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. New York: Warner Books,
Inc.
Carson, C. (Ed). (1997). The papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. volume III: Birth of a new age
December 1955 – December 1956. Los, Angeles: University of California Press.
Carson, C. (Ed). (1994). The papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. volume II: Rediscovering precious
values July 1951 – November 1955. Los, Angeles: University of California Press.
Carson, C. (Ed). (1992). The papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. volume I: Called to serve January
1929 – June 1951. Los, Angeles: University of California Press.
Carson, C., & Holloran, P. (Eds). (1998). A knock at midnight: Inspiration from the great sermons of
Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. New York, NY: Tome Warner Audio Books.
Carson C., & Shepard, K. (Ed). (2001) A call to conscience. New York: Warner Books, Inc.
Clover, D., & Hall, B. (1998). The nature of transformation: Environmental, adult and popular
education. Toronto, Canada: Transformative Learning Center.
Coady, M. (1939). Masters of their own destiny. New York: Harper and Row.
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Cone, J. (1991). Martin & Malcolm and America. A dream or a nightmare. New York: Orbis
Books.
163 Cone, J. (2004). Theology’s great sin: Silence in the face of white supremacy. Black Theology
International Journal, 2(2), 139-152.
Crookes P., & Davies, S. (Eds.). (1998) Research into practice: Essential skills for reading and
applying research. London, England: Ballire Tindall.
Crotoeau, D. (1995). Politics and the class divide. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Daloz, L., Keen, A., & Parks, S. (1996). Common fire: Lives of commitment in a
complex world. Boston: Beacon Press.
D’Andrea, M., & Daniels, J. (1999). Exploring the psychology of white racism through naturalistic
inquiry. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77(1), 98.
D’Anieri, P., Ernst, C., & Kier, E. (1990). New social movements in historical perspectives.
Comparative Politics, 22, 445-458.
Dickerson, D. (2005). African American religious intellectuals and the theological foundations of the
Civil Rights Movement, 1930-55. The American Society of Church History, 74(2), 217-235.
Eder, K. (1985). The new social movements: Moral crusades, political pressure groups, or social
movements? Sociology Research, 52, 869-901.
Edwards, B., & Mccarthy, J. (1992). Social movement schools. Sociological Forum, 7(3), 541.
English, L. (2005). Historical and contemporary explorations of the social change and spiritual
directions of adult education. Teachers College Record, 107(6), 1169-1192.
Evers, T. (1985). Identity: The hidden side of social movements in Latin America. New Social
Movements and the State in Latin America, 43-71.
Ewell, R., & Park, C. (1968). A study of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Power of
Religious Research, 9(2), 88-96.
Eyerman, R. (1984). Social movements and social theories. Sociology, 18, 71-82.
164 Fairclough, A. (1987). To redeem the soul of America: The Southern Christian Leadership
Conference and Martin Luther King, Jr. Athens: The University of Georgia Press.
Fitzpatrick, C. (1994). Advocating zero-tolerance for discrimination. Human Rights: Journal of the
Section of Individual Rights & Responsibilities, 21(3), 1-1.
Fleishman, E., Mumford, M., Zaccaro, S., & Levin, K. (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of
leader behavior: A synthesis and functional interpretation. Leadership Quarterly, 2(4), 245 –
287.
Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, N.Y.: Continuum.
Freire, P. (1976). Literacy and the possible dream. Prospects, VI(I), 68-71.
Galvin, J. (2004). Writing literature reviews. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.
Gamson, W. (1990). The strategy of social protest. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Garrow, D. (2002). The FBI and Martin Luther King. Atlantic Monthly, 290(1), 80-87.
Garrow, D. (1986). Bearing the cross Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference. New York: William Morrow and Company,
Inc.
Giugni, M. (1998). Was it worth the effort? The outcomes and consequences of social
movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 98, 371-399.
Gordon, D. (1984). The role of the local social context in social movement accommodation: A case
study of two Jesus people groups. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 23(4), 381-395.
Gorz, A. (1982). Farewell to the working class. London: Pluto.
Gouldner, A. (1979). The future of intellectuals and the rise of the new class. New York: Seabury.
Guba, E. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries,
Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29(2), 75-91.
165 Haggarty, L. (1996). Content analysis. Medical Teacher, 18(2), 99-101.
Highlander Education and Research Center. Retrieved September 2008 from
http://www.highlandercenter.org/a-mission.asp
Holst, J. (2000). Social movements and civil society: Implications for radical adult education theory
and practice. DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University.
Horst, M. (1994). The unfinished agenda of the civil rights movement. Christian Century, 111(14),
446-448.
Horton, M., & Freire, P. (1990). We make the road by walking. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University
Press.
Inglehart, R. (1977). The silent revolution changing values and political styles among western publics.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Jacelon, C., & O’Dell, K. (2005). Analyzing qualitative data. Urologic Nursing, 25(3), 217-220.
Javidan, M. (1991). Leading high commitment organizations. Long Range Planning, 24(2), 28-26.
Jones, C. (2000). Levels of racism: A theoretic framework and a gardener’s tale. American Journal
of Public Health 90(8), 1212-1215.
Keleher, T., & Johnson, T. (2001). Confronting institutional racism. Leadership, 30(4), 24-27.
Kelsey, G. (n.d.). Current strategies in the U.S. race relations. New Jersey: Drew University
Library.
Kemper, E., Stringfield, S., & Teddlie, C. (Eds). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social
and behavioral research. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Kett, J. F. (1994). The pursuit of knowledge under difficulties: From self-improvement to adult
education in America, 1750-1990. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
166 Keys, D. (1997). Historical sociology and core data: Comment on Robinett. American Journal of
Sociology, 102(6), 1693-1701.
King, C. (1969). My life with Martin Luther King, Jr. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
King, M. (1998). The measure of a man. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
King, M. (1980). Daddy King an autobiography. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.
King, M. (1968). Where do we go from here: Chaos or community? Boston: Beacon Press
King, M. (1967). The trumpet of conscience. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
King, M. (1958). Stride toward freedom. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.
Kirby, P., Paradise, L., & King, M. (1992). Extraordinary leaders in education: Understanding
transformational leadership. Journal of Educational Research, 85(5), 303-310.
Kondracki,, N. Wellman., N., & Amundson, D. (2002). Content analysis: Review of methods and
their application in nutrition education. Journal of Nutrition Education & Behavior, 34(4),
224-230.
Kotter, J. (1997). Leading change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
LaFayette, B., & Jehnsen, D. (1996). The leaders manual: A structured guide and introduction to
Kingian Nonviolence: The philosophy and methodology. Galena, Ohio. IHRR Publications.
Large, R. (1991). Martin Luther King, Jr.: Ethics, nonviolence, and moral character. Journal of
Religious Thought, 48(1), 51-64.
Leavitt, H. J. (1986). Corporate pathfinders. Homewood, IL: Dow-Jones-Irwin.
Leithwoood, K. A. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational Leadership,
49, 8-12.
167 Lievens, F., Van Geit, P., & Coetsier, P. (1997) Identification of transformational leadership qualities:
An examination of potential biases. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 6(4), 415-430.
Lindeman, E. (1926). The meaning of adult education. New York: Continuum.
Ling, P. (2003). We shall overcome. History Review, (45), 29-55.
Lischer, R. (1995). Martin Luther King, Jr.: “Performing” the scriptures. Anglican Theological
Review, 77(2), 160-173.
Marable, M. (1998). Beyond color-blindness. The Nation, 267(20), 29-31.
Maranville, S. (1995). Book reviews. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(4),
407-421.
Mattson, K. (1999). Martin Luther King, Jr., Social Policy, 30(2), 29-32.
Mays, B. (1971). Born to rebel: An autobiography. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
McNamara, R. (1995). In retrospect: The tragedy and lessons of Vietnam. New York: Vintage
Books.
McPhail, M. (2002). Dessentializing differences: Transformative visions in contemporary Black
thought. The Howard Journal of Communications 1, 77-95.
Merriam, S. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San
Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass
Merriam, D., & Caffarella, R. (1999). Learning in adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Merriam, S., & Brockett, R. (1997). The profession and practice of adult education: An introduction.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S., & Simpson, E. (2000). A guide to research for educators and trainers of adults.
Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.
168 Mikelson, T. (1990). Cosmic companionship: The place of God in the moral reasoning
of Martin Luther King, Jr. Journal of Religious Ethics, 18(2), 1-14.
Minchiello V, Aroni R, Timewell E, Alexander L. (1995). In-depth interviewing: Principles,
techniques, analysis (2nd ed). Melbourne: Longman.
Mintzberg, H. (1975). The manager’s job: Folklore and fact. Harvard Business Review, 68(2), 183-
172.
Morris, A. (1999). A retrospective on the Civil Rights Movement: Political and intellectual
landmarks. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 517-539.
Mumford, M.D., Zaccaro, S.J., Harding, F.D., Owen, Jacobs, T., & Fleishman, E.A. (2000).
Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. Leadership
Quarterly, 11(1), 11-35.
Murphey, D. (2003). Understanding America: The Martin Luther King myth. The Journal of Social,
Political and Economic Studies, 28(30), 325-353.
Mwita, M. (2004). Martin Luther King, Jr.’s lifestyle and social interest in his autobiographical early
memories. Journal of Individual Psychology, 60(2), 191-203.
Nall, J. (2005). Will the real Martin Luther King please stand up. Humanist, 65(3), 4-5.
Nasstrom, K.(1999). Down to now: Memory, narrative, and women’s leadership in the civil rights
movement in Atlanta, Georgia. Gender and History, 11(1), 113-144.
Nepstad, S., & Bob, C. (2004). When do leaders matter? Hypothesis on leadership dynamics in
social movements. Mobilization: An International Journal, 11(1), 1-22.
Nesbit, T. (2006). Contexts of adult education: Canadian perspectives. Toronto: Thompson
Educational.
169 Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.
Offe, C. (1985). New social movements: Challenging the boundaries of institutional politics.
Sociology Research, 52, 817-868.
Palus, C. (2005). The art and science of leadership. Issues and Observations, 25(1), 20-21.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluative methods (3rd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA.
Sage Publication.
Phillips, D. (1998). Martin Luther King, Jr. on leadership: Inspiration and wisdom for challenging
times. New York, N.Y.: Warner Books, Inc.
Polkinghorne, D. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 137-145.
Polkinghorne, D. (1995). Narrative configuaration in qualitative anlysis. International Studies of
Qualitative Data in Education, 8, 8-25.
Powers, R. (2003). The FBI marches on the dreamer. American History, 38(3), 42-47.
Reagin, E., & College, P. (1968). A study of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Review of
Religious Research, 9(2), 88.
Richards, D. (1998). Arts, science, and leadership. Innovative Leader, 7(9).
Robnett, B. (1991). African-American women in southern-based civil rights movement
organizations, 1954-1965: Gender, grass roots leadership and resource mobilization theory.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Robnett, B. (1996). African-American women in the civil rights movement, 1954-1965: Gender,
leadership, and micromobilization. University of Chicago, 101(6), 1661-1693.
170 Rose, F. (1997). Toward a class cultural theory of social movements: Reinterpreting new social
movements. Sociological Forum, 12(3), 461-494.
Rosener, J.B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 119-125.
Rucht, D., & Neidhardt, F. (2002). Towards a “movement society”? On the possibilities of
institutionalizing social movements. Social Movement Studies, 1(1), 7-10.
Sherman, R. (1998). Foundation initiatives and the dialogue on race. National Civic Review, 87(2),
127-135.
Seidman, I. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York: Teachers College, Columbia
University.
Solomon, N. (2005). Dodging the costs of the warfare state. The Humanist, 65(6), 43.
Stodgill, R. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free
Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications
Tarrow, S. (1994). Power in movements. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, P. (1994). Leadership in education. Emergency Librarian, 21(3), 9-18.
Van Manen, M. (1994). Researching lived experiences. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Walcott, H. ( 2001). Writing up qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Welton, M. (2005). Fraught with wonderful possibilities: Father Jimmy Tompkins and the
struggle for a Catholic progressivism, 1912-1922. Studies in Continuing Education, 27(2)
117-134.
Wieviorka, M. (2005). After new social movements. Social Movement Studies, 4(1), 1-19.
Wilson, A., & Hayes, E. (2001). The handbook of adult education. San Francisco:
171 Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Young, A. (1996). An easy burden. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.
.
172 APPENDIX A
“To Redeem the Soul of America: The Leadership Challenges Martin Luther King, Jr. Faced and
Managed as Leader of a Social Movement.”
CONSENT FORM I ______agree to take part in a research study titled To Redeem the Soul of America: The Leadership Challenges Martin Luther King, Jr. Faced and Managed as Leader of a Social Movement by Hilda R. Tompkins, of UGA ELI Cohort II (404) 232-2656 under the direction of Dr. Brad Courtenay, Department of Adult Education, (706) 542-6480. As a volunteer, I do not have to take part in this study. I can stop taking part at any time without giving any reason, and without penalty. I can ask to have information related to me returned to me, removed from the research records, or destroyed. Additionally, as a participant of this research study, I am aware of and acknowledge the following: • All activities will be related to research. • The purpose of this research is to study Martin Luther King, Jr.s’ leadership of the Civil Rights Movement. • The procedures are as follows: there will be one initial face-to-face or telephone interview with the possibility of follow-up questions or clarification by telephone or e-mail. • Initial interviews should require 1-2 hours – at the most. • There will be no reasonably foreseeable risks and/or discomfort. • Expected benefits could include the more efficient and effective leadership for social change. • As a participant, I understand that there will be no incentives given for my participation. • The results of this participation will be confidential, and will not be released in any individually identifiable form without prior consent of the participant. • Confidentiality will be maintained by the use of a pseudonym should the participant wish to remain anonymous. Confidentiality may not be guaranteed if disclosure, for some reason, is required by law. • All audio tapes and transcriptions will be kept in the sole possession of the researcher. Participants will have the right to review audio tapes and transcripts by making a request to do so with the researcher. • If a participant is dishonest in anyway during the interview or questionnaire in a way that it will affect the results, there is the possibility his participation can be terminated by the investigator without the subjects consent. • The researcher is available to answer any questions regarding any part of this research study presently or at any time during the study by calling the following number: (404) 232-2656.
If any of the items above exclude you from honestly participating in this study, please let the researcher know as soon as possible.
My signature below indicates that the researcher has answered all of my questions to my satisfaction, I have read this form in its entirety, and I consent to volunteer for this study. I have been given a copy of this form.
173 ______Signature of Researcher Date
______Signature of Participant Date
Do you wish to remain anonymous for this study (please initial in the proper space)? _____ YES _____ NO
174 Appendix B
Interview Guide
1. What was MLK’s personal response to his call for leadership?
2. How would you describe MLK’s leadership?
3. Can you relay to me any stories about MLK’s early life that might have had an influence on how he developed his ideas about leadership?
4. What were some of the challenges MLK faced as leader of the CRM? (Internal and external personal/professional/spiritual)
5. How was he able to manage these challenges?
6. How did his strategy for managing these challenges change over time?
7. There were strong personalities in the CRM how did MLK’s peers influence his leadership?
8. How was MLK able to mobilize such large numbers of diverse people?
9. What do you think are the most important characteristics of MLK’s leadership?
10. Who would you identify as today’s social change leaders?
11. How is MLK’s leadership different from theirs?
175 Appendix C
Documents
Bagwell, O. (Writer/Director). (2004). Citizen King. [DVD]. Hollywood, CA: WGBH Educational
Foundation and ROJO Productions.
Carson, C. (2005). Paradoxes of King historiography. OAH Magazine of History, 7- 10.
Carson, C. (Ed.) (1998). The autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. New York: Warner Books,
Inc.
Carson, C. (Ed). (1997). The papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. volume III: Birth of a new age
December 1955 – December 1956. Los, Angeles: University of California Press.
Carson, C. (Ed). (1994). The papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. volume II: Rediscovering precious
values July 1951 – November 1955. Los, Angeles: University of California Press.
Carson, C. (Ed). (1992). The papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. volume I: Called to serve January
1929 – June 1951. Los, Angeles: University of California Press.
Carson, C., & Holloran, P. (Eds). (1998). A knock at midnight: Inspiration from the great sermons of
Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. New York, NY: Tome Warner Audio Books.
Carson C., & Shepard, K. (Ed). (2001) A call to conscience. New York: Warner Books, Inc.
King, M. (1998). The measure of a man. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
King, M. (Speaker) (1996). In search of freedom: Excerpts from his most memorable speeches
[Cassette recording]. Umvd Special Markets.
King, M. (1958). Stride toward freedom. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.
King, M. (1967). The trumpet of conscience. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
King, M. (1968). Where do we go from here: Chaos or community? Boston: Beacon Press.
176