Perspectives

I Have a Plagiarized Dream

Examining MLK’s academic background

By Amaris White
From the February 2007 Print Edition

            In 1955 a 26-year-old black man at Boston University was awarded his Ph.D. in systematic theology.  When he wrote his dissertation, “A Comparison of the Conception of God in the Thinking of Paul,” he probably never thought for a moment he would become one of the most well-known and examined men in America.  His name was Martin Luther King Jr.

            To most people, King was a dignified man, worthy of respect.  He worked hard to see his dreams become reality, and was able to help spur a movement that changed the direction of our country.  While it can be argued that these drastic changes would have occurred anyway, the fact remains that he was there, and he encouraged these changes.

            However, it should be remembered that this was not a man of perfection.  Although there is talk of his matrimonial infidelity, or his being investigated as a potential communist, this is not what concerns me most.

            Dr. King, as many remember him, did not in fact deserve the title of “Doctor.”  He plagiarized his dissertation.

            In 1984 Coretta Scott King donated her late husband’s papers to Stanford University’s King Papers Project.  Historian Clayborne Carson was chosen to lead the project, and his team worked to compile a printed collection of the works of this historical figure.  Carson states on the Project’s Web site that they were not too long into the project when they “discovered the first indication of plagiarism in 1988,” and that they “kept the information within the project until staff members could determine the extent of the ‘problem.’”

            Discussions and further research discovered that King had indeed plagiarized his doctoral dissertation.  Carson’s team members found that the work was actually that of Jack Boozer, who had graduated three years prior to King.  To clarify the extent of his plagiarism, I do not mean a few instances where King drew from Boozer’s work without proper notation. An investigation by Boston University found that King had taken a full third of Boozer’s paper, which amounted to around 45 percent of the first half and 21 percent of the second.

            News of the dissertation plagiarism, and even more cases of plagiarism sprinkled throughout King’s years in public service, troubled Carson’s team, and there were many discussions on how to properly release this information.

             Nonetheless on November 9, 1990, the Wall Street Journal published its story, “To Their Dismay, King Scholars Find a Troubling Pattern.”  Page One of that day’s edition provides details of how Carson and his team’s efforts to organize and work on the papers revealed that “during seven years of graduate school, King borrowed words and ideas extensively from other sources for his dissertation and other scholarly writings without giving proper citations.”

            This information was lightly spread across the news, and it obviously did not have a major impact.  Look around, and ask yourself how many people today are calling this man “Dr. King.”

            As it turns out, despite Boston University becoming aware of King’s plagiarism, the school did not rescind his Ph.D.  I suppose this says something about holding people to different standards.  Ironically, the man whom we remember as espousing equality for all may actually have approved of such preferential treatment while still alive.  In “Where Do We Go from Here?” King stated, “A society that has pushed us down for so long not only owes us the equality and chance to rise, but some sort of apology in the form of a service.”  Was King actually looking for more than equality, like a form of reparations or affirmative action?

            There is another noteworthy case of “borrowing” that should perhaps be brought to light.  King’s “I Have a Dream” speech bares a close resemblance to that of Archibald Carey’s speech from the 1952 Republican National Convention.  Both speeches end with the first verse of “My Country ’Tis of Thee,” and use the “let freedom ring” phrase repetitively. While some argue that this “borrowing” of speeches is a traditional part of folk preaching in black churches, others may be less willing to relax the demands of intellectual honesty.

            The fact that King cheated his way through college may be a shock to some, but it is important to fully know the man so many people love and cherish today.  As those who stress Thomas Jefferson’s slave ownership have pointed out, we must consider what a man’s actions say about his true character.

            Finally, it is unreasonable to honor this man with a federal holiday despite what he may have accomplished.  Regardless of King’s character flaws, let us consider what other national figures are honored with a federal holiday.  Not even Presidents Washington and Lincoln have their own holidays, but must share a combined President’s Day.  We do have Columbus Day, but this honors a man who merely discovered the soil that we inhabit.  Although here, in the enlightened city of Berkeley, we don’t even have that — we have Indigenous People’s Day (check your local parking meter).  Then again, we also celebrate Cesar Chavez Day.  Perhaps it is time we reconsider exactly who it is we honor, why we do it, and to what extent we should continue.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot