Thank you for this. I was moved by your comments and many of the ones that followed. I\’d hope it would be a wake up call to us here in UT to be a bigger part of making sure none of the great ones or those who struggle are forgotten.

It was interesting that this event took place 17 years before the LDS church would let blacks into the priesthood, and yet no mention of that in King\’s speech? Just curious. I\’d also be curious to know if you\’ve seen the Blacks In The Scriptures DVDs by Darius Gray and Marvin Perkins. Another fabulous story that needs to be told.

Thanks again.

At the same time, I did not experience discrimination against my Japanese mother or myself or my brothers and sister as I grew up in Utah. I have in my lifetime gotten much more negative reaction to being Mormon than to my being Japanese-American.

Sadly, the emphasis on integration of the races, so that race no longer became a dominant factor in legal and social contexts, seems to have been lost. Instead, racial classifications have been institutionalized, ostensibly for the purpose of measurement, but also for the purpose of allocating opportunities. It is my personal belief that the short term gain for individuals in racial minorities of Affirmaitve Action programs will not make up for the creation of an explicitly adversarial relationship between races.

Ensuring that each person is given a fair and equal opportunity for compete for opportunities is a rational and logical goal. By contrast, the attempt to create racial equality by chopping humanity up into arbitrary classes that are given differential benefits is an invitation for the designated loser class to be resentful and angry. Such programs incentivize giving primary loyalty to the class which will confer the greatest benefits, rather than to the community at large. By definition and goal, they are racially divisive. We should not be surprised that they actually perpetuate prejudices and racial loyalties.

The armed forces achieved racial integration through strict merit based equality. The unity that is reinforced by uniformity and training in group cohesion is contrary to racial division. Differential promotions based on race would destroy unit cohesion and fighting strength. It is sad that such a successful model has been rejected by the rest of government in the vain attempt to avoid wrestling with the fundamental issue of inadequate public education and the social breakdowns that deter educational attainment. Affirmative Action is a bandaid to demonstrate sincerity while the vast majority of minority children injured by their lack of education never get any benefit from Affirmative Action for law school admissions.

Scott, yours is also a remarkable comment, but not so unexpected based on past statements. Go back to your bunker; your input is not wanted. And of course I say that in the most patient, kindest, and Christlike way imaginable.

These were and are typical tactics of the NAACP. Rather than extend a hand of friendship, understanding, and fellowship to the local citizens, in an effort to work out differences, the NAACP takes actions that tend to provoke and incite people to anger. This also was basic doctrine for MLK. Provoke the local white citizenry.

It is easy to judge and point fingers of blame at the South, but remember, the US military and much of the federal government was segregated up until the early 1950′s. The South was far from alone in racial segregation. I am confident the good people of the South, both black and white, could have worked it out and done away with legal segregation, without a civil rights bill. Often, patience and kindness bring the best results.

MLK was smart, with charisma and a great gift of communication. I believe he could have achieved amazing results in bringing the black and white communities together in the South, if he had used a Christlike approach, such as an out stretched open hand, rather than a fist of provocation as he went through the South. Unfortunately, MLK divided the races more than ever. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

ron, that remark is mostly intended to be seen from the perspective of 1961 when clearly much was unfinished. Since this is chiefly intended to be a tribute to Dr. King on a somber anniversary, I’d prefer not to steer the conversation in the direction of, say, immigration or the claims of social or religious or economic groups as being treated as lesser, but if you think along those lines you can probably identify work that remains unfinished. Maybe it never *will* be finished, as times and expectations change.

I can always count on you, Ray, for supportive comments. Thanks. And di, welcome to T&S — yours is a welcome perspective.

Justin, I suspect that Fritz may have helped work out the details, but it was the U’s student association that sponsored the speech. I’m getting old enough to be cranky about the idealistic and trendy political activities of college students; this is one time, though, when I have to admit that they got it right, with far more foresight than I had at that age.

Thanks, all; I appreciate this more peaceful and reflective conversation after the more combative ones I’ve been indulging in lately.

Did Fritz invite King to speak?