Could Martin Luther King Jr. Have Led a College?
Stuart Nachbar
April 06, 2009
After reading and reviewing a new book, The Unlikely Disciple and its commentary on Jerry Falwell, I asked myself if Martin Luther King could have achieved similar success as the leader, or possibly the founder of an institution of higher education.
Only 39 at the time of his death, it is quite possible, that had he not been assassinated, Dr. King would be alive today at age 81. And it was also possible, as politics changed in the country and television technology advanced, that he would have changed the direction of his career.
Jerry Falwell behaved like a bigoted fool lambasting feminists and homosexuals and he had opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, I could not deny that Falwell had skillfully used television to turn a local church into a national mega-church and a very small college into a national university. While King resigned pastoral leadership in Montgomery, Alabama to devote full-time to civil rights activism, Falwell remained the pastor of his expanding church as he led conservative causes.
Martin Luther King could have used his oratorical gifts to similar advantage on behalf of higher education. King had a significant presence on television at a time when the three major networks dominated the news coverage. He was not only a skilled orator; he had also won a Nobel Prize. That alone would have given him far more intellectual credibility as a college president than Jerry Falwell could have ever achieved.
But King, like Falwell, would have needed to master developments in television (cable programming as the primary example) in order to build an institution of higher learning. He would have needed to remain front and center with a national audience. And he would have had to rebuild his reputation among moderate "establishment" politicians after his openly public opposition to the Vietnam War.
King could have succeeded with a cable television station, provided he has received the help of a black entrepreneur, or a supportive national foundation. But I do not that it could have become a public television program during the Seventies or early Eighties; it would have had to be a privately sponsored program or network. It is possible that the supporters of a publicly sponsored program featuring King might have prevailed during the middle of the Seventies, but they would have lost the funding over several rounds of Reagan budget cuts during the Eighties.
Political conservatives would have opposed a publicly funded program, citing King's past ties to civil rights activists such as Bayard Rustin and Stanley Levison who were linked to the Communist party, as well as King's extra-marital affairs that were monitored and reported by Hoover's FBI.
King would have run into other obstacles in becoming an institutional leader. He has been accused posthumously of plagiarism in the writing of his undergraduate seminary thesis and his doctoral dissertation from Boston University. I cannot imagine a living political figure, even a man of King´s stature, being appointed to lead a university during a conservative political climate with such accusations hanging over him.
Even if a board of trustees were to ignore the accusations and confirm the appointment, they would still place themselves under a cloud of suspicion if King faltered as a leader. I would also need to ask if the black presidents of other historically black schools might have also feared investigations in their credentials as well, in light of a public investigation into the credentials of Martin Luther King.
King might have been a more effective spokesperson for higher education within the black community than as a leader of an institution. Had he lived, a man of his high profile would have done wonders for the United Negro College Fund, which is the main fundraising arm for the thirty nine privately supported Historically Black Colleges and Universities in this country. He would have helped to educate future generations while protecting his own legacy. And he might have earned the same honors, including the Medal of Freedom that he received posthumously.
Only 39 at the time of his death, it is quite possible, that had he not been assassinated, Dr. King would be alive today at age 81. And it was also possible, as politics changed in the country and television technology advanced, that he would have changed the direction of his career.
Jerry Falwell behaved like a bigoted fool lambasting feminists and homosexuals and he had opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, I could not deny that Falwell had skillfully used television to turn a local church into a national mega-church and a very small college into a national university. While King resigned pastoral leadership in Montgomery, Alabama to devote full-time to civil rights activism, Falwell remained the pastor of his expanding church as he led conservative causes.
Martin Luther King could have used his oratorical gifts to similar advantage on behalf of higher education. King had a significant presence on television at a time when the three major networks dominated the news coverage. He was not only a skilled orator; he had also won a Nobel Prize. That alone would have given him far more intellectual credibility as a college president than Jerry Falwell could have ever achieved.
But King, like Falwell, would have needed to master developments in television (cable programming as the primary example) in order to build an institution of higher learning. He would have needed to remain front and center with a national audience. And he would have had to rebuild his reputation among moderate "establishment" politicians after his openly public opposition to the Vietnam War.
King could have succeeded with a cable television station, provided he has received the help of a black entrepreneur, or a supportive national foundation. But I do not that it could have become a public television program during the Seventies or early Eighties; it would have had to be a privately sponsored program or network. It is possible that the supporters of a publicly sponsored program featuring King might have prevailed during the middle of the Seventies, but they would have lost the funding over several rounds of Reagan budget cuts during the Eighties.
Political conservatives would have opposed a publicly funded program, citing King's past ties to civil rights activists such as Bayard Rustin and Stanley Levison who were linked to the Communist party, as well as King's extra-marital affairs that were monitored and reported by Hoover's FBI.
King would have run into other obstacles in becoming an institutional leader. He has been accused posthumously of plagiarism in the writing of his undergraduate seminary thesis and his doctoral dissertation from Boston University. I cannot imagine a living political figure, even a man of King´s stature, being appointed to lead a university during a conservative political climate with such accusations hanging over him.
Even if a board of trustees were to ignore the accusations and confirm the appointment, they would still place themselves under a cloud of suspicion if King faltered as a leader. I would also need to ask if the black presidents of other historically black schools might have also feared investigations in their credentials as well, in light of a public investigation into the credentials of Martin Luther King.
King might have been a more effective spokesperson for higher education within the black community than as a leader of an institution. Had he lived, a man of his high profile would have done wonders for the United Negro College Fund, which is the main fundraising arm for the thirty nine privately supported Historically Black Colleges and Universities in this country. He would have helped to educate future generations while protecting his own legacy. And he might have earned the same honors, including the Medal of Freedom that he received posthumously.