Martin luther king jr dissertation
His third year of doctoral work at boston university, martin luther king wrote crozer theological seminary’s george davis, his former advisor, about his progress in graduate school. He disclosed that he had begun to research his dissertation and that the late edgar brightman, his first mentor at boston, and his current dissertation advisor, l. So far, my dissertation title is: ‘a comparison of the conception of god in the thinking of paul tillich and henry nelson wieman. Davis commended king on selecting ‘‘an excellent dissertation topic’’ and expressed his confidence that king would ‘‘do a good piece of work with it’’ (papers 2:225). Passed his final doctoral examination in february 1954, and his dissertation outline was approved by boston university’s graduate school on 9 april, shortly before he accepted the call to pastor dexter avenue baptist church. King’s letter of acceptance to dexter’s congregation specified that he be ‘‘granted an allowance of time to complete my work at boston university,’’ though he would be ‘‘able to fill the pulpit at least once or twice per month. He also asked that the church cover his expenses during the completion of his dissertation, ‘‘including traveling expenses’’ (papers 2:260). Chose to focus his dissertation research on tillich and wieman due to their status as influential religious thinkers and as representatives of divergent views on the nature of god. King’s comparison of tillich’s and wieman’s concepts of god reflected his adherence to personalism, which proceeds from the belief that god possesses a personality and can therefore have a relationship with human beings. King’s analysis of tillich’s and wieman’s theological concepts as ‘‘unsatisfactory’’ and ‘‘inadequate a philosophical and religious world-views’’ followed from his belief that god was a living force, ‘‘responsive to the deepest yearnings of the human heart; this god both evokes and answers prayer’’ (papers 2:532; 533; 512). In the end, king pointed out the two theologians’ views of god are not ‘‘basically sound’’ because they ‘‘render real religious experience impossible’’ (papers 2:532). Papers project of the king institute has revealed that as a student at crozer and boston, king frequently appropriated the words of other writers without proper attribution. His habit of plagiarizing others’ work, intentionally or not, can be found in the various drafts of his dissertation. King borrowed from several secondary sources without proper citation, including a dissertation written by fellow crozer student jack boozer for dewolf three years earlier, and a review of tillich’s systematic theology written by one of king’s former ’s professors did not detect this pattern in his scholarship. After king submitted the first draft of his dissertation, dewolf filed a report observing that he had sent his specific criticisms, ‘‘most of them formal or minor,’’ to the candidate. Dewolf reminded king to submit an abstract of the dissertation ‘‘early’’ to allow proper time for revision and to clearly set forth his thesis statement (papers 2:333). Paul schilling, the dissertation’s second reader, approved the draft as turned in the final version of his dissertation by the 15 april 1955 deadline, returning to boston for his oral defense. Graduate faculty at boston university voted to confer the phd on king in may 1955; however, due to financial difficulties and coretta scott king’s pregnancy, he was unable to attend et al. As scholar: a reexamination of his theological writings,’’ journal of american history 78 (june 1991): 93– to king, 7 december 1953, in papers 2:225–, first reader’s report, 26 february 1955, in papers 2:333–uction, in papers 1:49–uction, in papers 2:22–, ‘‘a comparison of the conceptions of god in the thinking of paul tillich and henry nelson wieman,’’ 15 april 1955, in papers 2:339– to davis, 1 december 1953, in papers 2:223– to dexter avenue baptist church, 14 april 1954, in papers 2: papers project, ‘‘the student papers of martin luther king, jr. Schilling, second reader’s report, 26 february 1955, in papers 2:334– | about us | contact us | copyright information | the king n: u. King's doctoral dissertation and other academic papers from his student years appeared to have been historian, clayborne carson, a professor of history at stanford university who was chosen in 1985 by dr. King's widow, coretta scott king, to head the king papers project, said that analysis of the papers by researchers working on the project had uncovered concepts, sentences and longer passages taken from other sources without attribution throughout dr.
Martin luther king dissertation
King had been sufficiently well acquainted with academic principles and procedures to have understood the need for extensive footnotes, and he was at a loss to explain why dr. King his doctorate in 1955, announced yesterday that a committee of four scholars had been formed to investigate the dissertation. King nor his dissertation adviser is alive to defend the controversy comes after a series of allegations over the past year and a half about mr. Garrow is a member of the king papers project's advisory board and has reviewed the papers in question. King donated his papers to boston university six years before he was assassinated in 1968 indicated that he knew future scholars would look at his work and he not think he had done anything the 343-page dissertation, titled "a comparison of the conceptions of god in the thinking of paul tillich and henry nelson wieman," dr. King appears to have used many of the same words and titles as another doctoral dissertation written three years earlier by jack boozer, under the guidance of the same adviser, l. King occasionally used another author's argument as his own, the researchers found, and even where he did use citations and footnotes, his reliance on previous material was often more extensive than he explicitly mr. That doesn't excuse king, because clearly students are supposed to put even difficult and complex thoughts into their own words," mr. Discovery of te students at stanford who were working on the papers project first noticed similarities in the dissertation to other works as early as 1988. King's early life up to 1955, the year of the dissertation -- were now expected to be published, with footnotes nearly as extensive as the text itself, in rs familiar with the papers say the academic works are dr. King's least important writings and show very little of the dramatic orator who was to emerge so forcefully in later years. King's biographer, described the dissertation as "dry as bones," and said that was why no one had ever published . King lived, it was common for ministers and preachers to adopt as their own the words of prominent men who had come before . King borrowed liberally from others, even in some of his most famous trying to explain why the young dr. King had relied so heavily in his academic writings on the work of others, those involved speculate that it was perhaps just the strain of that time in his life. King never intended to be a university scholar, and wrote most of his dissertation while working as pastor of the dexter avenue baptist church in montgomery, academic experts will resolve the extent of the plagiarism and the validity of the doctoral degree, the allegations will raise more questions about the character of dr. King, who set up the papers project in 1984 to assure that her husband's scattered writings and speeches were collected and edited by reliable scholars, would not comment on the latest controversy, referring all questions to mr. Carson at october 1989, the editors discussed preliminary manuscripts of the king papers with the project's advisory board, which, in addition to mrs. 10) graphic: "examining 2 dissertations" in his 1955 doctoral thesis, entitled "a comparison of the conception of god in the thinking of paul tillich and henry nelson wieman," martin luther king jr. Mentioned secondary literature that had been helpful to him, including another doctoral dissertation on tillich written three years earlier by jack bozzer, like a king a graduate student at boston university. An example: king: tillich insists that a symbol is more than a merely technical sign. From one of these options to get in touch with us:Article details 'four things you didn't know' about martin luther king, jr.
It was decided martin luther had a more prominent ring to it, so he went by that. While working on his dissertation for his doctoral degree at boston university, he heavily plagiarized from another author who had done research on a subject similar to king's. As academic committee later found that over half of king's work was plagiarized, yet would not revoke his doctrine. King was dead by this time, and the committee ruled that revoking the title would serve no purpose. It was also discovered that king's famous i have a dream speech was also not his own. King was under fbi surveillance for several years (until he died) due to his ties with communist organizations throughout the country. In return, king had to appoint communist leaders to run certain districts of his sclc (southern christian leadership conference), who then could project their communist ideas to larger audiences. A federal judge in the 60's ruled that the fbi files on king links to communism to remain top-secret until 2027. Senator jesse helms appealed to the supreme court in 1983 to release the files, so the correct bill in the senate to create the martin luther king federal holiday could be abolished. Ralph abernathy, wrote a book in 1989 in which he talked about king's obsession with white prostitutes. King would often use church donations to have drunken sex parties, where he would hire two to three white prostitutes, occasionally beating them brutally. Yet king — a man who was a phony, a cheater, a traitor, and a sexual degenerate gets a day of his january, as the federal holiday commemorating the birthday of martin luther king, jr. Gave to a new york post reporter in 1957, he had always intended his son’s name to be martin luther, and the appearance of the name ‘michael’ in his son’s birth records was a mistake due to confusion over his own name:I had been known as michael luther king or “mike” up until i was 22 … when one day my father, james albert king, told me: ‘you aren’t named mike or michael either. Neither of my parents could read or write and they kept no record of negro births in our backwoods county … i gladly accepted martin luther king as my real name and when [my son] m. But it was not until 1934, when i was seeking my first passport … that i found out that dr. Because he thought that was my real records documenting a formal name change for either king yet have been uncovered, so in a strict legal sense one might say that martin luther king, jr. Marriage license, driver’s license, social security card, children’s birth certificates) and were therefore her “legal” names every bit as much, if not moreso, than the ones that appeared on her birth any case, whether martin luther king, sr. That both he and his son were officially named ‘martin’ by their fathers but called ‘michael’ through confusion or mistake) or simply decided in his adulthood that he preferred he and his son be known as ‘martin’ instead of ‘michael,’ the name change was not, as suggested above, an affectation on the part of martin luther king, jr. During the 1980s, archivists associated with the martin luther king papers project uncovered evidence that the dissertation king prepared for his ph. In theology from boston university, “a comparison of the conception of god in the thinking of paul tillich and henry nelson wieman,” was plagiarized, and the story broke in the national media in 1990. King included in his dissertation a good deal of material taken verbatim from a variety of other sources without proper attribution (or any attribution at all), an act which constitutes plagiarism by ordinary academic martin luther king papers project addressed the issue in volume ii of the papers of martin luther king, jr. And reproduced a statement therefrom in the faq on their web site):The readers of king’s dissertation, l.
Paul schilling, a professor of systematic theology who had recently arrived at boston university, failed to notice king’s problematic use of sources. After reading a draft of the dissertation, dewolf criticized him for failing to make explicit “presuppositions and norms employed in the critical evaluation,” but his comments were largely positive. He commended king for his handling of a “difficult” topic “with broad learning, impressive ability and convincing mastery of the works immediately involved. Schilling found two problems with king’s citation practices while reading the draft, but dismissed these as anomalous and praised the dissertation in his second reader’s report …. Was true of king’s other academic papers, the plagiaries in his dissertation escaped detection in his lifetime. His professors at boston, like those at crozer, saw king as an earnest and even gifted student who presented consistent, though evolving, theological identity in his essays, exams and classroom comments … although the extent of king’s plagiaries suggest he knew that he was at least skirting academic norms, the extant documents offer no direct evidence in this matter. Moreover, king’s actions during his early adulthood indicate that he increasingly saw himself as a preacher appropriating theological scholarship rather than as an academic producing such scholarship …. 1991 a boston university investigatory committee concluded that king had plagiarized portions of his doctoral dissertation but did not recommend the revocation of his degree:A committee of scholars at boston university concluded that rev. Plagiarized portions of his doctoral dissertation, completed there in the provost jon westling accepted the panel’s recommendation that a letter be attached to king’s dissertation in the university library, noting that numerous passages lacked appropriate quotations and citations of sources. King’s doctoral degree from boston university” and the assertion that despite its flaws, the dissertation “makes an intelligent contribution to scholarship. Investigatory committee, comprising three professors in the bu school of theology and one from american university, was appointed by westling after researchers at stanford said they had discovered numerous instances of plagiarism in king’s work as a graduate there was general agreement that king acted improperly, clayborne carson, head of the king papers project at stanford where the plagiarism initially was uncovered, noted that king made no effort to conceal what he was doing, providing grounds for a belief that king was not willfully engaged in ng said in a prepared statement yesterday that it was “impractical to reach, on the available evidence, any conclusions about dr. King made an unequalled contribution to the cause of justice and equal rights in this nation. Professor of social ethics at bu, said the committee had examined king’s dissertation independently of the king papers project and “we did find serious improprieties. Committee found that king “is responsible for knowingly misappropriating the borrowed materials that he failed to cite or to cite adequately. Letter to be attached to king’s dissertation, cartwright pointed out, “indicates there are serious improprieties and points readers to sources where they can find chapter and verse. Committee found no grounds for charges raised last year that king drew his organization and chapter headings from another person’s dissertation. The plagiarism, the panel said, was of passages from the works of philosophers whose concepts of god king was comparing in his work. The dissertation is titled “a comparison of the conceptions of god in the thinking of paul tillich and henry nelson wieman. Committee also found no evidence that the professors reviewing king’s dissertation had a double standard for african-american students and examined their work less critically than the work of whites. Though faculty supervision of king’s work “failed to detect the large number of uncited borrowings that breached academic norms,” the committee also found, the examining professors were not negligent “according to normal standards of supervision. The claim that martin luther king “stole” his famous “i have a dream” speech from black pastor archibald carey is overblown. Carey’s speech, a 1952 address to the republican national convention, and king’s speech, delivered on the steps of the lincoln memorial in washington, d.
Edgar hoover’s fbi considered martin luther king to be a threat to white america (terming him “the most dangerous negro of the future in this nation”) and spent years trying to dig up and manufacture derogatory information about him in order to publicly discredit him and thereby neutralize his effectiveness as a civil rights leader. The fbi asserted that the southern christian leadership conference (sclc) organization which king headed was controlled and funded by the communist party and spent years trying to prove it, making king the target of an extensive surveillance program intended to gather evidence documenting ties between the sclc and communists. But the bureau was unable to uncover any credible evidence of active participation or funding between the communist party and the sclc, as david garrow chronicled in his exhaustive study of martin luther king and the sclc:While king continued his criticism of the [kennedy] administration, the kennedys were in private consternation about fbi reports that american communist party leaders were claiming that old ally stanley levison was the number one advisor to martin luther king. In fact, the reports said, word in the party had it that levison was writing many of king’s most important speeches. The fbi suspected that levison’s 1955 departure from party activity might have been a cover, and that levison’s friendship with king might be a secret assignment undertaken at the behest of american communists and their soviet fbi’s assertions provoked fear in [attorney general] robert kennedy and his closest assistants. First, electronic surveillance of levison would be instituted to monitor both his advice to king and any telephone contacts with soviet or communist agents. Second, those in the kennedy administration who had some personal acquaintance with king all would warn the civil rights leader that he ought to end his relationship with levison immediately. King would also be warned about jack o’dell, the man levison had brought in manage the sclc’s new york office. O’dell had been involved with the communist party throughout the 1950s, and his public record of such associations could be used against king and several occasions during the spring, robert kennedy and his assistants warned king about levison and o’dell, without being specific about the allegations. Each time the warnings were voiced to king, he listened quietly, thanked the speaker for his concern, and said that he was not one to question the motives of people in the movement, certainly not one so selfless as stanley levison. As king explained, how could he give credence to such vague allegations, coming from who knew where, when levison had a proven track record of five years of honest counsel? If the administration had anything more specific to offer, king would gladly listen, but until then, he would not doubt one of his closest fbi kept up its round-the-clock surveillance of stanley levison throughout the spring and summer. The wiretaps detected no contacts with communist agents … though his ties to the party were now in the past, such evidence of his final disengagement did not persuade fbi officials, who continued to suspect that stanley levison might be a soviet agent exerting substantial influence on the civil rights movement through his close friendship with martin in october serious controversy broke when several conservative newspapers ran almost identical front-page stories detailing the communist party ties of sclc staff member jack o’dell. The bureau hoped that this exposé would so embarrass king that the supposed communist mole would be several days, king issued a statement saying that o’dell had resigned from the sclc. While king’s statement carefully noted that the sclc had accepted the resignation, “pending further inquiry and clarification,” those in the know, including the fbi, were aware that o’dell remained with sclc as head of its new york office. The fbi reasoned that king’s deceptiveness in retaining o’dell indicated that the civil rights leader was insensitive to the dangers of communist subversion, as well as king’s request, o’dell prepared a private letter explaining his political past. O’dell stated in the letter that while he had previously supported the communist party program, “quite awhile before” joining sclc, he had concluded that his prior belief that “democratic reformation of the south … required a communist movement in the south” was incorrect and “mistaken … i no longer hold such a viewpoint, and neither do i have any communist affiliation,” o’dell told king. Satisfied with that statement, [attorney clarence] jones advised king that o’dell’s supposed “interim resignation” could be set aside, and that o’dell could remain with sclc because he “has no present communist affiliation whatsoever. The morning of june 30 [1963], the birmingham news, relying upon information leaked by the fbi, revealed that jack o’dell was still on sclc’s payroll and working in its new york office despite king’s claim that o’dell had resigned. Assistant attorney general for civil rights] burke marshall again pressed king to cut all ties with o’dell and levison. Abernathy, who succeeded king as president of the sclc after the latter’s assassination in 1968, also disclaimed ties between the sclc and the communist party in his autobiography:We assumed that, though filled with malice toward us, [fbi director j. So, while martin kept an appointment in baltimore, andy young and i flew to washington to meet with hoover’s representative, deke deloach, to see if we couldn’t explain our aims and achieve some sort of was a waste of time and money.
We assured him that martin was not a communist, that communists did not control the sclc and that we had no desire to tear down american society. Not only would the fbi not cease and desist, they would not even talk to us about the david abernathy did acknowledge in his 1989 autobiography, and the walls came tumbling down, that martin luther king engaged in extramarital affairs (evidence of which was sometimes recorded by the fbi through hotel room bugs), but he said absolutely nothing in his book about king’s supposed “obsession with white prostitutes,” king’s using “church donations to have drunken sex parties,” or king’s hiring “white prostitutes and occasionally beating them brutally. In fact, abernathy stated quite emphatically that he never knew king to have any sexual involvement with white women at all:Much has been written in recent years about my friend’s weakness for women. Unfortunately, some of these commentators have told only the bare facts without suggesting the reasons why martin might have indulged in such behavior. During the last ten years of his life, martin luther king was the most important black man in america. These qualities made him even more attractive in close proximity than he was at a , too, martin’s own love of women was apparent in ways that could not be easily pinpointed — but which women clearly sensed, even from afar. I remember on more than one occasion sitting on a stage and having martin turn to me to say, “do you see that woman giving me the eye, the one in the red dress? Later i would see them talking together, as if they had known one another forever. Recent biography has suggested without quite saying so that martin had affairs with white women as well as black. Edgar hoover became preoccupied with martin’s private life early in the civil rights movement, and this preoccupation was a significant factor in hoover’s pathological hatred of him and the movement he headed. Early in the game the fbi began to bug our various hotel rooms, hoping to discover our strategy but also to gather evidence that could be used against martin personally. Finally, when no one would do hoover’s dirty work for him, someone in the fbi put together a tape of highly intimate moments and sent them to martin. Commonly circulated item about martin luther king that is not included in this list is the claim that king was a republican. Such claims are based purely on speculation; king himself never expressed an affiliation with, nor endorsed candidates for, any political party, and his son, martin luther king iii, said: “it is disingenuous to imply that my father was a republican. For the assertion that “no other public holiday in the united states honors a single individual” besides martin luther king day, we note that columbus day (honoring explorer christopher columbus) is a federal holiday, as is george washington‘s a tip or a rumor? Our development team is working on a friend's 's doctoral dissertation abstract: a comparison of the conceptions of god in the thinking of paul tillich and henry nelson wieman. 260_l archive brought to jpmorgan chase & 's doctoral dissertation abstract: a comparison of the conceptions of god in the thinking of paul tillich and henry nelson ison of the conceptions of god in the thinking of paul tillich and henry nelson luther king, jr. Donate to the king chose the topic of his dissertation - a comparison of the conception in the thinking of paul tillich and henry nelson wieman - in the 1953. His ted a few small corrections and the final draft was submitted to sity in april king papers project relates how king managed to generate 'his' first draft ently. Sometimes he didn't the cards that what he was writing was a direct transcription; sometimes include quotation marks on the cards, but then omitted them in the dissertation is a result heavily plagiarized. The king papers project in ted that 52% of chapter 2 of the thesis was plagiarized - transcribed work of other authors without any indication that the section was an uction. Looking over the complete annotated version of his thesis, it that in places page upon successive page is composed of ces of stolen quotations, with king contributing literally nothing to other than by arranging the words of others.
A full estimate of tion of king's original work in the thesis will require a is, but it is not main sources for king's appropriations were:Various published works by paul tillich and henry nelson wieman, the subjects. Yes, that's right, chunk of king's thesis was transcribed from a recent thesis of university student. In his introduction king had the nerve to write "in 1952 fine dissertation was done in this school by jack boozer... Will follow a detailed annotation of king's thesis, with the ns highlighted and linked to their sources.