he had submitted to explain the controversy.rnBut the whitewash went well beyond Carson and the KingrnPapers Project. Boston University’s then acting-president, JonrnWestling, flatly denied in Chronicles that “a single instancernof plagiarism of any sort has been identified,” and B.U.’srn”Martin Luther King Professor of Social Ethics,” JohnrnCartwright, who even sat on the B. U. committee that analyzedrnKing’s thesis, claimed “there is no obvious indicationrnin the dissertation that he inappropriately utilized material.”rnThe Wall Street journal admitted King’s plagiarism, but thenrnconcluded that the theft reflects not on his character butrnrather “tells something about the rest of us.” Such sophistryrnand drivel did not get past the London Telegraph, which reportedrn”such is the cravenness of the U. S. media when itrncomes to race that no newspaper followed [our 1989] storyrn. . . . Then, in an article full of apologetic, mealy-mouthedrnphrases, the Wall Street journal confirmed our findings.”rnNot surprisingly, Carson and the project have come out ofrnthe controversy nearly as clean and unscathed as King hasrnhimself. The Washington Post recently hailed Carson’s work inrnan article entitled “Called to Serve,” and Eugene Genovese inrna review of volume one for the New Republic wrote glowinglyrnof Carson’s “professional integrity,” his “tact and good sense,”rnand of the “splendid job” of volume editor Ralph Luker,rndeclaring that Corctta King and her advisory board have “everyrnreason to be proud of their choice of a general editor and ofrnthe staff he put together.” Amid encomia and hagiography asrnheavv as this, it seems hearfless to point out that Ralph Lukerrnwas long ago fired from the King Papers Project as the “fallrnguv” for the controversy over King’s dissertation, that CorcttarnKing and Carson locked horns in a bitter struggle over controlrnof King’s dissertation note cards, and that one of Carson’s associatesrnblames the publication delays and problems with thernproject on Corctta King’s lack of cooperation.rnVolume one documents the period from King’s birth tornhis application to the doctoral program at B. U. and summarizesrnhis familv history in an introduction by the volume editors.rnKing was born in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1929, the son ofrnthe revered pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church. After attendingrna number of schools in Atlanta, he passed a special examinationrnin 1944 to enter Morehouse College without havingrnearned his high school diploma. He graduated in 1948 with arndegree in sociology and entered the Crozcr Theological Seminaryrnin Chester, Pennsylvania. Obtaining his bachelor’s degreernin divinity in 1951, he then enrolled in the doctoral programrnat B. U.’s School of Theology.rnKing was reared, in his own words, “in a very congenialrnhome situation,” with parents who “always lived together veryrnintimatelv.” Closest to him was his maternal grandmother,rnwhose death in 1941 left him emotionallv unstable. Remorsefulrnbecause he had learned of her fatal heart attack whilernattending a parade without his parents’ permission, the 12-rnyear-old Martin attempted suicide bv jumping from arnsecond-story window.rnMost striking about the Kings is the affluence they enjoyedrnduring the Depression. As King, Sr., himself admitted, “therndeacons took great pride in knowing that [he] was the bestpaidrnNegro minister in the city.” In fact, while millions ofrnwhite and black Americans were queuing in bread lines. King,rnSr., was touring France, Italy, Germany, and the Holy Land,rnThougli he refused to join the migration to the more prestigiousrnareas of Atlanta to which middle- and upper-middleclassrnblacks like himself were then moving. King’s father didrnbuy a larger home in his same neighborhood, “thus fulfilling arnchildhood ambition of King, Sr., to own such a house. Enjoyingrnthe beneflts of his family’s affluence. King, Jr., becamernactive in the social life of middle-class Atlanta.”rnThe key phrase above reads not “middle-class black Atlanta”rnbut simply “middle-class Atlanta,” and it was the bourgeoisrnculture of white America that shaped King’s early adultrnyears. When King entered the Crozcr Theological Seminaryrnin 1948, he was one of only 11 black students of a studentrnbody nearing a hundred. He immersed himself “in the socialrnand intellectual life of a predominantly white, northernrnseminary,” and “most accounts of King’s experiences at Crozcrrnsuggest that he activelv sought out social contacts withrnwhite students and faculty members.” Known for his wonderfulrnoratorical skills. King became one of the most popularrnstudents on campus and was even elected president of thernstudent body, a feat that did not go unnoticed among thernfaculty and administration. As Crozer’s Professor MortonrnEnslin wrote in his letter of recommendation for King to B. LL,rnThe fact that with our student body largely Southern inrnconstitution a colored man should be elected to and bernpopular [in] such a position is in itself no mean recommendation.rnThe comparatively small number of forward-rnlooking and thoroughly trained negro leaders is, asrn1 am sure vou will agree, still so small that it is morernthan an even chance that one as adequately trained asrnKing will find ample opportunity for useful service. Hernis entirely free from those somewhat annoying qualitiesrnwhich some men of his race acquire when they findrnthemselves in the distinct higher percent of their group.rnKing’s eagerness and ability to mix well with white studentsrnbecomes significant when seen in light of his performancernduring Crozer’s fieldwork program. On the basis ofrnKing’s preaching to black congregations, the evaluator of thernprogram, the Re’erend William E, Gardner—who was also arnfriend of the King familv—determined Martin’s “strongestrnpoints” to be his “clarity of expression, impressive personality,”rnhis chief weakness “an attitude of aloofness, disdain and possiblernsnobbishness which prevent his coming to close gripsrnwith the rank and flle of ordinary people. Also, a smugnessrnthat refuses to adapt itself to the demands of ministering effectivelyrnto the average Negro congregation.”rnThe editors conclude from this that King had “becomernsomewhat estranged from his Ebenezer roots.” Other evidencernsuggests that he may have inherited the class consciousnessrnthat other family members had exhibited. The editorsrnadmit in the introduction that Martin’s grandfather,rnA. D. Williams, had made money off a controversial businessrnventure that targeted poor blacks. The black-run Atlanta Independentrnin 1909 called the stock that Williams was selling inrna Mexican silver mine a “fake, pure and simple,” and encouragedrnhim “to explain .. . this fraudulent scheme” to flie “manyrnthousands of poor Negroes that are being defrauded throughoutrnthe state.”rnAs Professor Enslin’s letter to B. U. suggests. King was notrnrecommended for doctoral studies because of intellectual distinctionrnor academic achievement. In fact, we know fromrnhis scores on the Graduate Record Exam that King scored inrnNOVEMBER 1992/27rnrnrn