out due scholarly reference.” He concludes his letter withnthis challenge: “If you or anyone else have evidence to thencontrary, it should be presented.” We issue a similarnchallenge to Mr. Westling, the editors of the King papers,nand all other interested scholars: if you have any genuinenevidence that might exonerate King, it should be presented.nA final comment. In their introduction to We ShallnOvercome: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Black FreedomnStruggle, editors Peter Albert and Ronald Hoffman arguenthat King’s legend has actually impeded the progress of civilnHISTORICAL UPDATEnFollowing Chronicles’ denunciationnof King’s plagiarism in mid-nAugust (Perspective, Septembern1990), the Wall Street Journal brokenthe story on November 9, after wenhad already put together the Januarynissue. The New York Times then followednwith its own version of thenstory on November 10. The editorsnof King’s papers apparently believednthe cover-up had continued for longnenough.nIn fact, Mr. Clayborne Carson nownadmits that he and some twenty othernmembers and associates of his advisorynboard have known about the plagiarismnfor over three years, but chose tonsuppress the story until now. ActuallynCarson spoke not of “plagiarism,” butnof “a pattern of textual appropriation.”nCarson even instructed his staff membersnnot to use “the P word,” and itnmay have been Carson’s game of semanticsnthat led the Journal of AmericannHistory last June to reject his articlendiscussing King’s dissertation; as thenNew York Times reported, “the journalncriticized Mr. Carson’s unwillingnessnto take a firm stand on the question ofnplagiarism.” Carson, it will be recalled,ntold the London Telegraph in Septembern1989, “It’s really not true [that thendissertation was plagiarized].”nBoston University’s ad interim presidentncontinued to claim until the eleventhnhour, as is evidenced in his Octobern5 letter to Chronicles published onnpage four, that the dissertation hadnbeen “scrupulously examined” andnthat there was “not a single instance ofnplagiarism.” Now, after the breaking ofnthe story, Mr. Westiing reports that thenissue of plagiarism merits “close scrutiny.”nApparently “scrupulously examined”nmeans something less thann”close scrutiny.”nMost interesting is the spin that Mr.nCarson and King’s apologists are puttingnon the facts. Mr. Carson told thenTimes that King “acted unintentionally,”nand Joseph Lowery, president ofnthe Southern Christian LeadershipnConference, said King merely “overlookednsome footnotes.” The mostningenious excuse floated by King’snapologists was that somehow King mistooknthe academy for a pulpit andnwrote his dissertation the way blacknpreachers, by their own admission,nhave long written their sermons: bynplagiarizing. Keith Miller, a professornof rhetoric and composition at ArizonanState University, has written two academicnarticles and is preparing a booknon the many other papers and speechesnthat King also plagiarized. Apparentlynstealing words for a speech doesn’tnconstitute plagiarism, or even “textualnappropriation.” Professor Miller andnothers call it “voice merging.”nSerious questions of academic andnjournalistic integrity remain as a resultnof the attempted cover-up. First, ClaybornenCarson has consistently misrepresentednthe facts of the case andncontinues, even after having admittednthe plagiarism, to distort the evidence.nMr. Luker of Emory University, thenassociate editor of the papers, told thenWall Street Journal that, in dealingnwith King’s plagiarism, “Clayborne hasnto achieve a position that is politicallynviable in the black community, politicallynrespectable.” No statement betternshows the extent to which the editors ofnKing’s papers have ceased to act asnscholars and begun to think like politicians.nCarson receives public funds vianthe National Endowment for the Humanitiesnfor his abilities as a scholar,nnot as a politician or a civil rightsnleader, and as a result of suppressingnthis story the publication of King’snworks is now 16 months behind sched­nrights in the United States. By lionizing the man, thenmovement has lost sight of the actual grass roots work onnwhich success depends. This, of course, is nothing differentnfrom what Marhn Luther King’s best friend, the latenReverend Ralph Abernathy, had been saying all along: thatnthe best thing King’s supporters could do for themselves, fornthe movement, and for King is to celebrate the leader’snvirtues, his talents, his dreams, but not to make him intonsomething he never was and something no man could evernbe. nnnule. Carson has cleariy forfeited hisnright to be taken seriously as an editor,nand if he hasn’t already resigned hisnposition, he should do so immediately,nif only to restore some credibility to thenproject.nSecond, David Carrow, a membernof the project’s advisory board andnauthor of the Pulitzer Prize-winningnbiography of King, Bearing the Cross,nalso now admits to having knownnabout King’s plagiarism and deliberatelynsuppressing the story. Shouldn’t hengive back his Pulitzer?nThird, if Jon Westiing as ad interimnpresident of Boston University was actingnunder his own initiative in concoctingnthe story of King’s innocence, thennhe is either incompetent or a liar. Inneither case, he should resign from thenuniversity he has disgraced. If he wasnacting as an agent for President JohnnSilber, then the next move is up’tonSilber — who could, at the very least,nstrip King of his degree.nFourth, the National Endowmentnfor the Humanities has known aboutnthe plagiarism for over a year. Insteadnof coming clean with the Americanntaxpayers, who have funded the Kingnpapers project with a reported halfnmillion dollars, the Endowment simplynsat on the facts. Mrs. Cheney owes us anfull explanation of the role she and thenNEH played in this matter.nFinally, the time has come for anfrank and open debate on the significancenof the King legacy. Unfortunately,nthe evidence is locked up in sealednFBI files. Instead of subjecting thennation to an unending series of disclosuresnand scandals, the governmentnshould unseal the documents. Thenissue is integrity — not of Martin LuthernKing, but of an American regimenthat refuses to tell the truth.n— T.P.nJANUARY 1991/29n