justification of civil disobedience as legal action or process based on the cross-examination of Martin Luther King’s Letter
The recent protests witnessed across the United States following the indiscriminate killing of individuals from the African American community are characteristic of the country’s struggles with the social injustice of racial discrimination. Racial discrimination and segregation in the United States is a highly sensitive issue with a polarizing effect on the nation, as evidenced by its historical struggles with social injustices from the era of slavery. Efforts to address the social injustice of racism in the country include implementing inclusive policies and abolishing discriminative legislation across the social, political, and economic dimensions. The country records significant breakthroughs in the fight against racial discrimination, including abolishing slavery and abolition of Jim Crow’s policies that facilitated segregation of the African American community across the outlined social dimensions. Efforts or interventional measures towards addressing the social justice issue take different forms ranging from violent to non-violent protests or activism. Martin Luther King, Jr. makes for one of the celebrated activists from the United States who championed the use of non-violent protests against the systems and policies perpetuating racial discrimination. Renowned for his significant role in the Civil Rights Movement, Martin Luther King, Jr. led and participated in various acts of civil disobedience in the 1960s. Among such acts include the Birmingham protests held in 1963, which resulted in the arrest of the celebrated civil rights activist for holding a parade without a permit in contravention of the existing legislation against the same. Martin Luther King, Jr. led his fellow African Americans in protesting the unjust laws perpetuating the social injustice of racial segregation and discrimination in Birmingham. In his response to criticism from some of the Birmingham clergy members, Martin Luther King, Jr. justifies his participation and the use of direct action in advocating for change against the social injustice of racial discrimination. Martin Luther King, Jr. posits that civil disobedience is a legal process seeking to address the inadequacies of existing legal systems and regulatory authorities perceived to be facilitating the oppression of the rights and freedoms of an individual or group of people as witnessed against the African American community. Provided herein is a justification of civil disobedience as legal action or process based on the cross-examination of Martin Luther King’s Letter
different points of view on civil disobedience held by others individuals including Malcolm X and John Rawls. Martin Luther King, Jr. sets an excellent platform for justifying civil disobedience as a legal act or process of seeking justice through his letter in response to the criticism of his role and participation in the Birmingham protests of 1963 from fellow members of the clergy. In a letter titled, A Call to Unity, the Birmingham clergy criticized Martin Luther King, Jr. and his followers for staging the direct action and highlighted their discontent across different matters (Martin Luther King). Besides the criticism from the clergy, Martin Luther King, Jr. faced charges of breaking and infringing on the constitutional provisions barring such protests or parades. The fact he was charged for holding and leading a parade without permit or permission from Birmingham’s regulatory authorities on the same deemed civil disobedience to be a contravention of the law. However, Martin Luther King, Jr. provides an entirely different point of view on the various concerns raised by legal and religious authorities in Birmingham, Alabama. He justifies civil disobedience as an appropriate and law-abiding course of action to address social justice issues in society. The cross-examination of the responses given to some of the issues and concerns raised based on the different points of view held by the likes of Malcolm X and John Rawls justifies the legality of civil disobedience.
Among the concerns raised by the clergymen in their letter to Martin Luther King, Jr. was their discontent with his outsider status in leading and participating in the Birmingham non-violent protests. The clergymen considered Martin Luther King, Jr. to be an outsider. He was not a resident of Birmingham or Alabama at large and thus not eligible to participate in the efforts to solve matters affecting its citizens (Martin Luther King). Martin Luther King, Jr. responds by claiming that being the head of a national organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, justifies his role, presence, and participation in the social justice movements in Birmingham, Alabama and across the nation (Martin Luther King). He also alludes to his Christian duty and mandate to seek freedom beyond the constraints of his birthplace (Martin Luther King). King further states that it is his social responsibility to respond to any threats to justice in society anywhere across the nation on the premise that tolerating injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, irrespective of the geographical barriers and differences.
According to John Rawls’ The Justification for Civil Disobedience, it is the role and responsibility of members of society to establish just and efficient institutions while also upholding or complying with their provisions (Rawls). The just and efficient institutions herein refer to the set arrangements agreed upon by members of society towards providing unique social conditions to the advantage of all members of society. In exercising the noble duties and responsibilities, individuals and groups alike should support the establishment of just systems, comply with their guiding principles, while also meeting the set obligations of the same when need arises. It is on the basis of the social contract theory that individuals and groups alike exercises their political obligation to protect the rights and freedoms for all individuals as enshrined in the United States’ constitution, for instance, or even basic human rights (Rawls). Hence, a just and efficient system or institution is one that builds around the observation of equal rights, freedoms, and liberties for all members within a given social agreement. The segregation policies practiced across Birmingham, Alabama contravened the social agreement of equal liberty for all as they functioned to the White majority group’s advantage. Complying with the discriminative policies and regulations went against the guiding principles of social contract theory (Rawls). The established systems and institutions in Birmingham served to the White majority group’s advantage across the social, political, and economic dimensions at the expense of the rights, freedoms, and liberties of African Americans across the same dimensions (Martin Luther King). Martin Luther King, Jr. used civil disobediences as an avenue to exercise his duties and obligations to the social agreement by pointing out at its inadequacies in oppressing the rights and freedoms of the African Americans in Birmingham, Alabama. In essence, the non-violent Birmingham protests held in 1963 reflected the manifestation of King’s political obligation as enshrined in the constitution to participate in the abolishment of an unjust system and establishing a system of just and efficient institutions based on equal rights and justice for all (Rawls). Civil disobedience provides an effective platform for the establishment of just and efficient systems. It makes it a legal process or activity as it also allows individuals and groups to exercise their political obligation of upholding the provisions safeguarding the rights, freedoms, and liberties for all.
Dr. King’s response to the clergymen’s criticism of his use of demonstrations to advocate for social change sets the course for the justification of civil disobedience as a legal process or event. He calls to attention the clergymen’s apparent disregard for the underlying factors facilitating racial discrimination in Birmingham and their inaction towards addressing the oppressive policies of segregation (Martin Luther King). Martin Luther King, Jr. identifies the oppressive systems embraced by the White majority group to oppress the African American minorities as the main barrier against addressing the social injustice of racial discrimination. King justifies the use of non-violent demonstrations as the last option and only available option that the African American community can use to achieve justice from the oppressive systems embraced by members of the White majority group (Martin Luther King). King also states that the use of the non-violent protests in Birmingham followed the due process and steps of organizing such action in protest of unjust laws. According to King, the protests followed a comprehensive collection of facts highlighting or confirming the presence of social injustices, negotiations with the relevant authorities over the same, and a rigorous process of inner reflection and workshops on non-violent processes among participants (Martin Luther King). It was evident that Birmingham featured rampant disregard for the rights and freedoms of the African American community due to the high number of police brutality cases and bombing of homes and churches belonging to the minority group (Martin Luther King). Efforts to negotiate with the business and government stakeholders towards addressing the social injustices ended in empty promises and inaction from the said authorities. King and his associate also embarked on a process of self-reflection in preparation for the direct action where prospective participants in the protests were taught and trained on non-violence and restraining from retaliating to the use of force the proponents of the oppressive system (Martin Luther King). Participants of the protests were also prepared to face jail time for their participation in the non-violent protests as it was a perceived contravention of the oppressive policies and regulations. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his followers also agreed to participate in the direct action as a last resort to achieve the desired outcome of equal rights, freedoms, and liberties for all as the existing institutions and policies could not meet such demands. John Rawls seconds King’s approach towards staging the Birmingham protests as an effective process in dealing with social injustices and advocating for social change where existing legislation and institutions fail to meet the demands of the desired change (Martin Luther King). The fact that King and his followers had exhausted all the available means of effecting change, including negotiating with the relevant authorities and stakeholders for the same, without achieving any improvements to the oppressive system. King’s use of non-violent protests in Birmingham is also characteristic of targeting the laws of segregation and discrimination against members of the African American community, which echoes Rawls’ second condition for justifying civil disobedience as a legal process (Rawls). The fact that the protests were also inclusive of other individuals and groups from different racial orientations further justified civil disobedience as echoed by John Rawls in his work, The Justification for Civil Disobedience. Malcolm X, on the other hand, differs from King’s approach of non-violence in championing for equal rights, freedoms, and liberty for the African American community against the oppressive segregation laws.
Malcolm X proposes a more radical approach in the fight against racism in the United States as his sentiments while delivering his famous speech on December 12, 1964, known as the Speech to Peace Corps Workers (Malcolm X). The radical activist believed in the use of force or violence to fight the racial oppression perpetuated by the laws of segregation widely practiced across the nation. Malcolm X argues that the fact that racists use or employed brutal acts of violence to oppress members of the African American community warranted the use of retaliatory violence to achieve the desired change of equality, freedom, and liberty (Malcolm X). He faulted the double standards embraced by the United States government and other stakeholders in validating the conduct of racist individuals and groups against the African American minorities and condemning the same measures if employed by the oppressed group to protect their freedoms and liberties across the social, political, and economic dimensions. Malcolm X posits that the rights, freedoms, and liberties allowing members of the White majority group to torch houses and churches belonging to members of the African American community should be exercised by the latter in response to the oppression perpetrated by the discriminative policies and institutions across the nation. Malcolm refuses the use of negotiations with the perceived perpetrators of racial discrimination arguing that racists and the systems or institutions facilitating the same cannot share in the plight of the oppressed (Malcolm X). He justifies his position by claiming that the only language that racists can understand is violence, which they use to sustain their oppression over the African American community. King disputes such a violent approach towards advocating for change against the segregation laws claiming that the desired change can only be realized through non-violent protest or civil disobedience in breaking the unjust laws of segregation. King argues embracing the violent approach only functions to create a system of anarchy and chaos that would only function to sustain the oppressive systems. The use of violence seeks to shift the balance of advantage to a given group in society, which contravenes the social agreement on the set principles of equality, freedom, and liberty for all. It limits the realization of the same by victims of violent acts. An approach that thrives on breaking the unjust laws through non-violent means appeals to the conscience of the perpetrators of oppression to actively engage in the negotiations for instituting the desired social changes (Martin Luther King). Unlike Malcolm’s point of view, King’s non-violent approach is a representation of political responsibility enshrined in the constitution to advocate for changes in the existing systems and institutions to make them more effective by incorporating equality and justice as the founding principles. Thus civil disobedience, as embodied by King’s support for non-violent protest, makes for a legal process whose illegality is breaking and abolishing unjust laws and institutions as witnessed in Birmingham, Alabama.
Martin Luther King, Jr. distances civil disobedience from the different concerns raised by the governing authority in Birmingham that arrested him for leading the protests and the clergymen by defining the demonstrations as the most appropriate approach to address the demands of the disadvantaged group in society. He highlights civil disobedience’s characteristic features in his response to the outlined parties while also raising reservations against the use of violence to advocate for social justice. He recognizes that other channels for promoting change, such as negotiations, fail to bring the desired change, thus necessitating the use of non-violent protests to provoke the stakeholders involved to implement the changes towards a more just and efficient society. King also argues against the notion that civil disobedience is illegal or infringement by claiming that opposing the unjust laws is a moral responsibility for all members of society. John Rawls echoes the same sentiments in justifying civil disobedience in stating that it allows for the manifestation of one’s political obligation to make social institutions more just and efficient in ensuring equality and liberty for everyone in society. Hence, civil disobedience makes for legal processes that function to promote social justice for all members of the community across the social divide. It thrives on establishing and maintaining just laws and policies while opposing and abolishing the unjust laws and systems infringing on individuals’ rights or groups across the social, political, and economic dimensions.