The United States celebrated the life and legacy of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. this week. On the national holiday named for him and at numerous other times throughout each year, I reflect on what King taught the world through his justice-seeking philosophies, agendas and actions. I typically do so in writing, with the aim of thoughtfully connecting King to what is happening in our country at the time. For example, two years ago, I published an article in which I contended that he would be appalled by the politicized attacks on and dismantling of diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. This year, I decided to write about something else that has been in the news lately for all the wrong reasons.
The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to King in 1964, four years before he was assassinated. He earned it. King did not beg for it or annoyingly insist that it should be awarded to him. He did not make boastful claims about all he had single-handedly done to help end human suffering in America and abroad. Instead, he bravely put his life on the line for peace and justice, not for a prize.
The Nobel Foundation was persuaded enough by King’s impact to celebrate it. No one had to donate their award to the civil and human rights icon. Same with Barack Obama—his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize did not come via whining, self-aggrandizement, public expressions of entitlement or donation from a prior recipient who desperately endeavored to gain political favor with a U.S. president.
I learned very little about the prize in my K–12 schools, college or graduate school. I did at least know that King had been awarded it, because it is often a prominent detail in his biography. There is a chance that today’s students (including collegians) still do not learn much about the prize in textbooks or anyplace else. Perhaps few would be able to name five prior recipients. But King would probably be one name that most of them call.
In addition to not knowing enough people who have won it, it is plausible that few students know much about the origins of the prize and the process by which laureates are selected. Because “peace” is in its name, most would likely deduce that the honor is in recognition of recipients’ extraordinary efforts to promote peace. Students also would likely presume the awardees to have themselves been peaceful people, certainly not sustainers of chaos or promoters of divisiveness.
King had lots of opponents. But he did not waste time in pulpits, in his Birmingham jail cell, on streets all over America or on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial (the site of his famed “I Have a Dream” speech) talking about how much he hated those who violently challenged and rejected his agenda. Love, forgiveness, unity and peace are what he extended to and invited from them. He urged others to pursue the same with neighbors and co-workers who were from different races, socioeconomic circumstances, religions and political parties. King hated racism. He hated poverty. Notwithstanding, he proposed and aggressively pursued remedies for them from a standpoint of love.
I know for sure that were he still alive, King would be fighting like hell right now to ensure that millions of Americans—including whites who jailed him, spat in his face and wanted him dead—get to keep access to high-quality, affordable health care. There is no way he would have sat idly by as the recent politicization of food-stamp benefits placed low-income citizens at risk of starvation. I suspect that King would make the point that poverty and sickness unfairly place people in desperate, unhealthy contexts in which conflict ensues. In myriad ways, equity and equality are strongly connected to his writings about peace, several of which are published in a 736-page anthology of speeches, letters, sermons and op-eds.
On the eve of this year’s MLK holiday here in the U.S., instead of devoting full attention to honoring one of its most recognizable laureates, the Nobel Foundation had to spend its time articulating the sacredness of its award and making sure people understand that “a laureate cannot share the prize with others, nor transfer it once it has been announced.” Its statement released last week went on to specify, “A Nobel Peace Prize can also never be revoked. The decision is final and applies for all time.”
Absurdity will neither diminish King’s irrefutable impact nor the Nobel Peace Prize bestowed upon him. In the most dignified manner, King accepted the honor in Oslo 62 years ago: “Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace,” he declared in his acceptance speech. “If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.”
In celebration of what would have been his 97th birthday, I chose to reflect on King as a courageous, relentless pursuer of peace who himself was a peaceful leader.
