Untitled, Martin Luther King holiday: manuscript draft by Roosevelt Fitzgerald

The final week of January brought unexpected good news to Las Vegas and the entire state of Nevada. It was announced that the League of Cities Convention, which had originally been scheduled for Pheonix, Arizona, had become interested in holding its 1991 meeting in Las Vegas.
The League's board, composed of about 40 elected city officials from throughout the nation, voted in 1987 to hold the convention in Pheonix, but with the condition that the decision would be reconsidered if Arizona did not create a paid King Holiday (Review Journal, November 15, 1990, p. 9 B).
The relocation of the convention to Las Vegas would be a much needed economic shot in the arm especially owing to the slowdown of tourism during these times of economic recession and the growing fear of many Americans and others to travel out of fear of terrorist activities. It had been earlier reported that the Pheonix convention would attract 10,000 visitors and would generate close to $7 million in revenues. Pheonix and Las Vegas, both Sun Belt cities which rely heavily on tourism, more than either could have anticipated in 1987, need a 10,000 person convention in 1991.
In 1987 when the decision was made to hold the convention in Pheonix it was during a time when former governor of Arizona, Evan Mecham, was under fire due to his having cancelled a previously established King holiday in that state. It was his feeling that only the people, the electorate, had the power to approve such a holiday and that legislative action was not constitutional. By 1987 it had become apparent that Mecham would be impeached and it was hoped that the incoming governor would reinstitute the holiday. The impeachment was finalized in 1988 and Democrat Rose Mofford became governor. Public sentiment, however, was divided on the question of the holiday and action on the matter was postponed until the next statewide election which took place in November of 1990.
It was because of the results of that election that the circumstances
surrounding the decision of the League of Cities came about.
Voters in the state's general election on Nov. 6 rejected two
propositions that would have created a paid holiday to honor King.
One proposition called for creating a King day while retaining
Columbus Day and the other would have created a King Day while dominating
Columbus Day (Review Journal, November 21, 1990, p. 3 C).
Arizona voters rejected both. The state's failure to approve the holiday
generated national criticism and the backlash of that criticism has brought
about negative economic consequences along with declarations from some
quarters that the vote illustrates the pervaisivness of racism in the state.
The inference is made because the common belief is that were not the majority
of Arizonans racist, the referendum would have passed.
Since 1986 when January 15 was formally made a federal holiday honoring
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., all but four states have adopted that date
as a paid legal holiday. Actually, at one point, all but three had but that
was during the short period when it was in fact a holiday in Arizona. The
others, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Montana have not received the attention
Arizona has. The only apparent difference between the two categories is that,
until recently, the others . had taken no meaningful steps whatever in that
direction while Arizona initially created a holiday and subsequently
rejected it and thereby created the image that unlike the other for whom the
absence might simply be oversight, Arizona appears to consciously state
that King is undeserving of such an honor.
While New Hampshire continues to sit on the dime, North Dakota has an unpaid
state holiday and a recent report out of Helena, Montana suggests a different tact.
A Montana House committee approved legislation Wednesday (1/30/90)
that would create a state holiday honoring the Rev. Martin Luther
King Jr....The bill, passed by the state Senate last week, was approved
12-7 by the House State Administration Committee (Review Journal,
January 31, 1991, p. 3 F).
-3-
Nine days later, on February 8, "Montana on Friday added a holiday honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to its calendar" (Review Journal, February 9, 1991, p. 12 A).
The recent events in the state of Montana carry great significance.
There had been no pressure applied to Montana to adopt a King holiday. This is especially true of Montana's black population which is only 2,381 or 0.3 percent of the total population (Ibid.) Montana stood to neither gain nor lose economically with the presence or the absence of the holiday. In the words of Governor Stan Stephens, the new paid holiday for state workers in Montana is "not only a day honoring Dr. King, but his ideas and the ideas of others who've championed civil rights throughout the world" (Ibid.) He continues by saying; "It emphasizes again the inherent need that we respect each other as individuals, regardless of race, creed or national origin" (Ibid.)
Montana's bill was introduced by State Senator Harry Fritz of Missoula, a University of Montana history professor who sponsored the bill. In reference to King, he said that he had led "one of the great movement of our time" and had helped extend liberty and equality to Americans of all races and colors (Ibid.).
The passage of the bill did not go unchallenged. There were some legislators who attempted to pit Native American interests against its passage. In an apparent attempt to divide and conquer, suggestions were made by them that Indians, who outnumber blacks in the state of Montana more than 20 to 1, should have a "Native American Day" or a "Chief Joseph Day" but their ploys did not work. "State Rep. Angela Russell of Lodge Grass, an American Indian and a co-sponsor of the King holiday legislation, said Friday that it was appropriate to honor King because his efforts benefited all races. It tells not only Montana but the nation that we have a strong
-4-
commitment to civil rights for all our people" (Ibid.).
That sentiment is the sentiment which was uppermost in the minds of those instrumental in organizing a memorial holiday in honor of Dr. King. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spent the final thirteen years of his adult life seeking to bring life to the "Holy Experiment" which had been created by the Founding Fathers in 1787 and that happened without his having planned it so.
No one but family, friends and neighbors had heard of Martin Luther King in 1953. At twenty four years of age he was facing, what he thought would be the three biggest decisions he would make in a lifetime; marriage, graduation from a Ph.D. program at Boston University and selecting a parish where he might possibly be minister for the remainder of his life.
Marriage took place in Marion, Alabama on June 18, 1953. The following year he both graduated and assumed the pastorate of Ebenezer Baptist Church of Montgomery Alabama. For almost a year the only unsettling events in his life were the weekly reactions to the sermons he delivered on Sunday mornings. His was a ministry diferent than that of previous ministers not only at Ebenezer but at other churches of that region as well. He did not subscribe to the foot stomping, hell raising kinds of sermons to which the parishioners had become accustomed. His sermons drew heavily from the writings of many phi 1osophers.
Due partially to his educational attainments and his natural shyness, he made few close friends during those first months in Montgomery. It was partially because of his monastic lifestyle during that period that he was selected, by a consortium of ministers, to lead an organization which came into existance following the arrest of Ms. Rosa Parks on December 1, 1955 for refusing to surrender her bus seat to a white passenger.
-5-
E.D. Nixon, a longtime social activist in Montgomery organized a boycott of the city bus system. The Montgomery Improvement Association was formed and, due to his unassuming personality, King was asked to be president. He did not think that he should be president because he was so new to the community. However, it was for that very reason, and others, that he was selected. "As a minister, he was not vulnerable to the economic pressures that could be applied to a business man; nor was he yet a recognized adherent of any of the various factions that split the Negro community" (Metcalf: 7-8). It was further felt that if matters became volatile King would be better able to leave town and start over somewhere else without really having to uproot a family or break lifelong social ties.
Martin Luther King had no thoughts of becoming a hero. The proposed boycott, originally planned for only one day, even after it was extended sought solution to the problem within the strictures of segregation. The Association asked only that blacks be seated from back to front and that whites from front to back and that the seats would be had on a first come, first served basis. It further requested that some black drivers be hired for those routes through predominantly black neighborhoods. The requests evolved from that to demands for an end to segregation completely. Dr. King had no experience in such matters and was apprehensive as to whether or not he would be able to provide the kind of leadership that the movement needed.
When originally asked to preside over the organization, Dr. King strongly recommended that someone else take the position. In finally accepting the position he revealed his perception of his duty as leader:
In accepting this responsibility, my mind, consciously or unconsciously, was driven back to the Sermon on the Mount and the Gandhian method of nonviolent resistence. This principle became the guiding light of our movement. Christ furnished the spirit and motivation while Gandhi furnished the method...I became more and more convinced of the power of nonviolence. Rather than simply intellectual assent; it was to become a commitment to a way of life (Metcalf: 6).
-6-
Two factors influenced the decision to write this paper. The first is the fact that for the first time the West Coast Social Science Conference is being held during the month of February which is generally recognized as Black History Month. The second has to do with this year’s location of the conference; Arizona and the fact that three and a half months ago, this state rejected creating a Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday.
The purpose of this paper is not so much to educate as to assist in bringing about a more heightened awareness of some of the ramifications surrounding the holiday.
While it is true that Dr. King had no objective of becoming a civil rights leader and thereby the heroic figure which he ultimately became, it is equally true that he spearheaded heroic action by many. From Montgomery to Birmingham to Selma and on to Chicago, Washington, D.C. and Memphis, he carved out a new definition of American democracy. It was because of his efforts that more Americans than at any time before came to have a better sense of themselves. While there are many diehards who would insist that his efforts were only in behalf of black people, reasonable people realize that his concerns were not limited by color. Near the turn of the century, Owen Wister wrote in his book The Virginian; "A man's sense of himself is the most important thing that he has." King enabled most Americans to discover an enhanced view of themselves and he forced the nation to open its doors to all Americans. For that and those more intrensic reasons, he became an unlikely hero.
Every nation honors its heroes. Monuments are built and statues are erected and the good deeds of such people are are commemmorated. The committee to establish a national holiday in honor of Dr. King went in search of that
-7-
acknowledgement and after several years of effort it finally bore fruit in 1986. It was a time for celebration. The fact of Dr. King's color was significant because the United States had never honored a person of color in such a way. Within a year the majority of states in the Union had adopted state holidays and, in those few where they had not, steps were underway.
Nevada was not among the first states to create a holiday but by 1988 it had done so. Interestingly, it was created in that state the same year that Arizona removed the holiday from its calendar. January is usually a very slow month for tourism in Las Vegas. Once the New Year's celebrations are over, while visitors continue to visit, the volume is less than during other months. Very early on, the convention authority recognized that tourism during January of 1987 was significantly higher than it had been in previous years. California and Arizona had paid legal holidays for Dr. King at that time and the overwhelming numbers of tourists to Las Vegas comes from southern California and Arizona. With the three day weekend of midJanuary, Las Vegas' economy received a boost.
Initially, there had been concerns as to what another paid holiday would cost the state in overtime pay. It became clear that whatever the cost it would be offset by the revenues generated by the new tourist market. Clearly, Las Vegas and the state of Nevada benefitted financially from the King holiday. Those benefits were immediate and therefore there was less resistance to creating a holiday in the state.
Arizona, on the other hand, was not a place where large numbers of people would ordinarily visit simply because of a long weekend. Its economic benefits were not as clearcut. The incentive was not there. Arizona, however, is a popular convention and events location. The absence of the King holiday has had negative impacts on the special events scheduled for the state as
illustrated by the actions of the League of Cities Convention.
-8-
The effects of the no vote goes well beyond Arizona's loss of the League of Cities Convention. Three days following the rejection a newspaper headline read; "King holiday rejection may cost Arizona millions" (Review ^Journal, November 9, 1990, p. 20 A). A day earlier another headline read; "King vote may cost Arizona the Super Bowl" (Review Journal, November 8,
Y 1990, p. 1 E). That article had to do with the decision of NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue, the day following the vote, to withdraw the 1993 Super Bowl from Pheonix. "I do not believe that playing Super Bowl XXVII in Arizona is in the best interests of the National Football League" (Ibid.). The creation of a holiday was rejected by 15,000 votes of nearly 1 million cast. While Tagliabue's decision did not make the move final, Norman Braman, owner of the Philadelphia Eagles and chairman of the Super Bowl site selection committee said; "I can't imagine that people won't go along with the commissioner. I think it's tragic for the people who worked so hard to get the game there. But I think it would be an affront to our public and our players if the game is played in Pheonix" (Ibid.).!/
Bill Bidwell, the owner of the Pheonix Cardinals, while believing that the proposal to make King's birthday a holiday was the right thing to do, he was nonetheless disappointed by both the election results and Tagliabue's decision.
I was not pleased that the NFL issued its statement so quickly. I can understand that the NFL felt that such a statement was necessary, but it unfortunately added to an already emotional situation here. I am calling on the Governor and legislative leaders of Arizona to take whatever steps are necessary to accomplish an enactment of the King holiday (Review Journal, November 8, 1990, P. 1 E).
Governor Mofford agreed that the loss would cost Arizona millions in convention business and estimated those losses, for one year alone, at $200 million. Even before this most recent setback of November, approximately forty small to medium sized conventions had already taken their business elsewhere (Review Journal, November 9, 1990, p. 20 A). Business leaders are
-9-
concerned about the loss of possible industries which had been earmarked to come to the state.
A domino reaction has taken place since the NFL's pullout of the Super Bowl. It appears that a good part of its concern has to do with the effects of playing the Super Bowl would have on the morale of black players in the NFL and by implying that it would in fact be insulting to ask or require black athletes to perform in such a setting, the stage is set for everyone else. No one can go to Arizona and spend a nickle without it implying that either they do not subscribe to the negative vote as being indicative of widespread racism in Arizona or that they do but it does not matter to them.
Four days after the NFL's Super Bowl decision, the college Fiesta Bowl took center stage. The Fiesta Bowl decided that it would fill its New Year's Day program in Tempe essentially with any teams who would be willing to perform. The carrot was $2.6 million per team. The University of Louisville reneged on its verbal agreement to play in the All American Bowl in Birmingham, Alabama when it learned it could more than quadruple the $600,000 that bowl had guaranteed. The $216 million offered by the Fiesta Bowl was more than Louisville's coach Howard Schnellenberger could resist. It is reported that he left the decision up to his senior players and, "reportedly, there was no negative reaction" (Review Journal, November 14, 1990, p. 9 F). The Fiesta Bowl offered Louisvelle an opportunity to appear in its first bowl game since 1977. Obviously, none of the 24 seniors who allegedly made the decision that the team should participate had had a bowl experience in their college carrers. Louisville's opponent, after several other schools had declined the invitation was the University of Alabama.
The Copper Bowl, also played in Arizona, managed to find two teams who were willing to participate; The University of California and Wyoming would play the game on December 31 in Tucson (Review Journal, December 13, 1990, p. IE).
-10-
As each successive event occurred it received less national media attention. Reaction to the four college football teams participation in bowl events in Arizona was limited. In Alabama it was reported that the Faculty Senate at that institution voted that the school should not send its team to the Fiesta Bowl. They appealed to Roger Sayers, the university's president to reconsider but his feeling was that the university had, in effect, given its word to appear (Review Journal, December 15, 1990, p.7C). He was also approached by representatives of several black organizations. Generally, their concern was that Alabama was the state where King had begun his rise to national prominence and how it would appear if that state were to seem supportive of another state which refused to acknowledge King's contribution to the further extension of democracy in the United States. Sayers was steadfast in his position. He did attempt to temper his decision and appease the malcontents by saying that the University planned a tribute to Martin Luther King at halftime of the game (Ibid.). For state Representative, Alvin Holmes, D-Montgomery, that concession was not enough.
He and other black leaders submitted a list of demands, including the appointment of a black university vice president and establishing a scholarship for black students. Sayers said he would review the list and comment later (Ibid.).
Later is always relative but in this instance its maximum postponement could only be five days. Sayers would have to both review the list and comment on his review within five days otherwise any review or comment would be moot. In other words, his "deliberate speed" could not mirror that of the Supreme Court in the Brown case of 1954.
By December 25, plans for the December 31 halftime activities had been finalized. Bowl spokesman, Brent DeRaat, on December 20 said:
We had planned as far back as this spring to do a tribute to the Bill of Rights. Civil rights would have been part of that. After the King holiday vote, we sat down and discussed it and decided to
-11-
expand the show and to make a statement to the rest of the country (Review Journal, December 26, 1990, p4 3D).
That discussion, taking place a month and a half after Tagliabue's announcement and subsequent similar announcements seemed to be prompted by concerns over the growing national reaction to Arizona's action. The dollar totals continued to creep higher. The $7 million loss of the League of Cities convention was only the tip of the iceberg. The 1993 Super Bowl alone "could cost the state $350 mi 11 ion...and the N.B.A. All Star game, and millions more from other canceled sporting events and conventions (Sports Illustrated, November 19, 1990, p. 46).
By late December it had become abundantly clear that the negative King vote would be costly to the state of Arizona. Those groups and organizations which chose to ignore the sentiments of the nation at large risked fallout of their ownB While those teams which participated in those bowl games in Arizona would deride some immediate financial rewards, they had to wonder what the long term effects of that participation would be especially when it is time to recruit future black athletes.
In an apparent attempt to show that those institutions and teams were not insensitive to the results of the vote to any greater degree than others, especially Notre Dame and Virginia which are self-proclaimed citadels of morality, the following report was filed:
DeRaab said Virginia and Notre Dame officials "did express some concern" about the King holiday controversy but "both opted to play in higher-paying bowls." Virginia will play in the Sugar Bowl, which pays about $750,000 per team more than the Fiesta Bowl, and Notre Dame accepted a bid to play in the Orange Bowl, which pays about $1.7 million more. Fiesta Bowl teams get about $2.5 million each (Review Jounal, December 26, 1990, p. 3 D).
Whether the recognition that the negative vote would have not only negative economic consequences on Arizona but certain negative side effects on others prompted the committee to undertake actions to ward off further damage is not known. However, in what might appear to be an effort to
-12-
illustrate that previously invited teams who did in fact opt to go elsewhere did so not out of a sense of moral outrage over the King vote but because they received more lucrative offers elsewhere, DeRaab may well have pointed out what the bottom line of the aftermath of the vote actually is; money.
The budget demands of athletic departments at universities around the country contributes to a willingness on the part of at least a portion of the general public to believe that the choices made by the universities of Virginia, Notre Dame, Louisville, Alabama, California and Wyoming was prompted by financial gain. Still, there is no way of knowing for certain what the motivation of anyone ever really is. The spectre of gain, however indirect, is oftentimes sufficient to cast doubt on ethical incentive.
Since the November 6 election in Arizona, the reactions have seemed to center around what all Arizona stands to lose by not having the holiday rather than what it would stand to gain by having it. Those considerations are all economic or at least something which has little to do with the more important elements of the holiday. One example of one group which seems to wish to disassociate itself from the controversy is the basketball team of the University of Arizona. Currently ranked in the top 10 of college basketball and utilizing the talents of several black athletes currently enrolled, Lute Olsen, coach of the Arizona Wildcats, has prepared his recruiting path to the homes of prospective black recruits by having his team wear, sewn on their uniforms, "MLK" patches. These "MLK" patches have received more attention than the U.S. flag worn on another part of the uniform. One might conclude that Olsen has concluded that his bread is buttered by the athleticism of black young men whom he wishes to convince that "he doesn't have anything against colored people." This is not to say that that is in fact his thinking but how is one to know? Because the Wildcats and Olsen are so popular in the state, one might inquire as to whether or not Olsen, during
-13-
the course of the controversy, ever availed himself of any opportunity to encourage the electorate to vote positive on the King Holiday referendum. If he did so then one might say that his "MLK" patches is merely an extension of his ethics. If he did not, then it might well be illustrative of the behavior of the timid bigot.
Olsen and the Wildcats are not alone in their behavior. A majority of the voters in Pima county supported creating a holiday in honor of Dr. King.
Reacting to a statewide vote against a holiday honoring the Rev.
Martin Luther King Jr., one Arizona county decided Tuesday to give its workers a paid holiday commemorating the slain civil rights leader. Pima County employees will be given time off on either of two days, but the county's offices will remain open on both days with at least skeleton crews, the Board of Supervisors decided by a unanimous vote (Review Journal, November 21, 1990, p. 3 C).
Pima County could not arbitrarily declare a holiday because it must abide by state statue. It will circumvent that statue by giving "employees eight hours' paid administrative leave to be taken on either the third Monday of January or on the Friday preceding that Monday (Ibid.). Raul Grijal'/sa County Supervisor "said he will send the board's resolution to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in Pheonix in the hope that they will follow Pima County's example (Ibid.).
In 1950 Pheonix was ranked 99th in population size of America's cities.
Forty years later it is ranked number eight. It is one of the fastest growing cities in the United States. Clearly its population is relatively new and is composed of migrants from other places. Additionally, many of the residents of Maricopa, especially in places like Sun City and Scottsdale are retirees who have come to Arizona to spend their final years. Many of them come from colder climes of the midwest and east where defacto segregation was a way of life and the efforts of Dr. King sought to bring an end to that. While there might be many things that they might forget, as bigots of long standing, they could never forget a social activist who worked to cause them to end dis-
14-
crimination in housing in their neighborhoods especially when they could get their revenge under the cloak of the secrecy of the ballot.
In concluding no conclusion other than the achievements of Dr. King has been diminished by many Arizonans who seem unable or unwilling to recognize the positive benefits of a holiday in carrying racial relations in the United States to a higher plane. Many lay the cause of their behavior on Dr. King's extra-marital affairs. Others attribute theirs' to the charges of plagiarism while in graduate school. Still others define his movement in terms of communism and there are those who use any combination of those three items and others less well known. They charge him with being a disruptive force in the nation's domestic affairs. He may have womanized and he may have plagiarized. His efforts at social equality may have been equated to socialism but the role of a social activist is to agitate.
The stance of the"No-No Committee," one of the leading anti-King holiday groups in the state, leaves no doubt that cost factors or paid holidays are not at issue. They have said that "they are willing to support a Civil Rights Day if voters got the final say but would oppose any holiday with King's name attached to it. 'Anything short of a vote by the people is immoral and illegal,' committee chairman Bob Rose said (Review Journal, November 13, 1990, p. 1C). Their position goes beyond mere opposition and enters the realm of political threat.
Opponents of a paid Martin Luther King holiday for state employees promised Monday (November 12) they would take out recall petitions against any lawmakers who pass a King holiday without submitting it to voters (Ibid.).
Threats have always been a part of the dreaded arsenal of bigotry. In years past it was the threat of physical violence. Modernism has replaced bodily brutality with brutality of the mind and well being. "I'm a tax payer and a voter" is the state of the art method of threatening to "chase someone
-15- off the place"; to intimidate and thereby ensure desired behavior modification.
Wofford's press secretary, Vada Manager said, on November 12, "that Wofford believes lame duck lawmakers who have retired or been defeated might be more willing to vote for the holiday now (Ibid.). Ostensively that group of legislators were no longer in harm's way. In any case, Wofford considered a special session of the lame-duck legislature but it did not materialize.
Each day that passes allows the wound to grow deeper. The holiday will eventually happen but not until after the absence of it would have taken its toll and driven a wedge between the races of such'dimensions that it will require a hundred years just to bring race relations in Arizona back to its current awful state.
In a scene from the Humphrey Bogart film, "To Have and Have Not" there is the following scene and dialogue. Walter Brennan, Bogart's sidekick has been arrested and the police then come for Bogart who got the drop on them and ordered them to phone and have his friend released. They both refused. "I'm gonna beat both of you on the head with this pistol until one of you make that call. You know what that'll mean? It'll mean one of you will have
taken a beating for nothing." Arizona will take a beating for nothing.