spending their time and money not innvain but in support of the very governmentnthat is the source of the trouble.n— Katherine DaltonnMARTIN LUTHER KING’S plagiarismncontinues to send after-shocks.nRalph Luker has been dropped as thenassociate editor of the King PapersnProject; his contract was not renewednlast January. Clayborne Carson’s staifnhas reportedly been in disarray fornquite some time, and sources associatednwith the Project called Luker “expendable,”nthe “fall guy,” the “sacrificialnlamb” needed to get the KingnPapers Project back on track. It wasnLuker’s misfortune to be editing thenProject’s volume that dealt with King’snplagiarized dissertation.nSources also cite Coretta King asnbeing “less than helpful” throughoutnthis entire episode. Her refusal to releasenher husband’s handwritten dissertationnnote cards reportedly strainednher relations with Carson and the Project,nand one source even blamed hernuncooperativeness for the Project’s delaynin coming forth with the evidencenof King’s plagiarism. Such excusesnwon’t wash. Mrs. King may be as guiltynas Mr. Carson is in hindering thenuncovering of the truth, and note cardsnrtiay be helpful in explaining how thenplagiarism was conducted, but neithernMrs. King’s cooperation nor the dissertationnnote cards are needed to substantiatenKing’s offense.nOne source attempted to defend thenProject’s handling of this matter bynarguing, “It’s not the business of scholarsnto report politically sensitive information;nthat’s the business of journalists.”nRecent history, however, doesn’tnbear this out. Innumerable scholarsnwere involved in compiling the KurtnWaldheim dossier, including Universitynof South Carolina professor RobertnHerzstein, and their discoveries werenpublished as soon as they were made.nNor did the editors at the University ofnNebraska Press lie about the evidence,nmisrepresent the facts, or attempt ancover-up of the issue — as ClaybornenCarson has admittedly done — whennthey came upon the pro-fascist writingsnof Paul de Man. The scholarly communityndid its job in both instances: itnpursued the truth and set forth thenevidence for the world to see andnexamine for itselfnIn fact, the University of NebraskanPress started editing De Man’s writingsnabout the same time Clayborne Carsonnclaims to have uncovered solidnevidence of King’s plagiarism, in 1988,nand since then Nebraska has publishedntwo formidable books on De Man.nWhat has Clayborne Carson accomplishednduring this same time? He hasnreceived a reported half-million dollarsnof the taxpayers’ money and publishednnot a single volume of King’s works —nand the King Papers Project has beennin existence for seven years. The onenarticle he did write on the subject wasnrejected by the Journal of AmericannHistory because of his lack of forthrightnessnwith the evidence; as onensource put it, Carson was asked tonrewrite the article “with more of anninterpretation.” The Journal hasnscheduled a round-table discussion ofnKing’s plagiarism for its spring issue.nPresident John Silber of BostonnUniversity has meanwhile asked RobertnNeville, the dean of B.U.’s School ofnTheology, to head a four-person committeento “investigate” King’s plagiarism.nMr. Neville told me that thencommittee had completed its investigationnand passed on its findings tonSilber, who as of this writing had notnyet commented publicly on the committee’snreport. Let’s hope the committeenconcentrated on what actionnB.U. should take in light of King’snplagiarism instead of stonewalling withnan “investigation” into the “allegation”nof plagiarism. Establishing a committeento investigate the validity of thencharge is what Jon Westling and B.U.nshould have done eight months ago.nEstablishing a committee to do so nownis about as useful as investigatingnwhether John Silber really isn’t governornof Massachusetts.nFinally, in a matter not entirelynunrelated, Arizonans were indeednpunished for their politically incorrectnvote on a paid holiday to honor King.nPaul Tagliabue, the Torquemada ofnprofessional football, announced thensentence at the NFL owners’ annualnauto-da-fe last March: the 1993 SupernBowl would be moved from Phoenixnto either San Diego or Pasadena. Tagliabuenhinted that, if Arizonans wouldnrecant their heathen ways by voting inna paid holiday for King next year, thenNFL might grace Phoenix with thennnSuper Bowl in 1996.nTo anyone who believes voting costsnnothing in America — think again.n— Theodore PappasnALL IN THE FAMILY, the 1970’snTV series in which Norman Learnsought to convince the world thatnMiddle Americans were ignorant bigotsnlike Archie Bunker, recently had itsntwentieth anniversary special on CBS.nIt brought back fond memories. Sure,nthe show was always — as Archienwould have put it — your basic pinkonpropaganda through and through, designednto make us ridicule and repudiatenour forebears and our traditions,nand to turn us all into New SocialistnPersons, or even worse, McGovernnDemocrats. But Archie Bunker wasnmy first clue that there was such a thingnas a reactionary, and that I could benone too.nGrowing up in the 70’s in thencampus town of Urbana, Illinois, Inused to run home from high schoolnindoctrination class to catch All in thenFamily in afternoon reruns. Archie wasnportrayed as a rude, crude blowhardngiven to mangling logic and the Englishnlanguage; his lefty son-in-lawnMike (the “Meathead”) was shown tonbe intelligent, rational, enlightened,nand progressive. I quickly decided I wasnan Archie sympathizer.nAs it happened, I had a lot morencompany than I knew. A poll takennwhile the series was at its most popularnrevealed that the vast majority ofnAmericans liked and respected ArchienBunker more than his son-in-law. Althoughnthey didn’t share his racialnattitudes, they saw Archie as the solid,npatriotic workingman; whereas thenMeathead was just an atheistic studentnradical who sponged off Archie and thenAmerica he represented while ungratefullynbiting the hand that fed him.nThese results were reported with dismaynin a TV Guide cover story I stillnrecall for its tide: “All in the Family: IsnAmerica Missing the Point?”nAs the years went by, events conspirednto vindicate Archie, no matternhow hard the writers tried to make himna fool. He proved to be a fair politicalnprognosticator: in a 1976 post-electionnshow, he closed an argument by hollering,n”Yer gonna get REEgan in 1980,nwise guy!” (The studio audiencenJUNE 1991/7n