EDITORnThomas FlemingnMANAGING EDITORnKatherine DaltonnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSnChilton Williamson, ]r.nASSISTANT EDITORnTheodore PappasnART DIRECTORnAnna Mycek-WodeckinCONTRIBUTING EDITORSnJohn W. Aldridge, Harold O.].nBrown, Samuel Francis, GeorgenGarrett, Russell Kirk, E. ChristiannKopff, Clyde WilsonnCORRESPONDING EDITORSn]anet Scott Barlow, Odie Faulk,nJane Greer, John Shelton Reed,nGary VasilashnEDITORIAL SECRETARYnLednn DobbsnPUBLISHERnAllan C. CarlsonnASSOCIATE PUBLISHERnMichael WardernPUBLICATION DIRECTORnGuy C. ReffettnCOMPOSITION MANAGERnAnita FedoranCIRCULATION MANAGERnRochelle FranknA publication of The Rockford Institute.nEditorial and Advertising Offices: 934 NorthnMain Street, Rockford, IL 61103.nEditorial Phone: (815) 964-5054.nAdvertising Phone: (815) 964-5811.nSubscription Department: P.O. Box 800, MountnMorris, IL 61054. Gall 1-800-435-0715, innIllinois 1-800-892-0753.nFor information on advertising in Chronicles,nplease call Cathy Corson at (815) 964-5811.nU.S.A. Newsstand Distribution by EasternnNews Distributors, Inc., 1130 Cleveland Road,nSandusky, OH 44870.nCopyright © 1990 by The Rockford Institute.nAll rights reserved.nCAronicfes (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishednmonthly for $24 per year by The RockfordnInstitute, 934 North Main Street, Rockford, ILn61103-7061.nSecond-class postage paid at Rockford, IL andnadditional mailing offices.nPOSTMASTER: Send address changes tonChronicles, P.O. Box 800, Mount Morris, ILn61054.nThe views expressed in Chronicles are thenauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflect thenviews of The Rockford Institute or of itsndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot benreturned unless accompanied by a self-addressednstamped envelope.nChroniclesnk U t G i Z I N E 1M[RICAN (UlIUIEn4/CHRONICLESnVol. 15, No. 1 January 1991nOn Martin LuthernKing, Jr.nPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESnIn “Revolution and Tradition in thenHumanities Curriculum” (Septembern1990), Thomas Fleming repeats thenfalse story that Dr. Martin Luther King,nJr. plagiarized his Boston Universityndoctoral dissertation. The charge hasnbeen made several times in the last yearnand appears to be spreading like whoopingncough among the unvaccinated.nAllow me to introduce some penicillin.nDr. King’s dissertation has, in fact,nbeen scrupulously examined and reexaminednby scholars, including scholarsnwho are thoroughly familiar with then”personalist” theological tradition tonwhich Dr. King’s dissertation was ancontribution and who would stand thenbest chance of catching any nonattributednquotations. Not a single instancenof plagiarism of any sort has beennidentified.nThe apparent source of this defamatorynrumor was an article that appearednlast December in a London newspapern—an article that was refuted by itsnsupposed primary source in a subsequentnissue. To my knowledge, thenreappearance of this rumor in a recentnissue of Chronicles is the first time thatnany reputable journal has stumbledninto this pseudo-controversy.nTo set the record straight, sincen1955, when Dr. King submitted hisndissertation, “A Comparison of thenConceptions of God in the Thinkingnof Paul Tillich and Henry NelsonnWieman,” not a single reader has evernfound any nonattributed or misattributednquotations, misleading paraphrases,nor thoughts borrowed withoutndue scholarly reference in any of itsn343 pages. If you or anyone else havenevidence to the contrary, it should benpresented.n—Jon WestlingnPresident ad interimnBoston UniversitynBoston, MAnA full discussion of this matter can benfound on page 25.nnnOn ‘National Service’nI have read Theodore Pappas’s reviewnessay (November 1990) in which henadvocates compulsory national servicenand find his proposal quite unconvincingnfor the following reasons.nFirst, despite the inclusion of militaryn”boot camp,” it is not likely that thencourts would uphold the constitutionalitynof the law because of the “windowndressing” nature of the training. Second,nthe option to serve the remainingnnine months in a military service withnreal warriors is quite impractical. Thencurrent organization of all of the armednservices requires high degrees of professionalismnand motivation, and then”nine-month soldier” would not onlynbe completely useless to the militarynunits to which he was assigned butnwould degrade unit performance asnwell. Third, compliance would be difficultnto impossible to enforce. Fourth, innthis age of burgeoning deficits, wherenwould the funding come from? Andnfifth, before making claims that thenpublic supports compulsory nationalnservice, a great deal more surveying andnanalysis needs to be done. If my estimatenis correct, the proverbial “man onnthe street” supports it for his neighbor’snson, not for his own.nIn conclusion I must say that I amnsurprised that an editor of Chroniclesnwould make a proposal so redolent ofnoutright fascism.n— Robert C. WhittennCupertino, CAnMr. Pappas Replies:nNo careful reader could conclude thatnmy essay advocates national service.nInstead, it points out both the pros andncons of many of the plans recentlynproposed in Congress and then offers ansketch of what might be the least harmfulnand most beneficial plan of nationalnservice that could be enacted. It evennacknowledges that the type of nationalnservice most likely to be approved is anpork-barrel serving of what Brucen