Let me start by pointing out that I am a politically moderate, white male.

Just about the only point of David Garlock's piece, "Historical man not worth vast attention" (SN 01/19), that I agree with is his assertion that we should not give our leaders a free pass.

However, if he took a closer look, I think he would find that many of our founding fathers had similar character flaws to those he ascribes to Martin Luther King Jr.

None of the things he accuses King of are actually crimes: That is where we draw the line — since he asked.

We are too quick to forget that our historical leaders were human, the same as the rest of us. This should not take away from what they achieved, but must not be ignored.

Although I have my own doubts as to the effects of affirmative action, I think if Garlock knew what he was talking about, he would realize that the majority of what he hates about the civil rights movement came after King was killed.

The main thrust of the mainstream civil rights movement in King's day was not forced association, but an end to government laws that regulated association — namely the Jim Crow laws that kept blacks either segregated in or banned from public areas. Blacks at the time were not allowed to go certain places or to sit in certain seats.

This sounds eerily like the sort of government control that Garlock seems to be scared of, yet he seems to hate a man who fought against it.

If anyone wants to really know the scope of what the government is allowed to do, I would suggest taking a constitutional law class rather than reading the letters of right-wing nuts.

Nicholas Ellis
political science and criminal justice senior