systems whose ends undermine the promotion of that humanity. King grounds this metaphysical need in the experiential language of “somebodiness.” As he says, “Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The urge for freedom will eventually come.” Moreover, the need for action does not reside entirely with the human beings who directly experience the oppression. Since dynamic interrelatedness means we are all influenced to some degree by the oppression, then total human flourishing cannot come about until this oppression is addressed. Thus, the question that must be engaged in the current situation of educational disparity is: Has the dissatisfaction for the contemporary state of affairs grown to the point that social leaders, particularly African American ones, feel the necessity of taking revolutionary action? Investing in the Advent of a New Age As a society, we are still groaning for the advent of a new age. Surely, progress has been made. Nevertheless, as we have seen, it can also be impeded and reversed. Further, there is no one single action — no “magic bullet” — that will cure all the ills we face. If we are to bring about the coming of an age that recognizes and supports the flourishing of all human beings, then we must not only make a fundamental shift from the old discourse of Enlightenment individualism to one of dynamic interdependence, we must also invest in the transformation of social institutions that are no longer adequate to the task of promoting human progress. We have seen the gains that can be made when we push for change in the realm of legislation. The dismantling of Jim Crow in the last
century should encourage us in our efforts to transform the latest impediment to “somebodiness,” the educational establishment. As King pointed out some 50 years ago, we are not going to realize the promise of human society until we invest in the production of dynamic leaders who can think critically and act responsibly to address the disparities that still hinder us all. Robert Michael Franklin, the tenth president of Morehouse College, argues, “The quality and kind of education of the leaders who will inherit the most powerful positions in society really matters. If they are selfish and myopic, we all will suffer.” He places his hope, as do I, in the necessity of a quality liberal arts education. He says, “The best liberal arts colleges prepare students with broad knowledge and help them discern the commonalities and differences among us... Tackling the big questions of our time will necessitate an excellent liberal arts foundation anchored by a strong moral and ethical identity.” Outside of churches, the schoolhous is the central locus for providing the kind of moral and social education that can form citizens to appreciate our interdependence and stimulate deep thinking about the notion of “the common good.” Thus, quality education is not an option, but a necessity, for African American males, if they are to take their rightful place in a society still yearning to reach its potential. The advocacy of quality education means nothing, however, if it lacks the appropriate investment on the part of all concerned. This is why the superficial, albeit timely, bumper sticker slogan – “Critical Thinking... The Other National Deficit”—was placed prominently at the beginning of this essay. Interestingly, this is an aspect of King’s argument for
social advancement that often gets neglected. In both his Buffalo and Montgomery speeches, however, the subject of financial investment figures quite prominently. In Buffalo he said pointedly. “[W]e have to go down in our pockets and give some money.” He went on to say, “If we are to gain it we have to work for it, we have got to sacrifice for it. We have got to pay for it. We cannot use the excuse any more that we don’t have the money.” A few months later, he echoed the same clarion call, “Freedom has always been an expensive thing. History is a fit testimony to the fact that freedom is rarely gained without sacrifice and self-denial. So we must donate large sums of money to the cause of freedom.” In other words, if our commitment to a new social arrangement is real then it must be accompanied by material investment. It cannot be something that we dismiss as the provenance of the government, educational institutions, or foundations. Investment in the kind of leadership we need must come from us! If we dare invoke the same plea as that found in Brown’s “God Give Us Men,” then we must accept the consequent responsibility to contribute not only our time and concern to the closing of the education gap, as well as developing a new generation of dynamic leadership, but our material resources as well. It would be a tragic indictment on both the self-respect and practical wisdom of the Negro if history reveals that at the height of the twentieth century the Negro spent more for frivolities than for the cause of freedom.
35