You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.
This part of the letter is especially meaningful in our time as we decide how to address ongoing racial tension. Many states including my home state of Virginia are attempting to minimize such tension by putting restrictions on teaching the racial history of our country. Here is the opening paragraph of Executive Order No. 1 by Governor Glenn Youngkin:
By virtue of the authority vested in me as Governor, I hereby issue this Executive Order to ensure excellence in K-12 public education in the Commonwealth by taking the first step on Day One to end the use of inherently divisive concepts, including Critical Race Theory, and to raise academic standards. (Click here for the full text of Executive Order No. 1)
Throughout this Executive Order, the Governor mentions “inherently divisive concepts” in ways that could be applied to any teaching that includes the role that race played in the foundations of our country, the impact of racism on both individual attitudes and societal systems, and the ongoing legacy and reality of systemic racism today. Teaching consistent with this Executive Order may minimize feelings of tension but at the expense of significant growth that comes from addressing the tension. Although Dr. King is quoted out of context in the text of the order, most of his actual words and actions would be considered “inherently divisive” and therefore unsuitable for public education. As we commemorate the 60th anniversary of Dr. King’s landmark letter, it seems to me that the letter from the eight white clergymen that prompted Dr. King’s response has much in common with Virginia Executive Order No. 1. Both are attempts to minimize racial tension, but both miss the point made by today’s quote from Dr. King that, “there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.”