Talk:Will Herberg

Martin Luther King

This text was cut from the article on the grounds that it was a libelous and uncited claim. In reality, it is clearly cited, and it seems to be true.

== Opposition to the Civil Rights Movement ==

In his September 7, 1965 National Review article, "'Civil Rights' and Violence: Who Are the Guilty Ones?", Herberg wrote:

For years now, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and his associates have been deliberately undermining the foundations of internal order in this country. With their rabble-rousing demagoguery, they have been cracking the “cake of custom” that holds us together. With their doctrine of “civil disobedience,” they have been teaching hundreds of thousands of Negroes — particularly the adolescents and the children — that it is perfectly alright to break the law and defy constituted authority if you are a Negro-with-a-grievance; in protest against injustice. And they have done more than talk. They have on occasion after occasion, in almost every part of the country, called out their mobs on the streets, promoted “school strikes,” sit-ins, lie-ins, in explicit violation of the law and in explicit defiance of the public authority. They have taught anarchy and chaos by word and deed — and, no doubt, with the best of intentions — and they have found apt pupils everywhere, with intentions not of the best. Sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind.

Google Books doesn't seem to have this article, but it does have Up from Communism by John P. Diggins available as a Limited Preview[1]. It says on page 362 that 'A year later, when the Watts riots erupted in 1965, Herberg singled out King and his followers: "If you are looking for those ultimately responsible for the murder, arson, and looting in Los Angeles, look no further than them: they are the guilty ones, these apostles of 'non-violence.'"'. It's currently out of proportion to the rest of the stuff in the article, which is horribly lopsided (all he did was invent a phrase?), but a few sentences on this deserves a spot in a complete Wikipedia-sized biography of this man.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, well, I'm sorry about that. I just saw that statement and that it didn't appear to be cited. My apologies. Thingg^⊕⊗ 15:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn straight. Get your facts right next time. Green t-shirt (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No academic degrees?

I haven't read the source cited (as I have no access to the article) but it is a huge claim to say that a respected scholar falsified all of their college degrees. It seems highly unlikely that an academic could have decades of productive and highly publicized work within higher education without ever having achieved a college degree. Herberg wrote foundational texts in sociology, how likely is it that Columbia University wouldn't know that he was claiming to have a PhD but was never enrolled in a graduate program?

Is there publicly available evidence that would confirm this claim?69.125.134.86 (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The claim (he had no degree) is explicit in the leading scholarly journal in American history. Send me your email (to [email protected]) and I will send a complete copy of the article. Columbia U is a huge university with many tens of thousands of alumni from many departments, and there was no reason for anyone to suspect a problem. Rjensen (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Pro-forma COI declaration

A brief note to connect my real life identity with my WP handle since I am listing a book which I co-edited in the reading section. I haven't seen five cents of royalties on it and don't ever expect to, if that matters somehow. —Tim Davenport /// Carrite (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)