Leonard Pitts column of today rightly salutes Coretta Scott King for preserving and developing her late husband's legacy.
But, he also spares no bones in pointing out her feet of clay in simultaneously tarnishing his legacy. How? By serving Mammon as well as civil rights, Pitts says.
It's the money-grubbing of the King family, including and beginning with Coretta herself, including personal experience details.
Pitts' comments on the flip.
I interviewed Coretta Scott King once. It cost $5,000.
In 1985, I approached the Martin Luther King Center in Atlanta seeking both that interview and permission to use old audio of Coretta's husband for a radio documentary. I was told it would cost five grand for the audio rights and it was made clear that unless that money was paid, there would be no interview.
The ethical constraints of a radio production house are different from those of a news organization; we made the deal. I didn't like it, but I rationalized it by telling myself it was an honor to contribute to the upkeep of a legendary legacy. ...
(Coretta Scott King shielded the King legacy) against racism, pessimism and defeatism. She was less successful against commercialism.
And I don't mean the piddling $5,000. That's a small symptom of the larger malady. I refer you to the King family's 1993 lawsuit against USA Today for reprinting the I Have A Dream speech and their subsequent licensing of King's image and voice for use in television commercials, one of which placed him between Homer Simpson and Kermit the Frog. Then there's the attempt to sell his personal papers for $20 million. Perhaps most galling was the family's demand to be paid to allow construction of a King monument on the Washington Mall. ...
Coretta Scott King founded the King Center and it has always been controlled by the family. So it seems plain that she approved this money grubbing or at least tolerated it. And as a result, her kids have lost their minds.
Now, I don't know how poor Coretta was when Martin was killed. But, I have no doubt that, back in 1968, all she had to do was ask and her basic needs -- and much more -- would all have been met. And, not just in 1968. In 1972, or 1976, or 1980, or 1990.
Maybe the sons will change their ways, but Pitts isn't very sanguine about it. Nor, given the comments at the end of his column, is he willing to support the King Center until they do change.