Bad idea. Calling it civil rights day just confuses what we're celebrating. Today anytime something happens that someone doesn't like, there's a good chance that the offended party will call it a violation of his civil rights. It's too watered down.

Dr. King is such an icon that there is no watering down (not yet) of what he stood for, simple fairness and justice in the way the government treats its citizens. Perhaps its unfair that naming the day after him when many others joined him in the cause, but he personifies the issues for many Americans and deserves to be so honored.

I agree with everybody else who posted. This is horrible idea. MLK was at least one of the greatest if not the greatest Civil Rights leader of the 1950's and 60's. To dismiss, his contribution in favor of promoting the contribution of others is wrong. Black History Month allows us to acknowledge the sacrifices of Malcolm X, Muhhamed Ali, Medger Evers, Rosa Parks and hundreds of other very important civil rights figures.


Noah

Make the case, then we'll respond.

How about "I Have a Scheme" day? thats just as stupid.

John Jenkins wrote:

Dr. King is such an icon that there is no watering down (not yet) of what he stood for, simple fairness and justice in the way the government treats its citizens.

Alas, this watering down has happened. The campus of Michigan State University, where I work, is currently festooned with banners that have Dr. King's picture and the tagline "celebrating diversity". Now, I have nothing against diversity, but remembering King for diversity is like remembering Gandhi for vegetarianism.

So perhaps it wouldn't be so bad to remind people exactly why we are celebrating a great man's life. Maybe "Martin Luther King, Jr. Civil Rights Day"?

Bad idea. Whatever King's failings, the ideas he talked about were good, American -- dare I say, conservative -- ideas. What passes for the "civil rights" moveement now is corrupt, evil, and anti-American.

Let's stick with King day.

I’ll put forth the pro-argument. Excluding Christmas, MLK is the only widely recognized holiday (all schools are off) that is dedicated to one man. Columbus Day is a silly one also, but it has none of the acclaim of MLK day. MLK was a great man, but is he hands down the greatest man in American history? Calling it Civil Rights Day would bring the holiday back into the range of our other major holidays, which generally celebrate entire groups and events. MLK would still be specially recognized by virtue of the holiday’s date.

Leave it as MLK day.

Rework the NFL schedule so that the Super Bowl is played on that day. That way it will be a holiday for everyone, not just schools and the Post Office.

David's third point seems to me to be the best argument in favor of keeping it MLK Day. That he was too independent to be pigeonholed or co-opted by anybody speaks volumes of him.

Why would we need a day to celebrate other individuals and groups that contributed to the Civil Rights' movement? We have a whole month for that. I don't know how many of you were in school after February became Black History Month, but in that month we learn of the many efforts from people all across Ameica, but especially in the South who challenged and fought against the racism that existed in this country. We don't need to dilute the MLK holiday to celebrate these people. We have a forum for celebrating them. There is no doubt the effect that this brilliant and noble man had on our country. Through peaceful means he threatened a system that had existed for over a hundred years and he forced both local and national leaders to accept the truth that in the eyes of G-d we are all equal and we should be all equal in the eyes of man. We need to celebrate this man, just Christians need to celebrate Jesus and we need to celebrate Washington and Lincoln.

Noah

Back in the 70s a guy tried to push the idea of National National Day, a National Holiday set aside to commemorate all of the other national holidays, with the elimination of all other national holidays, except for National National Day. I like the idea because it allows whom ever to celebrate whatever and whomever they want.

Generic days ("Civil Rights Day", "Presidents Day", etc.) have the drawback of being too general; they can "mean" just about anything you want them to, and end up losing their meaning.

On the other hand, specifc days ("Washington's Birthday", "MLK Day") have the opposite drawback: anything that you don't like about the person can be a reason to protest. (For example: "How can we celebrate Washington's birthday when he was a slaveowner?")

As a possible solution, why not associate both the person and the reason with the day, e.g., "MLK Civil Rights Day" or "Washington/Founding of America Day"? (I know those names are awfully cumbersome, but I bet with some thought others could come up with much better ones.) We'd get to honor the person without losing sight of the reason.

Because it's not Civil Rights Day.

That's way too bland and worse, self-congratulatory. We need to remember that it took a lot of courage - the real kind that involves genuine danger - to change things in the US. King's enemies weren't just a few redneck sheriffs. They included huge numbers of Americans, including many who were (and some who still are) powerful and influential.

King stands, in my mind, for those, most of them unknown to us, whose bravery helped change things. MLK Day not only celebrates civil rights, it honors heroism in the face of evil.

Then again, we could be like the Canadians and treat January 16th the same way they treat their “Civic Day.” In Canada, the first Monday in August is generally a holiday in honor of John Graves Simcoe, who was appointed the first Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada in 1791, but since the Canadians can’t seem to agree on anything, in the areas that don’t care for the British the day is simply known as “Civic Day.”

Then again, we should never try to be like the Canadians. It was silly of me to propose that we do . . .

Sometimes, once in awhile, an individual comes along who makes an enormous difference in the world. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King jr. was such an individual. To call it Civil Rights Day minimizes the power of the individual to motivate, to inspire and to change the world. I know there are those who want everything to be "Group Day", but the fact is, "Groups" have generally not changed the world. Yes, it takes more than one person, but it is "groups" following a charismatic leader who change the world. It is important for people to honor this man as he had the vision we followed. It is also important to remember that one person can change the world. He did it for good, but some do it for evil. Hitler did for evil. We need to understand the power one individual can wield both to use as inspiration and to use as a caution. We neglect the power of the individual at our own peril. There is great power in the individual and our children need to know that as well as beware of that. He also was a religious man who used the basic tenants of Christianity to change the world as one man did over 2000 years ago. It is important to remember that churches of many religions responded to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King jr.' call for equality. "Civil Rights Day" neglects the very real power of the individual for good and ill and also, of religion for good as well as ill. Religion takes a lot of hits for causing evil. It is vitally important to remember the many forces for good religion has motivated. After all, the Abolistionist's, prime agitators against slavery were the "Religious Right" of their day who refused to accept slavery based on religious reasons and agitated incessantly to end it based on the view that slavery was an abomination to God. In large part, we can credit to them the Civil War and the end of slavery. It is important for all of us to know that we just might be able to change the world and to remember that one charismatic individual may change the world for evil as well as good. We must acknowledge the power of the individual. If we do not, we are not being true to history and our next "great" person may not try to effect change as "What can one person do?" mentality could just make them not even try. Conversely, if one person can do what the Rev. Dr. King did, we also need to remember to be careful whom we follow. The next guy may not be remembered for his greatness and good, but for his evil and destruction. Honoring "the group" teaches us nothing. Honoring the individual motivating the group, teaches us many valuable lessons and is far more true to the historical fact.

Actually, when MLK day was created the government eliminated Lincoln's birthday and combined it with Washingto's birthday. That's how we lost holidays named after people, even if, in law, it's still Washington's birthday.

But why should the federal government be in the business of creating holidays at all? Why not let employers give employees a few more days off at their discression? Or is it that, from a communal perspective, it's convenient to create certain common holidays?

"Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner."

If you were at my dinner table today and said this, I'd ask you to leave, immediately. Many of us still are mourning his tragic death, even as we celebrate his life.

"MLK was a great leader, but his views on civil rights and other things were and remain very controversial."

Whereas George Washington's views on slavery and other things neither were nor are controversial?

Mac

Memorial Day is not the day to re-argue the merits of the Vietnam War or any other war, but to honor our war dead. Yom Kippur is not the day to debate whether Israel is unduly provocative in the Middle East, but instead to recognize the day as the most sacred holy day for those who observe it. Today is not the day to debate the appropriateness of the honor we have bestowed on this man. Prof. Bernstein evidently believes it’s the perfect day to do so, and I can imagine his justifications for doing so. I respectfully disagree.

What the heck does "Civil Rights" mean these days? It means as much as "judicial activist," shifting meanings from speaker to speaker. Heck, even David Duke claims to fight for "civil rights."

King day is a celbration not just of King, but of the whole civil rights movement.

What amazes me of King and other civil rights giants is their patriotism. It's easy to be patriotic when your country is treating you well. It's darned hard when your country treats you like dirt.

Instead of starting a civil war which, if any group in the US ever had the right to, blacks in the South did before the 1960's, the Civil Rights movement fought through the American system. They saw beyond the lynchings and the dogs to see the greatness of the United States.

That took vision. That took foresight. That took patriotism. Others played critical roles, but King became the leader.

Give credit where credit is due.

I actually think this is a good idea, but is neither politically correct nor really necessary. MLK was a great man. He was a leader, but also rode a wave created by many other people.
Edison was a great man. Frederick Douglass. A few other people in our history were "great" as well.

To those saying the balance of (black) civil rights leaders get to be honored by black history month, I like Morgan Freeman's comments:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10482634/

P.S. Why isn't the Fourth of July a celebration of civil rights?

P.S. Why isn't the Fourth of July a celebration of civil rights?

Because slavery was still legal in every state on July 4, 1776?

Dr. King in my opinion stands above converting his birthday into a generalized "civil rights" day. I guess it depends on when you were born and when you became politically and socially aware. No, I believe that Martin Luther King's birthday should be celebrated on par with our Nation's other great leaders.

There is a lunatic person posting on another board who is compulsively fixated on his distain for Jesse Jackson and is always writing, it Dr. King were alive, JJ wouldn't be anything. Frankly, while that is likely true, it has no relevance in my mind. Actually, statements like that are typical of the mindless drivel that pervades some parts of the Internet. Needless to say, JJ would not have risen to prominence if MLK had not been assassinated that day in April 1968, but to me, linking his memory to JJ demeans Dr. King's greatness as a leader and a visionary.

"Civil Rights" day also suffers from one of the same (minor) problems that affects "Happy Holidays." In order to be broader and (less controversial?), we water down the meaning and the aesthetic impact of the holiday until it's a bland mush. "Civil Rights day" means everything and nothing; "President's day," at least, refers to a set of number of specific individuals.

Seems like small things but I argue these sorts of factors matter. MLK day keeps attention focused on specific events, tragedies, and triumphs. If your kid asked you about "Civil Rights day," wouldn't that story be a harder one to tell
(and less effective)?

Some Guy decisively resolves the matter in favor of retaining MLK Day.

Heh, in Utah it is called "Civil Rights Day" as it will eventually be called everything a hundred years from now. The real problem with MLK day is that it comes so soon after the concentration of holidays during the winter months. I therefore propose we change Christmas to July 25.

"Civil Rights Day" is impossibly anodyne. But your point about MLK day unwisely limits civil rights to a particular era in our recent history is wise. I would prefer a Lincoln-King Day. The Great Emancipator and the Reverend King. That would nicely add some depth to the day and highlight civil rights and race relations as an ongoing theme in our history, and not just the concern of one era.