Marting Luther King, Jr. National Memorial: Paraphrasing vs. Pure Fiction

Washington, DC has welcomed a new memorial, but not without controversy.

The Washington DC Martin Luther King Kr. National Memorial is meant, “to commemorate the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by leading a collaborative funding, design, and construction process in the creation of a memorial to honor his national and international contributions to world peace through non-violent social change” - www.mlkmemorial.org

The memorial’s main statue features two large stones with a single wedge protruding from the center, from which King’s form emerges.

In addition to the depiction of King, the statue features two inscriptions. The first reads, “Out of a mountain of despair, a stone of hope”, derived from his famous “I Have a Dream” speech.

The second inscription on the north side of the monument has caused quite a bit of controversy. It reads, “I was a drum major for justice, peace and righteousness”. This inscription is a paraphrase from King’s drum major sermon of 1968. The original from which the paraphrase is derived is:

Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice, say that I was a drum major for peace. I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not matter.

The decision on behalf of the memorial’s sculptor, Lei Yixin and the inscription carver, Nick Benson, to keep the inscription brief and succinct has been met with adversity from Maya Angelou (she thinks it makes King sound like “an arrogant twit”), the Washington Post’s Friday editorial, "The MLK Jr. memorial's monumental misquote , and the Post’s Rachel Manteuffel's article, "Martin Luther King a drum major? I don't think so."

Ed Jackson Jr., the executive architect fort he new memorial, says that he stands by the project’s decision to use the paraphrase and there are not plans to change it due to the recent complaints.

This brings to my mind several questions:

1. Who has the authority to paraphrase?
2. Where is the line between paraphrasing and changing the meaning altogether, and was that the case here?
3.  In light of a public outcry, who has the authority to make a significant change to a public monument? 

To me, I believe that the paraphrase strayed too far from the original speech and mutated the meaning. To ascribe this phrase and all of its innuendo to Martin Luther King, Jr. is unwarranted.

However, I do not think that you can change a monument, a public work of art, without the artist or architect’s consent. Since the design team is remaining firm in their decision, I think that at this point that matter will have to be laid to rest.