Why We Can’t Wait: Chapter 5 Summary & Analysis

In a letter addressed to eight white clergymen who condemned his activism in Birmingham, Dr. King notes that he rarely responds to criticism but that, because he respects these clergymen, he’s willing to respond to their statement. He begins by explaining why, exactly, he has come to Birmingham in the first place, since the clergymen criticized him for being an “outsider.” He is, he says, the president of the SCLC, which has ties with organizations throughout the South—including in Birmingham. As such, Dr. King and his associates were invited to come to Birmingham by local activists. 

On a broader level, Dr. King has come to Birmingham because the city is full of “injustice.” He sees it as one of his duties to respond to injustice wherever he finds it, comparing his work to that of early Christians who traveled far and wide to spread the Christian gospel. Furthermore, Dr. King believes strongly in the “interrelatedness of all communities,” meaning that what happens in Birmingham will have an impact on his own community in Atlanta. 

Dr. King points out that the white clergymen condemn the Birmingham demonstrations without condemning the conditions that made such measures necessary in the first place. While he agrees that it’s too bad the city is engulfed in turmoil, he argues that the real shame is that the city’s racism has left the Black community with no choice but to protest and demonstrate against inequality.

There is no denying that Birmingham is full of racism and inequality. Dr. King mentions the city’s segregation, its police brutality against Black people, its unjust legal proceedings, and the many unsolved bombings of Black homes and churches—all clear illustrations of why nonviolent direct action is necessary in Birmingham.

Certain leaders of the Black community in Birmingham have already tried to negotiate with influential white business figures. Unfortunately, though, the white business owners didn’t hold up their end of the deal. Although they promised to remove racist signs and work toward desegregation, they quickly went back to their racist ways. It therefore became quite clear that the Black community needed to take action through nonviolent direct action.

Dr. King assures the white clergymen that he and his associates took painstaking measures to ensure that the participants in åtheir movement would remain peaceful. Although the clergymen might think that negotiation would be a better way to fight segregation than direct action, Dr. King clarifies that the goal of the demonstrations has been to force the situation to a crisis, at which point negotiation will finally be possible. Until that point, though, negotiation is useless because the white people in power have shown themselves to be uninterested in making meaningful changes to society.

Some of Dr. King’s critics have suggested that the movement has come at a bad time. They think that Dr. King and his associates should have waited to see what the incoming city government would do to address racism in Birmingham. But Dr. King knows that Boutwell has the same segregationist ideas as the previous administration, so waiting for him to act would be futile. What’s more, civil rights leaders know from experience that oppressors never willingly give freedom to the oppressed—rather, the oppressed have to demand it. To wait for white authorities to act, then, would be to wait forever.

Dr. King is very conscious of the fact that the movement decided to break the law by practicing civil disobedience. He does not take this matter lightly, especially since critics might wonder how he and his associates argue for obeying some laws—like the 1954 Supreme Court decision to outlaw school segregation—while breaking others. There is, however, a difference between just and unjust laws. Dr. King argues that breaking a just law is immoral, whereas breaking an unjust law is a “moral responsibility.” 

Dr. King considers how, exactly, it’s possible to deem a law unjust. Any law, he says, that “uplifts human personality” is moral and just—any law that “degrades human personality” is immoral and unjust. Given that segregation is based on forcing Black Americans into a false position of “inferiority,” it is clearly unjust. Segregation laws are also unjust because Black Americans haven’t been fairly included in the democratic process—and yet, they’re forced to obey these laws, which “degrade” their freedom.

Dr. King has some criticisms of his own to voice. He condemns white moderates for their passive acceptance of racial inequality. In a way, these white moderates pose more of a threat to Black Americans than racist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan, since their complacency enables racist laws to live on for years on end. White moderates are dedicated to order instead of justice. Dr. King and his fellow activists, on the other hand, are willing to disrupt order as a way of exposing injustice. 

Dr. King also takes issue with the white clergymen’s suggestion that his methods are “extreme.” In reality, the SCLC falls somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, between those who have become complacent and those who have joined the Black nationalist movements that practice “bitterness and hatred.” The wait for freedom has been so long that, if Black people are kept from practicing nonviolent direct action, Dr. King is sure they will join the ranks of more extreme causes.

Dr. King is disappointed in white Christians—especially ministers. He mistakenly thought they would—as Christians—understand and support the cause. He thought they would preach the gospel of racial equality alongside him. And though there have been some white ministers who have done this, there haven’t been nearly enough.

Dr. King reminds the white clergymen of a time when the church acted as an agent of change. He doesn’t see the contemporary church in this light—instead, he calls the present-day church an “archdefender of the status quo.” If the Christian church continues to stand idly by in the face of injustice, he warns, it will lose followers and fail to attract young people, many of whom have expressed extreme disappointment to Dr. King when he talks to them about the matter.

Although Dr. King hopes that the Christian church will rise to the occasion by supporting the movement in Birmingham, he has confidence that the movement will succeed on its own. The activists in Birmingham will win freedom because freedom itself is written into the very heart of the United States—it is the “sacred heritage” of the nation and the “eternal will of God.”

Before closing, Dr. King notes that white leaders have celebrated the Birmingham police for maintaining order and “preventing violence.” There are two reasons why this idea is misguided. First of all, Dr. King argues that the white clergymen clearly must not have seen the violent and aggressive tactics that the police use against peaceful Black activists, including physical abuse and the refusal of food for detainees in the city jail. Second of all, even if it were true that the police have behaved nonviolently, the fact would remain that they’re working to preserve racist and violent laws. No matter what they do to uphold these laws, then, their behavior isn’t praiseworthy.

Instead of praising the Birmingham police force, Dr. King wishes the white clergymen had praised the Black activists for their courage and restraint in the face of injustice. Someday, these protestors will be the real heroes—not the police officers working to oppress them.

Dr. King acknowledges that he has penned a very long letter, but he adds that he is, after all, sitting in jail with nothing else to do but consider the conditions that led to his arrest. He then expresses a desire to meet the white clergymen who criticized him and his fellow activists. He doesn’t want to talk to them as an activist or organizer, but simply as a fellow clergyman. Hoping for a future of equality and togetherness, he signs the letter, “Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood, Martin Luther King, Jr.”