Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The arc of the moral universe doesn’t bend itself

In troubled times, one of Martin Luther King Jr.’s most powerful lines may seem passive or even naive. But it’s a call to action.

The arc of the moral universe doesn’t bend itself

"Stone of Hope" statue, Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial, Sunday, January 19, 2014.

(Photo by Nikki Kahn/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s familiar words, inscribed on his monument in Washington, D.C., now raise the question: Is that true?

A moral universe must, by its very definition, span both space and time. Yet where is the justice for the thousands upon thousands of innocent lives lost over the past year — whether from violence between Ukraine and Russia, or toward Israelis or Palestinians, or in West Darfur? Where is the justice for the hundreds of thousands of “disappeared” in Mexico, Syria, Sri Lanka, and other parts of the world? Where is the justice for the billions of people today increasingly bearing the brunt of climate change, suffering from the longstanding polluting practices of other communities or other countries? Is the “arc” bending the wrong way?


It can be tempting to surrender hope, given the enormity of the world’s grief. In contrast to such despair, MLK’s notion of justice was grounded in his religious faith. This understanding of justice grows out of the simple, unyielding conviction that, in the end, good triumphs over evil — right overcomes wrong. But this is not mere wishful thinking, blind to the darker elements of human history and human nature. It instead expresses a vision beyond our current sight.

This faith-based hope provides a perspective beyond a single lifetime, and it is what empowered MLK to continue his fight even when he knew his days might be numbered — even as he became aware of threats against his life. In his final speech — given at a 1968 sanitation workers’ strike the night before he was assassinated in Memphis, Tenn. — MLK prophetically proclaimed, “I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land!”

MLK’s courage in continuing to make public appearances demonstrates that his hope for justice was not grounded in simplistic optimism or a naive sense of inevitability; it was grounded in personal responsibility. MLK’s lesson is clear: The arc of the moral universe bends not from gravity but from the gravitas of our collective struggle to improve our communities, our society, and our world. The arc of the moral universe does not passively bend; it is actively bent. We bend it.

In many ways, we have been bending it. By transforming from a nation with entrenched slavery and complete racial subjugation into one with more freedom (albeit still with major challenges), we have been bending it. By transforming globally from a fractious population that killed tens of millions in world wars into an international community with more sustained stretches without global conflict (albeit again with major challenges), we have been bending it. In viewing the arc beyond our lifetime — in looking across the lengthy span of generations or even centuries — we continue to bend it.

So, as we commemorate Martin Luther King Day—along with a very polarizing Presidential Inauguration Day—let us remain vigilant and hopeful. Let us borrow from MLK’s conviction and courage, as many of us fight to find our own. And let us all remember, especially with the crushing weight of today’s mounting tragedies, that the arc of the moral universe is long — much longer than our lifetime — yet so must be our collective continued commitment to bending this arc toward justice.

This is an adapted version of the author's article that first appeared in the Boston Globe on January 14, 2024.

Dr. Chika O. Okafor (@chikaokafor.bsky.social) is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Founder and CEO of Todaydream, and an incoming Assistant Professor of Law at Northwestern University. Previously, he served as a researcher with the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute at Stanford University.

Read More

Two speech bubbles overlapping each other.

Political outrage is rising—but dismissing the other side’s anger deepens division. Learn why taking outrage seriously can bridge America’s partisan divide.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

Taking Outrage Seriously: Understanding the Moral Signals Behind Political Anger

Over the last several weeks, the Trump administration has deployed the National Guard to the nation’s capital to crack down on crime. While those on the right have long been aghast by rioting and disorder in our cities, pressing for greater military intervention to curtail it, progressive residents of D.C. have tirelessly protested the recent militarization of the city.

This recent flashpoint is a microcosm of the reciprocal outrage at the heart of contemporary American public life. From social media posts to street protests to everyday conversations about "the other side," we're witnessing unprecedented levels of political outrage. And as polarization has increased, we’ve stopped even considering the other political party’s concerns, responding instead with amusement and delight. Schadenfreude, or pleasure at someone else’s pain, is now more common than solidarity or empathy across party lines.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two speech bubbles overlapping.

Recent data shows that Americans view members of the opposing political party overly negatively, leading people to avoid political discourse with those who hold different views.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

How To Motivate Americans’ Conversations Across Politics

Introduction

A large body of research shows that Americans hold overly negative distortions of those across the political spectrum. These misperceptions—often referred to as "Perception Gaps"—make civil discourse harder, since few Americans are eager to engage with people they believe are ideologically extreme, interpersonally hostile, or even threatening or inferior. When potential disagreement feels deeply uncomfortable or dangerous, conversations are unlikely to begin.

Correcting these distortions can help reduce barriers to productive dialogue, making Americans more open to political conversations.

Keep ReadingShow less
Divided American flag

Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson writes on the serious impacts of "othering" marginalized populations and how, together, we must push back to create a more inclusive and humane society.

Jorge Villalba/Getty Images

New Rules of the Game: Weaponization of Othering

By now, you have probably seen the viral video. Taylor Townsend—Black, bold, unbothered—walks off the court after a bruising match against her white European opponent, Jelena Ostapenko. The post-match glances were sharper than a backhand slice. Next came the unsportsmanlike commentary—about her body, her "attitude," and a not-so-veiled speculation about whether she belonged at this level. To understand America in the Trump Redux era, one only needs to study this exchange.

Ostapenko vs. Townsend is a microcosm of something much bigger: the way anti-democratic, vengeful politics—modeled from the White House on down—have bled into every corner of public life, including sports. Turning “othering” into the new national pastime. Divisive politics has a profound impact on marginalized groups. Neither Ostapenko nor Donald Trump invented this playbook, yet Trump and his sycophants are working to master it. Fueled by a sense of grievance, revenge, and an insatiable appetite for division, he—like Ostapenko—has normalized once somewhat closeted attitudes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand blocking someone speaking

The Third Way has recently released a memo stating that the “stampede away from the Democratic Party” is partly a result of the language and rhetoric it uses.

Westend61/Getty Images

To Protect Democracy, Democrats Should Pay Attention to the Third Way’s List of ‘Offensive’ Words

More than fifty years ago, comedian George Carlin delivered a monologue entitled Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television.” It was a tribute to the legendary Lenny Bruce, whose “nine dirty words” performance led to his arrest and his banning from many places.

His seven words were “p—, f—, c—, c———, m———–, and t—.”

Keep ReadingShow less