Anecdotes are just that - but sometimes can be illustrative. MLK is revered in the United States - even the most ardent right-wingers will put him up as a role model for "good" race relation handling. Yet the criticisms levied today against groups like BLM are identical in phrasing, tone, and vitriol, as what MLK faced in his life. I think that's an interesting anecdote.

Since MLK is revered, people will say that his accomplishments were ultimately successful. There are few to none legal discriminations of the races in the US - in fact anti-discrimination is protected. Yet, we realize now, with more decades of research and understanding that ending "systemic" racism isn't as simple as passing a civil rights bill or formalizing the definition of a "hate crime". So it's not that the specific place that King gave a speech is hallowed ground. But rather that his work was ultimately incomplete (at least partially because he was assassinated).

> Re: open debate suppression

The venn diagram between people that are "self censoring" by attempting to boycott say Dave Chapelle, and the people that are attempting (and succeeding) in banning "Critical race theory" has no overlap.

There are two foundational differences.

One:

Those attempting to stifle free speech on campuses by banning what they deem hate speech are using private institutional policies in the open market. There is no law being passed that's preventing Dave Chapelle from doing standup comedy. Just private citizens exercising their own free speech rights and influencing private entities into deeming their free speech more important than Chapelle's.

On the other hand, "critical race theory" bans are sweeping the nation with republican legislatures introducing into LAW the requirement for teachers and librarians to err on the side of the preferences of individual parents rather than educators or academics with regards to what "facts" they teach to students.

Two:

By the paradox of intolerance, tolerance and "tolerance of intolerance" are meaningfully different concepts. While they get categorized as the same by bad faith actors, they actually have opposite goals. Arguably, intolerance of intolerance is itself in the service of tolerance. Likewise, restriction of free speech in the interest of stifling hate speech IS meaningfully different from restriction of free speech in the interest of PROMOTING hate speech. Every other Western/developed country besides the United States believes this. Every country from Germany to the UK to Canada accepts some limitations on the exercise of free speech in the interest of resisting hatred. These are not based on feelings or emotions - they are based on statistics with regards to hate crimes, bullying, suicides amongst marginalized groups, etc.

On the other hand, the bans on critical race theory are based on no data or scientific basis - the very term is completely mis-defined as a niche Graduate-level academic discourse is used to describe absolutely ANY open debate of the past horrors of racism, discrimination, or slavery. The categorization of "critical race theory" as racist against whites, used to bully or discriminate against whites, or any of the sort is not backed in any evidence or research. It's purely an emotional reaction based on how the dominant culture feels about being asked to confront it's past. Which, incidentally, is exactly what Martin Luther King said is necessary even in a peaceful civil rights movement. The very acknowledgement of racist feelings and histories is uncomfortable. And the dominant white judeo-christian protestant conservative culture in the US does not deal well with self-reflection or discomfort, and instead lashes outward. And they have the power to take meaningful action as part of this.