Author’s Note: In several of my recent articles, I’ve incorporated direct interactions with artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots. Looked at several years from now, these may seem superfluous. However, we are in the midst of a technological tipping point. We see this in faculty guides from the Chronicle of Higher Education and the University of Texas at Austin’s collaboration with Grammarly. The challenge is to keep the human in the loop. What would that look like in this essay, not by substituting the chatbot for my writing but by using it as an interlocutor? The reality is that large language models (LLMs) have a center-left bias; it becomes instructive in developing one’s skillset—in anticipating how that would be extended to instruction, evaluating research, and the many endeavors we encounter within the academy. This particular speech seems a rather easy exercise of reconciling the rhetoric of MLK Jr. and Donald Trump. It wasn’t, but it can be done. To that extent, this imagined speech is an illustration of how an LLM can write what appears to be an ideological anomaly. And, if a chatbot can reach that plateau, can we expect real humans, in and out of the academy, to do the same?
Once again, in light of ongoing debates, we ought to be considering Martin Luther King Jr.’s and Donald Trump’s leadership styles and their aspirations for the country. After all, they share the same day in 2025: Inauguration Day and Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Perhaps it is a mere coincidence. Or perhaps it is symbolic of the change in historical context that has occurred in the United States. Compared to the civil rights landscape of 1963, the nation’s current civil rights issues have transformed significantly over the past sixty years. While King’s moral message would likely remain substantially the same, the practice of governance is now shaped by entirely new mandates. Economic, immigration, and other national issues have evolved over time, energizing Trump’s message and aligned mandates for governance.
The question we should ask is whether the superficial aspects of King’s and Trump’s lives that seemingly parallel one another—assassination and near-assassination, being investigated by the FBI, lawfare used against both, and being kind of a Republican—mask a closer affinity in issues involving governance.
In foreign affairs, King took issue with U.S. involvement in Vietnam, while Trump, despite partisan fact-checking, took issue with the U.S. in Iraq. In domestic issues, King sought—and Trump seeks—to save America. King focused on saving America’s soul, and Trump on making America great again. King’s interest extended beyond changing the focus on race to one of character, taking up economic concerns as well. Trump, likewise, embraces economic concerns, even though his approach to how we see each other finds a different foundation than King’s.
The similarities and differences between these two leaders are widely debated. Markus Batchelor, national political director of People For the American Way, describes this day as a “sad convergence of two events that couldn’t be more different in tone and mission.” He adds:
While MLK Day is a celebration, it’s always been a day of recommitment, acknowledging the work is not yet finished. Donald Trump’s second inauguration will be a raw reminder of that fact. . . A country that can, on the same day, observe a national holiday honoring a champion for freedom and hand the presidency to an authoritarian who traffics in white nationalism is a country still at war with its identity.
The historical context and interpretation may have shifted more than what Batchelor projects. Perhaps the war with identity would be framed differently by both King and Trump. Likely alternatives would trade the focus on race to class, asking for an embrace of racelessness. Or colorblindness, as podcaster and opinion columnist Coleman Hughes, has argued:
If you want to fight racism, remove race from public policy … and if you want to fight injustice, do so based on class. And by definition, class policies will disproportionately benefit Blacks and Hispanics because they are disproportionately likely to be poor. That was the position of the Civil Rights Movement.
As an astute observer of the changing context of America, African-American social theorist Shelby Steele goes further in how we ought to understand what individual agency now calls for:
The oppression of black Americans is over with. Yes, there are exceptions. Racism won’t go away — it is endemic to the human condition, just like stupidity. But the older form of oppression is gone … Before it was a question of black unity and protest; no more, it is now up to us as individuals to get ahead. Our problem now is not racism, our problem is freedom.
[RELATED: A Faculty Guide to AI Pedagogy and a Socratic Experiment]
An imagined speech for the day of convergence
I struggled with two chatbots, Gemini and ChatGPT, to construct a speech that could find a common foundation for both King and Trump. My struggle with these chatbot replies implies a liberal bias as well as a bias of equating Inauguration Day to simply elections and politics. Apparently, the chatbots have a guardrail against discussing elections and the politics surrounding them.
There is value in seeing how we can funnel a vision of King and Trump sharing a common ground, and although an AI reply may or may not be plausible in America’s fractured interests, it may serve as a starting point. Below is a lightly edited speech authored by the Gemini chatbot for January 20, 2025:
A New Dawn for Equality
In the years since Dr. King’s [I Have a Dream] speech, we have made significant strides toward equality. Yet, we must acknowledge that challenges remain. Well-intentioned efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion have, in some cases, led to unintended consequences. Programs designed to level the playing field have sometimes created new divisions, and a focus on superficial diversity has overshadowed the pursuit of true equality of opportunity.
The recent Supreme Court decision on affirmative action marks a turning point. It reinforces the principle that individuals should be treated as individuals, not as members of a particular group. This decision reflects the heart of Dr. King’s dream: a society where every person is empowered to succeed based on their merits, not the circumstances of their birth. It is a step toward realizing the vision of a colorblind society where everyone has the chance to achieve their fullest potential.
As we look to the future, we must remember that the common aspirations we share transcend party lines or political affiliations. Whether we are inspired by Dr. King’s dream or the aspirations of leaders who call for a return to national pride and unity, we all strive for a nation where every individual is treated with dignity and respect, and where hard work, determination, and character are the true measures of success.
We must move forward with a renewed commitment to the principles of freedom, opportunity, and merit. A society where race, ethnicity, and gender do not determine one’s potential, but where the strength of one’s character and the results of one’s efforts shape their future. This is the vision that unites us as Americans.
This does not mean ignoring the very real challenges faced by marginalized communities. Rather, it means that we must tackle these challenges with policies that provide equal opportunities for all, regardless of background. We must ensure that education is accessible to every child, so that all may have the tools they need to succeed. We must create economic opportunities that allow individuals to lift themselves and their families out of poverty, and dismantle the systemic barriers that continue to perpetuate inequality.
Let us honor Dr. King’s legacy by striving for a future where every individual, regardless of race, has the opportunity to reach their full potential. Let us build a nation that not only promises equality for all, but delivers on that promise through unity, hard work, and a commitment to the content of one’s character.
In this new dawn, we have the power to build a stronger, fairer nation—one where every American can achieve the American Dream. Let us renew our commitment to that dream, not as a political slogan, but as a shared vision for our future.
[ChatGPT] This revision incorporates a shared vision for a colorblind society, rooted in individual merit, while acknowledging the importance of addressing inequality through equal opportunity. It also reflects the aspirations of both Martin Luther King Jr. and the leadership ideals of Donald Trump, emphasizing unity, opportunity, and national pride.
[RELATED: AI’s Tale of Campus Ghost Folklore]
I could say yes to this shared vision, but many would likely object.
Consider two criticisms of those who insist on equity over equality. Equity, in this context, holds onto the very racial mindset that King wanted to overcome.
The experience of Tabia Lee at De Anza Community College illustrates the common failing of equity in the form of university “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) offices. Her colleague, Ronald Kleinman, at De Anza, summarized how her vision of DEI was incompatible with the narrower expectations of her own department:
Dr. Lee’s vision of ‘diversity’ included ALL groups on campus instead of only the short list of ‘pre-approved’ minorities … During her too-brief tenure here, she reached out to, among others, local American Indian nations who had been omitted in De Anza’s official Land Acknowledgement statement, to religious groups including Jewish and Islamic students, and to the various subcomponents within our large Asian community.
I served as co-lead of the Holocaust Remembrance Day event she organized, and was dismayed to discover the negative feedback Dr. Lee received for her work on that event because ‘Jews were simply one segment of the white oppressors’, and one of the speakers she recruited came from an organization that dared to equate hatred of Israel with anti-Semitism … Dr. Lee didn’t precisely line up with all the ‘expected views’ of someone in her position, and the DEI staff ensured she paid the price.
It is not uncommon to see how DEI bureaucracy practices lead to anti-Semitism—sometimes inadvertently, sometimes implicitly, and sometimes explicitly. Other DEI practices have failed to align with constitutional principles by including mandated diversity statements and mandated use of pronouns.
The issue is whether DEI principles can be reformed. Pernicious and unconstitutional practices have too often flowed from bureaucracies into universities and government. If reform is impractical, abolishing such bureaucracies would make sense.
Chris Rufo is one of the most ardent and effective advocates for eliminating a permanent DEI bureaucracy in universities and now in the federal government. His argument is straightforward:
[The DEI bureaucracy] is the result of actions by two presidents: Barack Obama, who issued Executive Order 13583, which laid the groundwork for many national ‘diversity’ initiatives; and Joseph Biden, who signed Executive Orders 13985 and 14035, which entrenched DEI principles into every federal department and routed billions of dollars toward advancing this ideology throughout American society.
The principle underlying this course of action is simple: America doesn’t need a permanent DEI bureaucracy. America needs an effective administration that treats its citizens in a fair manner without regard to race. This is broadly popular, morally just, and, with this administration, achievable as a public policy for the first time in a generation.
While there is no exact estimate of how much the federal government in 2024 spends on this equity framework—observed in the number of DEI staff and activities—it is considerable.
While Trump sees abolishing DEI in federal agencies as resetting equality as the norm, it is unclear whether King would reach the same conclusion even with the pernicious results of DEI. That is the key question in converging Inauguration Day and Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
Looking back to King’s and Trump’s imagined speech we can understand how a possible shared symbolism remains a step too far for many. Others, like myself, find that we have climbed a good distance up the mountain to save America and make it great again.
My imagined Martin Luther King Jr. might see the context for saving America’s soul in 2025 as having substantially changed. If so, there could be a creative dialogue between the spirit of King and the presence of Trump. Much remains left unsaid to embrace such a possibility. Overreach and racial equity stand in the way of a moral code that makes sense in today’s historical context.
Hail to January 20, 2025.
Image: Trump Meets King by Joe Nalven
