Rejection Messages and Organizational Reputation: Research Proposal Draft MSU

Rejection Messages and Organizational Reputation

Josh EmingtonDepartment of Communication

Michigan State UniversityMarch 20, 2011

Abstract

The present research examines rejection letters and their effect on applicants’ opinions of the sending organization. This topic is examined through a quantitative field study of actual applicant reactions. While the study of rejection messages is in its infancy, ample attention has been paid to the delivery of negative messages in general. Results indicate that direct, personal, and positive letters were preferable to their alternatives, while other perceived message factors were insignificant. Failure to send a rejection message was also correlated with a decrease in that firm’s organizational reputation. Exploratory measures on the message medium firms employed indicated practical results and future implications were discussed.

Keywords: negative messages, rejection letters, corporate image, brand, public relations

Paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the COM 815 Organizational Communication Course. Professor: Vernon Miller, Phd.

Correspondence concerning this paper can be sent to Josh Emington, Michigan State University, 633 W. Owen Hall, East Lansing, MI 48825. Email: [email protected]. Phone: 517.977.2284.

mailto:[email protected]

REJECTION AND REPUTATION 2

Rejection Letters and Organizational Reputation

Well over 1.5 million students enter the job market with a new bachelor’s degree annually (U.S.

Dept. of Education, 2011). Given each applies to two positions, we can conservatively estimate

that a minimum of 3 million job rejections occur each year. These organizations spend billions

of dollars managing their reputation and devote equally impressive resources to the selection of

new work candidates. Commonly, all but one of these highly involved individuals will learn of

their rejection in a way that will impact their perceptions of the firm and thus alter their

likelihood to patronize, reapply to, recommend, or otherwise support that organization (Feinburg,

Meoli-Stanton, & Gable, 1996; Waung & Brice, 2000). This most common result of the

exhaustively studied employment interview is applicant rejection which most every individual

has personally experienced (Jablin & Krone, 1984). Practical concerns for competitive

advantages and economic sustainability should be considered by these organizations that produce

an immeasurable mass of reputation altering rejection messages regularly. Each scenario is

assumed to impact the receiving applicant, the company, and the public in a variety of ways,

including the attitudes and intentions of the reader and the reputation or perceived image of the

organization (Aamodt & Peggans, 1988; Fielden & Dulek, 1982; Feinberg, Meoli-Stanton, &

Gable, 1996; Waung & Brice, 2000; Shaw, 2000).

In particular, a firm’s economic vitality is directly affected through any outcomes these

messages may have on their reputation. Fielden and Dulek (1982) express this very concern:

“CEOs may think that they create their company's image, but routine communications, such as

insensitive rejection letters, speak louder, more often, and to many more people.” These

messages also represent a unique academic opportunity to explore the process of negative

message crafting in a predictable and observable environment. Ample attention has been paid to

the differing recommendations of past experts, particularly in business, to those crafting negative


messages however the nature of actual rejection letters remains unclear and a lack of conclusive

results continues to prohibit the advance of appropriate, rigorous investigations in this domain.

Despite the generous discussion of rejection letters in informal papers and qualitative reviews,

very few studies have investigated reactions to rejection letter tactics. The lack of quantitative

examination is further compounded by the diversity of outcomes examined. It should be noted

that the past few decades have not been devoid of discussion on the topic, rather relevant

conversations have primarily been housed in conference papers, text books, proprietary research,

and corporate case studies.

Rejection messages are developing a new practical role in business that requires study.

The commonly perceived decrease in traditional privacy and the rapid advance of

communication technology and speed have already increased both the negative and positive

potentiality of these negative messages. For instance, a decade ago, one might have assumed

that the physical rejection letter they sent would only be viewed by one or two people.

Conversely, a rejection email now may be easily forwarded or captured for social audiences

across the globe. One vivid illustration of this concept reminds us to take great care in crafting

negative messages; Bill Shapiro recently released the book “Other People's Rejection Letters:

Relationship Enders, Career Killers, and 150 Other Letters You'll Be Glad You Didn't Receive,”

including real rejection letters from such prestigious corporations as The New York Times.

Alternatively, one might prefer to execute a simple Google Search of “rejection letter” and

peruse the 1,210,000 results largely comprised of personal job rejection images. Drastic changes

in communication technology not only greatly increase the importance of well-crafted rejection

messages, but they also inspire questions concerning the platforms being used to convey these

messages and how these choices affect relevant outcomes.


In light of the remaining dearth of familiarity concerning this frequently occurring and

unique messaging scenario, the present study aspires to (1) confirm the characteristics of actual

rejection messages (following employment interviews), (2) appraise relationships between

tactical rejection message attributes and applicants assessment of organization reputation, (3)

confirm the utility of the rejection message, and (4) establish the power of particular tactical

decisions in rejection messages to attain optimal reputation results. The purpose of this article

then is to investigate the impact of decisions regarding job rejection letters on organizational

reputation.

Literature Review

Rejection letters have typically been considered negative messages (Himstreet & Baty,

1981; Locker, 2000). That is, they primarily or solely deliver “bad news” with the hope of

retaining any existing goodwill or sentiment and potentially introducing additional agendas.

Tactical decisions include 1) whether a message is sent at all, 2) the medium in which a message

is sent, 3) the length of the message, 4) structural choices made in content order, and 5) choices

made in regards to the content of the message. The cumulative knowledge of traditional industry

handbooks, textbooks, and experts suggest that a well crafted negative message will uphold six

principles:

1. Use a buffer (a neutral or positive sentence enabling the writer to delay the negative information) 2. Explain why you are refusing.3. Place the reason before, not after, the refusal.4. Phrase the refusal itself as positively as possible 5. Offer an alternative or a compromise, if one is available. 6. End on a positive, forward-looking note Figure 1. (Locker 1999 p. 5)

Rejection messages are typified by several contradictory tactics (accepting or rejecting the

traditional tenants) identified and assessed by Jablin and Krone in 1984. Employing these

recommendations in a message is said to make that communication “indirect” through positive

distortion and similar strategies meant to “soften the blow” (Gilland, Groth, Baker, Dew, Polly &


Langdon, 2001). Accordingly, the form of an indirect message exemplar is as follows: buffer –

explanation – bad news – goodwill. An example of an indirect letter is presented here:

Buffer: Reason before refusal: Explanation:Positive phrasing:Alternative:Positive ending:

(Baxamusa, 2010 p. 1)

Each of these principles represents a dimension of the classic business recommendations

comprised of structural and content tactics evident in the characteristics of those messages.

Structural tactics specify the overall form of the message including medium, length, paragraph

number, order of content, etc. Content tactics are manifest in the substance of the text. For

example, a sentence may be explanatory rather than simply making an objective claim. Similar

characteristics were recognized as code-able items in subsequent research, validating the already

evident utility of the rejection letter analysis coding scheme (Eckberg, 1984; Locker, 1999).

Since the two studies ‘confirming’ the use of these principles (Eure, 1976; Pettit, 1969), a

number of empirical analyses, wielding more rigorous methodology, have indicated that these

recommendations hold a number of flaws and could use further explication and augmentation.

Nonetheless, the recommendations do give a quality account of the potential choices a writer

may make in crafting a message as indicated above. In sum, five tactical decisions: Salutation

(subjectivity), Praise (score), Directness of rejection (score), Rejection rationale (yes/no), and

Letter length (small/medium/large) distinguish messages from one another and have been the

focus of scholarly debate between classic textbook advice (following the six principles for

indirect messages) and the criticism of conference papers and recent publication which favors a


more direct or flexible approach. Interestingly, the indirect prescriptions were largely

atheoretical, developing from the injunctive feeling that politeness should naturally quell anger

and disappointment. This lack of mature academic evidence describing the phenomena

surrounding rejection messages has prompted this roundabout review and calls for an exploratory

field study. The evolution of technical communication, business, and technology have all

changed the way negative messages are viewed and an observable shift has occurred in common

thinking on the subject.

Traditional (Indirect) Principles and the Paradigm Shift. Skeptical, informed professionals

have continually experimented with tactical combinations, and it is unknown how many

messages still reflect these principles. A testament to this is the diversity of results between the

cited articles and the significant differences found between letters within these articles as well.

A demonstration of these discrepancies can be observed in Table 2, a chart denoting the resulting

suggestions of all relevant academic articles. Another clear example of the messages evolving

can be found by observing the changing recommendations of textbooks concerning the use of the

buffer express in Figure 1. Inconclusive scholarly results from a time when these tenants were

generally accepted do not provide adequate evidence to make assertions about what mix of

tactics modern rejection messages likely employ. One may, however, expect to see interesting

differences in the style and of these messages based on the fairly isolated proprietary

environment in which they are forged. It should not be assumed that all message crafting

personnel subscribe to scholarly advice however that point is mute when academic suggestions

are currently lacking in reliability, muddled, and inconclusive. Since all messages can be

analyzed in terms of their directness (a continuous measure) and two camps have formed around

tactics advocated by the polar ends of the scale, one would expect to see writers employing one

group of suggestions dependably. On the other hand the literature suggests that many


differences exist within letter strategies and differences can also be found between the reported

utility of wholesale indirect and direct approaches. Many recent business, management,

communication and psychology articles pertaining to the subject of rejection messages clearly

indicates that a paradigm shift is being perceived in the method recommendations for rejection

toward a more direct yet explanatory form. Locker also provides evidence that more recent

publications such as text books are also increasingly dropping the recommendation of a buffer

(1999, p.6). The most repeated trend is toward the adoption of a more “direct” form of message

that respectfully conveys the “bad news” with a more reasonable honesty and reality.

Figure 2.

Note. The quadratic nature of the fit line is ment to exhibit the probably shift in ideology.

This development may or may not be reflected in actual modern rejection messages but a sample

of these artifacts is required to determine their nature.


To recap the literature has come from diverse sources observing dissimilar samples with

disparate methods and measures resulting in the absence of significant evidence to speculate on

the nature of current rejection messages. Given the fiscal importance of these messages efficacy,

the desire of the academic community to develop a greater understanding of negative messages

and, the existence of new media it is imperative that actual job rejection letters be collected and

appraised. Such a review will need specific and predictable criteria to maintain structure and to

benefit the collective knowledge of industry and academe on the subject. A terse account of the

categories previously argued simplifies the letters into a dichotomy. Acceptance of the six

tactics on page four (indirect) and rejection of those tenants (direct) constitute rival strategies and

their dimensions. These claims are reviewed in the following sections, each concluding with the

cumulative forecast of germane literature.

Indirect and direct approaches. The indirect approach is based on cumulative

organizational plans assuming that it is advantageous to delay any anger that might be onset by

the actual rejection announcement in a message (Wilkinson, Clarke, & Wilkinson, 1980). An

indirect message follows the six criteria outlined in Figure 1, in an effort to avoid alienating or

disturbing the reader. The use of these tactics has proven fruitful for many writers in the past

particularly when compared with less tactful or more obviously negative alternative styles (e.g.

Saeki & O'Keefe, 1994). One particular strength of the indirect form is that is encourages

positive valance in the negative message which is often thought of as more personal, empathetic,

and, for lack of a better term “sorry.” Although this form has been accepted and employed by

many, a 1996 laboratory experiment comparing the “direct” and “indirect” approaches to

negative messaging, Gwendolyn Smith, Rebecca Nolan and Yong Dai concluded that direct

messages were perceived more positively by readers. Although many scenarios have found the


indirect method to be extremely useful, the rejection letter creates exceptional circumstances

which may not be suitable for these tactics.

The alternate approach, the direct method, begins the communication with a clear

statement of the message meaning, similar to the way we were taught to write early in school

(Thesis statement – Supporting sentences and evidence – Review and transition). The message

then develops accordingly and does not make any special effort to disguise the negative nature of

the message. Contradictory results necessitate further study of the contributing message

characteristics to determine whether this dichotomy holds any value. Due to the diversity of the

dimensions in the construct (direct/indirect), many have come to view a message being more or

less direct, as a continuous variable. At the present time we may only speculate as to the

viability of each of the six suggestions and combine those with the most utility to make further

suggestions. Viewing their acceptance or rejection cumulatively will allow for a judgment of

their ability to influence reader perceptions of organizations. A summary of known evidence for

each dimension follows.

Buffer. The primary determinant of an indirect message, and the most discussed topic in

rejection literature, is the inclusion of a neutral statement known as a “buffer.” This structural

tactic represents a crucial component of the negative message paradigm that has pervaded

epistolary conventions and the history of business writing (Alred, 1993). The rich record of

speculation on the subject (buffer use) and, the many documented cases in which buffers have

been recognized, suggest that this dimension holds high face validity and construct validity. A

buffer can be highly effective as a business writing tool under certain circumstances. Gerald

Alred (1993) gives the example of Martian Luther King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail" which

uses a buffer to establish credibility and goodwill with otherwise resentful and unresponsive

Alabama clergymen. To review this use of a buffer in a logically advantageous setting refer to


Appendix D. The scenario in which this negative message is delivered differs greatly from many

other forms of negative messages particularly rejection messages. For instance, in the case of a

rejection letter, one might already be expecting “bad news” to be delivered based on the

normative phone call successful applicants often receive. This type of disparity can guide the

affect, environment, and expectations of a reader in advance of their message reception.

In fact, job rejection messages are unique in a number of ways. They are messages sent

in the name and image of an organization yet the disappointing news they carry is comes with a

signature of an individual as well. Deciding which negative messages should include a buffer

may depend on a plethora of factors. One study of MBA students (Shelby & Reinsh, 1984)

seemed to confirm the classic method of using indirect negative messages, however, as noted by

Locker (1999) the valiance (+/-) and the directness (indirect/direct) of the messages tested were

confounded leading to inconclusive results. Similarly in 1984 Fredric Jablin and Kathleen Krone

found rejection messages including buffers to be more personal and clear. On the other hand, the

previously mentioned study by Smith et al. (1996) concluded that messages void of a buffer were

more valuable than indirect rejection messages. Seeing the high frequency of buffers in negative

messages and the inconclusive, contradictory results of empirical study on the subject, a rigorous

and recent study to determine the buffers utility as a dimension is in order. Recently scholars

have defended the direct approach for rejection messages (no buffer) based on the following

suppositions:

1. Buffers may violate expectations. One previously cultivated social norm suggests

that acceptance messages are all conveyed via phone so candidates receiving a letter

should expect a rejection message. As Douglas Salerno noted in 1988, under these

auspices a buffer is irrelevant and may even create confusion or anger.


2. Buffers waste the reader’s time. In our increasingly high paced culture, time has an

increased value and may be perceived as a commodity to be guarded. In 1985

Douglas Brent posed that message recipients may perceive the use of a buffer as

selfish tie consuming maneuver. His pros more dramatically illustrate point:

As a busy person with a large pile of correspondence to get through how many neutral sentences would you tolerate? I usually tolerate one, or at most two, especially if they are in some way relevant to the topic. . . . But don’t give me three sentences about my roses if you really want to discuss my mortgage.

(Locker, 1999 p. 9)

One might expect to observe an adverse effect to buffer tactics based on this logic.

3. Buffers often decrease the clarity of the message. Unlike common communications

which pose a thesis as the opening statement, indirect messages with buffers may

confuse the reader by not properly informing them of the nature of the message. This

may reflect negatively on the sender since the reader may consider such a structure as

deceitful or elusive.

Finally contextual factors and many receiver and sender characteristics also greatly

impact the way in which the message is received. These environmental variables will always

play a major roll in the efficacy and utility of message tactics on perceptions. It is important to

note that readers present a great many factors which are far from the control of the sending

organization, from their personality to the type of day they are having when they receive the

message. Overall, the question, “To buffer or not to buffer” remains important and unanswered.

In spite of the movement toward rejecting buffers, more, and more robust evidence is needed to

suggest whether buffers are only a matter of tailoring to an individual or if they might be a

proper suggestion to make for business ‘form’ communication.


Explanation. The principle advocating the inclusion of an explanation (tactic 2) has

received a great deal of support in the literature and has been consistently affirmed as a

successful tactic in positively impacting readers. Explanation is a content tactic with known

soothing powers indicated by several empirical studies. This strategy appeals to the logic of the

receiver and also decreases the uncomfortable uncertainty created by the painful and emotional

scenario of rejection. In 1988 Limaye suggested that explanations for negative messages be both

specific and general for the highest potency. Only under circumstances in which explanations

seem fictional or weak do they seem to create adverse reactions (Locker, 1999). For a discussion

of specific recommendations concerning explanations refer to Gilliland, Groth, Baker, Dew,

Polly & Langdon (2001), or Shapiro, Buttner, and Barry (1994). One would expect a robust

effect for the use of explanations as opposed to unwarranted statements.

Explanation placement. Empirical results for the replacement of the reason (if

included), relative to the explicit refusal (if included) reflect the recent literature of buffers. This

is likely because the buffer is most easily operationalized through the tactic of placing the reason

within that buffer section, at the forefront of the message. For instance, the results of Locker’s

study suggest that placing a reason before a refusal does not affect the recipient’s view of the

sending organization (1999). Explanation placement then, is a structural tactic that is likely

confounded with the use of a buffer in most communication. Little efficacy is likely to be linked

to the use of this tactic based on recent evaluations of the buffer and the autonomy of the reader

to freely scan the message which is likely to decrease the value of this particular placement

decision.

Alternatives. Alternatives have been empirically supported as means of positively

impacting negative message readers (Limaye, 1993; Locker, 1999). These are, however, the

only studies to have investigated this content tactic. A reader would likely receive this tactic as a


concession of some value so long as it is a practical and useful alternative that is being offered.

Given that the alternative is applicable to the reader it may be perceived as the supply of a

valuable acknowledgment concerning the applicant’s efforts or a thoughtful provision of the firm

for their future success. Alternatives may be expected to positively influence the reader,

nevertheless, there is little evidence to suggest the degree this effect might have or how it will

interact with other tactics.

Positive Ending. As the title suggests this hybrid content and structural tactic is a simple

as ensuring the closing sentences of the message are phrased positively. Little support exists for

the utility of a positive closing statement. For instance, ‘positive closing lines’ failed to affect

perceptions of readers receiving journal rejection letters in Limaye’s 1993 study. In many cases

the use of positive diction in the closing has been perceived as insincere considering the thesis of

the message. Many positively framed statements include extraneous adjectives such as “great”

that have been shown to aggravate people who are already in a state of negative affect. In a

rejection message, such an intrusion may look like this: “Of the many highly impressive

interviewees, we chose one extremely qualified applicant.” In conflict negotiation literature

these statements are appropriately labeled “linguistic irritators” because they annoy the receiving

party with assumptions and excessive language (Volkema, 1999). Unwarranted positivity then

will likely decrease the goodwill felt toward a sending organization. The valance of the closing

paragraph is unlikely to exert any impact, in and of its self, on readers’ perceptions.

Message Content. Messages may be classified using these criteria, however little

consistent evidence suggests any clear patterns for predicting the tactical combinations used in

modern rejection messages. Although inconsistencies and outright disagreements exist about the

nature of actual rejection letters at present, an assessment of their current state is appropriate at


this time. This study intends to answer the call of previous articles to review recent actual

rejection messages.

RQ 1: What structural and content characteristics of actual rejection messages are present in recent materials? RQ 2: How do rejection messages today compare with those found nearly three decades ago?

Previous Dependent Measures. In the past, impact has been measured in diverse ways that

have been rather indirect in terms of known message goals and, at times, have been more focused

on external stakeholders e.g. esteem of the applicant. Previous measures included applicants’

attitudes toward the message itself, applicants’ attitudes about themselves (Jablin & Krone,

1984), behavioral intentions (Waung & Brice, 2000), and attitudes toward the organization

(Locker, 1999). Only two published articles attempted to directly measure the way a rejection

message impacts the metrics of interest to the message crafter (Locker, 1999; Waung & Brice,

2000). These measures (potential to patronize and potential to re-apply), however practical, also

fail to directly measure the impact of rejection tactics on the perceived reputation of the

organization.

Public Relations and Human Resources personnel design these messages in hopes of

retaining the applicants’ positive image of the organization and goodwill toward it. Interestingly,

the known goal of message efficiency has been consistently defined and measured by the

employers of message crafting workers as the ability to maintain any positive image of the

company while fulfilling the expected delivery of the rejection i.e. PR and HR messages should

ideally yield positive perceptions of the company above other objectives (Fielden & Dulek,

1982; Waung & Brice, 2000). By definition Public Relations is concerned with promoting

“goodwill toward a person, firm, or institution” (Merriam Webster, 2011). This is commonly

embodied in the protection of an image as suggested in this lay definition from Wikipedia

(2010): “Public relations (PR) is a field concerned with maintaining a public image for


businesses, non-profit organizations or high-profile people, such as celebrities and politicians.”

The continuous concern for maintaining a positive public image shared by nearly every major

organization is well founded.

The proven benefits of such an image operationalized as reputation (perceived image)

include: competitive advantages (e.g. Hall, 1993), economic gains via stakeholder loyalty (e.g.

Deephouse, 2000), employee performance, overall financial performance (e.g. Roberts &

Dowling, 2002) and improved recruitment (e.g. Belt & Paolillo, 1982; Gatewood, Gowan, &

Lautenschlager, 1993; Rynes, 1991). Such sought after outcomes justify the voluminous

research and dedication of marketers and corporate professionals over a long span of time.

Organizational reputation is an intangible value that has respected sustainable competitive

advantages through its impact on fiscal choices made by various stakeholders (Rindova,

Williamson, Petkova, & Sever, 2005).

The value of organizational reputation indicated above suggests its utility as a common

outcome for the practical study of corporate messaging. Academic evolution may also benefit

from this choice. Logically, the utility of negative message examination, as a domain, would

benefit greatly from the adoption of a common optimal outcome that can be enthusiastically and

naturally adopted by industry practitioners. In addition to noting the similarities and differences

between rejection messages in terms of tactical choices, the study will also investigate the effects

of tactical combinations on organizational reputation as the main assumed dependent variable.

Organizational Reputation. As with any content an organization produces, the most important

metric to track is the effect on the company’s reputation with a direct tie to economic outcomes.

Explicitly, Organizational reputation is a robust and validated predictor of trust, loyalty, and re-

patronage intentions towards a firm (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003; Maxham & Netemyer, 2002;


Morgan & Hunt, 1994). The only available construct that captures this metric in a

multidimensional fashion from an external viewpoint is organizational reputation i.e. an external

construal of internally held beliefs about the company values (Dutton and Dukerich, 1991).

Many different definitions and satellite constructs have muddled the validity of basic

organizational reputation (Pace, Fediuk, & Botero, 2010; Rindova, Williamson, Petkova &

Sever, 2005). Fortunately, with clearly defined stakeholders (applicants) and a scenario that

focuses on their aggregated individual perceptions, the concept can be simplified through the

adoption of the marketing definition by Goldberg & Hartwick (1990): “Consumers’ impressions

of a company that is producing or selling a given product or brand.” The desire to compare and

contrast company scores has left the domain of reputation with many scales that focus on internal

or inclusive stakeholder input and very few measures that seek the assessment of external

individuals alone.

For the purposes of this study, the construct must be measured as a perception from a

consumer who is contributing to the long term value of the firm’s reputation. In 2007, Walsh

and Beatty designed and tested one of the first legitimate multidimensional scales for accurately

measuring this construct; The Customer-Based Reputation of a Service Firm Scale (CBR). The

five dimensions, or factors, 1) Customer Orientation, 2) Good Employer, 3) Reliable and

Functionally Strong Company, 4) Product and Service Quality and, 5) Social and Environmental

Responsibility are each measures with a cluster of items on a 7-point Likert-type scale from

strongly-disagree to strongly agree. Scores are then summed and averaged to form an overall

‘Reputation’ score ranging from low to high, 1 to 7. Only two of the organizational reputation

dimensions are relevant and appropriate to the study of rejection messages: 1) Customer

Orientation and 2) Good Employer. These dimensions, with six items each, measured the value

an applicant placed on a particular firm’s qualities (reputation) at one given time. Although


organizational reputation is cumulative and develops over time, this particular scale will seek to

measure the construct as it is being effected by a single message stimuli. In order to rule out a

plethora of confounds repeated measures will be employed.

Commissioning the scale in this way will allow for the use of reliable and valid measure

as it pertains directly to the content in question. Collecting the same measure following the

relevant negative message will provide a comparison demonstrating the change in attitude

toward the organization as result of the massage. One may refer to Table 1 for a summary of

reliability measures by a study which also vouches for the construct validity and the nomological

validity of the scale (Walsh, Beatty & Shiu, 2009). Organizational reputation then, was the ideal

outcome variable for this study and was used to gauge the impact of message characteristics and

their combinations on interviewees.

As indicated in the limitation and future research sections of the above cited articles,

current research is limited because it is experimental and does not fully capture the true

environment while seeking appropriate outcomes. Consequently, the present research

investigates perceived organizational reputation as the indicator of message effectiveness

through the examination of known rejection letter characteristics and their combined efficacy.

RQ 3: What impact do the existing structural and content characteristics of rejection messages have on applicants’ perceptions of the authoring organization’s reputation?

Results indicated which tactics and tactical combinations are correlated with the most positive

change in reputation. Perhaps the more pressing question is whether messages should be sent at

all.

No Message. Another important hole in the current literature is the lack of evidence suggesting

that actual rejection messages should be sent at all. One attempt has been made to investigate

the question (Brice & Waung, 2000) although the hypothetical situations proposed by the


experimental setting lacked the necessary mundane realism for accurate results. Further, the

unclear inductions of the study were clouded by the frequent self-selection by respondents of

which company they wanted to respond to. Conclusions were consistent with a negative a

response to the perceived failure of a company to send a rejection letter. The same business

professionals (Brice & Waung) conducted a study in 1995 finding that well over 60 percent of

companies sent no response when they decided to reject an applicant. Unfortunately, the two

researchers mentioned above continue to represent the only public effort to investigate the

impact of rejection failure resulting in the lopsided review of relevant literature. It has been

speculated that applicants form a tacit psychological contract when they are invited to an

interview resulting in the expectation that they will be informed of their status soon (Brice &

Waung, 2000; Gilliland, Groth, Baker, Dew, Polly & Langdon, 2001; Shaw, 2000). The driving

force of these expectations is reciprocation. This more informal and basic reason why a rejection

message may hold value to applicants is the natural human need for reciprocation and validation,

however small. Similarly, it has been noted that many would consider a long delay or perceived

‘failure’ to send a message as one indication of the organization’s responsibility and character, or

lack thereof (Brice & Waung, 1995).

The well documented and validated psychological principle of reciprocation suggests that

recipients of any type of behavioral investment feel a strong urge to return a similar value

(Regan, 1971; Gruner, 1996). As Robert Cialdini notes in his book Influence; Science and

Practice (2009) reciprocation is a powerful determinant of daily actions, evident by the way we

feel obligated to give gifts to those who remember our birthdays with gifts and as Kunz and

Woolcott (1976) found return Christmas cares even to total strangers. Reciprocation’s

prevalence guides the psychological contracts felt by each of us so that one would expect to be

compensated for their actions such as laboring over a resume, cover letter, example works,


interview preparation and the delivery of these items. Betraying such a basic trust often results

in social exclusion and resentment, or in this case it would likely result in a more negative

feeling toward the sending organization. In sum, violation of the existing social norm, indicating

rejection notes of some fashion should be sent, will likely result in interviewees’ experiencing

negative affect.

In times of economic downturn especially the cost of rejection stationery is said to be one

of the first budget cuts (Brice & Waung, 1995). It would be wise to consider the effect such a

decision has on major indicators of “the bottom line,” such as reputation (externally perceived

company image). If Brice and Waung’s descriptive statistics (1995) are at all indicative of the

typical corporate practice it would seem that the majority of companies do not send any type of

message to their rejected applicants; at what cost?

Hypothesis 1: Failure of an organization to send any message of rejection will be correlated with lower organizational reputation scores than scores associated with informing organizations.

The Medium. The question of how these messages are sent and what effect this decision

has on operating costs should interest many business practitioners in human and public relations

yet few public attempts have been made to investigate. In the depth of this review, the only

known paper to document the medium used for sending rejection messages was Brice and

Waung’s Applicant Rejection Letters: Are Businesses Sending the Wrong Message? (1995).

Table 3 presents informative figures produced by a sample of 113 application packets sent to

companies that illustrate the medium chosen by rejecting firms and the lag time each message

took. These data are not particularly generalizable since they include pre-interview responses,

are limited to the Detroit metropolitan area, and were taken over 15 years ago. For example the

exponential adoption of email technology for sending messages of this nature was not recorded

as a means of sending any of the messages in this study whereas today we would expect a solid


block of messages to be conveyed on the email platform. Empirical research on negative

messages would also greatly benefit from direction concerning how newly available technologies

mediate communication.

A great wealth of narrative study and linguistic investigations have perceived and

examined the shift in preference business communications have made from paper to primarily

electronic messages, chiefly email (e.g. King & Xia, 1997; Rettie, 2003). Because these

electronic communication media are relatively new phenomena the majority of available reviews

consist of primary research which rarely recommends the use of a medium over another for

specific external business communication tasks. On the other hand, obvious differences and

between the communication methods are known to favor specific mediums for specific purposes

and scenarios (e.g. Yates, 2000). For instance, phone calls are inherently harder to immediately

chronicle than email or hard copy letters due to the telephones hardware. Social norms and

mores also surround communication tools and contribute to their perceived value. For example,

it is a commonly discussed social practice to call rather than to text or write a long time

significant other when “breaking-up” with them. In sum one can expect to observe companies to

use different mediums based on their own values, their perception of tool’s cost, social value,

and ability to portray the message, and ease of logistical use.

Given the lack of evidence specific to this scenario very basic and exploratory statements

made here are written with caution. As suggested above, rejection messages may hold

psychological or physical value to an applicant. Recent revolutions in communication

technology have naturalized the use of a variety of mediums in business communication

(Orlikowski, Yates, Okamura, & Fujimoto, 1995). No known research evaluates the actual

efficacy of competing platforms e.g. letter, email, fax, phone call. Little is known to suggest

which format would be preferred for conveying negative messages or which would be found to


hold the most value to an average applicant. This scenario requires an exploratory venture to

determine the most used and the most useful form of media to use when serving rejections.

Further attention may then consider differing publication costs, speeds, and cultural stigmas.

RQ 4: What contact forms are typical for today’s rejection messages?

Study 1

Subjects. Participants were secured through the cooperation of the Michigan State

University Business College. Current MBA students interested in securing employment (n=200)

agreed to record the next year of their efforts (January 1, 2012 – January 1, 2013) and fill out the

appropriate scales. Of the committed students #% returned their completed scales package via a

web-based survey instrument at the conclusion of the year. The participant population consisted

of 56% males (112) and 44% females (88) with a mean age of 25. 37% were currently employed

(n = 74) and the average number of interviews previously experienced was 5. The native

industries attributed to applicants were as follows: 29% marketing, 32% management, and 10 %

accounting, general or unspecified business positions were of interest to the remaining

participants.

Procedure. Students were contacted via department email and asked to participate in a

study regarding company messaging following initial (screening) interviews. Participation was

encouraged by professors and incentivized by a drawing for one thousand dollars. Respondents

were given an explanation of the study (instructions), provided with a few demographic

questions and required to complete an informed consent form to begin the study (Appendix #).

Anonymity was assured and information on how to easily capture and send or forward rejection

messages was included as a guide to promote low study mortality. Participants were instructed

to fill out Questionnaire A (Appendix #) directly following any initial interview during the year

period. As soon as a communication was received from the company subjects were expected to


record the message via picture, screen capture, copy, or scan to a secure email address designed

as an archive for the study. When a copy of the message was sent, the subjects completed

Questionnaire B (Appendix #), including repeated measures scales and items regarding the time

the message was received and the method by which it was sent. In the case that no message

should be received prior to December 27th, Questionnaire B was to be completed during the final

four days of the study. Of the enrolled subjects, # (#%) completed both questionnaires for each

company they indicated, # (#%) returned a copy of their rejection message along with their

completed Questionnaire B. Upon the final data collection at the end of the year analyses were

run to evaluate the relevant evidence to the research question and hypothesis. Descriptive

statistics drawn from content analysis evaluated research questions 1, 2 and 4. Inferential

statistics examined hypothesis 1 and research question 3. The questionnaires were formed

around the dependent construct of organizational reputation.

The Questionnaires. The initial post interview questionnaire (Questionnaire A)

consisted primarily of a 28-item Organizational Reputation scale adopted for its validity,

reliability, and utility. Similarly, the second questionnaire for each company (Questionnaire B)

included the same scale, in addition to uni-dimensional practical questions about the lag time for

the message and the message medium. For each questionnaire, in order to ensure the validity of

the construct and for comparison with previous empirical results, a single uni-dimensional item

was added asking each subject to indicate their feeling toward the organization on a Likert-type

7- point scale. A single item in Questionnaire B also gauged how representative the message

was of other rejection messages received by the participant: “How typical is this message of

other post interview rejection messages you have received?” This 7-point, Likert-type scale,

from very typical (7) to very atypical (1), should indicate how representative the sample’s letters

are of mundane industry messages. All items were counter balanced to control for order effects.


Three previous assessments of the CBR scale’s reliability, validity, and dimensionality

have indicated significant and acceptable composite reliability, internal consistency, discriminant

validity among dimensions, and coefficient alpha reliabilities of centering around 7.5 (Walsh &

Beatty, 2007). Current reliability analyses indicated internal consistency as well with

“Cronbach alphas of the five CBR scale dimensions ranging from .71 to .93. The composite

reliability coefficients for the five sub-scales range from.88 to .90 and all indicators

have coefficients of determination above .40. The results of a five-factor structure assessment,

using LISREL 8.7, indicate that the model represents the data well (GFI=.92, NNFI=.92,

CFI=.97, RMR=.04, RMSEA=.08, and χ2/df=2.9 (pb0.001)) (Walsh, Beatty & Shiu, 2009 p.

925).”

Method. Research employed a double blind, within-subjects, association design centered

around a single dependent variable. To avoid such confounds as previous affect toward a brand,

reputation is measured both directly after the screening interview and again after the rejection

message is received. This process yields a ‘change in organizational reputation’ value to be

correlated with combinations of the tactics discussed the literature review. Alternatively, the

subject indicates that employment was achieved or that the firm failed to respond with a

message. In the absence of a message, the scale will be completed concerning that organization

at the end of a year’s time.

Results

Rejection Messages. Copies of actual rejection letters received from participant

applicants were coded via content analysis using the criteria, previously discussed to identify

message tactics. Below is the coding scheme used by a sole coder and verified by an additional

solitary coder with respect to item ratings. As was noted in the original use of this scheme,

substantial agreement between coders suggests an adequate reliability to coding letters according


to the following twelve ‘analytic categories.’

(Jablin & Krone 1984 p. 393)

Consequent ratings are discussed.

Similarities. Observed consistencies noted in the content analysis of actual rejection

letters included…

Differences. Job rejection messages differed in both structural and content tactics

employed…

Data Analysis. Tactics of actual rejection messages were computed using descriptive

statistics to describe the population coded by two reviewers. The impact of these tactics and

tactical combinations was determined through the use of Multivariate Analyses of Variance

(MANOVA) … ########. #####. ######. Note Cronbach’s Alpha and Power etc.


Bibliography

Aamodt, M. G., & Peggans, D. L. (1988). Rejecting applicants with tact. Personnel Administrator, 33, 58–60.

Alred, Gerald J. (1993). ‘We Regret to Inform You’: Toward a New Theory of Negative Messages. Studies in Technical Communication. (Brenda R. Sims, Ed.). Denton: University of North Texas, 17-36.

Arnold & Reynolds. (2003) M.J. Arnold and K.E. Reynolds, Hedonic shopping motivations, Journal of Retailing. 108(2), 1–20.

Baxamusa, Batul. (2010, December). Rejection letter example. Retrieved April 21, 2011, from http://www.buzzle.com/articles/rejection-letter-example.html

Belt, J. A., & Paolillo, J. G. (1982). The influence of corporate image and specificity of candidate qualifications on response to recruitment advertisement. Journal of Management, 8, 105- 1 12.

Brice, T.S. & Waung, M. (1995, March-April). Applicant Rejection Letters: Are businesses sending the wrong message? Business Horizons, 59-62.

Brown, T. (1993). Unkind Cuts: Rethinking the Rhetoric of Academic Job Rejection Letters. College English, 55(7).

Cable, D. M. & Turban, D. B. (2003). The value of organizational reputation in the recruitment context: A Brand-Equity perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3(11), 2244-2266.

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and Practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: an integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26, 1091–1112.

Dutton, J.E. & Dukerich, J.M. (1991), Keeping an eye on the mirror: image and identity in organizational adaptation, Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517-54.

Eckberg, D. L. (1984). Job-rejection letters as bureaucratic propaganda. Qualitative Sociology, 7(4), 340-352.

Eure, Jack D., Jr. (1976) Applicability of American Written Business Communication Principles across Cultural Boundaries in Mexico. Journal of Business Communication, 14.1, 51-64.

Fediuk, T., Buddenhagen, R., Mason, T., & Botero, I. (2010). Organizational, image, identity and reputation: disentangling their meaning for application . Paper presented at the 11th annual International Public Relations Research Conference.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7S-4TXDXJH-2&_user=1111158&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1712002901&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000051676&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1111158&md5=78d57e2aa4616d77d8d4e5a9062f502b&searchtype=a#bbib1


Feinberg, R., Meoli-Stanton, J., & Gable, M. (1996). Employment rejection and acceptance letters and their unintended consequences on image, self-concept, and intentions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 11(1), 63-71.

Fielden, J. & Dulek, R. (1982). What rejection letters say about your company. Business Horizons, 25(5), 40-45.

Gatewood, R. D., Gowan, M. A., & Lautenschlager, D. J. (1993). Corporate image, recruitment image, and initial job choice decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36,414-427.

Gilliland, S. W., Groth, M., Baker, R. C., Dew, A. E., Polly, L. M., & Langdon, J. C. (2001). Improving applicants' reactions to rejection letters: An application of fairness theory. Personnel Psychology, 54(3), 669-703.

Goldberg, Marvin E. & Hartwick, J. (1990, September). `The Effects of Advertiser Reputation and Extremity of Advertising Claim on Advertising Effectiveness.' Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 172 -179.

Google search - "rejection letter". (2011, April 23). Retrieved from: http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&biw=986&bih=821&site=search&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=rejection+letter&aq=f&aqi=g9g-m1&aql=&oq=

Gruner, S. J., (1996, November). Reward good consumers. Inc., 84.

Hall, R. (1993). A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Strategic Management, 14(8), 607-618.

Jablin, F. M. & Krone, K. (1984). Characteristics of Rejection Letters and their Effects on Job Applicants. Written Communication, 1(4), 387-406.

Jansen, F. & Janssen, D. (2010). Effects of positive politeness strategies in business letters. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(9), 2531-2548.

Jansen, F., & Janssen, D. (2011). Explanations First: A Case for Presenting Explanations Before the Decision in Dutch Bad-News Messages. Journal of Business & Technical Communication, 25(1), 36-67. doi:10.1177/1050651910380372.

King, Martin Luther, Jr. (April 13, 1963). Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Retrieved February 2, 2003, from http://www.mlkonline.com/jail.html.

King, R.C. & Xia, W. (1997). Media appropriateness: effects of experience on communication media choice, Decision Sciences, 28 (4), 877–910.

http://www.mlkonline.com/jail.html

http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&biw=986&bih=821&site=search&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=rejection+letter&aq=f&aqi=g9g-m1&aql=&oq




Kunz, P. R., & Woolcott, M. (1976). Season’s greetings: From my status to yours. Social Science Research, 5, 269-278.

Lehman, C. M. & Dufrene, D. D. (1998). Himstreet and Baty's Business Communication. (12th sub ed.). City:Thomson South-Western.

Limaye, M. (1988). Buffers in bad news messages and recipient perceptions. Management Communication Quarterly, 2(1), 90-101.

Locker, Kitty O. (1978, December) Do Buffers and Resale Really Work? American Business Communication Association Annual Convention, 27-29.

Locker, Kitty O. (1982). The Rhetoric of Negative Messages. English for Specific Purposes, 64 1-2.

Locker, Kitty O. (1998). Business and Administrative Communication. (4th ed.). Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Locker, Kitty O. (1999). Factors in reader responses to negative letters: Experimental evidence for changing what we teach. Journal of Business Communication, 13, 5-48.

Maxham, J. G. III & Netemeyer, R. G. (2002). A longitudinal study of complaining customers’ evaluation of multiple service failures and recovery efforts. Journal of Marketing, 66, 57–71.

Morgan, R. M. & Hunt, S. D. (1994), The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, July, 20-38.

Orlikowski, W. J., Yates, J. Okamura, K., & Fujimoto, M. (1995) Shaping electronic communication: The metastructuring of technology in the context of use. Organization Science, 4(4), 423-444.

Pace, K. M., Fediuk, T. A., & Botero, I. C. (2010). The acceptance of responsibility and expressions of regret in organizational apologies after a transgression. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, pages 410-427.

Pettit, John D., Jr. (1969). An Analysis of the Effects of Various Message Presentations on Communicatee Responses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation from Louisiana State University.

Public Relations. (2010). Wikipedia . Retrieved April 7, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations

Public Relations [electronic version]. (2011). Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved April 19, 2011, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/public_relations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations


Regan, D. (1971). Effects of a favor and liking on compliance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7(6), 627-639.

Rettie, R.M., 2003, A Comparison of Four New Communication Technologies, Proceedings of HCI International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, 686-690.

Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. (2005). Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. The Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), page #.

Roberts, P. W. & Dowling, G. R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strat. Mgmt. J., 23(12), 1077-1093.

Rynes, S. L. (1991). Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences: A call for new research directions. Handbook of industrial/organizational psychology, 2, 399-444 (M. Dunnette & L. Hough Eds.) Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Saeki, M. & O'Keefe, B. J. (1994). Refusals and Rejections: Designing Messages to Serve Multiple Goals. Human Communication Research, 21(1), 67-102.

Salerno, Douglas. An Interpersonal Approach to Writing Negative Messages. (1988) Journal of Business Communication, 25.1, 41-51.

Shapiro, B. (2010). Other People's Rejection Letters: Relationship Enders, Career Killers, and 150 Other Letters You'll Be Glad You Didn't Receive. Clarkson Potter of Random House Publishing Inc.

Shapiro, D., Buttner, E. H., & Barry, B. (1994). Explanations: What Factors Enhance Their Perceived Adequacy? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58(3), 346-368.

Shaw, V. (2000). Toward professional civility: An analysis of rejection letters front sociology departments. The American Sociologist, 31(1), 32-43.

Shelby, A. N., & Reinsch, N. L. Jr. (1995). Positive emphasis and the you-attitude: An empirical study. Journal of Business Communication, 32, 303-327.

Smith, Gwendolyn N., Nolan, Rebecca F., & Dai, Yong. (1996). ‘Job Refusal Letters: Readers’ Affective Responses to Direct and Indirect Organizational Plans. Business Communication Quarterly, 59.1, 67-73.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Earned Degrees Conferred, 1869-70 through 1964-65; Projections of Education Statistics through 2014, retrieved 2011, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest


Volkema, R. J. (1999). The Negotiation Toolkit: How to Get Exactly What You Want in Any Business or Personal. Situation, Amacom, 1999.

Walsh, G. & Beatty, S. (2007). Customer-based corporate reputation of a service firm: scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 127-143.

Walsh, G., Beatty, S. E., and Shiu, E. M. K. (2009). The customer-based corporate reputation scale: Replication and short form. Journal of Business Research, 62(10), 924-930.

Waung, M., & Brice, T.S. (2000). Communicating negative hire decisions to applicants: Fulfilling psychological contracts. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15, 247-263.

Yates, Simeon. (2000). “Computer-Mediated Communication: The Future of the Letter?” Letter Writing as a Social Practice. Ed. David Barton and Nigel Hall. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 233–54.


Table 1.

(Walsh, Beatty & Shiu, 2009)

Table 2.

Article Stance Summary


Table 3.

(Brice & Waung, 1995)


Appendix A

Participant Introduction

Informed Consent Form

Welcome to the POST INTERVIEW MESSAGES study and thank you for your time and consideration. This research project investigates the communications made by different real companies following initial interviews. You must be at least 18 years of age to participate in this study. If you choose to participate in this study, you will answer questions regarding your perceptions of companies following your interviews with them and complete questions following the companies’ later message for a one year period.

Your responses will be recorded anonymously and results will be reported in aggregate, averaged across all participants. Data will be kept for 10 years in a password protected laptop owned by the author. Should you participate in the study, your identity will remain completely confidential and your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

Participating in this research offers the potential benefit of learning about research regarding company messaging. There are no perceived risks associated with participating.

Participation in this study is voluntary and should take ten minutes or less per scale. You will receive compensation for your time and effort in the form of ticket entry toward winning an iPad. Note that you may withdraw from the experiment at any time or refuse to answer questionnaire items without penalty. At the end of this introduction you may sign up to receive a full description of the study design and results when the data have been collected and analyzed.

The experimenter can answer any questions you have about the study. Please contact Josh Emington (phone: 517.977.2284; office 2379 TechSmith Corporation; email: [email protected]) if you have any further questions or concerns regarding the study. If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of their study, you may contact - anonymously if you wish - the MSU Human Research Protections Program by phone: 517.355.2180; fax: 517.432.4503; email: [email protected], or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Thank you,

Josh Emington

****************************************************************************************************

By clicking the Accept button below, you voluntarily agree to participate in the ONLINE PROFILES study.

*Decline *Accept

I would like to receive a full description in article form following the completion of the study. [ ]

*Insert directions for the study completion here.


Codebook Study 1

Post Interview Questionnaire

Demographic Questions

Follow Up Questionnaire

Under what circumstances are you completing this questionnaire?Rejection Message []

1No Response (end of study) []

2Employment was secured []

*If Rejection Message then additional item: How many days, in your estimation, has it been since your initial interview?

*If “Employment was secured” then display message: No additional action is required with this organization. Thank you for your help and congratulations on your success!

… … … … … … …


Appendix B

A visual illustration of the data collection method.


Appendix C

An illustration of physical contributors in the process between the 2 within-subjects measures.

Appendix D

"Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.]"

The “buffer” is highlighted for ease of recognition and the “goodwill” ending is also highlighted for convenience in green.

16 April 1963My Dear Fellow Clergymen:While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.


I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here. I am here because I have organizational ties here.

But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.

In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation.

Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants--for example, to remove the stores' humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained. As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?" We decided to schedule our direct action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic-withdrawal program would be the by product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.

Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's mayoral election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene "Bull" Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run off, we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct action program could be delayed no longer.

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of


segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more


convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil."

I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.


I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still all too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some -such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle--have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as "dirty nigger-lovers." Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful "action" antidotes to combat the disease of segregation. Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a nonsegregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago.

But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen.

When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows.

In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.

I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: "Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.

I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: "What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?"

Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

There was a time when the church was very powerful--in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators."' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent--and often even vocal--sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom. They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jail with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment. I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of


their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation -and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands. Before closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping "order" and "preventing violence." I doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.

It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handling the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."

I wish you had commended the Negro sit inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. They will be old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy two year old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: "My feets is tired, but my soul is at rest." They will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience' sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Never before have I written so long a letter. I'm afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers?

If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.

I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil-rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.

Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood, Martin Luther King, Jr.Published in:King, Martin Luther Jr.

Rejection Messages and Organizational Reputation: Research Proposal Draft MSU

Business

Transcript of Rejection Messages and Organizational Reputation: Research Proposal Draft MSU