Thirty years after Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination, American activists on all sides of the spectrum still argue over the real meaning of his words and deeds. This year the issue in dispute is affirmative action, but his message transcends partisan interpretations in a way that we may need to consider. PNS commentator Dr. Earl Ofari Hutchinson is the author of The Assassination of the Black Male Image. (email: ehutchi344@aol.com)

Controversy still surrounds Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., even as we prepare to celebrate his official birthday.

The issue this time is affirmative action. Supporters and opponents both claim that King would be on their side if he were alive.

Those who oppose affirmative action cite the line in his famed 1963 "I Have A Dream" speech, calling on Americans to judge individuals on the content of their character and not the color of their skin. Supporters of affirmative action claim that this distorts the spirit of King's thinking.

They are both right.

King's few stray remarks directly on this issue are ambiguous enough to give ideological ammunition to both camps. But this comes as no surprise. King was not an orthodox ideologue. He railed against and embraced black militants. He advocated conservative self-help programs and socialist wealth redistribution. He applauded violent anti-colonial movements and championed non-violent change.

King's curious blend of morality and pragmatism was glaringly evident in that 1963 speech.

At the time, affirmative action was not part of the nation's vocabulary and quotas and goals were not issues of public debate. King was not referring to discrimination in hiring or promotions, nor did he demand special government and corporate programs or incentives for blacks in dozens of speeches and articles over the next two years.

With the passage of the Civil Rights Bill in 1964 he realized that ending legal segregation wasn't enough. Integrating a motel or lunch counter did not provide jobs, improved housing, and better schools. These required massive spending on new social programs.

The urban riots and the growing white backlash further heightened King's sense that something had to be done. But King remained uncertain over how to tackle the problems of the urban poor.

Asked if he thought it was "fair" for the government to spend billions on special programs for blacks (in an interview published in Playboy magazine in January 1965), King didn't hesitate -- "I do indeed." He saw it as a moral imperative that the government "payback" blacks for the centuries of uncompensated toil during slavery -- citing the Marshall Plan, Aid to Appalachia, and the GI Bill of Rights as examples of the government bankrolling programs to aid specific constituencies.

But King did not demand the creation of programs exclusively for blacks. Rather, he insisted that special government or corporate programs apply to the "disadvantaged of all races." When the interviewer pressed, King continued to hedge, calling for increased spending for jobs, skills training, education and public works. King felt that the bigger problem for blacks and whites was the "disappearance" of thousands of industry jobs to automation.

He sensed that employment was a volatile issue that could inflame blacks and whites. He claimed black and white workers suffered equally when jobs were lost and tactfully called on labor to fight for "jobs for all. " Lyndon Johnson took the cue and displayed the same cautious ambivalence when he signed his Executive Order in 1965 banning discrimination by federal contractors. Johnson called on employers to take "affirmative action" to insure that workers are hired and promoted without regard to race.

Most Americans, including King, understood in that affirmative action was designed to encourage equal treatment of blacks. But that would leave many whites out in the economic cold, and this sowed the seed of public misunderstanding and created the huge opening politicians have used to exploit affirmative action as a wedge issue to get votes on the cheap.

Given his public passion for racial justice, and the burning belief that America had a special obligation to level the economic playing field for minorities, it is easy to imagine King on the frontline in the many battles against the national campaign to obliterate affirmative action programs. Given his moral vision of a just world, it is equally easy to imagine him finding a way to transcend the either/or and finding a way to realize the rights of all the disadvantaged.

Perhaps this is his true legacy, and one that should be cherished -- not a simple formulation, but the complex problem of realizing a moral vision in practical fashion in an imperfect world.