I read it. It wasn't bad; I'm not a professor or teacher and I
   don't know what your professor is looking for in a paper... I
   mean, with each professor you have to customize it for what
   style and form they prefer. Some things I'd prefer to see for it
   to be more readable: a) I-It and I-Thou are used several times
   in context before being defined. I found that somewhat confusing
   - the paper seeming to show a greater outrage than explanatory
   power, although partial explanations are found in there. I'd
   prefer to have seen the I-thou/I-it explained clearly near the
   top, as it is an important corner stone of your argument. b) The
   distinctions between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. are
   assumed and while they're explained somewhat in the paper, I was
   left confused. Perhaps a paragraph with a high level
   "compare/contrast" between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr
   near the beginning would make it easier to follow. But it wasn't
   bad. I would have taken a more gentle approach as it reads, to
   me, more like a rant with references and I felt I had been put
   into the middle of a pre-existing war-zone I didn't even know
   existed. The stage wasn't set in other words for outsiders to
   the conflict. Might not be necessary for the purposes of the
   paper, but that was the impression I got from it, like entering
   a movie in the middle of it and learning what's going on through
   occasional flashbacks but never getting the satisfaction of
   knowing exactly what happened and how we got there. == You're
   welcome smile emoticon Writing papers is hard stuff. I never got
   the hang of all the stupid references you have to do and stuff.
   I mean, why can't we just write? So I definitely applaud you for
   it. I never cared for academic writing format. Best advice I got
   for writing was from some ridiculous public speaking class I
   took once. "Tell them what you're gonna tell them. Tell them.
   Tell them what you told them." I have no idea why that sandwich
   works so well but it really does. Still, for me, I always ended
   up writing train-of-thought; conversational - like I'm doing
   here. But I'm lucky: writing always came easy for me.... at
   least, until they wanted me to have references in-text and
   stuff. Then it was kinda annoying tongue emoticon == I'd
   probably have added some headlines in there with each shift of
   focus, like little summaries of "what they're about to see".
   Like, just before "The frame work for modern social reform"
   could have something like, "The Lion vs the Lamb" in bold... and
   with that image in place, the difference-between becomes
   instantly more fixed in the reader's mind. == I copied it into a
   notepad to take a look at what it was that made it a little
   difficult to read and I figured it out. It was so simple:
   White-space. I put a few more breaks in like: ==== The
   destruction of human agency is a current moral dilemma plaguing
   our society. Immanuel Kant believes that all people deserve the
   right to be treated as *autonomous, rational beings.* (Driver,
   91). Currently, the political left is furthering its agenda by
   silencing its opposition through bully tactics and
   objectification. The left goes beyond ad hominem attacks by
   blanketing entire demographic groups with general
   characteristics to invalidate their personhood, and thus, their
   significance in social politics. The prominent 20th century
   philosopher, Martin Buber describe these tactics as creating an
   *I-It* relationship. Buber claims that this interaction which
   subjugates the other is a violation of Natural Law Theory. The
   problem is human fallibility; once one group assumes power they
   no longer bear the burden of moral responsibility. The framework
   for modern social reform was forged in the fire of the American
   Civil Rights Movement. The Movement was championed by two men
   with opposing ideologies but the same goal: racial equality. ===
   and then I could read it better. But honestly, that was it. Once
   I broke up "concept shifts" visually, then it was more readable
   smile emoticon == Of course this is only important if you're
   planning to subject your paper to a wider readership: If you
   are, imagine you're making a slow-moving Ken Burns documentary
   and each point is dramatized with film clips, slow swoops across
   old faded pictures.... concept shifts like "The Lamb Vs The
   Lion" fading in slowly, then fading out to the sounds of Martin
   Luther King talking, then Malcom X talking in the background to
   the sound of chanters or something and turmoil. == Of course
   this is only important if you're planning to subject your paper
   to a wider readership: If you are, imagine you're making a
   slow-moving Ken Burns documentary and each point is dramatized
   with film clips, slow swoops across old faded pictures....
   concept shifts like "The Lamb Vs The Lion" fading in slowly,
   then fading out to the sounds of Martin Luther King talking,
   then Malcom X talking in the background to the sound of chanters
   or something and turmoil, and then,... I dunno, maybe Morgan
   Freeman's voice narrating your text over pictures and things. ==