She cites no references to support her opinions.

Second citation [1] Assistant Professor of Law, University of Alabama School of Law. B.A. 1980, Wilberforce University; J.D. 1984, University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Again, it's all his opinion with some supporting examples, but no citations.

Third citation [2] Bev-Freda Jackson Adjunct Professorial Lecturer, American University School of Public Affairs

Jackson's article is better, but still includes logical fallacies. "By recasting anti-racism as the new racism, conservative GOP leaders such as Grassley and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, use King’s words that advocated for a colorblind society as a critical part of their national messaging to advance legislation that bans the teachings of so-called divisive concepts." She doesn't explain what the problem is here, why what they're doing is wrong, or how and why anti-racism is not actually racism. Citing Dr. King's children opens the door to analysis of their character, and their politics.

Thank you though, I now understand that recent academic activists have attempted to diminish Dr. King's message using double-speak to push their racist agenda. They should be ashamed of themselves.

None of the above applies in any way to the TED video (which I watched and enjoyed). Coleman Hughes does not disparage Dr. King or his message, and probably doesn't care much for anti-racist rhetoric.