Meaning of "it is as necessary... as vigorous... as it is..." in this long sentence

Question

I read this sentence in an article in the NY Times:

It is as necessary for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities as it is for me to condemn riots.

I understand that this is about 'as... as...' comparisons. But I really cannot figure out why there are three 'as's? Can you please explain it?

Answer 1

The sentence is actually not entirely syntactically sound, and it's also stylistically poor, because its length makes it difficult to parse.

---

Consider a far more simple sentence:

✔ It is as necessary ^{for me to sleep} as it is ^{for me to eat.}

In short, for me, sleeping is just as necessary as eating.

---

Now add two more instances of as:

✔ It is as necessary ^{for me to sleep as much as possible} as it is ^{for me to eat as much as possible..}

In short, for me, sleeping as much as possible is just as necessary as eating as much as possible.

---

But it's really only the as at the start of the sentence and the as at the end of the sentence that are required for this type of construction.

We can easily remove the second or fourth. (Or both, which would result in the original example sentence):

✔ It is as necessary ^{for me to sleep} as it is ^{for me to eat as much as possible..}

---

The sentence in the question can be analyzed in the same way.

First simplify it:

✔ It is as necessary ^{for me to be vigorous in condemning [some] conditions} as ^{it is for me to condemn riots.}

Hopefully that makes sense.

---

Now add in the rest:

？ It is as necessary ^{for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities} as it is ^{for me to condemn riots.}

The construction is essentially valid, except that the second as doesn't work. It seems to be an addition that's unnecessarily attempting to serve the same function.

Look at the phrase on its own, with the as removed:

✔ [It is necessary] for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities

The phrase only makes sense without that as. It doesn't make any sense when it's there.

As such, it's a mistake.

The sentence should really be this:

✔ It is as necessary ^{for me to be [] vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities} as it is ^{for me to condemn riots.}

That's only two instances of as.

The sentence is still unnecessarily long-winded and difficult to parse (it should be rephrased), but it's now syntactically valid.

---

Note that the second as, which I analyze as a mistake, might make sense if it follows from a previous sentence. But without that context, there's no way of knowing.

Answer 2

This is a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King's speech at Stanford University in 1967. Here's a slightly more complete version:

But at the same time, it is as necessary for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities as it is for me to condemn riots. I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots.

Dr. King was an exceptional leader, thinker, orator, and writer, but I have the temerity to think that the first "as" in that sentence was a slip of the tongue. I suspect he meant:

But at the same time, it is necessary for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities as it is for me to condemn riots.

"It is necessary for me to be" is an orator's way of saying "I must be."

Moving on to the rest of the sentence, when you say "as [X] ... as [Y]" you're saying X must at least equal Y. X is his vigor (force, effort) condemning the conditions that make people feel they must riot. Y is his vigor condemning the rioting itself.

So he's condemning the conditions that make people feel they must riot to the same degree as he's condemning rioting.

Answer 3

Let's simplify your sentence:

It is as necessary [to do this] as it is for me [to do that].

All this means is that both actions are equally necessary.

Now substitute:

to do this = to be as vigorous in condemning [these conditions]

to do that = to condemn riots

It is as necessary to be as vigorous in condemning [these conditions] as it is for me to condemn riots.

Presumably, "as vigorous" means "as vigorous as I am being at the moment". The speaker is justifying what may seem to some as an overreaction toward the issue of riots.

Finally, substitute:

these conditions = the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities

Now you have the original sentence:

It is as necessary for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities as it is for me to condemn riots.

---

TL;DR: I think the confusion was due to "as vigorous", which is not an explicit comparison. Presumably, we are meant to interpret it as "as vigorous as I am currently being, whether or not it may seem overkill".