The task force claims to have particiatedrnin the conviction of 305 defendantsrnonnected to 224 arsons or bombings. Asrnhe task force points out in a news release,rnhis arrest rate of 36.2 percent is morernthan twice the national average for arsonrncases. About one-third of the 948 arsonsrntracked b- the task force since 1995 in-rn olved black churches. But the task forcerndoes not claim to ha’e a complete listrnof church arsons. It is probable thatrnchurches suspecting a racist motivationrnwere more likely to report their losses tornthe task force than ones that suspectrnmundane vandalism.rnE’en in the South, there is no evidencernfrom the task force that blackrnchurches were more vulnerable thanrnwhite churches. According to the taskrnforce, 44 percent of church arsons in thernSouth were at black churches, and 56rnpercent were at white churches. But approximatelyrn40 percent of Southernrnchurches are predominantly black.rnOf the 136 people arrested for arsons atrnblack churches, 85 were white, 50 werernblack, and one was Hispanic. Thirt-sevenrnwhites were charged with hate crimesrnbecause there was evidence of a racialrnmotivation for their attack upon blackrnchurches. Only six of those 37 had ties tornan organized hate group. The majoritrnof church arsonists of all races seem tornhave been motivated b’ pvromania, vandalism,rnburglar)’, or insurance fraud.rnIt’s hard to call the church-arson stonrnof 1996 a complete fraud. Yes, blackrnchurches were burned and continue tornburn. And ves, some arsonists ha’e beenrnnrotixated by racial hatred. But there isrnno compelling evidence to show thatrnblack churches were any more vulnerablernto attack oer the last decade thanrnnon-black churches.rnThe arson storv’ was created, in part, byrna failing church group tr)’ing to revive itsrnsagging political and financial fortunes.rnBut the NCC remains on the brink ofrncollapse. One of its final legacies may bernthe creation of a myth that needlessly incitedrnracial fears and raised millions ofrndollars under false pretenses.rnMark Toole}’ is a research associate at thernInstitute on Religion and Democracy inrnWashington, D.C.rnTo Subsnnbern(800) 877-5459rnEDUCATIONrnA Confederacyrnof Duncesrnby Philip JenkinsrnThe death of a social movement is anrninstructive and sobering phenomenon.rnAfter years of greatness and influence,rnan idea eventualh’ sickens and dies,rnuntil its adherents are reduced to a patheticrnhandful. Somewhere in history,rnthere must have lived the last Albigensian,rnthe last Ranter, the last native practitionerrnof ancient Egyptian religion.rnSomewhere in the not-too-distant future,rnthis select band of ultimate diehards willrnbe joined b’ ‘et another, vhen Marxismrnbreathes its last. And while I do not knowrnthe name of the last Marxist, I can, withrnsome confidence, identify the professionrnof this heroic loser: He or she will unquestionablyrnteach humanities at anrnAmerican universit}’ —and almost certainlyrnin the history department.rnAcademic historians rarely make muchrnimpact on the wider world, which explainsrnwhy the public at large generallyrnpays so little attention to their weird andrnwonderful tribal practices. Over the lastrnyear or two, however, historians have venturedrnbeyond the forest clearing and intornpublic iew, and the sight has been somethingrnto behold. I suppose the new agernstarted in the mid-I990’s with the controversyrnover the Smithsonian’s scheme forrna revisionist exhibit of the Enola Gay,rnwhich condemned the l l S . decision torndrop the atomic bomb. Crucial to therncontroversy was the exhibit’s insanefy inaccuraternprojection of the number of casualtiesrnthe Allies were likely to incur inrnan invasion of Japan. The Smithsonianrnsaid tire figure for American dead wouldrnbe “only” about 30,000, while most competentrnscholars suggested figures closer torna half-million. Though the exhibit wasrn(very properly) closed down, the affairrnlingers in liberal mythology as a victoryrnby ignorant racist yahoos over soundrnscholarship.rnShorriy afterward, the once-respectedrnscholar John Hope Franklin agreedrnto chair President Clinton’s ludicrousrninquiry into American race relations,rnwhich was deputed to explore any avenuesrnwhatever, as long as they placedrnenough emphasis on white guilt and providedrnammunition for expanding affirmative-rnaction policies. (You rememberrnthe “National Dialogue.”) Then, vastrnnumbers of historians chose to sign pro-rnClinton petitions during the impeachmentrncrisis, all basically swearing to assertionsrnabout the origins of impeachmentrnthat were contrary to fact. In 2000, thernOrganization of American Historiansrn(OAH) went into a spasm of New Left revivalismrnwhen it turned out that therngroup had chosen to hold its annual conventionrnat the Adam’s Mark Hotel in St.rnLouis, although the hotel chain was underrnattack over dubious charges concerningrncivil-rights ‘iolations.rnThe 2000 election really brought thernprofessors out of the woodwork whenrnPrinceton professor Sean Wilentz organizedrnbreathless anti-Bush petitions thatrneven middle-of-the-road liberal mediarnthought hysterical. (The fate of Americanrndemocracy allegedly stood or fell onrnwhether Florida’s Palm Beach Countyrnwas allowed to vote again, presumablyrnuntil a Democratic majority was secured.)rnMost recently (in January), almostrn500 historians signed a petitionrnshrieking about the Bush victory andrncomplaining that the majoritv on thernU.S. Supreme Court “acted as it did inrnorder to install a Republican presidentrnand to expand its political position on thernCourt.” The historians professed themselvesrn”outraged and saddened at thisrnwound inflicted upon American democracy.”rnThe letter was signed by some of thernbiggest names in the field, including LizabethrnCohen of Harvard, Todd Gitiin ofrnNew York Universify’, David Brion Davisrnof Yale, George Frederickson of Stanford,rnand —of course—the ineffable Wilentz.rnIncidentally, all of those named are not onlyrnsolid hi,storians but can actually writernvery well, and, presumably, can read.rnSeveral observations come to mindrnabout these eruptions: Most obviously,rnthe fact that historians can make suchrnscreaming misstatements about a wellknownrncontemporary event casts an utterlyrndamning light on their critical abilitiesrnto explore the remoter past. All thernreaders of the election protests livedrnthrough the events concerned and havernat least as much knowledge of what wentrnon as the professors. Wilentz and hisrnmerry men are not claiming that theyrnhad personal access to secret documentsrnfrom the World League of Racists, Homophobes,rnand Other Bad People, order-rnMAY 2001/45rnrnrn