rooms previously allotted to conferencegoers.rnNevertheless, OAH members continuedrnto demand withdrawal:rnBy e-mail and fax, they have arguedrnthat to meet in the Adam’s Mark isrnto compromise with racists, hi orderrnto take a bold stand against injustice,rnthey have said that the organizationrnmust cancel the contractrneven though it would suffer seriousrnfinancial consequences.rnAfter some fevered days of debate and agonizing,rnthe OAH executive came uprnwith a solution a little this side of Armageddon:rnI’he conference woidd proceed,rnalthough the organization wouldrn”move registration, sessions, and otherrnevents out of the convention hotel as alternativernvenues in St. Louis are located.”rnThe organization would still owe Adam’srnMark major compcnsaHon, but not thernfull cancellation penalty. In addidon, thernOAH would devote an unprecedentedrnnumber of panels and sessions to issues ofrnrace and discrimination, and would supportrnanti-discrimination demonstrationsrnduring the conference. This compromisernwas announced in a smug press releasernwhich boasted how historians werernonce again contributing to destroyingrnracism, that “scourge on the land.”rnIf the charges against Adam’s Mark arcrntrue, then the practices described are indefensiblernmorally, legally, politically,rnand economically: They are obnoxious,rnreprehensible, and socially destructive,rnand personally, I would have no wish tornpatronize a business of this kind. Boycottsrndo have their place, and can bernenormously powerful instruments of socialrnchange. But in all the crusadingrnfuror, other important principles are beingrnignored, particularly the issue ofrnproof All the allegations have been presentedrnin the course of civil litigation,rnand historians, who ought to know howrnto read documents critically, shouldrnknow better than to take parti pris documentsrnas objeehve fact. There is anotherrnside to the story, and Adam’s Mark strenuouslyrnand specifically denies all therncharges.rnRebutting the discrimination lawsuit,rnthe chain counters that some of the .specificrnproblems raised by black guests residtedrnfrom the overwhelming pressurernof numbers during a very well-attendedrnReimion, while other allegations are simplyrnfalse. Corporate statements are supportedrnby some African-American leaders,rnwho have nothing but praise for thernway in which the chain has, in bygonernyears, sponsored and hosted events likernthe Black College Reunion. Furtherrncontradicting the image of Adam’s Markrnas some kind of Klan subsidiar’, the firmrnhas a solid record of donations to blackrncauses and charihes.rnI don’t know exactly what happened atrnthe Reunion in question, but I believernthere is enough doubt about the case tornforestall any rush to judgment. Myrndoubts grew when I observed how thernAdam’s Mark case blew up in the firstrnplace. NAACP charges against the chainrnwere leapt on bv a Justice Departmentrnwhich, over the last eight years, has anrnabominable track record of using litigationrnthreats in order to intimidate andrnshake down businesses and public institutions.rnIn education, for instance —rnwhich should be a concern of professionalrnhistorians —the Justice Departmentrnrecently warned colleges that using standardizedrntests of any kind to determinernadmissions was probably an ipso facto violationrncivil rights law. Under demagoguesrnlike Bill Lann Lee, the ClintonrnJushee Department has committed itselfrnto the most rigid and unreasonable interpretahonsrnof affirmative action, and thernfact that this thoroughly partisan body isrninvestigating or suing a particular corporationrntells us precisely nothing about therntruth of the charges. We might recall therncomplaint by the Victorian Lord Salisburyrnabout the self-serving nature of officialrnstatements: “If you believe the doctors,rnnothing is wholesome. If yournbelieve the theologians, nothing is innocent.rnIf you believe the soldiers, nothingrnis safe.” And, he might have added, if yournbelieve the Justice Department, everythingrnin contemporary America is racist.rnThe nature of civil rights suits in recentrnyears is well-enough known to makernnonsense of the nrain OAH demand,rnnamely, “securing agreement by thernAdam’s Mark to a consent decree whichrnassures the adoption of antidiscriminationrnpolicies with federal oversight.” Arnconsent decree is basically an admissionrnof guilt, a capitulation, so that neitherrnside has to face a long and costly trial: It isrna device singularly favored by federal litigatorsrnwith a weak case, who hope theyrncan browbeat their target into caving inrnto avoid huge legal bills. In other words,rnthe OAH is demanding that Adam’srnMark have the good grace to surrenderrnforthwith, without waiting for the formalihrnof a trial, or even an impartial investigation.rnIt is a scene which is played outrnthousands of times daily in police precinctsrnacross the land: “Why not justrnplead guilty to manslaughter and get itrnover with?” “But I didn’t do anything!”rn”Don’t waste our time — confess to thernlesser crime, or we’ll take you to trial forrnmurder.” In the Adam’s Mark affair,rnOAH declares that “the recalcitrance ofrnthe hotel has made it impossible for thernOAH to conduct its international scholarlyrnmeeting there as planned” (“recalcitrance”rnin this instance meaning a refusalrnto concede everything in an expensivernlawsuit). After all, the OAH had made itsrnown extensive inc[uiries of objectivernsources, including “regional and nationalrnleaders of the NMCP, the Departmentrnof Justice, and civil rights attorneys.”rnWell, that should cover all possible bases,rnright? I have no personal knowledge ofrnwhether the hotels discriminated, butrnunlike the wise leaders of the OAH (andrnthe Episcopal Church, and other worthyrnbodies), I do not believe that every allegationrnin civil lawsuits should be believedrnwithout thought or question. Nor do Irnbelieve that, just because the U.S. governmentrnhas begun litigation in a particularrncase, its claims must be accepted automatically.rnJust call me a bigot.rnTo understand the OAH’s war againstrnAdam’s Mark, it also helps to know thernhistorical profession’s own curious recordrnof defending moral and ideological purity.rnOne reason why the St. Louis debaclernthreatened to be so devastating was thatrnhistorians were painfully aware of the resultsrnof the last explosion of moral outrage,rnwhen the American Historical Associationrncanceled its 1995 meetings inrnCincinnati following that cit)’s passage ofrnwhat was east as an anti-gay ordinance:rnThe AHA is still picking up the pieces, inrnterms of financial damage and personalrnrancor. For a large section of the profession,rnas for many of their counterparts inrnthe humanities, the issues and tactics ofrnthe New Left years are still very muchrnali’e, and it is a constant source of regretrnfor radical professors that they missed therngolden age of protest in 1968. Lacking anrnauthentic mass movement like thosernprotesting segregation or the Vietnamrnwar, they have no alternative but tornpounce on anything which offers a reasonablernfacsimile. Standing alongsidernthe whole graying generation which isrnspiritually shick in fighting the Nixon administiation,rnwe find the younger folk inrntheir 30’s and 40’s, for whom successivern44/CHRONICLESrnrnrn