This thesis is significant in that many institutions, for both blacks and whites in the early days were founded by religious orders and when those institutions began to transition to more modern ideals they also borrowed from more diverse religious sources to do so. The example of how Gandhi's teachings were integrated into mainstream education for blacks is a foundational argument that supports this thesis as well as the whole thesis of the work. Individuals seeking more modern and multicultural ideals regarding how to demonstrate that all peoples are equal and should have equal rights, including those in the minority did not have far to search as they looked to world examples for what to call the system in which minorities lived, one theologian going so far as to call the system a caste system, that unfairly held black youth within a standard that would not translate to modern culture and left them with significant obstacles to overcome. (pp. 111-112) The author effectively sought and achieved a purpose which draws direct correlations between modern ideals and the moral obligations of religious rhetoric. Calling on examples from all over the world, in some cases, but fundamentally linking much of it back to new and "better" interpretations by founding institutions about ecumenicist and religions morality that should and did fight for resolution of the race question, but was fundamentally incapable of offering anything but interpretive conflict. When Noll argues that the resolutions of the culture with regard to race were not possible through this venue he is well directed, and makes claim that just such a standard followed America even into the modern era. It goes without saying,...

With this individual thread being the key to individual rather than global reconciliation the conflicts over race were likely to continue for as long as there is an independent interpretation to be had regarding the question. (p. 48)
Noll's, writing is powerful, and points out bits of logical that might be forgotten or ignored by anyone who has a non-historical mindset. When individuals in the modern era seek reconciliation for "modern" conflicts they often fail to look at the seat and source of interpretive conflict through the lens of history, so while Noll's arguments are foundational and largely easy to follow the need for his work is evident, in that many seem to like the idea of divorcing "modern" problems from history and seeking only "modern" explanations. If such individuals fail to make the connection between the "modern" and historical (theological) arguments they lose the ability to truly step outside the theology (if that is the desire) and continue to make decisions based on the status quo which is steeped in religious rhetoric and then therefore drives modern political standards. (p. 21) as a professor of History, Noll takes up a specific calling, that of tying history back into the modern, and in this work he does so very well. The work may be hard to stomach, for some as they attempt to equate modern conflicts and struggles with what they believe to be modern solutions, only to be relying on that which they believe they need to reject, i.e. religious "moral" legislation and decision making.