CIVIL RIGHTS AND THE MILITARY MISSION

" 180

The failure of the Defense Department's first efforts to secure equal treatment for all members of the Armed Forces is attributable in large measure to the way in which commanders interpret their responsibilities. Most commanders and installation officials see the issues of equal treatment as outside the military mission. They recognize that all servicemen must be dealt with equally while on a military installation, but believe that this responsibility ends "at the gate." To the extent that they must deal with the community beyond the gate, these officers understand their objective to be the attainment of harmonious relations, a goal which will probably be impaired by conflict over race relations.181 Viewing their position as that of being guests in the community, they believe it inappropriate for the military to serve as a “battering ram" for effecting changes in local customs and mores.182 And even those who concede that efforts at amelioration are desirable frequently do not believe that they have the necessary authority.'

183

These views of installation commanders are entitled to some weight. But in the United States of 1963, the military mission is not defined in such narrow terms. Today, as Gen. Maxwell Taylor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said, “The national security program must include national programs in political, diplomatic, military, economic, psychological, and cultural fields which contribute to the stature and prestige of the United States and to the attainment of its national objectives."

" 184

180 Commission staff interviews with military installation officials in Alabama, Oct. 29 and Nov. 5, 1962; Florida, Feb. 8, 1963; Mississippi, May 29 and 30, 1962; North Carolina, Feb. 22, 1963; Texas, Dec. 19, 1962.

181 Commission staff interviews with military installation officials in Alabama, Nov. 7, 1962; Florida, Feb. 8, 1963; Georgia, Dec. 4, 1962; North Carolina, Feb. 22, 1963; Texas, Dec. 19 and 20, 1962; Virginia, Jan. 25, 1963.

182 Commission staff interviews with military installation officials in Alabama, Oct. 29, 1962, Nov. 7 and 9, 1962; Georgia, Dec. 4 and 11, 1962; North Carolina, Feb. 22, 1963; and Texas, Dec. 19, 1962.

188 Commission staff interviews with military installation officials in Florida, Feb. 8, 1963; and Virginia, Jan. 28 and 30, 1963.

184 Taylor, The Uncertain Trumpet 30-31 (1959).

The evidence shows that racial discrimination against members of the Armed Forces interferes with the performance of this mission. In a few cases, the conflict is direct and obvious—as when toleration of discriminatory housing practices compels Negro servicemen to live further away from tactical missile sites than security regulations ordinarily permit. But it is equally evident that our foreign policy interests are ill served by toleration of overt acts of discrimination against American servicemen while makeshift efforts are made to accord special treatment to nonwhite foreign nationals. Also, there is interference with the effective and efficient use of personnel when members of the Armed Forces are denied the educational means to promotion because of their race or when local racial practices are permitted to limit the assignment and utilization of Negro servicemen. Finally, racial discrimination in housing, education, and public accommodations has a debilitating effect upon the morale of Negro servicemen and impairs their efficiency and effectiveness in performing the military mission.

Nor can the military installation be viewed merely as an appendage of the civilian community which must be subservient to its racial practices. The relationship of military installations to their neighboring communities has changed radically since World War II, when the post was considered a temporary intruder in the life of the community. Today, service installations represent major long-term investments of the Government in plant, facilities, and equipment. 185 Rather than providing a temporary boom to the local economy, the post frequently serves as a permanent and major employer of the civilian population and often the single largest contributor to the economic and social well-being of the community. The military and civilian payroll frequently consti

185 As of June 30, 1961, Defense Department properties in the 50 States encompassed 27,846,000 acres. The cost of that land and the structures and facilities thereon totaled $39,244 million. The Statistical Abstract of the United States 194, table 247 (83d ed. 1962).

tutes 25 percent, 50 percent, and even 75 percent of the total payroll of the county or area surrounding the installation."

In some places, the civilian community has taken root only after the military installation was established and thus it cannot be claimed that racial practices are protected by traditions which antedate the arrival of the military post.

187

Finally, the Department of Defense has ample instruments to attain the objective of equal treatment for all servicemen. It makes decisions on opening, closing, and reactivating military installations. However, in making these determinations it does not discuss with community leaders any steps to prevent discrimination.188 With respect to existing installations, more flexible instruments are available to base commanders. There is evidence to suggest that where affirmative and imaginative programs of education, persuasion, and negotiation are entered into, they are likely to produce successful results. In North Dakota, for example, a base

187

Fort Hood; Killeen, Tex..

Naval Installations; Norfolk, Va.

29.56 Source: Data furnished the Commission by the Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense, and the Business Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census. The data do not include defense contract spending, so that in many cases the total economic involvement of the military in the area is even higher than indicated.

W Commission staff interview with military installation official in Texas, Dec. 20, 1962. 188 Commission staff interviews with Defense Department officials and service representative; Washington, D.C., Feb. 13, 21, and 26 and Mar. 6 and 8, 1963.

189

commander who was disturbed about continuing incidents of discrimination against his men protested to civilian authorities who then worked to secure passage of a public accommodations law." But most base commanders have not apprised servicemen of their rights under State laws barring discrimination in public accommodations, or in private housing.19

Since racial discrimination has an impact on the health, welfare and morale of servicemen at least equal to other unethical or immoral practices, negotiations with local businessmen to attain desegregation can legitimately be backed by the "off limits" sanction. Where businesses, such as the gate establishments, are heavily dependent on military trade, it is unlikely that it will ever be necessary to employ the sanction. In other cases, the negotiating efforts of military commanders will be part of a national campaign for equal access to public accommodations.

Thus, a policy of securing equal treatment for all servicemen is an essential part of the military mission and commanders have both the responsibility and the means for carrying out such a policy. In the past, they have been hampered by a lack of overall direction from the Department of Defense. Now, however, the Secretary of Defense has taken steps to provide guidance to base commanders. As noted previously, the directive issued on July 26, 1963, assigned to local commanders the responsibility of fostering equal treatment for servicemen off base.191 Specific responsibility was placed upon the military commander to oppose discriminatory practices and to recommend use of the off-limits power. As part of this directive, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower was authorized to establish an office to give direction and guidance and to monitor the results of a program designed to achieve this objective.

189 'Commission staff interviews with military installation officials and civilian leaders in North Dakota, June 18 and 19, 1962.

SUMMARY

Since President Truman's 1948 Order desegregating the Armed Forces, the status of the Negro serviceman has improved considerably. The Army, Air Force and Marine Corps have increased their utilization of Negro enlisted men and the Army and Air Force have a growing number of Negro officers. Only the Navy has shown little or no improvement, relying less on Negro personnel during the Korean war than during World War II.

Negroes in the Army and Air Force are used in a wide variety of occupational areas and in higher proportions than in the civilian economy. However, in the Navy Negroes are generally used less in clerical, technical, and skilled occupations than is the case in the civilian economy. The problems of the Navy are the severely limited number of Negroes enlisting and the lasting effects of the traditional assignment of Negroes to food service jobs.

With an increasing pool of available manpower, the several services are becoming more selective in their recruitment policies and are using aptitude tests as one means for screening candidates. As yet no test has been developed which takes into account the special background factors of different cultural and economic groups.

With the desegregation of the services, all but a few aspects of racial discrimination were abolished from the military installation. Housing, schools, clubs, stores, and churches on post are all open to personnel without regard to race or color. However, in neighboring communities the Negro serviceman and his family still encounter the traditional patterns of discrimination and segregation. These practices in housing, education, and public and recreational facilities are galling reminders that second-class citizenship has not been completely eradicated, and have a detrimental impact on military morale and efficiency. Despite this, military officials traditionally have not considered community racial practices as matters within their concern although in some cases racial discrimination has been financed, supported, or accepted by the Federal government.