Integration of the Armed Forces, 1940-1965 Part 79

Despite general approval of conditions on the bases, the commission found what it called "vestiges of discrimination on some bases." It reported some segregated noncommissioned officer clubs, some segregated transportation of servicemen to the local community, and some discriminatory employment patterns in the hiring of civilians for post jobs. Partly the legacy of the old segregated services, this discrimination, the commission concluded, was to a greater extent the result of the intrusion of local civilian att.i.tudes. The commission's attention to outside influences on att.i.tudes at the base suggested that it found the villain of the Diggs investigation, the prejudiced military official, far too simplistic an explanation for what was in reality inst.i.tutional racism, a complex mixture of sociological forces and military traditions acting on the services. The Department of Defense's manpower experts dwelt on these forces and traditions when they a.n.a.lyzed recruitment, promotion, and a.s.signment trends for McNamara in 1963.[20-81]

[Footnote 20-81: Memo, DepASD (Special Studies and Requirements) for ASD (M), 16 Jul 63, with attachment, Utilization of Negroes in the Armed Forces, July 1963, copy in CMH. All the tables accompanying this discussion are from the preceding source, with the exception of Table 16, which is from the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Policy Planning and Research, _The Negro Family: The Case for National Action_, Mar 64, p. 75, where it is reproduced from DOD sources.]

They found a general increase in black strength ratios between 1949 and 1962 (_Table 13_). They blamed the "selective" recruiting practices in vogue before the Truman order for the low enlistment ratios in 1949, just as they attributed the modest increases since that time to the effects of the services' equal treatment and opportunity programs. In the judgment of these a.n.a.lysts, racial differences in representation since the Truman order, and indeed most of the other discrepancies between black and white servicemen, could usually be explained by the sometimes sharp difference in apt.i.tude test results (_Table 14_). A heritage of the Negro's limited, often segregated and inferior education and his economic and related (p. 523) environmental handicaps, low apt.i.tude scores certainly explained the contrast in disqualification rates (_Tables 15 and 16_). By 1962 fully half of all Negroes--as compared to 8 percent of all whites--failed to qualify for service under minimum mental test standards. In some southern states, the draftee rejection rate for Negroes exceeded 80 percent.

Table 13--Black Strength in the Armed Forces for Selected Years (In Percentage)

Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Enlisted Enlisted Enlisted Enlisted Year Men Officers Men Officers Men Officers Men Officers

1949 12.4 1.8 4.7 0.0 2.1 0.0 5.1 0.6 1954 13.7 3.0 3.6 0.1 6.5 0.1 8.6 1.1 1962 12.2 3.2 5.2 0.2 7.6 0.2 9.2 1.2

Table 14--Estimated Percentage Distribution of Draft-Age Males in U.S.

Population by AFQT Groups (Based on Preinduction Examination, 1959-1962)

Group White Nonwhite I 11.8 0.3 II 31.3 2.6 III 31.9 15.0 IV 19.0 40.1 V 6.0 42.0

Table 15--Rate of Men Disqualified for Service in 1962 (In Percentage)

Cause White Nonwhite Medical and other 21.8 10.1 Mental test failure 8.4 50.6 Total 30.2 60.7

Table 16--Rejection Rates for Failure to Pa.s.s Armed Forces Mental Test, 1962

Failed Mental Test Number Area Examined Number Percent Grand total, Continental United States 286,152 64,536 22.6 Total, white 235,678 36,204 15.4 Total, black 50,474 28,332 56.1

First Army: Connecticut, Maine, Ma.s.sachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont

White 49,171 12,989 26.4 Black 7,937 3,976 50.1

Second Army: Delaware, Washington, D.C., Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia

White 48,641 5,888 12.1 Black 9,563 4,255 44.5

Third Army: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee

White 30,242 5,786 19.1 Black 20,343 13,772 67.7

Fourth Army: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas

White 15,048 2,039 13.5 Black 4,796 2,988 62.3

Fifth Army: Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Wyoming

White 51,117 4,495 8.9 Black 5,723 2,684 46.9

Sixth Army: Arizona, California, Idaho, 1 1 1 Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington

White 41,459 5,007 12.1 Black 2,112 657 31.1

This problem became critical for black enlistments in the mid-1950's when the services, with less need for new servicemen, raised the mental standards for enlistees, denying Group IV men the right to enlist. (An exception to this pattern was the Navy's decision to accept Group IV enlistments in 1956 and 1957 to replace post-Korean enlistment losses.) In terms of total black representation, however, the new mental standards made a lesser difference (_Table 17_).

Denying Group IV men enlistment during the 1950's only increased their number in the draft pool, and when the Army stepped up draft inductions in the early 1960's the number of Group IV men in uniform, including Negroes, rapidly increased.

Table 17--Nonwhite Inductions and First Enlistments, Fiscal Years 1953-1962[1]

Fiscal | Total | Percent Nonwhite Year |Accessions| DOD| Army |Navy|Marine| Air | (000)[1] | |Inductees[2]|Enlistees| |Corps |Force

1953 886.1 12.8 14.7 13.4 4.3 8.0 11.1 1954 576.3 10.0 9.9 13.0 4.0 7.8 11.9 1955 622.6 10.6 8.8 12.7 9.0 5.4 13.5 1956 481.9 11.2 10.3 15.1 9.5 10.6 12.2 1957 456.7 9.1 10.8 9.3 3.6 9.5 9.7 1958 367.1 7.9 13.2 6.4 2.8 5.1 7.1 1959 392.0 7.1 10.4 8.1 2.4 5.0 6.5 1960 389.4 8.1 12.3 8.4 3.0 7.9 8.4 1961 394.7 8.2 14.4 8.2 2.9 5.9 9.5 1962 518.6 9.7 15.3 9.0 4.1 6.5 8.6 Total 5,085.4 9.9 12.3 10.3 4.9 7.4 10.4

[Tablenote 1: Includes inductions and male "non-prior service" enlistments into the Regular components.]

[Tablenote 2: The Army was the only service drafting men during this decade.]

While the Army's dependence on the draft, and thus Group IV men, explained part of the continuing high percentage of Negroes in that service, the Defense Department manpower group was at a loss to explain the notable variation in black enlistments among the services.

All employed similar enlistment standards, yet during the period 1958--1960, for example, black enlistment in the Army and Air Force averaged 7 percent, the Marine Corps 6 percent, and the Navy 2.7 percent. Nor could the a.n.a.lysts isolate the factors contributing to the low officer ratios in all four services. Almost all military officers during the period under a.n.a.lysis were college graduates, Negroes comprised about 4 percent of all male college graduates, yet only the Army maintained a black officer ratio approaching that figure. (_See Table 13._)

The inability of many black servicemen to score highly in the tests might also explain why training in some technical occupations continued more restricted for them (_Tables 18 and 19_). In (p. 524) contrast to ground combat and service occupations, which required little formal school training, some occupation groups--electronics, for example--had high selection standards. The Defense Department group admitted that occupations for blacks in the armed forces had also been influenced by historical patterns of segregated a.s.signments to food service and other support occupations. Among men with twenty or more years in uniform, 40 percent of the blacks and 12 percent (p. 525) of the whites were a.s.signed to service occupations. But this pattern was changing, the a.n.a.lysts pointed out. The reduction in the differential between whites and blacks in service occupations among more recent recruits clearly reflected the impact of policies designed to equalize opportunities (_Table 20_). These policies had brought (p. 526) about an increasing proportion of Negroes in white collar skills as well as in ground combat skills.

Table 18--Distribution of Enlisted Personnel in Each Major Occupation, 1956

Percentage Distribution by AFQT Groups Occupation I&II III IV

Electronics 60.3 31.4 8.3 Other technical 57.9 30.7 11.4 Admin. & clerical 51.5 37.4 11.1 Mechanics & repairmen 37.6 43.8 18.6 Crafts 30.0 44.1 25.9 Services 21.5 43.3 35.2 Ground combat 24.5 37.1 38.4

Table 19--Occupational Group Distribution by Race. All DOD, 1962

Total Percent Occupational Group Percentage Distribution of Negroes in Negroes White Each Group Ground combat 23.7 15.0 14.3 Electronics 7.0 14.9 4.7 Other technical 6.8 7.7 8.5 Admin. & clerical 21.5 19.2 10.6 Mechanics & repairmen 15.1 26.0 5.8 Crafts 5.6 6.6 8.4 Services 20.3 10.7 16.6 Total 100.0 100.0 9.2

Table 20--Occupational Group Distribution of Enlisted Personnel By Length of Service and Race

12-20 Over Occupational 0-4 Years 4-8 Years 8-12 Years Years 20 Years Group White Black White Black White Black White Black White Black

Ground combat 20.3 32.7 9.8 17.7 9.6 17.8 9.8 14.5 8.4 12.5 Electronics 14.1 5.6 19.7 10.3 15.6 8.1 14.2 6.7 10.5 3.6 Other technical 7.5 7.1 7.3 7.0 7.8 6.8 8.6 6.1 7.3 5.0 Admin. & clerical 18.3 22.3 17.5 22.6 19.6 22.0 22.0 18.5 24.5 18.7 Mechanics 23.9 12.8 29.6 20.5 28.9 16.2 24.2 15.1 29.1 13.6 Crafts 5.3 4.0 6.9 7.4 7.7 6.8 8.8 7.2 8.6 6.1 Services 10.6 15.5 9.2 15.1 10.8 22.3 12.3 31.9 11.7 40.4

This change was dramatically highlighted by the occupational distribution of naval personnel in 1962 (_Table 21_). Among General Qualification Test Groups I and II, the percentage of Negroes a.s.signed to service occupations, mainly stewards, commissarymen, and the (p. 527) like, declined from 22 percent of those with more than twelve years'

service to 2 percent of those with less than twelve years' service, with sharp increases in the "other technical" group, mainly medical and dental specialists, and smaller increases in other technical skills. A similar trend also appeared in the lower mental categories.

One persisting occupational difference was the tendency to a.s.sign a relatively large percentage of Negroes with high apt.i.tudes to "other technical" skills and those of low apt.i.tude to service occupations.

The group admitted that these differences required further a.n.a.lysis.

Table 21--Percentage Distribution of Navy Enlisted Personnel by Race, AFQT Groups and Occupational Areas, and Length of Service, 1962

AFQT Group and 0-12 Years 12 Years & Over Occupational Area[1] White Negro White Negro

Groups I and II Electronics 35.7 29.5 25.6 21.1 Other technical 11.4 25.9 10.4 10.5 Admin. & clerical 8.5 10.9 14.6 14.0 Mechanics & repairmen 37.5 26.1 33.1 22.5 Crafts 6.4 5.4 12.9 10.3 Services .6 2.2 3.5 21.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Group III Electronics 10.3 9.1 8.8 4.2 Other technical 7.1 12.3 6.2 3.0 Admin. & clerical 9.7 12.9 12.4 8.2 Mechanics & repairmen 56.7 42.2 36.7 16.5 Crafts 13.2 11.1 25.2 16.9 Services 3.0 12.4 10.8 51.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Group IV Electronics 5.3 1.4 2.9 .5 Other technical 3.7 1.7 2.9 .4 Admin. & clerical 6.9 8.1 7.0 2.5 Mechanics & repairmen 60.8 44.2 35.8 7.3 Crafts 16.4 13.5 32.5 9.5 Services 6.9 31.1 19.4 79.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

[Tablenote 1: Excludes personnel not cla.s.sified by occupation, such as recruits and general duty seamen.]