Pentagon Study: Resistance To Racial Integration 'Far More Intense' Than To DADT Repeal

Greg Sargent's evening read-out noted this highlight from the executive summary of the Pentagon's study of "Don't Ask Don't Tell," cited over at Daily Kos. In it, the current state of resistance to allowing gays to serve in the military is compared to the previous resistance to the racial integration of the military back in the mid-20th century. As it happens, it was a bigger hurdle that was nevertheless surmounted, all to the good:

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, our military took on the racial integration of its ranks, before the country at large had done so ... By our assessment, the resistance to change at that time was far more intense: surveys of the military revealed opposition to racial integration of the Services at levels as high as 80-90% ... Some of our best-known and most-revered military leaders from the World War II-era voiced opposition to the integration of blacks into the military, making strikingly similar predictions of the negative impact on unit cohesion ...

The story is similar when it came to the integration of women into the military. In 1948, women were limited to 2% of active duty personnel in each Service, with significant limitations on the roles they could perform. Currently, women make up 14% of the force, and are permitted to serve in 92% of the occupational specialties. Along the way to gender integration, many of our Nation's military leaders predicted dire consequences for unit cohesion and military effectiveness if women were allowed to serve in large numbers.

I can't help but be reminded of this scene from the April 20, 2000 episode of The West Wing, titled (serendipitously, perhaps), "Let Bartlet Be Bartlet." [Apologies for the embed quality, below. To view the scene in a clip that looks less like it was shot through Instragram on your nephew's iPhone, click here.]

Comments

[carnitine]

01:41 PM on 12/02/2010

"we will not be silent." Then I shall get ear plugs.

[Hal Donahue]

07:54 AM on 12/02/2010

I was there when woman were integrated and there was a bit of confusion and trauma but very quickly it made us stronger. DADT is different. Women were not in most of those units back then; near as I can tell from folks being prosecuted under DADT, our gay brothers and sisters are already there in the units. DoD is creating trauma not helping it. With racial and gender integration, the military led the way, a better question for today is why has the military failed to lead the way today? For the record, I was in one of those elite units, an Air Force fighter squadron.

[joeyfoto]

09:45 PM on 12/01/2010

Many of these same people were against racial integration too... In fact, if you scratch below the surface, many of them still are.

[bobbythemole]

08:06 PM on 12/01/2010

I have tried for years to understand "Gays" not the word but what it stands for, being with someone you love of the same sex. I have a family member that is Gay, and it hurts to see his life of sadness and feeling as an outsider, I feel his pain every day. I served in the years 79-83 and there was no such thing or situation like now. I remember a guy that came through our Company/Platoon he was racial, and as a group "platoon" we of all COLOR & CREED did not care for his spoken views, We quickly disposed of him, he was transferred out. There was some pain involved for him. But we were a unit getting ready to go to Lebanon, where our fellow Marines had fallen. What we did, was train to KILL and save life also, we did not tolerate any distraction to our beliefs GOD, COUNTRY, UNIT, CORPS, And if need be to give our lives for this great Country. Remember I said no distractionn's just ready for WAR "waiting to fight and die" I did not do this years ago just to see "GAYS" disrupt our Military & the Country at any time history. Remember GOD and the Bible tell us where we are going and what to do, it's plain and simple, if you believe. We all must share this earth as one with no racial, sexual divide.

SimerFi Bob

[AnimalLover6]

08:00 PM on 12/01/2010

That DADT even exists is ridiculous, and embarrassing for the U.S.

Military personnel in ancient Greece were almost always gay. And how about Alexander the Great?

Repeal the idiocy, and let's move on to real issues.

[dreffein]

10:53 PM on 12/01/2010

Agreed.

[habenae23]

07:45 PM on 12/02/2010

So was Genghis Khan

[randyjet]

07:50 PM on 12/01/2010

There were a lot of cautions in Gates report. He stated clearly that there will be some major problems in the short term. It was also noted that the combat units were opposed to repeal of DADT. The majority of Marines were very much opposed to the repeal.

I see no good reason to do away with DADT. We are not hurting for recruits, nor are we desperate for gays to serve to increase military effectiveness. THAT is the sole reason for changing DADT. Will the gains for the military outweigh the liabilities? THAT is the ONLY relevant question. All others are not to the point of the miitary since their job is to fight and win wars. It is NOT to have the service conform to the desires of some members who are gay.

[dreffein]

07:58 PM on 12/01/2010

I'm not sure how you can possibly make these statements. Do you know how many LGBTs are in the military? Do you know how many gays are in combat situations? Are you willing, should we ever need to re-enact the draft exempt all LGBT members?

[Dimensio]

10:15 PM on 12/01/2010

Evidently randyjet believes that many enlisted individuals in all branches of the United States armed forces are insecure, and are unable to perform their duties adequately due to their insecurities.

I do not share randyjet's evident belief that many members of the United States armed forces are so insecure as to exhibit incompetence, but many advocates of retaining the current prohibition of service by openly homosexual individuals do hold such a belief.

[bobbythemole]

07:25 PM on 12/01/2010

Definition of Moral adj. blameless, chaste, clean-living, decent, equitable, ethical, good, high-minded, honest, honorable, incomputable, innocent, just, meritorious, moralistic, noble, principled, proper, pure, responsible, right, righteous, square, straight, temperate, upright, upstanding, virtuous. I as a man I’m not perfect, but I do not disrupt anyone life like this "some not all" Ill moral thoughts, I ask you to keep them inside your mind & house, for our young people is a cancer. You see it everywhere, our young people don't know what to do our where to go, just look at them you will see it...... Moral's...... The lack of moral's in our country. Please make it right help each other understand.... GOD, COUNTRY, CLASSROOM, UNITED STATES and YOU. Your not alone we all suffer because of Ill moral thought's but we must keep them in check so as to not create instability in our country foundation. So to the Press just like you report on Monday some one was shot and killed. And like a thought lost you never here of it again. This is sad it happens everyday. So plainly if you don't report it there will be a clam and life will go on..... Finally no "GAY's in our military plain and simple "DON'T TELL" our be discharged for the lack of common Morals....

SemperFi Bob

[dreffein]

07:29 PM on 12/01/2010

?What language is he speaking?

[randyjet]

07:44 PM on 12/01/2010

He was a pugil stick instructor who got hit over the head too many times without the helmet on.

[RBLRDR]

08:29 PM on 12/01/2010

Ign0ramus.

[joeyfoto]

09:51 PM on 12/01/2010

I understand. Crazy people need things to be very simple or they can't function.

I'll make it simple for you, Bob.

No healthy country is run for the comfort of bigots.

When DADT is repealed, you will either obey your orders or go to the brig on your way to be mustered out of the service.

SemperFi Joey

[jerryatthebeach]

07:20 PM on 12/01/2010

Why doesn't anyone talk about the conduct of a soldier. It's proper behaviour, on and off duty. People in the military conduct themselves in a professional manner. I don't think you'll have any bathhouse shower scenes...

[dreffein]

07:25 PM on 12/01/2010

Any gay person who joins the military for a "bathhouse shower scene" would be insane. Wouldn't it be a lot easier (and enjoyable) just to join a gym or go to a club rather than travel to Afghanistan?

[Edward Standley]

07:16 PM on 12/01/2010

I would like to gather a group of gay soldiers who are missing limbs, their sight, their mental faculties, and have opponents of the repeal explain themselves in person.

[unique]

07:04 PM on 12/01/2010

What ever happened to "All men are created equal?"

For those that look toward their bibles for bigotry, read my bible
it teaches tolerance.

[jerryatthebeach]

07:02 PM on 12/01/2010

Only a fool wouldn't repeal this immediatley...

[edgarcaycedoc]

06:55 PM on 12/01/2010

The first military woman came to work on our installation when I was there ('74). When she came, the Colonel told us not to help her unload supplies (she was an admin type, and many of the supplies were very heavy). She never asked anybody for help. It took about three months, and one day an especially large shipment came in. The Colonel walked out of his office, and said, "Why don't a couple of you guys go help her. That's an awful big load." This from a man who vehemently denied women needed to ever be in combat units (at the rear). So today I will say, "Way to go, Natalie. As slight as you were, you made a big impact on many of the lives in our unit. You taught us how to win when the chips were down."

[RBLRDR]

07:02 PM on 12/01/2010

It sounds like you guys were lucky to get Natalie. Great story! Thank you.

[KsWrangler]

07:13 PM on 12/01/2010

F&F

[MSELLIE]

06:30 PM on 12/01/2010

How old is that picture. The military hasn't used a solid green fatigue since the 1970s.

[edgarcaycedoc]

06:56 PM on 12/01/2010

This picture I took to be from the era of integration of blacks into all white units. Maybe??

[Michael Lindley]

06:28 PM on 12/01/2010

Gays in the military should come out en masse now! If the 100,00 or so gays would, tomorrow, tell their commanding officer they are gay, repeal would happen immediately.

[joefoss]

06:19 PM on 12/01/2010

That's right, opposition (in 1948!) to desegregation of the armed forces was much more intense than that expressed today against ending DADT by a minority of military personnel.
=And, by the way, do you know how racial segregation in the U.S. military was ended?
Did President Truman go hat-in-hand to Congress, asking them to do it? Did he pass the buck to a
a "bi-partisan commission? Did he order study after endless study of the issue?
=No, President Truman ended racial segregation in our armed forces by Executive Order.
Isn't it amazing what a president with the courage of his convictions can do?

[DallasDon]

06:35 PM on 12/01/2010

Last month President Obama was asked specifical­ly why he didn't repeal DADT
using an executive order, similar to President Truman;

He answered the question and explained the issue in less than 2 minutes,
here's the video:

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=nk7uU6dzM­Iw

[KsWrangler]

07:19 PM on 12/01/2010

Hi, Don. Good to see you. I know where you are coming from, but the law is unconstitu­tional. If Congress passed a law to limit the authority of the President (as he himself said the Congress did in this case), the Administra­tion would immediatel­y take it to the Supreme Court. Likewise, DADT and DOMA are both unconstitu­tional, but rather than join in the challenge to these laws, the Administra­tion is defending them. His office says that it is his obligation to defend the laws. In actuality, his duty is to protect and defend the Constituti­on. This is why it is so difficult for people to get their heads around this.

[DallasDon]

06:36 PM on 12/01/2010

Sorry, here's the link to the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk7uU6dzMIw

[Epimenides]

06:59 PM on 12/01/2010

Did you observe that Obama failed to explain why his DOJ appealed the district court's judgment and moreover, sought and obtained a stay of the injunction?

Is there a law required Obama to defend a plainly unconstitutional statute all the way up to the Roberts Supreme Court, which has demonstrated total contempt for the Bill of Rights?