FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   449   450   451   452   453   454   455   456   457   458   459   460   461   462   463   464   465   466   467   468   469   470   471   472   473  
474   475   476   477   478   479   480   481   482   483   484   485   486   487   488   489   490   491   492   493   494   495   496   497   498   >>   >|  
s mental standards to the Navy and Air Force levels, but neither service wanted to lower its own entrance standards to match the level necessity had imposed on the Army. The Air Force eventually agreed to enlist Negroes at a 10 percent ratio to whites, but the Navy held out for higher standards and no allocation by race. It contended that setting the same standards for all services would improve the quality of the Army's black enlistees only imperceptibly while it would do great damage to the Navy. The Navy admitted that the other services should help the Army, but not "up to the point of _unnecessarily_ reducing their own effectiveness.... The modern Navy cannot operate its ships and aircraft with personnel of G.C.T. 70."[13-38] General Bradley cut to the point: if the Navy carried the day it would receive substantially fewer Negroes than the other two services and a larger portion of the best qualified.[13-39] Secretary Forrestal first referred the interservice controversy to the Munitions Board in May 1948 and later that summer to a special interservice committee. After both groups failed to reach an agreement,[13-40] Forrestal decided not to force a parity in mental standards upon the services. On 12 October he explained to the secretaries that parity could be imposed only during time of full mobilization, and since conditions in the period between October 1948 and June 1949 could not be considered comparable to those of full mobilization, parity was impossible. He promised, however, to study the qualitative needs of each service. Meanwhile, he had found no evidence that any service was discriminating in the selection of enlistees and settled for a warning that any serious (p. 326) discrimination by any two of the services would place "an intolerable burden" on the third.[13-41] [Footnote 13-38: Memo, SecNav for SecDef, 27 May 48, sub: Liaison With the Selective Service System and Determination of Parity Standards, P14-6; Memo, Actg SecNav for SecDef, 17 Aug 48; sub: Items in Disagreement Between the Services as Listed in SecDef's Memo of 15 Jul 48, P 14-4; both in GenRecsNav. The quotation is from an inclosure to the latter memo.] [Footnote 13-39: CofSA, Rpt of War Council Min, 3 Aug 48, copy in OSD Historical Off
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   449   450   451   452   453   454   455   456   457   458   459   460   461   462   463   464   465   466   467   468   469   470   471   472   473  
474   475   476   477   478   479   480   481   482   483   484   485   486   487   488   489   490   491   492   493   494   495   496   497   498   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
standards
 

services

 

parity

 

SecDef

 

service

 

interservice

 
SecNav
 
Footnote
 

Forrestal

 
enlistees

October

 

mobilization

 
imposed
 

Negroes

 

mental

 

evidence

 

selection

 

discriminating

 
settled
 
warning

promised

 

impossible

 
comparable
 
considered
 

period

 

qualitative

 

conditions

 
Meanwhile
 

Determination

 

quotation


inclosure

 

GenRecsNav

 

Historical

 

Council

 
Listed
 

Liaison

 
Selective
 

Service

 
intolerable
 

burden


System

 

secretaries

 

Disagreement

 
Between
 

Services

 

Parity

 

Standards

 

discrimination

 

imperceptibly

 
quality