ague, a legacy
of the department's fear of congressional retaliation for any
substantive move in the politically sensitive area of race relations.
Actually the secretary's office was primarily concerned with
discrimination in places of public accommodation such as swimming
pools, recreational facilities, meeting halls, and the like while the
explosive subject of off-base housing was ignored. Although the
order's ambiguity did not preclude initiatives in the housing field by
some zealous commanders, neither did it oblige any commander to take
any specific action, thus providing a convenient excuse for no action
at all.[20-52] Commanders, for example, were ordered to provide
integrated facilities off post for servicemen "to the extent
possible," a significant qualification in areas where such facilities
were not available in the community. Commanders were also "expected to
make every effort" to obtain integrated facilities off base through
the good offices of their command-community relations committees. In
effect the department was asking its commanders to achieve through
tact what the courts and the Justice Department were failing to
achieve through legal process.

[Footnote 20-52: Interv, author with James C. Evans,
15 Nov 72, CMH files.]

Where the order was specific, it carefully limited the extent of
reforms. It barred the use of military police in the enforcement of
local segregation laws, a positive step but a limited reform since
only in very rare instances had military police ever been so employed.
The order also provided "as circumstances warranted" for legal
assistance to servicemen to insure that they were afforded due
process of law in cases growing out of the enforcement of local (p. 514)
segregation ordinances. Again what seemed a broad commitment and
extensive interference with local matters was in practice very
carefully circumscribed, as demonstrated by the Air Force policy
statement issued in the wake of the secretary's order.

The Air Force announced that in the case of discrimination in the
community, the local Air Force commander and his staff judge advocate
would interview the aggrieved serviceman to ascertain the facts and
advise him of his legal recourses, "but will neither encourage nor
discourage the filing of a criminal complaint." The purpose of the
policy, the Air Force Chief of Staff explained, was to assist
servicemen and at the same time avoid