hat taken as a whole the status of black
servicemen had improved considerably since the Truman order. It noted
that black representation had remained relatively constant since the
early days of integration, 8.2 percent of the total, 9.2 percent of
the enlisted strength, and approached national population averages.
The percentage of black officers, 1.6 percent of all officers, while
admittedly low, had been rising steadily and compared favorably with
the number of black executives in the civilian economy. The
occupational status of the black enlisted man had also undergone
steady improvement since the early days of integration, especially
when one compared the number and variety of military occupation
specialties held by black servicemen with opportunities in the rest of
the civil service and the business community.

Finally, and perhaps most important, the commission found that in
their daily operations, military installations were "generally free
from the taint of racial discrimination."[20-79] It confirmed the
general assessments of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith and
the American Veterans Committee among others, pointing out that black
and white servicemen not only worked side by side, but also mingled in
off-duty hours.[20-80] In sum, the study demonstrated general
satisfaction with the racial situation on military bases. Its major
concern, and indeed the major concern of Diggs and most black
servicemen, remained the widespread discrimination prevailing against
black servicemen in the local community.

[Footnote 20-79: U.S. Commission on _Civil Rights_,
Civil Rights '63, pp. 173-85. The quotation is from
page 185.]

[Footnote 20-80: See, for example, Morton Puner, "The
Armed Forces: An Integration Success Story,"
_Anti-Defamation League Bulletin_, Nov 62, pp. 3,
7; and American Veterans Committee, "Audit of Negro
Veterans and Servicemen," 1960.]

These important generalizations aside, the commission nevertheless
offered impressive statistical support for some of Diggs's charges
when it investigated the diverse and conflicting enlistment and
assignment patterns of the different services. The Navy and Marine
Corps came in for special criticism. Even when the complexities of
mental aptitude requirements and use of draftees versus enlistees (p. 522)
were