group argued, had through their recent integration found
themselves in the vanguard of the national campaign for equal
treatment and opportunity for Negroes, and to some it seemed only
logical that they be used to retain that lead for the administration.
These men had ample proof, they believed, for the proposition that the
services' policies had already influenced reforms elsewhere. They saw
a strong connection, for example, between the new Interstate Commerce
Commission's order outlawing segregation in interstate travel and the
services' efforts to secure equal treatment for troops in transit. In
effect, in the name of an administration handicapped by an unwilling
legislature, they were asking the services to fly the flag of civil
rights.

If their motives differed from those of their predecessors, their
rhetoric did not. Yarmolinsky and his colleagues argued that racial
discrimination, particularly discrimination in housing and public
accommodations, created a serious morale problem among black GIs, a
contention strongly supported by the recent Civil Rights Commission
findings. While the services had always denied responsibility for
combating discrimination outside the military reservation, these (p. 532)
officials were confident that the connection between this
discrimination and military efficiency could be demonstrated. They
were also convinced that segregated housing and the related
segregation of places of public accommodation were particularly
susceptible to economic pressure from military authorities.

[Illustration: ADAM YARMOLINSKY.]

This last argument was certainly not new. For some time civil rights
spokesmen had been urging the services to use economic pressure to
ease discrimination. Specifically, Congressman Powell, and later a
number of civil rights groups, had called on the armed forces to
impose off-limits sanctions for all servicemen against businesses that
discriminated against black servicemen. Clear historical precedent
seemed to exist for the action demanded by the controversial Harlem
legislator because from earliest time the services had been declaring
establishments and whole geographical areas off limits to their
officers and men in order to protect their health and welfare. In view
of the services' contention that equal treatment and opportunity were
important to the welfare of servicemen, was it not reasonable, the
spokesmen could ask, for the armed forces to use this powerful
econ