a man to whom equal
opportunity was but one of many problems and who might well question
new or aggressive civil rights tactics. Such an attitude was
understandable in an official with little or no experience in civil
rights matters and no day-to-day contact with civil rights operations.
Norman Paul, whose experience was in legislative liaison, might also
be especially sensitive to the possibility of congressional or public
criticism.[22-12] Indicative of the assistant secretary's attitude
toward his civil rights deputy was the fact that the position was
reorganized and retitled, with some significant corresponding changes
in function each time, a bewildering five times in ten years.[22-13]
To add to the problems of the civil rights office, nine different men
were to occupy the deputy's position, three of them in the capacity of
acting deputy, in that same decade.[22-14]

[Footnote 22-12: Before assuming the manpower
position, Norman Paul was the chief of legislative
liaison for the Department of Defense. For a
critique of the work of the ASD (M) incumbents in
the racial field, see O'Brien's interview with
Gilpatric, 5 May 70, J. F. Kennedy Library.]

[Footnote 22-13: For a discussion of the effect of the
proliferation of assistants in the manpower office,
see USAF oral history interview with Evans, 24 Apr
73.]

[Footnote 22-14: The incumbents were Alfred B. Fitt,
Stephen N. Shulman, Jack Moskowitz, L. Howard
Bennett (acting), Frank W. Render II, Donald L.
Miller, Curtis R. Smothers (acting), Stuart Broad
(acting), and H. Minton Francis.]

The organization of the equal opportunity program of the Secretary of
Defense was not without its critics. Some wanted to enhance the
prestige of the equal opportunity program by creating a separate
assistant secretary for civil rights.[22-15] Such an official,
accountable to the Secretary of Defense alone, would be free to direct
the services' racial activities and, they agreed, would also serve as
a highly visible symbol to servicemen and civil rights advocates alike
of the department's determination to execute its new policy. Others,
however, defended the existing organization, arguing that racial