for subtle negotiation?[22-20]
But to Chairman Gesell the equal opportunity situation demanded
action, and how could this demand be better impressed on the commander
than by the knowledge that his performance was being measured?[22-21]
The point of this argument, which the committee accepted, was that
unless personal responsibility was fixed, policies and directives on
equal opportunity were just so much rhetoric.

[Footnote 22-20: Interv, author with Davenport, 2 Aug
73, CMH files.]

[Footnote 22-21: Interv, author with Gesell, 13 May
72.]

Only the Army's outline plan explicitly adopted the committee's
controversial recommendation that "the effective performance of
commanders in this area will be considered along with other
responsibilities in determining his overall manner of duty
performance." The Navy equivocated. Commanders would "monitor
continually racial matters with a goal toward improvement." The
Inspectors General of the Navy and Marine Corps were "instructed to
appraise" all command procedures. The Air Force expected base base
commanders to concern themselves with the welfare nondiscriminatory
treatment of its servicemen when they were away from the base, but it
left them considerable freedom in the matter. "The military mission is
predominant," the Air Force announced, and the local commander must be
given wide latitude in dealing with discrimination cases since "each
community presented a different situation for which local solutions
must be developed."

The decision by the Navy and Air Force to exempt commanders from
explicit responsibility in equal opportunity matters came after some
six months of soul-searching. Under Secretary of the Navy Fay agreed
with his superior that the Navy's equal opportunity "image" suffered
in comparison to the other services and the percentage of Negroes in
the Navy and Marine Corps left much to be desired. But when (p. 562)
ordered by Secretary Fred Korth to develop a realistic approach to
equal opportunity in consultation with the Gesell Committee, Fay's
response tended to ignore service shortcomings and, most significantly,
failed to fix responsibility for equal opportunity matters. He
proposed to revise Navy instructions to provide for increased liaison
between local commanders and community leaders and monitor civil
rights cases involving naval personnel, but his response neither