FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   781   782   783   784   785   786   787   788   789   790   791   792   793   794   795   796   797   798   799   800   801   802   803   804   805  
806   807   808   809   810   811   812   813   814   815   816   817   818   819   820   821   822   823   824   825   826   827   828   829   830   >>   >|  
l Committee's charges against the service were "to some extent" justified and warned naval commanders that if they failed to take a more positive approach to equal opportunity they would be ordered to take actions difficult for both the Navy and the community. Better "palatable evolutionary progress," he counseled, than "bitter revolutionary change."[22-25] [Footnote 22-25: Ltr, Chief, NavPers, to CONUS District Cmdrs et al., 22 Apr 63, attached to Memo, Chief, NavPers, for Distribution List, 24 Apr 63, sub: President's Committee on Equal Opportunity in the Armed Forces, SecNav file 5420, GenRecsNav.] Air Force officials had also considered the problem of command responsibility in the months before submitting their outline plan. As early as December 1962, Under Secretary Joseph V. Charyk admitted the possibility of confusion over what the policy of base commanders should be concerning off-base segregation. He proposed that the staff consider certain "minimum" actions, including "mandatory evaluation of all officers concerning their knowledge of this program and the extent to which they have complied with the policy of anti-discrimination."[22-26] Secretary Zuckert discussed Charyk's proposal with his assistants on 23 January 1963. It was also considered by McNamara, who then passed it to the other services, calling on them to develop similar programs.[22-27] Finally, Air Force officials discussed command responsibility in preparing their critique of Gesell Committee recommendations, and Secretary Zuckert informed Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul that "the responsibility for this [the Air Force's anti-discrimination] program will be clearly designated down to base level."[22-28] Despite this attention, the subject of specific command responsibility was not clearly delineated in the Air Force's outline plan. [Footnote 22-26: Memo, Actg SecAF CofSAF, 8 Dec 62, sub: Anti-Discrimination Policy in the Military Service, SecAF files.] [Footnote 22-27: Memo, SecDef for SA and Navy, 4 Mar 63, sub: Anti-Discrimination Policy in the Military Service, copy in CMH. McNamara received the Air Force document from Charyk through Yarmolinsky. See Memo, Benjamin Fridge, Spec Asst for Ma
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   781   782   783   784   785   786   787   788   789   790   791   792   793   794   795   796   797   798   799   800   801   802   803   804   805  
806   807   808   809   810   811   812   813   814   815   816   817   818   819   820   821   822   823   824   825   826   827   828   829   830   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
Secretary
 

responsibility

 

Footnote

 

Committee

 
Charyk
 

command

 
NavPers
 

considered

 
McNamara
 
program

outline

 

commanders

 

policy

 

officials

 

Service

 
actions
 
Military
 

discussed

 

Zuckert

 
discrimination

extent

 

Policy

 

Discrimination

 

similar

 

calling

 

services

 

develop

 

assistants

 
proposal
 
complied

January

 
passed
 

Assistant

 

CofSAF

 

delineated

 

specific

 

SecDef

 
received
 

document

 
subject

attention

 

Gesell

 

recommendations

 
Benjamin
 
informed
 

critique

 

preparing

 

Fridge

 

Finally

 

Yarmolinsky