nce memorandum to base
commanders. These men had to maintain good relations with community
leaders, he argued, and good relations were best fostered by the
commander's joining local community organizations such as the Rotary
Club and the Chamber of Commerce, which were often segregated. These
civic and social organizations offered an effective forum for
publicizing the objectives of the Department of Defense, and to forbid
the commander's participation because of segregation would seriously
reduce his local influence. Goode wanted the order "clarified" to
exclude local community organizations from its coverage on the grounds
that including them would be "detrimental to the best interests of all
military personnel and their dependents and would result in a
corresponding reduction in military effectiveness."[22-36] The Defense
Department would have nothing to do with the idea. Such an exception to
the rule, the civil rights deputy declared, would not constitute a (p. 566)
clarification, but rather a nullification of the order. The Air Force
request was rejected.[22-37]

[Footnote 22-36: Memo, James P. Goode for Dep SecDef,
29 Sep 64, sub: Federal Participation at Segregated
Meetings, copy in CMH.]

[Footnote 22-37: Draft Memo, DASD (Civ Pers, Indus
Rels, and CR) for Dep for Manpower, Personnel, and
Organization, USAF, 7 Oct 64, sub: Federal
Participation at Segregated Meetings. The
memorandum was not actually dispatched, and a note
on the original draft discloses that after
discussion between the Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Defense and the Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Manpower) the rejection of the Air Force request
was "handled verbally." Copy of the memo in CMH.]

The confusion surrounding the publication of service regulations
suggested that without firm and comprehensive direction from the
Office of the Secretary of Defense the services would never develop
effective or uniform programs. Service officials argued that
commanders had always been allowed to execute racial policy without
specific instructions. They feared popular reaction to forceful
regulations, and, in truth, they were already being subjected to
congressional criticism over minor provisions of the Gesell