es.]

Some forms of discrimination seemed impervious to change. Open
housing, for one, was the exception rather than the rule throughout
the country. One survey noted the particular difficulty this created
for servicemen, especially the many enlisted men who lived in trailers
and could find no unsegregated place to park.[23-11] At times the
commanders' efforts to improve the situation seemed to compound the
problem. The stipulation that only open housing be listed with base
housing officers served more to reduce the number of listings than to
create opportunities for open housing. Small wonder then that
segregated housing, "the most pervasive and most intractable injustice
of all," in Alfred Fitt's words, was generally ignored while the
commanders and civil rights officials concentrated instead on the more
easily surmountable forms of discrimination.[23-12]

[Footnote 23-11: Memo, DASD (CP, IR, & CR) for
Stewart, 23 Dec 64, sub: Civil Rights
Responsibilities of the Department of Defense, copy
in CMH.]

[Footnote 23-12: Ltr, Fitt to author, 22 May 72.]

At least part of the reason for the continued existence of housing
discrimination against servicemen lay in the fact that the Department
of Defense continued to deny itself the use of its most potent equal
opportunity weapon. Well into 1964, Fitt could report that no service
had contemplated the use of sanctions in an equal opportunity
case.[23-13] Nor had housing discrimination ever figured prominently
in any decision to close a military base. At Fitt's suggestion,
Assistant Secretary Paul proposed that community discrimination
patterns be listed as one of the reasons for closing military (p. 586)
bases.[23-14] Although the Assistant Secretary for Installations and
Logistics, Thomas D. Morris, agreed to consult such information during
deliberations on closings, he pointed out that economics and
operational suitability were the major factors in determining a base's
value.[23-15] As late as December 1964, an official of the Office of
the Secretary of Defense was publicly explaining that "discrimination
in the community is certainly a consideration, but the military
effectiveness and justification of an installation must be
primary."[23-16]

[Footnote 23-13: Ltr, DASD (CR) to Congressman Charles
Diggs, 3 Feb 64, copy in CMH.]