icy was
undergoing substantial revision. And, ironically, it was the very
group to which Vance was writing that precipitated the change. It was
the members of ACCESS who climaxed their campaign against segregated
apartment complexes in the Washington suburbs with a sit-down
demonstration in McNamara's reception room in the Pentagon on 1
February, bringing the problem to the personal attention of a
Secretary of Defense burdened with Vietnam.[23-77] Although strongly
committed to the principle of equal opportunity and always ready to
support the initiatives of his civil rights assistants,[23-78]
McNamara had largely ignored the housing problem. Later he castigated
himself for allowing the problem to drift for four years.

I get charged with the TFX. It's nothing compared to the Bay of
Pigs or my failure for four years to integrate off-base military
housing. I don't want you to misunderstand me when I say this,
but the TFX was only money. We're talking about blood, the moral
foundation of our future, the life of the nation when we talk
about these things.[23-79]

[Footnote 23-77: Ltr, Fitt to author, 22 May 72; see
also New York _Times_ and Washington _Post_,
February 2, 1967.]

[Footnote 23-78: Robert E. Jordan, former DASD (CR)
assistant, described the secretary's eagerness to
support civil rights initiatives: "He would hardly
wait for an explanation, but start murmuring,
'Where do I sign, where do I sign?'" Interv, author
with Jordan, 7 Jun 72.]

[Footnote 23-79: Quoted by Brower, "McNamara Seen Now,
Full Length," p. 78. The TFX mentioned by McNamara
was an allusion to the heated and lengthy
controversy that arose during his administration
over fighter aircraft for the Navy and Air Force.]

McNamara was being unnecessarily harsh with himself. There were
several reasons, quite unrelated to either the Secretary of Defense or
his assistants, that explain the failure of voluntarism to integrate
housing used by servicemen. A major cause--witness the failure of
President Johnson's proposed civil rights bill in 1966--was that open
housing lacked a national consensus or widespread public support.
Voluntary compliance was successful