ary efficiency of the armed forces. Despite his interest
in the cause of civil rights, he had, until the open housing campaign,
always circumscribed the department's equal opportunity program to fit
a more traditional definition of military mission. Seen in this light,
McNamara's attack against segregated housing represented not only the
substitution of a new and more powerful technique--sanctions--for one
that had been found wanting--voluntary compliance, but also a
substantial evolution in his own social philosophy. He later implied
as much.

We request cooperation and seek voluntary compliance [in
obtaining open housing].... I am fully aware that the Defense
Department is not a philanthropic foundation or a social-welfare
institution. But the Department does not intend to let our Negro
servicemen and their families continue to suffer the injustices
and indignities they have in the past. I am certain my successors
will pursue the same policy.[23-99]

[Footnote 23-99: McNamara, _The Essence of Security_,
p. 127.]

By 1967 the major programs derived from Secretary McNamara's equal
opportunity policy had been defined, and the Department of Defense
could look back with pride on the substantial and permanent changes it
had achieved in the treatment of black servicemen in communities near
military bases.[23-100] Emphasizing voluntary compliance with its
policy, the department had proved to be quite successful in its
campaign against discrimination in off-base recreation, public
transportation and accommodation, in the organized reserves, and even,
to a limited extent, in off-base schools. It was logical that the
services should seek voluntary compliance before resorting to more
drastic methods. As the Gesell Committee had pointed out, base (p. 608)
commanders had vast influence in their local communities, influence
that might be used in countless ways to alter the patterns of off-base
discrimination. For the first time the armed forces had fought
discrimination by making the local commander responsible for a
systematic program of negotiations in the community.

[Footnote 23-100: This analysis owes much to the
author's correspondence with Alfred Fitt and the
interviews with McNamara, Gesell, and Jordan. See
also Memo, Timpane tor Stephen Schulman, 11 Feb 65,