FACT SHEET COMPARING THE MILITARY'S POLICY OF RACIAL SEGREGATION IN THE 1940'S TO THE CURRENT BAN ON LESBIANS, GAY MEN AND BISEXUALS Today's exclusion of lesbian, gay and bisexual soldiers echoes the discrimination against blacks in the military in the 1940's and early 1950's. The parallel is inexact: a person's skin color is not the same as a person's sexual identity; race is self-evident to many whereas sexual orientation is not. Moreover, the history of African Americans is not equivalent to the history of lesbian, gay and bisexual people in this country. But the words, rationale and rhetoric invoked in favor of racial discrimination in the past are the exact same words, rationale and rhetoric used to exclude gays in the military now. The haunting parallels should at least give one pause. Consider the following examples. * THEN. In the 1940's, two Army studies showed that more than 80% of white soldiers opposed racial integration. NOW. The military argues 74% of enlisted personnel oppose lifting the ban on gay people. * THEN. During World War II and the Korean War, individuals like Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Gen. Omar Bradley, Gen. George C. Marshall, Secretary of the Army Kenneth Royall, and Navy Secretary Frank Knox - all voiced opposition to racial integration. NOW. The military urges deference to the opinions of Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, Col. Fred Peck, and Gen. Carl Mundy who oppose lifting the ban on gays. * THEN. In 1949, Secretary Royall said that racial integration would undermine unit cohesion: "Effective comradeship in battle calls for a warm and close personal relationship within a unit." A U.S. Army Report to the Secretary of Defense further stated, "The soldier on the battlefield deserves to have, and must have utmost confidence in his fellow soldiers." NOW. Col. Darryl Henderson says gays will disrupt unit cohesion because soldiers in military units with gays would not "give primary loyalty to the group so that it trains and fights as a unit with all members going to its death to achieve a common goal." * THEN. In 1948, Senator Richard Russell of Georgia said that racial integration would compromise the privacy rights of white soldiers: "There is no more intimate relationship known to men than that of enlisted men serving together at the squad level. They eat and sleep together. They use the same facilities day after day. They are compelled to stay together in the closest association . . . ." NOW. Senator Sam Nunn, also of Georgia and Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, says "They are living in very close quarters, and they don't have any place to get away from each other." * THEN. In 1948, Gen. Bradley said that "the Army is not out to make any social reforms. It will change that policy when the Nation as a whole changes it." Gen. Marshall echoed the same sentiments, saying that "experiments within the Army in the solution of social problems are fraught with danger to efficiency, discipline and morale." NOW. MCPO Chuck Jackson of the Non- Commissioned Officers Association says "the use of the armed forces for the purpose of social experimentation will only serve to disrupt and degrade the institution recognized as the very best in the world." * THEN. During World War II, the War Department's General Staff advised Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson that racial integration would erode public confidence in the military: "The Army can under no circumstances adopt a policy which is contrary to the dictates of a majority of people [because] to do so would alienate the people from the Army and lower their morale at a time when their support of the Army and high morale are vital to our national needs." NOW. Gen. Schwarzkopf argues: "Because of the prevailing aversion to homosexuals in our society, the Army would suffer in esteem if known homosexuals were allowed to serve." * THEN. In the 1940's, many who opposed racial integration argued that blacks were morally inferior. Sen. Russell (GA) claimed that blacks would affect the "morals of the armed forces of the U.S." Rep. Manasco (AL) quoted an article in the Alabama Baptist as well as from Genesis, Jeremiah and Deuteronomy to support the thesis that "Purity of race is a gift of God." NOW. Brig. Gen. Jim Hutchens tells us "for the vast majority of soldiers, there is a sense of moral ascendancy that has been shaped by the values instilled in their religious upbringing. . . . Requiring those whose religious and moral teaching unequivocally opposes homosexuality to serve with practicing homosexuals, is to be cynically insensitive. . . ." * THEN. In 1948, Sen. Russell said that "statistics can be quoted...which will show that the incidence of syphilis, gonorrhea, chancre and all other venereal diseases is appallingly higher among the members of the Negro race than among members of the white race." NOW. Gen. Mundy says "one does not need a medical degree to recognize that admitting homosexuals into the military would...put additional financial and personal strains on military medicine." Some argue that it is inaccurate to compare the military's policy of racial segregation in the 1940's to the current ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual soldiers. Their argument is that African Americans were discriminated against because of a benign characteristic: their skin color. However, as Roger Wilkins, an historian and civil rights commentator said, "in an earlier era - and perhaps still today - skin color evoked a host of behavioral stereotypes that were barriers to black advancement." Every argument, every rationale used against lesbian, gay and bisexual soldiers today are the exact same arguments used against African Americans in the military in the 1940's and early 1950's. The arguments dredged up in defense of the policy are the same archaic, unsubstantiated assertions used in the past. the same archaic, unsubstantiated assertions in defense of the policy. The bigotry expressed is the same; the discrimination is the same. And bigotry and discrimination must end. * * * * Prepared by the Legal/Policy Department of the Campaign for Military Service. 2707 Massachussetts Ave, NW Washington, DC 20009. (202) 265-6666.