Abstract
Integrating the US Military continues the rich research on military organizations and the participation of Americans. The strongest tradition around “integration” of the American military is related to Black Americans. This is because the only racial group, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation, who has ever been legislated against vis-à-vis segregation is Black Americans of all colors and shades. White men and women who were deemed unacceptable, because of sexual orientation, always served in the military if they hid their sexual orientations. This was also true of Black gay men and women who served but in racially segregated units. The military has never developed segregated units for White soldiers who were gay or any other racial category that was also gay. It is instructive that the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy was based on behavior and was taken from the military policy on how an “officer and a gentleman” should conduct themselves. The policy was that there should be no sexual affairs among married officers. If officers had an affair, no one would ask and no one needs to tell. This policy was simply applied to all soldiers who were gay. It was designed to protect a behavior, in both cases, that was seen as unacceptable. Racial segregation policy was based on race.
The contribution of this book is the continued emphasis of the military organization and opportunities for Americans; its greatest shortcoming is its conflation of the history of race in the military with the history of sexual orientation. By playing off the Black experience, the work violates the scientific process (classification) by comparing a racial category with a behavior category and adding an “openness” variable. Blacks live openly Black all the time (except for those who have passed and look non-Black), so it is difficult to compare race and sexual orientation. Indeed, Black gays have served the country with distinction during both the segregated and desegregated eras. So, it is difficult to say “Blacks and homosexuals” when there are Blacks who are homosexuals. It is also difficult to say “women and minorities” when there are Blacks who are women. Thus, by playing off the Black experience, the book relies on a faulty comparative framework. But as the saying goes, everyone seems to be doing it.
The book recognizes that although the military has served as an opportunity for many Americans, this has been done historically because of the need for man power not a social agenda. Thus, America fought the Civil War with ex-slaves, World War II with Italian immigrants, and the All-Volunteer Force could not work without women of all racial backgrounds. The groups in this book should be examined in their own historical context because the difference between Black Americans of all sexual orientations is different when it comes to opportunities or jobs and pay checks relative to all White Americans of all sexual orientations in America. Homosexuality has a strong history, and it is this history that studying the gay experience should be grounded in and not a racial experience. When this is done, one can view racial differences within the gay experience from a stronger theoretical position.
All analysis of military organizations pays particular attention to culture, with the President of the United States at the apex of an organization that is measured from the top down. Thus, Truman’s order desegregating the military from the top down was an order. It was an order that changed structure not attitudes. Truman’s order said, desegregate; it did not say that Blacks had to be accepted by White soldiers. This came because of contact between the races, albeit with racial conflict. It would have been interesting to see how White gays (not serving openly) reacted to this order and if they bonded with Blacks who were serving nonopenly in the military as gay soldiers. Because of the theoretical framework that compares race to behavior, these kinds of questions cannot be addressed in this work.
When one does work on military, one has to pay attention to the structure of the organizations, which is different from nonmilitary organizations. For example, there is an excellent chapter on Black soldiers by James E. Westheider, but it uses the term “resistance.” In the context of the military, this would be called mutiny. If Black soldiers, or any soldier, resisted in the military, they would have found themselves in a court martial and thrown out of the military. It was civilians who put pressure on the government to change the rules of segregation. James M. McCaffrey’s chapter on Japanese American Soldiers during World War II stands on its own, although there is no analysis of White German Americans who were placed in concentration camps because of their association with the Nazi Party in America and the fear that they would help Hitler during World War II.
There is a section “unmaking the racial analysis,” which shifts the importance of treatment rather than opportunity because gay soldiers (White men and women who were gay soldiers) followed the opportunity structure of White and those who were Black followed the segregation tradition of Blacks. The analysis does not give a breakdown of those who were expelled, although it does compare the newspaper accounts of the segregated period with the period of open gay rights. It also does not note that Black gays were also expelled under the don’t ask don’t tell policy.
This work continues a great tradition of research. From a measurement point of view, comparing behavior with race is problematic. While the government can certify behavior groups and other groups as “minorities,” one cannot decertify the history that is unique to Black Americans vis-à-vis segregation. This book should generate a good deal of debate around measurement and the military experience.