The military has always been a “social experiment”
The United States Army has a long and complicated history surrounding inclusiveness and diversity. Be it race, gender, or sexual orientation, the Army has been both an impenetrable wall of tradition and an incubator of social change. Recent congressional questioning and media attacks on high-ranking officers’ desire to understand racism are just another example of resistance to change in a parochial institution that is far from color-blind, yet has always been a social experiment.
Throughout the 19th century, the army functioned as a sort of frontier constabulary, protecting settlers from Native American attacks, building roads and forts, and helping pave the way for the modern United States to flourish. Immigrants looking to assimilate into their new country found a home in the U.S. Army and helped forge a ready cadre as the Civil Warloomed. Throughout the 19th century, the army consistently employed Native American allies to fight against other native groups on the frontier. In perhaps the ultimate dichotomy of complication, American soldiers attacked and destroyed entire native communities while working side-by-side with competing Native groups. This partnership grew exponentially, and now Native Americans are overrepresented among groups in the military.
African Americans have served in every war the U.S. has fought. In the Civil War, the United States Army recruited free black men into segregated regiments, a practice that continued through World War II. During that war, more than 1 million African Americans fought a “Double V Campaign” for victory abroad and at home for civil rights. Despite rampant Jim Crow laws and overt racism within the military, Black Americans contributed in spades to overall victory. Despite their wartime contributions, Black veterans were denied the unprecedented social mobility and generational wealth-building afforded by the GI Bill to their white peers.
Many army leaders, including Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Omar N. Bradley, considered desegregation and integration as anathema to good order and discipline and believed the army should follow society — rather than lead the way. Truman’s 1948 Executive Order 9981 to desegregate presaged national desegregation and the dismantling of Jim Crow and forced the army to be a leader among American institutions in social change, though Army leaders largely ignored it until it became official policy in 1949, and units did not fully integrate until the exigencies of combat in Korea forced change.
Women have experienced a similar plight. For years, those who wanted to fight hid their gender and fought in disguise. Aside from nursing, the army relegated women menial roles — most notably in the Women’s Army Corps, or WAC. This continued after World War II in what was essentially a separate women’s army. During the 1970s, women slowly assimilated into regular army training, and the WAC was disbanded by Public Law 95–584 in 1978, yet only in 2015 were women allowed to attend the leadership crucible known as Ranger School — a critical vehicle for officer promotion and the next year all combat jobs were opened to women. Of course, like with the inclusion of immigrant or Black servicemembers, this has received loads of criticismabout its effect on good order and discipline alongside recent laments over pregnancy and hairstyles.
LGTBQ personnel have also faced exclusion and harassment. Not officially banned until World War II, “homosexual acts” would earn someone a discharge as far back as the American Revolution. In 1942, homosexuality was cause for exclusion upon draft or enlistment. However, thousands served during World War II and since under silence and fear of losing their benefits through a less than honorable discharge — all for suppressing their identity. The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy enacted by President Clinton in the 1990s was intended as a compromise — Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell suggested that the military just stop asking. But this had harmful effects, mostly in forcing servicemembers to lie and hide who they were until the law was repealed in 2010. Transgender troops have recently come under fire, but now men and women can serve openly, as themselves.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley’s 2021 comments on understanding race and racism in the armed forces are profound. Diversity is a force multiplier that Jason Lyall argues can, in fact, enhance cohesion. As of 2018, the enlisted ranks of American armed forces were more diversethan the rest of society, yet officer numbers still lag. Nevertheless, understanding the demographic make-up of society through understandingthe role of race, gender, and sexual orientation will only help the Department of Defense continue to find personnel and meet its mission to defend the United States. Reading to gain knowledge, increase understanding, and develop empathy is a desired trait in any organization’s personnel, especially the United States military.
