Measuring Changes in Institutional Racial Discrimination in the Army


Book Description

A method was developed to measure changes in institutional racial discrimination in the Army. Institutional racial discrimination is defined as a difference in what happens to people in an organization, a difference which is: (1) correlated with skin color; (2) results from the normal functioning of the organization; and (3) operates to the consistent disadvantage of persons of a particular skin color. This concept is operationalized into specific quantitative indicators. Differences in what happens to whites and blacks in the Army were measured using specific quantitative indicators derived from comparisons of actual and the expected numbers of blacks in certain situations or having certain characteristics.










Measuring Changes in Institutional Racial Discrimination in the Army


Book Description

A method was developed to measure changes in institutional racial discrimination in the Army. Institutional racial discrimination is defined as a difference in what happens to people in an organization, a difference which is: (1) correlated with skin color; (2) results from the normal functioning of the organization; and (3) operates to the consistent disadvantage of persons of a particular skin color. This concept is operationalized into specific quantitative indicators. Differences in what happens to whites and blacks in the Army were measured using specific quantitative indicators derived from comparisons of actual and the expected numbers of blacks in certain situations or having certain characteristics.




The Measurement of Institutional Discrimination


Book Description

This paper presents a method for measuring institutional discrimination, and presents examples of its use. Desite assertions, the goal of racial equality is closer to fulfillment in the armed forces than in any other American Institution, critics of the military continue to point to discrimination against black servicemen and women within the military establishment. Weigert's analysis of a survey of 459 black American soldiers stationed in Germany in 1970 found that 41 percent felt that there were better opportunities for blacks in civilian institutions than in the military. An additional 39 percent rated the two about equal, and only 20 percent felt they had better prospects in the military. An ARI survey of 3,845 enlisted personnel, conducted worlwide, in 1972, presented a somewhat more positive view of the Army compared to civilian institutions, although the data are not directly comparable. Nineteen percent of the black respondents in the ARI survey felt that race problems were worse in the Army than in the rest of society, and 46 percent felt that they were about the same. However, in comparing the treatment of blacks and whites within the Army, 72 percent of the black respondents felt that blacks are treated worse than whites in the Army, and only 1 percent felt that blacks were treated better.













Measuring Institutional Discrimination in the Army: 1974-1980


Book Description

Based on computerized records of the entire Army population from 1974 through 1980, institutional discrimination, as defined, persists through 1980. Blacks, Hispanics, females, and racial/ethnic others are each nonuniformly distributed across paygrade and occupational categories. Speed of promotion and separation rates vary among the groups. In general, most disparities can be interpreted as disadvantages to the demographic groups in question. Trends over time are considered. Both desirable and undesirable trends are in evidence though others cannot be interpreted unambiguously. Originator supplied keywords include: Institutional discrimination, Representation, Discrimination, Organizational horizontalization, Blacks, Hispanics, Females, Female soldiers, Difference indicator, Equal opportunity, Separations.




Integration of the Armed Forces, 1940-1965


Book Description

"In the quarter century that followed American entry into World War II, the nation's armed forces moved from the reluctant inclusion of a few segregated Negroes to their routine acceptance in a racially integrated military establishment. Nor was this change confined to military installations. By the time it was over, the armed forces had redefined their traditional obligation for the welfare of their members to include a promise of equal treatment for black servicemen wherever they might be. In the name of equality of treatment and opportunity, the Department of Defense began to challenge racial injustices deeply rooted in American society. For all its sweeping implications, equality in the armed forces obviously had its pragmatic aspects. In one sense it was a practical answer to pressing political problems that had plagued several national administrations. In another, it was the services' expression of those liberalizing tendencies that were permeating American society during the era of civil rights activism. But to a considerable extent the policy of racial equality that evolved in this quarter century was also a response to the need for military efficiency. So easy did it become to demonstrate the connection between inefficiency and discrimination that, even when other reasons existed, military efficiency was the one most often evoked by defense officials to justify a change in racial policy."_x000D_ Morris J. MacGregor, Jr., received the A.B. and M.A. degrees in history from the Catholic University of America. He continued his graduate studies at the Johns Hopkins University and the University of Paris on a Fulbright grant. Before joining the staff of the U.S. Army Center of Military History in 1968 he served for ten years in the Historical Division of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.