# Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services: Background and Issues for Congress > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR44321 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** June 5, 2019 - **Citation:** R44321 ## Text Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services: Background and Issues for Congress Kristy N. Kamarck Specialist in Military Manpower Updated June 5, 2019 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R44321 SUMMARY Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services: Background and Issues for Congress R44321 June 5, 2019 Kristy N. Kamarck Specialist in Military Manpower -re-acte--@crs.loc.gov Under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the authority to raise and support armies; provide and maintain a navy; and provide for organizing, disciplining, and For a copy of the full report, regulating them. Congress has used this authority to establish criteria and standards for please call 7-.... or visit individuals to be recruited, to advance through promotion, and to be separated or retired from www.crs.gov. military service. Throughout the history of the armed services, Congress has established some of these criteria based on demographic characteristics such as race, sex, and sexual orientation. In the past few decades there have been rapid changes to certain laws and policies regarding diversity, inclusion, and equal opportunity – in particular towards women serving in combat arms occupational specialties, and the inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals. Some of these changes remain contentious and face continuing legal challenges. Military manpower requirements derive from the National Military Strategy and are determined by the military services based on the workload and competencies required to deliver essential capabilities. Filling these capability needs, from combat medics to drone operators, often requires a wide range of backgrounds, skills and knowledge. To meet their recruiting mission, the military services draw from a demographically diverse pool of U.S. youth. Some have argued that military policies and programs that support diversity, inclusion, and equal opportunity can enhance the services’ ability to attract, recruit and retain top talent. Other advocates for a diverse force believe that it is in the best interest of the military to recruit and retain a military force that is representative of the nation as a “broadly representative military force is more likely to uphold national values and to be loyal to the government—and country—that raised it.” They contend that in order to reflect the nation it serves, the military should strive for diversity that reflects the demographics of the entire country. Some contend that a military that is representative of the nation should also reflect its social and cultural norms. Such observers argue that popular will for social change should be the driving or limiting factor for DOD policies. Others oppose the expansion of certain diversity and equal opportunity initiatives due to concerns about how these initiatives might be implemented. For example, some contend that diversity initiatives could harm the military’s merit-based system, leading to accessions and promotions that put demographic targets ahead of performance standards. Others express concern that the inclusion of some demographic groups is antithetical to military culture and could affect unit cohesion, morale, and readiness. When addressing equal opportunity within the Armed Forces, some further note that the military has a unique mission that requires the exclusion of some individuals based on, for example, age, physical fitness level, education attainment, or other characteristics. Congressional Research Service Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services Contents Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Why Do Organizations Value Diversity? ........................................................................................ 2 Diversity and Cohesion ............................................................................................................. 2 Diversity and Effectiveness ....................................................................................................... 4 Diversity Management .............................................................................................................. 4 Diversity and the Civil-Military Relationship ........................................................................... 5 Diversity and Social Equality.................................................................................................... 5 How Does DOD Define Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity? .......................................... 6 Diversity and Inclusion Policy .................................................................................................. 6 Military Equal Opportunity Policy ............................................................................................ 7 How Does DOD Manage Diversity and Equal Opportunity? ......................................................... 9 Office for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (ODEI) .................................................................. 9 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) ................................................ 10 Military Departments ............................................................................................................... 11 How Have the Definition and Treatment of Protected Classes Evolved in the Armed Forces? ........................................................................................................................................ 11 Racial/Ethnic Inclusion: Background and Force Profile ......................................................... 12 The Civil War to World War II, Racial Segregation.......................................................... 12 Desegregation in the Truman Era ..................................................................................... 13 Civil Rights Movement and Anti-Discrimination Policies ............................................... 15 The Vietnam War and Efforts to Improve Race Relations ................................................ 17 Is the Racial/Ethnic Profile of the Military Representative of the Nation? ...................... 19 Inclusion of Women: Background and Force Profile .............................................................. 22 Women’s Participation in World War I and World War II ................................................ 23 Post-WWII and the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act ........................................ 24 Equal Rights Movement and an All-Volunteer Force ....................................................... 25 The 1990s: Increasing Roles for Women .......................................................................... 27 Recent Changes to Women’s Assignment Policies ........................................................... 29 Is the Gender Mix in the Military Representative of the Nation? ..................................... 29 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Inclusion: Background and Force Profile................................................................................................................................... 33 Advocacy and DOD Policy Formation in the 1970s and 1980s ....................................... 34 The Evolution of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell ............................................................................ 35 Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) ......................................................................... 37 Post-DADT Integration ..................................................................................................... 38 Transgender Service Policies ............................................................................................ 39 Religious Inclusion: Background and Force Profile ............................................................... 44 Is Religious Diversity in the Military Representative of the Nation? ............................... 46 Military Diversity and Equal Opportunity Issues for Congress .................................................... 47 Diversity in Leadership ........................................................................................................... 47 Diversity and Inclusion at the Service Academies .................................................................. 49 Management of Harassment and Discrimination Claims ........................................................ 51 Inclusion of Transgender Servicemembers ............................................................................. 53 Religious Discrimination and Accommodation ...................................................................... 56 Other Aspects of Diversity ...................................................................................................... 57 Congressional Research Service Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services Are Diversity and Equal Opportunity Initiatives Needed in the Military? .................................... 59 Figures Figure 1. DOD Active Duty Racial and Ethnic Representation .................................................... 20 Figure 2. Women Serving on Active Duty as a Percentage of Total Active Duty Force ............... 27 Figure 3. Female Representation in the Active Component .......................................................... 31 Figure 4. Women in Combat Policy Changes and Female Propensity for Military Service.......... 32 Figure 5. Non-prior Service Applicants for Active Component Enlistment by Gender and Race/Ethnicity ............................................................................................................................ 33 Figure 6. Religious Diversity in the Active Duty Force ................................................................ 47 Figure 7. Representation Ratios for Non-prior Service Enlisted Accessions by State .................. 57 Figure 8. Active Component Enlisted Accessions by Median Household Income ....................... 58 Tables Table 1. Diversity Goals for DOD and the Federal Workforce ....................................................... 6 Table 2. Equal Opportunity Definitions in DOD Policy.................................................................. 9 Table 3. Key Factors Measured in DEOCS ................................................................................... 10 Table 4. Selected Legislation for Command Climate Surveys ....................................................... 11 Table 5. Military Fatal Casualties as a Result of the Vietnam War ............................................... 18 Table 6. Race and Ethnic Representation in the Active Component and U.S. Population ............ 21 Table 7. Racial/Ethnic Representation Among Post-secondary Degree Holders .......................... 21 Table 8. 1992 Presidential Commission on Women in Combat .................................................... 28 Table 9. Female Representation in the Active Duty Armed Forces ............................................... 31 Table 10. Timeline for DOD Transgender Policy Changes ........................................................... 44 Table 11. Military Department Policy Regarding Religious Accommodation and Expression ........................................................................................................................... 46 Table 12. Female Enrollment at Service Academies ..................................................................... 49 Table 13. Service Academy and U.S. Undergraduate Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity ................... 49 Table 14. Estimated Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment at Service Academies ........ 50 Contacts Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 60 Congressional Research Service Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services Overview Under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the authority to raise and support armies; to provide and maintain a navy; and to provide for organizing, disciplining, and regulating them. In the past, Congress has used this authority to establish criteria and standards for recruiting individuals into the military, promoting them, and separating or retiring them from military service. In many cases, Congress has delegated the authority to develop these criteria and standards to the Secretaries of Defense and the Military Departments. However, throughout the history of the armed services, Congress has passed legislation either limiting or expanding requirements for military service based on demographic characteristics such as race, sex, and sexual orientation. In the past decade, there have been rapid changes to laws and policies governing the integration of certain demographic groups in the Armed Forces. Since 2009, these changes have allowed individuals who are gay to serve openly1 and recognized their same-sex spouses as dependents2, opened submarine billets and combat assignments to women3, and have modified policies relating to the service of transgender troops.4 While all career fields are open to women, Congress has not passed legislation that would allow or require draft registration for women.5 Over the past decade, there have also been a number of efforts by Congress and the Administration to assess diversity, equal opportunity, and inclusion across the federal workforce. In the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (P.L. 110-417), Congress mandated the creation of a Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC) tasked with conducting “a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of policies that provide opportunities for the promotion and advancement of minority members of the Armed Forces, including minority members who are senior officers.”6 The commission’s final report, From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership in the 21st-Century Military, noted that while great strides had been made in developing a diverse force, women and racial and ethnic minorities are still underrepresented in top leadership positions. In May 2011, the commission’s report was released, and in August 2011, then-President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order (EO 13583) calling for a coordinated government-wide initiative to promote diversity and inclusion in the federal workforce. In Section 528 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (P.L. 114-92), Congress reaffirmed a commitment to maintaining a diverse military stating: Diversity contributes to the strength of the Armed Forces.... It is the sense of Congress that the United States should—(1) continue to recognize and promote diversity in the Armed 1 P.L. 111-321. 2 Secretary of Defense, Extending Benefits to Same-Sex Domestic Partners of Military Members, Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, February 11, 2013. 3 Department of Defense, “Secretary of Defense Remarks on the Women-in-Service Review,” December 3, 2015. 4 Cronk, Teri Moon, “Transgender Service Members Can Now Serve Openly, Carter Announces,” DOD News, June 30, 2016. 5 For a separate discussion of the selective service see CRS Report R44452, The Selective Service System and Draft Registration: Issues for Congress. 6 The commission’s reference to minorities includes racial/ethnic minorities and women (although not a minority in the general population, women make up a significantly smaller percentage of the total Armed Forces.) The commission did not address issues related to the service of openly gay men and women as that topic was being addressed by the DOD Comprehensive Review Working Group. Congressional Research Service 1 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services Forces; and (2) honor those from all diverse backgrounds and religious traditions who have made sacrifices in serving the United States through the Armed Forces. This report is intended to support congressional oversight of DOD’s diversity, inclusion, and equal opportunity programs, policies, and management for uniformed personnel.7 The report starts by giving an overview of recent research on diversity and organizational management to demonstrate why organizations value diversity and what the findings on diversity suggest in a military context. The next sections outline DOD’s military personnel policies, processes and organizational structure for managing diversity, inclusion, and equal opportunity. Following that, the report examines how the concept of diversity and inclusion has evolved throughout the history of the Armed Forces and provides a snapshot of the current demographic composition of the military relative to the U.S. civilian population. Finally, the report addresses some of the current legislative and policy issues related to diversity in the Armed Forces. Why Do Organizations Value Diversity? Diversity is often defined as the variation of traits within groups of two or more people and may include both traits that are visible (e.g., sex, age, race) and invisible (e.g., knowledge, culture, values). An internet search on “diversity initiatives in the workplace,” produces more than one million results. Given the emphasis placed on diversity by modern organizations it is important to understand why workforce diversity is valued and what that can mean in the context of military personnel management. Many argue that diversity is a core value of an egalitarian and multicultural society and organizations should seek diversity regardless of its relationship with performance metrics.8 From a human resource perspective, diversity is typically studied with regard to its impact on group dynamics and other factors that contribute to organizational performance. Two key factors that have been studied in both the civilian and military context are   cohesion: commitment to other members of the group and the group’s shared objectives; and effectiveness: the ability of the group to efficiently meet its objectives. Studies on the impact of diversity on these factors have had mixed findings, leading some to argue that diversity is beneficial to organizational success, and others to suggest that it might be harmful. Diversity and Cohesion Military cohesion is often considered to be a positive group attribute that contributes to the team’s ability to cooperate and perform at high levels under stressful conditions. There are varying definitions of cohesion. In the military context, the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces defined it as the relationship that develops in a unit or group where (1) members share common values and experiences; (2) individuals in the groups conform to group norms and behavior in order to ensure group survival and goals; (3) members lose their personal identity in favor 7 This report does not provide extensive information on policies and programs for DOD civilian personnel, or for U.S. Coast Guard uniformed personnel who are operating under the Department of Homeland Security. 8 O'Brien, Lauren T. and Patricia N. Gilbert, “Ideology: An Invisible yet Potent Dimension of Diversity,” in The Oxford Handbook of Diversity and Work, ed. Quinetta M. Roberson (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 135. Congressional Research Service 2 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services of a group identity; (4) members focus on group activities and goals; (5) unit members become totally dependent upon each other for the completion of their mission and survival; and (6) group members meet all standards of performance and behavior in order not to threaten group survival.9 Some studies have found that higher overall levels of cohesion are associated with individual benefits of increased job satisfaction, retention, and better discipline outcomes.10 Meta-analysis of group performance and cohesiveness has suggested that, on average, cohesive groups perform better than non-cohesive groups.11 Others note that where observed causal relationships between cohesion and group performance exist, it is more often the performance of the group that affects the level of cohesiveness (i.e., unit success leads to a more cohesive unit) rather than the reverse.12 Recent studies of group cohesion focus on two ways that group cohesion develops.13   Social cohesion is the extent to which group members like each other, prefer to spend their social time together, enjoy each other’s company, and feel emotionally close to one another. Task cohesion is the shared commitment among members to achieving a goal that requires the collective efforts of a group. Some behavioral research has found that interpersonal relationships that lead to social cohesion are established more readily between individuals with similar backgrounds, experiences and demographic characteristics.14 In addition, some studies have found that teams with high levels of social cohesion have less conflict15 and stronger support networks, which may help individuals to better cope with stress.16 In the military context, those who argue for more homogenous units17 argue that these units develop stronger interpersonal bonds that provide important psychological benefits and bolster unit resiliency when operating in highly stressful and austere environments.18 They also argue that “out-group” members—those with different characteristics than the majority 9 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, Report to the President, November, 15, 1992, p. C-80. 10 Oliver, Laurel W. et al., “A Quantitative Integration of the Military Cohesion Literature,” Military Psychology, vol. 11, no. 1 (1999). Oliver et al. (1999). 11 Evans, Charles R. and Kenneth L. Dion, “Group Cohesion and Performance,” Small Group Research, vol. 43, no. 6 (December 2012). 12 Rostker, Bernard D. et al., Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy; An Update of RAND’s 1993 Study, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 2010, p. 141. 13The distinction between these two lines of cohesion has become increasingly common in academic literature over the past two decades. These definitions are derived from definitions in Rostker, Bernard D. et al., Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy; An Update of RAND’s 1993 Study, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 2010, p. 139. 14 Reagans, Ray, “Demographic Diversity as Network Connections: Homophily and the Diversity-Performance Debate” in The Oxford Handbook of Diversity and Work, ed. Quinetta M. Roberson (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 181. 15 Ibid., p. 181. 16 Ahronson, Arni and James E. Cameron, “The Nature and Consequences of Group Cohesion in a Military Sample,” Military Psychology, vol. 19, no. 1 (2007), pp. 9-25. 17 Over time, this argument has been used to advocate against integrated military units with regard to race, gender, and sexual orientation. 18 See for example, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Research and Development, “Unit Cohesion Could be Key to PTSD Resiliency,” September 12, 2014, at http://www.research.va.gov/currents/summer2014/summer201427.cfm. Congressional Research Service 3 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services of others in the groups—may experience negative individual psychological effects as a result of poor social integration. Other studies have found shared experiences can contribute to task cohesion and that this type of cohesion is a stronger predictor of group performance than social cohesion.19 This leads some to argue that the “sameness” of individuals in a military unit is less important than the shared experiences of the unit. In this regard, some argue that military units that operate in an integrated manner can build task cohesion through integrated training.20 Diversity and Effectiveness Some studies on the effectiveness of small groups have found that the presence of diversity (in particular racial and gender diversity) is associated with better creative problem solving, innovation, and improved decisionmaking.21 These positive outcomes are sometimes attributed to the broader range of perspectives, knowledge, and experience available in diverse groups relative to homogenous groups. Those who argue for diversity initiatives in the military argue that a more diverse force has the potential to be more efficient and flexible, and able to meet a broader set of challenges. Other studies have found that within diverse groups individuals with demographically similar characteristics tend to build strong in-group relationships to the detriment of the larger unit.22 The presence of demographic in-groups has been found in some circumstances to negatively affect group productivity, particularly if active fault lines or biases exist between subgroups.23 Those who argue against the integration of certain subgroups suggest that there are pervasive cultural biases that can contribute to interpersonal friction within military units and distract from the unit’s ability to perform under stress. Diversity Management While the direction and magnitude of the effects of diversity on group performance remain debatable, there is a wide body of literature that links the performance of diverse groups to leadership and management.24 Among human resource professionals in the public and private sectors, the focus in workforce management has shifted from diversity acquisition (e.g., affirmative action and hiring quotas) to diversity management. Under the previous philosophy, employers set targets for accessions based on race, sex, or other attributes in order to bolster 19 Mullen and Copper (1994) and Beat et al. 20 In the past, training pipelines and in some instances units were segregated by race and gender. As of 2015 the Marine Corps has separated men and women for portions of basic training. 21 See review of the literature in, Richard, Orlando C. and Carliss D. Miller, “Considering Diversity as a Source of Competitive Advantage in Organizations.” in The Oxford Handbook of Diversity and Work, ed. Quinetta M. Roberson (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 240. 22See review of the literature in, Jehn, Karen A. and Lindred L. Greer, “Diversity as Disagreement: The Role of Group Conflict” in The Oxford Handbook of Diversity and Work, ed. Quinetta M. Roberson (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 181. 23 Thatcher, Sherry M., “Moving Beyond a Categorical Approach to Diversity: The Role of Demographic Faultlines,” in The Oxford Handbook of Diversity and Work, ed. Quinetta M. Roberson (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 59. 24 Ferguson, Melissa J. and Shanette C. Porter, “An Examination of Categorization Processes in Organizations: The Root of Intergroup Bias and a Route to Prejudice Reduction,” in The Oxford Handbook of Diversity and Work, ed. Quinetta M. Roberson (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 98. Congressional Research Service 4 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services historically underrepresented groups. More recent diversity management philosophies focus on building organizational culture and policies to better attract a diverse workforce and to accommodate career development for employees with different backgrounds. Diversity and the Civil-Military Relationship Given the U.S. military’s unique role in society there are additional reasons that diversity could be of value within the defense establishment. In the military, the value of diversity is sometimes discussed as a facet of the civil-military (civ-mil) relationship. Some explain this relationship as a trinity of civilian leadership, civil society, and military servicemembers.25 Civilian leadership ultimately decides how to resource and employ the military. These decisionmakers are influenced by civilian society (their constituents). In an all-volunteer force, recruits are drawn from civil society. Some portion of civil society serves, has served, or is directly affected by those who serve. The strength of the relationship between civil society and those who serve has been tied to the willingness of a democratic populous to hold civilian leaders accountable for decisions to enter and engage in conflict and to expend national resources to sustain a military force.26 On the other end, civilian leaders oversee the implementation of national security policies and hold military leaders accountable. One concern many have is that a cadre of military leaders who lack meaningful connections with civil society could question the legitimacy of civilian authority in military matters.27 In the context of such concern, advocates for a diverse force believe that such a force is in the best interest of society because “a broadly representative military force is more likely to uphold national values and to be loyal to the government—and country—that raised it.”28 Diversity and Social Equality Another argument for demographic representation is based in social equality. From this perspective, many believe that the risks of military service should be shared equally among all qualified citizens, and not disproportionately the burden of certain geographic, demographic, or socioeconomic groups. Others note that military service confers various benefits, opportunities, and status within society (e.g., veterans’ preference in federal or state hiring29, education benefits, specialized training). As a result, some social equality advocates argue that all qualified individuals should have equal opportunities to participate, earn the benefits, and advance within the military. 25 Evans, Col. Charles M., “Impact of Diversity on the Civil-Military Relationship,” School of Advanced Military Studies, United States Army Command and General Staff College., May 2013, p. 11. 26 Owens, Mackubin Thomas, “What Military Officers Need to Know About Civil-Military Relations,” Naval War College Review, vol. 65, no. 2 (Spring 2012). 27 Ibid., p. 80. 28 Armor, David J., “Race and Gender in the U.S. Military," Armed Forces & Society, vol. 23, no. 1 (Fall 1996), pp. 727. 29 Veterans account for about 10% of the U.S. population; however account for 30% of the federal workforce, and nearly 50% of the defense civilian workforce. (https://www.federaltimes.com/home/2018/04/07/where-are-theveterans-in-the-federal-workforce/). Congressional Research Service 5 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services How Does DOD Define Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity? Diversity, inclusion, and equal opportunity initiatives often go hand-in-hand in workforce management. Although the three terms are frequently used interchangeably, there are some key differences in how they are interpreted and applied. While diversity is primarily used to discuss the variations in visible and invisible traits among employees in an organization, inclusion or inclusiveness is typically used to discuss the culture of organizations. An inclusive organization is often described as one with policies that promote respect for differences, enable individual contributions, and instill a sense of organizational belonging. Equal opportunity is used in the context of legal protections for individuals or groups of individuals from forms of discrimination in the workplace. Policies that promote diversity and equal opportunity are typically complementary and can help build an organizational culture of inclusiveness. Diversity and Inclusion Policy DOD’s current diversity policies and plans stem from congressional and administration actions between 2008 and 2011. In the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (P.L. 110-417, Section 596), Congress authorized the creation of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC). The commission’s charter includes 16 tasks, one of which was to “develop a uniform definition of diversity to be used throughout DOD congruent with the core values and vision of DOD for the future workforce.”30 In 2011, the commission released its final report. In the same year, then-President Obama issued an Executive Order (EO 13583) calling for a coordinated government-wide initiative to promote diversity and inclusion in the federal workforce.31 In 2012, DOD issued a five-year Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan that drew on many of the recommendations from the MLDC report and outlined three overarching goals intended to align with goals in the Government-Wide Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan published by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) (see Table 1).32 Table 1. Diversity Goals for DOD and the Federal Workforce OPM Strategic Goals DOD Strategic Goals Workforce Diversity. Federal agencies shall recruit from a diverse, qualified group of potential applicants to secure a high-performing workforce drawn from all segments of society. Employ an aligned strategic outreach effort to identify, attract, and recruit from a broad talent pool reflective of the best of the nation we serve. Position DOD to be an “employer of choice” that is competitive in attracting and recruiting top talent. 30 Military Leadership Diversity Commission, From Diversity to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21 st-Centurty Military, Final Report, March 15, 2011, p. 119. 31 Executive Order 13583, “Establishing a Coordinated Government-Wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce,” 76 Federal Register, August 23, 2011. 32 Department of Defense, Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan 2012-2017. The United States Coast Guard’s Diversity & Inclusion Strategic Plan, 2015 – 2018, can be found here: https://www.dcms.uscg.mil/Portals/10/CG-1/ diversity/docs/pdf/Diversity_Inclusion_Strategic_Plan.pdf?ver=2017-03-01-095434-610. Congressional Research Service 6 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services OPM Strategic Goals DOD Strategic Goals Workplace Inclusion. Federal agencies shall cultivate a culture that encourages collaboration, flexibility, and fairness to enable individuals to contribute to their full potential and further retention. Develop, mentor, and retain top talent from across the total force. Establish DOD’s position as an employer of choice by creating a merit-based workforce life-cycle continuum that focuses on personal and professional development through training, education, and developing employment flexibility to retain a highly skilled workforce. Sustainability. Federal agencies shall develop structures and strategies to equip leaders with the ability to manage diversity, be accountable, measure results, refine approaches on the basis of such data, and engender a culture of inclusion. Ensure leadership commitment to an accountable and sustained diversity effort. Develop structures and strategies to equip leadership with the ability to manage diversity, be accountable, and engender an inclusive work environment that cultivates innovation and optimization within the Department. Sources: DOD Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan, 2012-2017; Government-Wide Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan, 2011. Note: OPM is the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. The DOD strategic plan placed an emphasis on diversity management over the workforce lifecycle (from recruitment to retirement) and highlighted the role of leadership in establishing an inclusive organizational climate. The plan also established new definitions of diversity and diversity management that apply to both uniformed personnel and DOD: Diversity: All the different characteristics and attributes of the DOD’s total force, which are consistent with DOD’s core values, integral to overall readiness and mission accomplishment, and reflective of the Nation we serve. Diversity Management: The plans made and programs undertaken to identify and promote diversity within the DOD to enhance DOD capabilities and achieve mission readiness. 33 DOD’s definition of diversity encompasses not only demographic characteristics, but also different backgrounds, skills, and experiences. The strategic plan does not outline targets or quotas for the recruitment, retention, or promotion of historically underrepresented demographic groups, nor does it prioritize diversity at the expense of military readiness. While DOD does not establish official diversity targets based on demographic profiles, an inherent goal within the current definition is that the characteristics of the force should reflect the demographic characteristics of the U.S. population.34 Consistent with this, DOD regularly collects and reports on the demographic profile of the force which can then be compared to the demographic profile of the civilian population. Military Equal Opportunity Policy Equal opportunity typically refers to nondiscrimination protections for certain classes of individuals. DOD has civilian and military employees and operates both a Civilian Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Program and a Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) Program.35 33 Department of Defense, Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity in the DOD, DODD 1020.02E, June 8, 2015, Incorporating Change 2, Effective June 1, 2018. 34 https://diversity.defense.gov/About/, May 2, 2019. However, the individual Military Departments have in the past announced recruiting and accession targets. For example, in a speech at the Naval Academy in May 2015 the Secretary of the Navy announced a recruitment goal of 25% women for the Navy and Marine Corps. See Perkins, Derrick, “Mabus: 1 in 4 Marine Recruits Should Be Women,” Marine Corps Times, May 26, 2015. 35 This report focuses only on diversity and equal opportunity policies for uniformed servicemembers, not DOD Congressional Research Service 7 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services Military equal opportunity policies generally follow the precepts set in civilian civil rights law; however, many statutes and regulations that are applicable to civilian employment are not applicable to military service. The sources of uniformed servicemembers’ rights, and restrictions thereon, include the Constitution, statute—including the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)—DOD and service-level policies and regulations, and Executive Orders. Congress has the authority to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces. Whereas civilian law prevents discrimination based on age36 or disability37, the military is allowed, and in some cases compelled, by law to deny service opportunities to those unable to meet certain physical standards, and those above a certain age. For example, by statute,38 a commissioned officer may be appointed only if he or she is “able to complete 20 years of active commissioned service before his sixty-second birthday ... is physically qualified for active service ... and has such other special qualifications as the Secretary of the military department concerned may prescribe by regulation.”39 Likewise, the law specifies persons who are ineligible to enlist.40 The Secretary of Defense has the general authority to prescribe policies and regulations for DOD employees, including those regulations pertaining to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination.41 In DOD’s 2015 revision to its policy, the MEO definition more closely mirrors the civilian EEO definition. Another change in 2015 expanded the protected classes of individuals to prevent unlawful discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In announcing this change, thenSecretary of Defense Ashton Carter stated We have to focus relentlessly on the mission, which means the thing that matters most about a person is what they can contribute to it ... we must start from a position of inclusivity, not exclusivity.... Anything less is not just wrong—it’s bad defense policy, and it puts our future strength at risk. 42 Table 2 shows a comparison of DOD’s equal opportunity definitions for civilian employees and military servicemembers.43 In 2016, DOD changed the MEO definition to include gender identity under those protected from discrimination and harassment. civilian employees. 36 The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (P.L. 90-202) forbids employment discrimination against anyone at least 40 years of age. 37 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-336) prohibits discrimination based on disability and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for those with disabilities. For Federal employees the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-112) applies. 38 The President has authority under 10 U.S.C. §531 to appoint officers. This authority is delegated by executive order to the Secretary of Defense. 39 10 U.S.C. §532(a). 40 10 U.S.C. §504. 41 5 U.S.C. §301. 42 Cronk, Terri, M. “Carter: Diversity, Inclusion Critical to the Force of the Future,” DOD News, Defense News Media, June 9, 2015. 43 The previous definition of MEO from DODD, 1020.02, dated February 5, 2009, was: “The right of all military personnel to participate in and benefit from programs and activities for which they are qualified. These programs and activities shall be free from social, personal, or institutional barriers that prevent people from rising to the highest level of responsibility possible.” Congressional Research Service 8 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services Table 2. Equal Opportunity Definitions in DOD Policy DOD Civilian Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Definition The right of all DOD employees to apply, work, and advance on the basis of merit, ability and potential, free from unlawful discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation when based on sex stereotyping), disability, age, genetic information, reprisal, or other unlawful factors. Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) Definition The right of all servicemembers to serve, advance, and be evaluated based on only individual merit, fitness, capability, and performance in an environment free from unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including gender identity), or sexual orientation. Source: Department of Defense, Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity in the DOD, DODD 1020.02E, June 8, 2015, Incorporating Change I, Effective June 1, 2018. Note: DODD 1020.02E states that the civilian EEO program is governed by 42 U.S.C. §§2000e through 2000e-17, part 1614 of Title 29 C.F.R., chapter 14 of 29 U.S.C., and 5 U.S.C. §§2302(b)(1) and 7201. Discrimination and harassment as described in military issuances include sexual harassment, hazing, intimidation, disparaging remarks, or threats against other servicemembers or civilians based on protected characteristics. Harassment also includes creating an intimidating or hostile work environment for individuals on the basis of protected characteristics. Harassment by military personnel may result in administrative actions (e.g., letters of reprimand, counseling, or low marks on annual performance evaluations) and may also be punishable under the UCMJ.44 How Does DOD Manage Diversity and Equal Opportunity? DOD oversees diversity management and equal opportunity programs while the military departments implement them. Programmatic components include research and data collection, training, and processes and procedures for military equal opportunity complaint resolution. Office for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (ODEI) The Office for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (formerly the Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity, ODMEO) is the DOD organization responsible for promoting diversity in the DOD workforce.45 The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness oversees this office. ODEI has oversight authority for the DOD Diversity and Inclusion Management Program, DOD Military Equal Opportunity Program, DOD Civilian Equal Employment Opportunity Program, DOD Civil Rights Program, and Harassment Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces Program. The Director also provides oversight and guidance to the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI). DOD component heads have oversight of MEO programs and are responsible for making required reports to the Secretary of Defense and Congress.46 44 Harassment may be punishable under the UCMJ, Article 92, “Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation” and Article 15 “Nonjudicial Punishment.” (10 U.S.C. §892) Other punitive articles may also apply depending on the nature of the incident. 45 ODEI was first established in 1994 as the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Equal Opportunity. 46 Section 579(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013 required the Secretary of Defense to report on substantiated incidents of sexual harassment that involve members of the Armed Forces including Congressional Research Service 9 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) In 1971, DOD established the Defense Race Relations Institute (DRRI) with a mandate to conduct training for Armed Forces personnel designated as instructors in race relations, develop doctrine and curricula in education for race relations, conduct research, perform evaluation of program effectiveness, and disseminate educational guidelines and materials for utilization throughout the Armed Forces.47 In 1979, DRRI became the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute as the organization evolved to address not only race, but other diversity and equal opportunity issues in DOD. Today DEOMI offers resident, nonresident and e-learning courses geared toward equal opportunity advisors, counselors, and program managers across all military departments and components. DEOMI also conducts research to support policy-making and training and development programs, and provides a range of online resources for diversity management and equal opportunity programming. DEOMI’s Research Directorate administers the Defense Equal Opportunity Climate Survey (DEOCS). This survey is intended to be a tool to help commanders better gauge morale in their units, identify potential issues or areas of strength, and improve their organizational culture. It measures factors associated with organizational effectiveness, equal opportunity/fair treatment, perceptions of sexual harassment, and sexual assault prevention and response (see Table 3). The DEOCS may be administered to any DOD agency and is used for both uniformed military personnel and civilian employees. Table 3. Key Factors Measured in DEOCS Equal Opportunity/ Fair Treatment Organizational Effectiveness Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR)  Organizational Commitment  Favoritism  Safety  Trust in the Leadership  Hazing  Bystander Intervention  Organizational Performance  Demeaning Behaviors  Training Quality  Organizational Cohesion  Sexist Behaviors   Leadership Cohesion  Racist Behaviors Information/Resource Availability  Job Satisfaction  Racial Discrimination  Adequate Response  Diversity Management  Sex Discrimination  Retaliation  Organizational Processes  Sexual Harassment  Help Seeking Behaviors  Religious Discrimination  Exhaustion/Burnout  Civilian Only:  Intention to Stay  Age Discrimination  Disability Discrimination  Equal Pay  Genetic Information  Pregnancy Source: DOD Sample DEOCS 4.0 Survey, DEOMI, January 1, 2014. identifying cases in which a member is accused of multiple incidents of sexual harassment. 47 Department of Defense Directive, Education and Training in Human/Race Relations for Military Personnel, DODD 1322.11, 24 June 1971 (cancelled). Congressional Research Service 10 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services Note: The survey also allows for the addition of locally developed questions and allows respondents to provide written comments directly associated with discrimination/sexual harassment/SAPR. The DEOCS is used at the unit level to establish a baseline assessment of the command climate. Subsequent surveys are intended to track progress relative to the baseline. In recent years there has been a series of legislative initiatives that have enhanced requirements for the administration of command climate surveys (see Table 4). Many of these initiatives have come in response to growing concerns about command responses to sexual harassment and assault reports.48 Table 4. Selected Legislation for Command Climate Surveys Public Law Description P.L. 112-239, FY2013 NDAA Section 572: Requires commander of each military command to conduct a climate assessment for the purposes of preventing and responding to sexual assaults within 120 days of assuming command and at least annually thereafter. P.L. 113-66 FY2014 NDAA Section 587: Requires results of command climate surveys to be provided to the commander and the next higher up in the chain of command and requires that a failure to conduct a command climate survey be noted in the commander’s performance evaluation. Section 1721: Requires the Secretaries of the military departments to track compliance with statutory command climate survey requirements. Section 1751: Expresses a sense of congress regarding the importance of establishing a command climate where criminal activity can be reported free from the fear of retaliation or ostracism. Source: Public Law. Military Departments In practice, the military departments manage their own diversity programs and initiatives. MEO training, prevention, complaints, and resolutions are handled at the unit level through the chain of command. It is the commander’s responsibility to establish a climate of inclusiveness and equal opportunity.49 Accountability for senior leaders is achieved through command climate assessments (DEOCs) and through evaluations of character and organizational climate/equal opportunity on performance evaluations. For example, character is rated on senior enlisted evaluations for E7-E9’s in the Navy. A Greatly Exceeds Standards rating for character requires that the individual “seamlessly integrate diversity into all aspects of the command,” while a Below Standards rating describes the individual as “demonstrates exclusionary behavior, fails to value differences from cultural diversity.”50 How Have the Definition and Treatment of Protected Classes Evolved in the Armed Forces? DOD’s current definition of military equal opportunity protects servicemembers from unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including gender identity) or sexual orientation. However, throughout the history of the Armed Forces, these currently protected classes were excluded to varying degrees from military participation and occupational 48 For more on military sexual assault, see CRS Report R44944, Military Sexual Assault: A Framework for Congressional Oversight. 49 See for example, Air Force Instruction 1-2, Commander’s Responsibilities, AFI 1-2, May 8, 2014. 50 Department of the Navy, Navy Performance Evaluation System. BUPERSINST 1610.10C, April 20, 2011. Congressional Research Service 11 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services assignments by policy and statute. The history of integration in the military is detailed and often dependent on the political, social, and cultural context of the era. This section describes statutory and policy changes that affected the treatment of various demographic groups over time. The following sections also provide a snapshot of the demographic profile of the Armed Forces. Racial/Ethnic Inclusion: Background and Force Profile Racial minorities have volunteered or been drafted for service since the time of the American Revolution;51 however, the military was a racially segregated institution until the mid-20th century. Under the widely accepted separate but equal philosophy of the time, these segregation policies were not considered to be unjust by many senior military and government officials. However, civil rights activists rejected this notion, and pushed for full racial integration across all segments of society, including the Armed Forces. Even as policy and statute changed over time to remove occupational and assignment barriers to racial/ethnic minorities, concerns about discrimination and equal opportunity have persisted. The Civil War to World War II, Racial Segregation The recruitment of racial minorities into the service through most of the 1800s and 1900s was not driven by a desire for diversity, but rather by practical manpower requirements. During the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812, General Andrew Jackson’s Army included both “Free Men of Color,” and Choctaw Native Americans.52 During the Civil War, approximately 186,000 black Americans served in the Union Army as part of sixteen segregated combat regiments, and some 30,000 served in the Union Navy. Following the Civil War, as part of what is commonly known as the Army Reorganization Act of 1866, Congress authorized the creation of permanent “colored” units consisting of two cavalry and four infantry regiments.53 The act also authorized the recruitment and enlistment of 1,000 Native Americans to act as scouts. While the creation of these units guaranteed career opportunities for specific racial minorities, it also introduced an era of institutionalized segregation in the armed services. In 1896, the Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson upheld state laws authorizing racial segregation under a “separate but equal” doctrine. Following the ruling, states proceeded to enact a series of segregation-based laws and the military services began active implementation of racial segregation policies. Due to pressing needs for additional manpower in the Army, black soldiers made up approximately 11% of the Army’s total strength in World War I and 13% of all those conscripted (in racially separate “white” and “colored” draft calls).54 Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asian Americans were mostly drafted as “whites.”55 However, there was 51 Approximately 5,000 black soldiers served in the Revolutionary War. MacGregor, Morris, J. Jr., Integration of the Armed Forces 1940-1965 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 1981), p. 4. 52 Ward, Rufus, “Andrew Jackson and the Free Men of Color, The Commercial Dispatch, January 8, 2011. https://lowndeslibarchives.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/andrew-jackson-and-the-free-men-of-color/. 53 39th Congress, Sess.1. Ch. 299, July 28, 1866. An Act to Increase and Fix the Military Peace Establishment of the United States. The units created were the 9th and 10th Cavalry and the 38th, 39th, 40th, and 41st Infantry. In March of 1869, as part of reduction-in-strength measures, Congress combined the four infantry regiments into just two regiments (the 24th and 25th). 54 MacGregor, Morris, J. Jr., Integration of the Armed Forces 1940-1965 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 1981), p. 7. 55 There was confusion as to whether these other minorities should be classified as “white” or “colored” and some may have appeared on either of the draft calls depending on local interpretations. Shenk, Gerald E., “Work or Fight!” Race, Gender, and the Draft in World War One, New York, New York, 2005. Congressional Research Service 12 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services confusion in some states as to how to treat draftees of Asian ethnicity. Chinese surnames appeared on both black and white draft lists.56 While black soldiers in the Army were often directed towards unskilled combat support or service support jobs, many also served as frontline combat troops. During World War II, the War Department again issued separate draft calls for black and white servicemembers and maintained segregated training and unit assignments. The Army upheld a quota policy for the recruitment of black soldiers with a ceiling of 10% of total recruits.57 In this era, the distribution of white and black servicemember between the officer and enlisted ranks and occupational specialties suggested some inequities in accession and assignment policies. In 1941, black soldiers in the Army accounted for 5% of the Infantry and less than 2% of the Air Corps, whereas they accounted for 15% of the less-prestigious Quartermaster Corps58 and 27% of unassigned or miscellaneous detachments.59 About 2% of the Navy was black, and with the exception of six men rated as regular seaman, all of them were enlisted steward’s mates. None were officers.60 At peak WWII manpower strength in 1945, black servicemembers accounted for 7.2% of the total military force but only 0.6% of the officer corps.61 Army practices did not allow black officers to outrank or command white officers in the same unit, and some commanders preferred to assign white officers for command of black units.62 Given Japan’s role in the war there was a general public suspicion of Japanese Americans and some already serving in the military were removed from active duty or discharged.63 However, approximately 6,000 Nisei (first-generation, American-born Japanese) served as interpreters or linguists in the war with about 3,700 serving in combat.64 In addition, the Army formed a segregated unit comprised of about 4,500 Japanese-Americans within the 442d Regimental Combat Team (RCT) that fought in Italy and Central Europe.65 Desegregation in the Truman Era In December 1946, in response to what was seen as a worrisome increase in racial violence and tension across the United States, President Harry Truman issued an Executive Order establishing the President’s Committee on Civil Rights.66 The commission’s mandate was to examine civil rights for all citizens; however, they did make certain recommendations for the military services. 56 Shenk, Gerald E., “Work or Fight!”; Race, Gender, and the Draft in World War I (Palgrave Macmillian, 2005), p. 122. 57 MacGregor, Morris, J. Jr., Integration of the Armed Forces 1940-1965 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 1981), p. 37. 58 Quartermaster functions included food service, laundry, and other logistical services. 59 MacGregor, Morris, J. Jr., Integration of the Armed Forces 1940-1965 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 1981), p. 24. 60 President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Forces, Freedom to Serve: Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services, United States GPO, Washington, DC, 1950. p. 25. 61 The Report of the President’s Committee on Civil Rights, To Secure These Rights, October 1947. p. 44. 62 MacGregor, Morris, J. Jr., Integration of the Armed Forces 1940-1965 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 1981), p. 37. 63 Hajela, Deepti, “Asian American Soldier’s Suicide Called a ‘Wake-Up Call’ for the Military,” Washington Post, February 21, 2012. 64 New Jersey Korean War Memorial Website, Fact Sheet: Asian Americans in the United States Military during the Korean War, Atlantic City, NJ, October 28, 2015. 65 Ibid. 66 Executive Order 9808, “Establishing the President’s Commission on Civil Rights,” December 5, 1946. Congressional Research Service 13 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services The commission’s report, To Secure These Rights, noted that blacks and other minority servicemembers faced many barriers to equal treatment both within and outside the military. The commission advocated for (1) full racial integration within the military, (2) a ban on discrimination based on race or color, and (3) award of officer commissions and promotions based solely on merit. In 1948, during his campaign for reelection, President Truman issued Executive Order 9981, which set in motion a purposeful desegregation effort.67 It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin.68 This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale. The order also established the President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Forces under chairmanship of Charles Fahy to understand the potential impact of integration on military efficiency. During the commission’s inquiry, some military leaders advocated for maintaining the status quo due to concerns about inefficiencies that might arise from “impaired morale in mixed units.”69 The Fahy Committee’s final report, released in 1950, expressed serious doubts about military officials’ claims that integration would negatively affect morale and efficiency, finding instead evidence that existing segregation policies were contributing to inefficiencies through unfilled billets, training backlogs, and less capable units. In their conclusion, the committee stated: As a result of its examination into the rules, procedures, and practices of the armed services, both past and present, the Committee is convinced that a policy of equality of treatment and opportunity will make for a better Army, Navy, and Air Force. It is right and just. It will strengthen the nation.70 Between 1949 and 1950 the military departments changed their policies regarding minority races to reflect the recommendations of the Fahy Committee and to echo the language of President Truman’s Executive Order that there should be “equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons ... without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.”71 By this time, AsianAmericans were no longer serving in segregated units; however, black units were still segregated. The manpower needs of the Korean War (1950-1953) catalyzed racial integration in the services. Under pressure to rapidly build up and deploy forces, the Army lacked the time and resources to continue to operate separate training pipelines for black and white soldiers. On the battlefield, Army and Marine Corps commanders began assigning black soldiers to replace losses in white combat units by necessity. However, senior leaders in the Army were reluctant to change official policies, as stated by Army Lt. General Edward M. Almond in opposition to changes: Executive Order 9981, “Establishing the President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Forces,” July 26, 1948. 68 At this time the policy did not mention discrimination based on gender. 69 President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Forces, Freedom to Serve: Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services, United States GPO, Washington, DC, 1950. p. 15. 70 President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Forces, Freedom to Serve: Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services, United States GPO, Washington, DC, 1950. p. 68. 71 The Navy and Marine Corps’ policy was issued on June 23, 1949, the Air Force policy was issued on May 11, 1949, and the Army policy was issued on January 16, 1950. 67 Congressional Research Service 14 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services I do not agree that integration improves military efficiency; I believe it weakens it. I believe that integration was and is a political solution for the composition of our military forces because those responsible for the procedures ... do not understand the characteristics of the two human elements concerned... This is not racism—it is common sense and understanding. Those who ignore these differences merely interfere with the combat effectiveness of combat units.72 In response to political pressures for change, the Army initiated two scientific research studies of the performance of integrated units; one conducted internally by the Army G-1, and one through a contracted agency that was code named “Project Clear.” Both studies concluded that contrary to widely held beliefs, unit performance was not negatively affected by integration, and that the practice of segregating units was in fact damaging to military effectiveness.73 The Army dropped its 10% ceiling on the recruitment of black soldiers in 1950. By October 1953, basic training and unit assignments were no longer segregated, and the Army announced that 95% of African-American soldiers were serving in integrated units.74 In 1951, the Marine Corps announced a policy of racial integration.75 By 1954, then-Secretary of Defense Charles Erwin Wilson announced that the last all-black active duty unit had been abolished. However, some Reserve and National Guards remained segregated or closed to black entrants into the 1960s.76 Civil Rights Movement and Anti-Discrimination Policies While DOD had announced the full integration of the active duty military in 1954, segregation was still widespread in National Guard and Reserve units and discrimination on military installations and in surrounding communities persisted.77 In 1962, President John F. Kennedy authorized the President’s Committee on Equal Opportunity in the Armed Forces to be chaired by Gerhard A. Gesell. The commission was the first to address equal opportunity in the forces since the Fahy Commission in 1950; its mandate was to determine the following. 1. What measures should be taken to improve the effectiveness of current policies and procedures in the Armed Forces with regard to equality of treatment and opportunity for persons in the Armed Forces? 2. What measures should be employed to improve equality of opportunity for members of the Armed Forces and their dependents in the civilian community, particularly with respect to housing, education, transportation, recreational facilities, community events, programs and activities?78 The commission found that while armed services policies were not discriminatory as written, there was a need for the military to improve recruitment, assignment, and promotion practices to 72 MacGregor, Morris, J. Jr., Integration of the Armed Forces 1940-1965 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 1979), p. 441. 73 Binkin, Martin et al., Blacks and the Military, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 1982, p. 29. 74 In October 1953, the Army announced that 95% of African-American soldiers were serving in integrated units. 75 However, black Marines were still restricted to certain assignments until 1962. MacGregor, Morris, J. Jr., Integration of the Armed Forces 1940-1965 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 1979), p. 468. 76 Until 1963 there were 10 states with large black populations and no black soldiers in their National Guard units and the Army Reserve maintained six all-black units. MacGregor, Morris, J. Jr., Integration of the Armed Forces 19401965 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 1979), pp. 518 and 553. 77 In 1964 the National Guard Bureau announced the integration of all States’ National Guard. 78 Letter from President John F. Kennedy to Gerhard A. Gesell, June 22, 1962. See http://chapters.rowmanlittlefield.com/07/425/0742545326ch3.pdf, September 2, 2015. Congressional Research Service 15 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services achieve equal treatment of black servicemembers.79 In addition, the commission noted particular hardships imposed on black servicemembers and their families when assigned to or transferred to installations in communities with high levels of segregation and discrimination in education, housing, transportation, and employment. For example, one-fourth of all Army and Navy installations were located in communities with segregated public schools.80 The commission noted that black servicemembers and their families were daily suffering humiliation and degradation in communities near bases at which they are compelled to serve ... community conditions are a constant affront and constant reminder that the society they are prepared to defend is a society that depreciates their rights to full participation as citizens.81 The commission’s finding suggested that base commanders were not taking an aggressive role in identifying and addressing racial discrimination on base and within the communities. Some of the key recommendations of the commission were as follows.       Expand and clarify the installation commander’s role with respect to discrimination in the community. Develop mechanisms to tie an officer’s performance ratings to their ability to establish a climate of equal opportunity. Initiate mandatory command training programs on discrimination and equal opportunity. Build biracial community working groups. Allow installation commanders to impose economic sanctions (boycotts/bans) on local businesses by prohibiting servicemembers from patronizing establishments that were racially discriminatory.82 Establish equal opportunity offices and appoint officials for each of the military departments. In response to the commission’s recommendation, then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara83 issued a new DOD policy in July 1963 to 79 The commission found that promotion boards were made up of primarily white officers, and black officers made up a very small percentage of the total officer corps. The President’s Committee on Equal Opportunity in the Armed Forces, Equality of Treatment and Opportunity for Negro Military Personnel Stationed Within the United States, June 13, 1963. 80 The military traditionally did not offer on-base schools, but where it was available it was desegregated. The President’s Committee on Equal Opportunity in the Armed Forces, Equality of Treatment and Opportunity for Negro Military Personnel Stationed Within the United States, Initial Report, June 13, 1963. 81 The President’s Committee on Equal Opportunity in the Armed Forces, Equality of Treatment and Opportunity for Negro Military Personnel Stationed Within the United States, June 13, 1963. 82 This was one of the commission’s most controversial recommendations and was seen by some critics as a threat to civil liberties and state sovereignty. During congressional debate, Rep. Durwood G. Hall of Missouri stated, “The recommendations made in the report and in the directive indicate a narrowness of vision which, in seeing only the civil rights issue, has blinded itself to the question of whether it is proper to use the Armed Forces to enforce moral or social, rather than a legal, issue in the civilian sector.” MacGregor, Morris, J. Jr., Integration of the Armed Forces 1940-1965 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 1979), p. 550. 83 Some argue that McNamara did not go far enough in adopting the Gesell Commission’s recommendations, particularly those relating to DOD internal processes for monitoring race relations and holding leaders accountable for command climate. See Military Leadership Diversity Commission, From Diversity to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st-Centurty Military, Final Report, March 15, 2011, p. 5. Congressional Research Service 16 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services conduct all of its [DOD’s] activities in a manner which is free from racial discrimination, and which provides equal opportunity for all uniformed members and all civilian employees irrespective of their color.84 One year after the DOD’s policy issuance, the federal government passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352) that outlawed discrimination or segregation on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.85 DOD responded by issuing a new policy that prescribed policies and procedures for processing servicemember requests for legal action under the new law in cases of discrimination faced off-base.86 The Vietnam War and Efforts to Improve Race Relations Despite the DOD’s new policy in response to the Gesell Commission recommendations, the 1960s brought an era of conflict abroad and social unrest at home. In 1965 the U.S. deployed combat troops to Vietnam. While in previous wars, recruitment of blacks was limited by quotas or segregation policies, during Vietnam there was a perception that blacks were disproportionally drafted, sent to Vietnam, assigned to serve in high-risk/high-casualty combat units, and killed or wounded in battle.87 DOD draft data from 1964 show that among men aged 26-29, a greater percent of nonwhite males (50%) had been found unfit for service than white males (25%). However, of those who were qualified, 30.2% of the black male population was drafted compared with 18.8% of the white population.88 The final report of the National Advisory Commission on Selective Service noted that in October 1966 only 1.3% of local draft board members were black and state draft boards had zero black members.89 This lack of representation fed perceptions of favoritism towards white registrants. One of the recommendations of the commission was that local draft boards should “more realistically represent all elements, including ethnic, of the population of the country.”90 Studies following the Vietnam era have found little evidence of sustained or widespread institutional racism in draft decisions. Generally, studies have found bias in draft deferments and inductions based on socioeconomic factors. Casualty statistics give a mixed picture as well. Black casualties in the early years of the war accounted for 22.4% of all troops killed in action in 1966; nevertheless, by 1973, at the end of U.S. military involvement in the war, total black fatalities were approximately 12.4% of the total casualties (see Table 5). In 1973, black servicemembers 84 Department of Defense, Equal Opportunity in the Armed Forces, DODD 5120.36, July 1963 (Cancelled). 85 Title VII of this law “Equal Employment Opportunity,” did not apply to the employment of uniformed military personnel. 86 Department of Defense, Processing of Requests by Military Personnel for Action by the Attorney General Under the Civil Rights Act, DODI 5525.2, July 24, 1964 (Cancelled). 87 Between 1966 and 1969, Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara initiated “Project 100,000” which was intended to bring low-aptitude men out of poverty through military training and service. Inductees under this program were called “New Standards Men” reflecting the lowering of qualification standards on entrance examinations and requirements. Of the 236,000 Project 100,000 recruits, 47% were drafted, and 40% were black (relative to 9% of male enlistees that were black). About 37% of all Project 100,000 recruits were assigned to combat-type occupations and over half who entered the Army and Marine Corps were deployed to Vietnam. Binkin, Martin et al., Blacks in the Military, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 1982, p. 34. 88 “In Pursuit of Equity: Who Serves When Not All Serve?,” GPO, February 1967, p. 26. 89 This commission was stablished on July 2, 1966 by Executive Order 11289. The final report was commonly known as the Marshall Report after its Chairman, Burke Marshall. It was published as “In Pursuit of Equity: Who Serves When Not All Serve?,” GPO, February 1967. 90 Ibid., p. 34 Congressional Research Service 17 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services accounted for 18.4% of the active component Army enlisted corps and 16.9% of Marine Corps enlisted.91 Table 5. Military Fatal Casualties as a Result of the Vietnam War Race Number of Fatalities Percent of Total Fatalities White 49,830 85.5% Black or African American 7,243 12.4% Other 1,147 2.0% Total 58,220 100% Source: Vietnam Conflict Extract Data File of the Defense Casualty Analysis System (DCAS), National Archives and Records Administration, http://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html#race. Notes: Figures include those who died as a result of the Vietnam War and include deaths between June 8, 1956, and May 28, 2006. The “Other” category under race includes Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Hispanic (one race), and Non-Hispanic (more than one race). Between 1968 and 1970, perceived patterns of racial discrimination in both the military and surrounding communities contributed to an uptick in recorded violent incidents at military installations in the U.S. and overseas.92 DOD ultimately was compelled to act after a 1971 incident at Travis Air Force Base, California, where an altercation in the barracks between a black Airman and a white Airman escalated into riots that ended in 135 arrests, 10 injuries, the death of a civilian firefighter, and significant property damage.93 In 1971, in response to the incident at Travis AFB and the recommendations of an inter-service task force on racial relations, DOD established the Race Relations Education Board, required race relations training for all servicemembers, and opened the Defense Race Relations Institute (DRRI)94 on Patrick Air Force Base, Florida. On April 5, 1972, following concerns about discrimination in the military justice system, thenSecretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird established the Task Force on the Administration of Military Justice in the Armed Forces to     identify the nature and extent of racial discrimination in the administration of military justice; identify and assess the impact of factors contributing to disparity in punishment rates between racially identifiable groups; identify and assess racial patterns or practices in initiation of charges against individuals; and recommend changes to enhance equal opportunity for servicemembers.95 91 Office of the Secretary of Defense, Population Representation in the Military Services, Fiscal Year 1997, November, 1998, Table D-17. CRS has been unable to locate similar data for 1966. 92 For example, racially motivated incidents occurred at Long Binh Jail outside Saigon (1968) and at Cam Ranh Bay (1969) in Vietnam, and domestically at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina (1969), and Camp Pendleton, California (1970). 93 Leidholm, Nicole, Race Riots Shape Travis’ History, U.S Air Force, November 8, 2013. 94 In 1978, DRRI became the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI). 95 Department of Defense, Report of the Task Force on the Administration of Military Justice in the Armed Forces, November 30, 1972. Congressional Research Service 18 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services The Task Force found evidence of both intentional and unintentional discrimination toward racial minorities in the military justice system stating, The Task Force believes that the military system does discriminate against its members on the basis of race and ethnic background. The discrimination is sometimes purposive; more often, it is not. Indeed, it often occurs against the dictates not only of policy but in the face of determined efforts of commanders, staff personnel and dedicated service men and women.96 The report proposed enactment of a specific legislative provision in the UCMJ to ban discrimination. However, this recommendation was not adopted and the UCMJ does not currently have any specific provision banning discrimination. The adoption of new antidiscrimination policies, programs and protections along with the advent of the All-Volunteer Force in 1973 helped to alleviate some of the racial tensions that had plagued the Armed Forces for the better part of the 20th century. Despite great strides in racial equality and nondiscrimination, some concerns about the treatment of and opportunities for racial minorities have persisted into the 21st century.97 For example, some researchers have pointed to consistently higher rates of disciplinary action (i.e., court-martial or nonjudicial punishment) for black servicemembers relative to their white counterparts as evidence of persistent racial bias in the military justice system. 98 Is the Racial/Ethnic Profile of the Military Representative of the Nation? For over 50 years DOD has not prohibited qualified U.S. citizens of different races or ethnicity from serving in any occupation in the military. Recent concerns by DOD and others have focused on whether the racial/ethnic composition of the military is representative of the broader society. The military’s racial and ethnic profile shifted slightly over the past few decades. There was a surge in black enlistments in the late 1970s and 1980s, most significantly in the Army where black representation was above 30% from 1979 to 1981.99 Black representation declined to approximately 20% of the active component throughout the 1990s, and has dipped below 20% in the past decade (see Figure 1). However, black representation in the Army remains above 20% and overall, the black members are overrepresented in the Armed Forces relative to the total U.S. population. The percentage of Hispanic servicemembers has grown consistently in the past two decades, and has doubled since 1997. This is consistent with the growth of the Hispanic population in the United States and its higher propensity to enlist, which sometimes varies by racial/ethnic group. Between 2004 and 2010 as reported by youth surveys, Hispanic youth (male and female) had a higher average aided propensity for enlistment than their white or black counterparts. The number of members identifying as mixed race has also grown, which contributes to growth in the other/unknown category in Figure 1. 96 Department of Defense, Report of the Task Force on the Administration of Military Justice in the Armed Forces, November 30, 1972, p. 18. 97 See for example, Tan, Michelle, “Army Investigates Alleged ‘Racial Thursdays’ at Unit,” Army Times, March 19, 2015. Hajela, Deepti, “Asian American Soldier’s Suicide Called a ‘Wake-up Call’ for the Military,” Washington Post, February 21, 2012. Losey, Stephen, “Racial Slurs Written on Dorm Room Boards of Black Air Force Academy Cadet Candidates," Air Force Times, September 28, 2017. 98 Christensen, Don, Col. (Ret.) et al., Racial Disparities in Military Justice: Findings of Substantial and Persistent Racial Disparities Within the United States Military Justice System, Protect Our Defenders, May 5, 2017. 99 Burk, James and Evelyn Espinoza, “Race Relations Within the US Military," Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 38 (March 9, 2012), pp. 401-422. Congressional Research Service 19 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services Figure 1. DOD Active Duty Racial and Ethnic Representation Source: Defense Manpower Data Center. Notes: Data includes all active duty members (officer and enlisted). Race and Hispanic origin are self-identified. The concept of race is separate from the concept of Hispanic origin. Hispanic may be more than one race (e.g., Hispanic and White or Hispanic and Black). According to data from the Defense Manpower Data Center, the active duty enlisted corps is more racially diverse than the U.S. resident population with nonwhite servicemembers accounting for roughly one-third of all active duty enlisted and 23% of the total U.S. population ages 18-64. (see Table 6). Among enlisted minority groups in the active and reserve components, Asian servicemembers are underrepresented relative to the U.S. population and blacks and Pacific Islanders are overrepresented. However, in the officer corps, and especially at the senior leadership level, racial and ethnic minorities are underrepresented relative to the enlisted corps and the U.S. population. For example, those of Hispanic origin (age 18-64) account for approximately 18% of the population and 18% of the active duty enlisted corps.100 However, Hispanic officers account for roughly 8% of the officer corps and 2% of General/Flag officers. When considering the demographic makeup of the officer corps, it is important to note that certain requirements must be met to become a commissioned officer. For example, attaining a bachelor’s degree (or higher) is a requirement for the appointment and advancement of most officers. Looking again at the Hispanic population, the percent of Hispanics in the officer corps is closer in terms of percentage of the pool of eligible officer candidates by educational attainment. While, those of Hispanic origin101 account for nearly 18% of the U.S. population, they account for roughly 8% of all post-secondary degree holders (see Table 7). 100 United States Census Bureau, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States and States: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 201 , 2018, https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/ jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk. Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), Active Duty by Service, December 2018. DMDC’s Hispanic grouping includes members reporting Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Latin American with Hispanic descent, and other Hispanic descent ethnicities. 101 The term Hispanic broadly refers to peoples, nations, and cultures that have a historical link to Spain as expressed through language, culture, or tradition. Congressional Research Service 20 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services Table 6. Race and Ethnic Representation in the Active Component and U.S. Population As of May 2018 Rank and Grade White Black Asian American Indian/ Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander Multi/ Unknown Hispanic* General/Flag Officer (O-7 and above) 87.5% 8.1% 1.8% none 0.3% 2.4% 2.1% Officer (all) 77.3% 8.1% 5.2% 10.1% 0.5% 8.2% 7.6% Warrant Officer 69.0.% 16.0% 3.1% 0.8% 0.6% 10.4% 11.6% Senior Enlisted (E7 and above) 63.1% 19.1% 3.8% 1.3% 1.2% 11.5% 14.3% Enlisted (all) 67.4% 18.5% 4.3% 1.3% 1.3% 7.3% 17.5% Total Active Duty 69.1% 16.8% 4.4% 1.2% 1.1% 7.5% 15.8% U.S. Resident Population (age 18-64) 76.2% 13.7% 6.3% 1.2% 0.3% 2.2% 17.9% Sources: Officer and Enlisted figures are as reported by the Defense Manpower Data Center, May 2018. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Age, Race and Hispanic Origin for the United States, States, and Counties: April 1, 2010, to July 1, 2017, U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Release Date: July 1, 2017. Notes: Race and Hispanic origin are self-identified. * The concept of race is separate from the concept of Hispanic origin. Hispanic may be more than one race (e.g., Hispanic and White or Hispanic and Black). Percentages for race should not be combined with percent Hispanic. Table 7. Racial/Ethnic Representation Among Post-secondary Degree Holders U.S. Population compared with Active Duty Officer Corps % of Resident Population (age 18-64) % of Total Active Duty Officer Corps % of all Post-secondary Degree Holders (18 years and above) White 76.2% 77.3% 79.5% Black 13.7% 8.1% 8.6% Asian 6.3% 5.2% 9.7% Hispanic* 17.9% 7.6% 7.7% Race/Ethnic Origin Sources: Officer and Enlisted figures are as reported by the Defense Manpower Data Center, May 2018. Educational Attainment of the Population 18 Years and Over, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2017 Annual Social and Economic Supplement. Notes: Degree holders include Bachelor’s, Master’s, Professional, or Doctoral Degree. * The concept of race is separate from the concept of Hispanic origin, Hispanic may be more than one race (e.g., Hispanic and White or Hispanic and Black). Attaining the highest officer rankings (Admiral or General Officer) requires that individuals be competitively selected for promotion when eligible or in zone at different stages of their Congressional Research Service 21 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services careers.102 A 2014 study of Air Force promotion rates found no evidence of differential rates of promotion by race/ethnicity for approximately 93% of the cases observed, suggesting overall fairness in the promotion system.103 However, where disparities existed, whites had more favorable promotion outcomes than African Americans or Hispanics with similar characteristics.104 The authors of the study found that career success is cumulative and that racial and ethnic minority officers, on average, were less likely to have achieved the early career milestones that are correlated with improved promotion prospects.105 Other potential factors in racial diversity among senior military leaders are career field preferences and career field assignment policies. In a 2009 study of assignments and preferences, of Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadets, researchers found that African American cadets tend to prefer Combat Service Support branches whereas white cadets tended to gravitate towards Combat Arms branches.106 Other studies have noted that racial minorities, particularly African Americans, are also underrepresented in Special Operations Forces (SOF) relative to their source population. For example, a 1999 RAND study found that black servicemembers were particularly underrepresented in SOF, compared to the source population.107 This report cited both structural barriers (e.g., swimming requirements, Armed Service Vocational Aptitude Battery cutoff scores) and perceptual barriers (e.g., perceived racism, lack of knowledge/support in minority community for SOF careers, minority preferences for occupations with less risk or more civilian job transferability).108 Inclusion of Women: Background and Force Profile As with racial and ethnic groups, women have played a role in supporting and serving in the U.S. Armed Forces since the Revolutionary War. However, laws and policies regarding how many women may serve, their authorized benefits, and types of assignments have changed over the history of women’s service. While the ceiling on the percentage of women allowed to serve in the military was repealed in 1967, women continued to be prohibited from serving in many occupations by statute and policy—particularly those occupations related to combat arms specialties.109 In 1993, all laws prohibiting females from serving in any occupation were repealed; however, by DOD policy, women were still excluded from serving in units or occupations involved in direct ground combat. In 2013, the DOD rescinded the Direct Ground Combat and Assignment Rule, which had excluded women from assignment to units below the brigade level whose primary mission was to engage in direct combat on the ground. This rule had the effect of prohibiting women from assignments to certain combat arms occupations and units (e.g., 102 The officer promotion system was established in 1980 through the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) (P.L. 96-513). 103 The study did not address promotion rates for the other military departments. 104 Lim, Nelson, Louis T. Mariano, and Amy G. Cox et al., Improving Demographic Diversity in the U.S. Air Force Officer Corps, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 2014. 105 Ibid., p. 48. For example, officers with higher military order of merit upon graduation from their commissioning program may get the opportunity to select career fields and assignments ahead of their peers. 106 Lim, Nelson et al., Officer Classification and the Future Diversity Among Senior Military Leaders; A Case Study of the Army ROTC, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 2009, p. xii. 107 Harrell, Margaret C. et al., Barriers to Minority Participation in Special Operations Forces, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 1999. The reasons cited by this report included structural and perceptual barriers that impede minority members from joining. 108 Ibid., p. xv. 109 P.L. 90-130; 81 Stat. 374; November 8, 1967. The ceiling was 2% enlisted women and 10% officers. Congressional Research Service 22 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services infantry) and its removal was the last major policy barrier to women’s service in all occupational fields. The services were required to fully implement this change no later than January 1, 2016; however, they were allowed to request a waiver from the Secretary of Defense for further exclusion of women from certain positions.110 On December 3, 2015, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter ordered the military to open all combat jobs to women with no waivers or exceptions.111 Women’s Participation in World War I and World War II The first uniformed women served in the Army Nurse Corps (established in 1901) and the Navy Nurse Corps (1908). Both Army and Navy nurses served abroad during WWI in field hospitals, mobile units, evacuation camps, and convalescent hospitals as well as on troop transports.112 However, women who served in the Army and Navy Nurse Corps were not eligible for retirement or veterans’ benefits. During World War I, under the Naval Act of 1916, which authorized the Navy to enlist “citizens,”113 the Navy Department enlisted approximately 13,000 women for service in the Navy and Marine Corps in clerical occupations.114 These enlisted women were eligible for the same pay and benefits as their male counterparts. While women served in the Army Nurse Corps, the Army did not officially enlist any women in the regular service.115 Before World War II, traditional attitudes towards women’s roles in society and the military as a masculine organization were prevalent and thus there was little public interest in permanently integrating females into other occupations in the Armed Forces. In 1928, Major Everett S. Hughes, the chief Army planner for the development of the women’s corps suggested that given shifting technology and rapid industrialization, women would inevitably play a role in future combat and as such they should be “indoctrinated” into the Army’s culture and processes. He also argued that separate structures for women and men would be inefficient and that women should be afforded similar uniforms, ranks, and privileges.116 Senior officials put aside Hughes’ recommendations and planning efforts by and they were not adopted. In 1941, then-Representative Edith Nourse Rogers introduced legislation that would have provided for a women’s auxiliary to the Army. However, the bill did not move forward until after the attack on Pearl Harbor. On May 15, 1942, Congress approved the temporary establishment of a Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC), which then became the Women’s Army Corps (WAC) in 1943.117 In 1942, the Navy WAVES (Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service), Coast Guard SPARs (Semper Paratus Always Ready), and Marine Corps (Marines) also established female divisions.118 Occupational roles held by women during the war expanded from 110 For more information on women in combat, please see CRS Report R42075, Women in Combat: Issues for Congress. 111 The Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Secretary of the Navy, as well as the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the commander of U.S. Special Operations Command recommended no exceptions. The Marine Corps requested a partial exception in some areas such as infantry, machine gunner, fire support, reconnaissance, and others. Secretary of Defense Remarks on the Women-in-Service Review, December 3, 2015. 112 See http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/rr/s01/cw/students/leeann/historyandcollections/history/lrnmrewwinurses.html. 113 The act did not specify male citizens, thus allowing a loophole for enlisting women. 114 Binkin, Martin and Shirley J. Bach, Women in the Military, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 1977, p. 5. 115 Women in Military Service for America Memorial Foundation, History and Collections. 116 Binkin, Martin and Shirley J. Bach, Women in the Military, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 1977, p. 7. 117 P.L. 77-554. 118 While many expected the Marine Corps to develop a catchy name or acronym, the Marine Corps Commandant at Congressional Research Service 23 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services nursing and clerical positions to include airplane mechanics, air traffic controllers, instructors and other specializations with the exception of direct combat roles. Women also served for the first time as pilots of military fighter, bomber, transport, and training aircraft as part of a specialized paramilitary program called Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP). The women who served with the WASPS were not officially part of the armed services and were not afforded military benefits or given veteran status until 1977.119 During WWII, over 350,000 women served in the Armed Forces.120 Post-WWII and the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act Following World War II, Congress made women a permanent part of the military services with the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act of 1948.121 This legislation excluded women from combat ships and aircraft and limited the proportion of women (as proposed by the Pentagon) to 2% of the enlisted force and 10% of officers.122 While racial quotas during the same era were linked to the percentage of blacks in the U.S. population, there was not a clear basis for the ceiling on females who at the time accounted for nearly 30% of the civilian workforce. In addition, while the law allowed for permanent integration of women into the services it did not allow for equal treatment. Some of the limitations on women’s service included    women required parental consent for enlistment under the age of 21 (the age of consent was 18 for men); women could not hold a permanent rank above lieutenant colonel/commander (O-5); male spouses had to demonstrate dependency in order to receive female servicemembers’ dependent’s benefits and/or the female servicemember had to be the family’s primary source of support for her children to be considered dependents.123 In 1951, then-Secretary of Defense George C. Marshall established the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS)124 to serve as a board of civilian advisors to the time, General Thomas Holcomb, told Life magazine “They are Marines. They don’t have a nickname and they don’t need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere at a Marine post. They inherit the traditions of Marines. They are Marines.” See http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/rr/s01/cw/students/leeann/historyandcollections/history/ lrnmrewwiimar.html. 119 P.L. 95-202, GI Bill Improvement Act of 1977. In 2009, Congress further recognized the WASPS by awarding a Congressional Gold Medal (P.L. 111-40). 120 Binkin, Martin and Shirley J. Bach, Women in the Military, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 1977, p. 7. 121 P.L. 80 - 625; 62 Stat. 356; June 12, 1948. 122 The 10% cap excluded nurses. P.L. 625; 62 Stat. 356; June 12, 1948: “Women’s Armed Services Integration Act of 1948.” U.S. Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee, Women's Armed Services Integration Act of 1947: Hearings on S. 1103, a bill to establish the Women's Army Corps in the regular Army, and for other purposes, S. 1527, a bill to authorize the enlistment and appointment of women in the regular Navy and Marine Corps and the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve, and for other purposes [and] S. 1641, a bill to establish the Women's Army Corps in the regular Army, to authorize the enlistment and appointment of women in the regular Navy and Marine Corps and the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve, and for other purposes. , 80th Cong., 1st sess., July 1947 (Washington: GPO, 1947). 123 These dependent benefits included increased housing allowances and medical benefits. At the time Social Security payments were also allotted on the assumption that men were the primary breadwinners and women were the dependent spouses. 124 DACOWITS is authorized under the provisions of P.L. 92-463, the Federal Advisory Committee Act and meets on a quarterly basis to review issues and conducts information-gathering activities through installation visits, meetings, reports, and surveys. The committee provides recommendations to the Secretary of Defense through an annual report. Congressional Research Service 24 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services DOD on matters relating to the recruitment and retention, treatment, employment, integration, and well-being of women in the Armed Forces. Equal Rights Movement and an All-Volunteer Force The 1960s and 1970s brought a rapid increase in the integration of women into the forces, due in part to the equal rights movement and the shift to an All-Volunteer Force (AVF) in 1973. The equal rights movement added momentum to efforts to eliminate discriminatory treatment of women in the armed forces. As with racial integration, the integration of women in the military was seen by some as a social catalyst for gender equity in the civilian sector. Some suggested that as females proved their abilities in military service, civilian employers would be “hard-pressed to deny jobs to women solely on the basis of their sex.”125 A number of laws concerning gender discrimination in the civilian workforce were passed between 1963 and 1980, including the Equal Pay Act of 1963,126 banning pay discrimination, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, banning workplace discrimination based on a number of characteristics, including sex.127 In 1967, Congress amended Titles 10, 32, and 37 of United States Code to remove restrictions on the careers of female officers. This legislation removed the limit on the percentage of women in the military, applied the same promotion rules to women as to men, and counted service as a nurse in the armed services as creditable commissioned service.128 The first women Brigadier Generals for the Army (WAC), Elizabeth P. Hoisington and Anna Mae Hays, were appointed in 1970.129 In 1972, Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) with a ratification deadline of March 22, 1979 (later amended to June 30, 1982). The Amendment stated that “equal rights under the law shall not be abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” The ERA was never ratified, in part due to efforts by opponents who suggested that, if ratified, the ERA could pave the way for conscription of women into the armed forces, potentially putting them in combat roles.130 In the 1970s a series of policies for servicewomen’s military benefits and eligibility for military service were changed. In 1973, in the Supreme Court case of Frontiero v. Richardson, the Court held that the policy requiring female servicemembers to prove the dependency of their spouses was unconstitutional, thus entitling female servicemembers to the same dependent benefits as male servicemembers for their spouses and children.131 In 1974, Congress reduced the minimum 125 Goldich, Robert, Women in the Armed Forces: Proceedings of a CRS Seminar Held on November 2, 1979 and Selected Readings, Congressional Research Service, February 14, 1980. 126 29 U.S.C. §206(d). 127 42 U.S.C. §§2000e et seq. 128 P.L. 90-130; 81 Stat. 374; November 8, 1967. 129 Army Chief of Staff General William C. Westmoreland congratulated them during their promotion ceremony by kissing them on the mouth, calling it “a new protocol for congratulating lady generals.” Time Magazine, Vol, 95, No. 25, June 22, 1970. 130 Schafly, Phyllis, “'Equal Rights' for Women: Wrong Then, Wrong Now," Los Angeles Times, April 8, 2007. Although the military draft ended in 1973, most male residents of the United States are required to register for the Selective Service. Women in the United States have never been required to register for the draft. For more information see, CRS Report R44452, The Selective Service System and Draft Registration: Issues for Congress. 131 Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973). Congressional Research Service 25 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services age of consent for women to be consistent with the age of consent for men.132 Until a DOD policy change in 1975, women could be involuntarily discharged for pregnancy.133 In 1972, the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) was opened to women and in 1975, legislation was enacted allowing women to attend the military service academies.134 By 1975 women accounted for approximately 5% of the active duty force (see Figure 2). In a 1978 DOD study of utilization of women in the military, researchers found that in the all-volunteer force, recruiting more women had the benefits of improving quality and saving money. In support of expanding female recruitment, the report stated The tradeoff in today’s recruiting market is between a high quality female and a low quality male. The average woman available to be recruited is smaller, weighs less, and is physically weaker than the vast majority of male recruits. She is also much brighter, better educated, scores much higher on the aptitude tests and is much less likely to become a disciplinary problem.135 In 1978, the WAC was disestablished and women were assigned to Army branches for which they were eligible, in the same way as other soldiers.136 In the same year, Congress authorized DOD to assign women to permanent duty on noncombatant Navy ships and up to six months of temporary duty on other ships.137 132 P.L. 93-290; 88 Stat. 173; May 24, 1974. 133 After the policy change, women could still voluntarily separate if pregnant. Women in Military Service for America Memorial Foundation, Inc., History and Collections. 134 P.L. 94-106; 89 Stat. 537; October 7, 1975. Women had already been admitted to the Coast Guard and Merchant Marine Academies by administrative action. 135 Officer of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Logistics), Use of Women in the Military, 2nd Edition, September, 1978. 136 The WAC was disestablished by the Army in a ceremony on April 28, 1978. P.L. 95-485 abolished the WAC by statute. 137 P.L. 95-485; 92 Stat. 1623; October 20, 1978. Congressional Research Service 26 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services Figure 2. Women Serving on Active Duty as a Percentage of Total Active Duty Force 1975-2018 Source: Defense Manpower Data Center data. The 1990s: Increasing Roles for Women In the early 1990s there was an expansion of military occupations open to women. In 1991, Congress removed the restriction on women’s assignment to combat aircraft. In the same year, the President’s Commission on Women in the Armed Services was established. The commission’s recommendation and votes are summarized in Table 8. Voting members of the commission overwhelmingly recommended retaining restrictions on women’s assignment to direct ground combat and Special Operations roles and the commission members strongly favored both genderneutral assignment policies and military readiness as the deciding factor in assignment decisions. The commission was sharply divided in terms of female assignments to combat aircraft and surface combatants, narrowly voting to reenact the law prohibiting women’s assignments to combat aircraft. However, in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, Congress allowed women to serve as permanent crew on combat vessels and did not enact restrictions on women’s assignment to combat aircraft.138 In response to concerns by the commission that instances of the use of quotas were perceived as discriminatory or negatively affected morale,139 the same act also prohibited the Secretary of Defense from implementing any “gender quota, goal, or ceiling except as specifically authorized by law” for any occupational career field.140 138 P.L. 103-160; 107 Stat. 1659 et seq.; November 30, 1993. 139 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, Report to the President, November, 15, 1992, p. 1. 140 P.L. 103-160 §543. Congressional Research Service 27 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services Table 8. 1992 Presidential Commission on Women in Combat Recommendations and Votes Commission Votes Commission Recommendation Yes No Abstain DOD should establish a policy to ensure that no person who is best qualified is denied access on the basis of gender to an assignment that is open to both men and women. 9 6 0 The Services should adopt gender-neutral assignment policies, providing the possibility of involuntary assignment of any qualified personnel to any position open to them. 10 2 3 The Services should retain gender-specific physical fitness tests and standards […], provided they do not compromise training or qualification programs for physically demanding combat or combat support MOSs. 12 0 1 The Services should adopt specific requirements for those specialties for which muscular strength/endurance and cardiovascular capacity are relevant 9 4 2 Entry level training may be gender-specific as necessary. 8 6 1 DOD should review policies regarding single parent military servicemembers and dual-service families. 9 0 1 Military readiness should be the driving concern regarding assignment policies; there are circumstances under which women might be assigned to combat positions. 8 1 1 Women should be excluded from direct land combat units and positions 10 0 2 The law prohibiting women to be assigned to aircraft on combat missions that was repealed in 1991 should be reenacted. 8 7 0 Laws prohibiting women to serve on combatant vessels except for submarines and amphibious vessels should be repealed. 8 6 1 Policies restricting assignment of women to Special Operations Forces should be retained. 14 0 0 DOD’s “Risk Rule” for the assignment of women should be retained. 9 4 2 The integration process should be accomplished in an orderly fashion and without undue haste. 11 3 1 Women should not be required to register for or be subject to conscription (draft). 11 3 1 Source: Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, Report to the President, November, 15, 1992. Even as the armed services opened new roles for women, a series of incidents raised questions about how the military was handling sexual harassment and assault. In 1990, a female student (midshipman) at the Naval Academy left after an incident where she was handcuffed to a urinal in the men’s bathroom and photographed by other midshipmen.141 In response to this incident, thenChairmen of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel asked GAO to conduct a study on the prevalence of sexual harassment at the Air Force, Naval, and Military academies. The GAO’s 1994 report found that 93% to 97% of academy 141 Barringer, Felicity, “Harassment of Woman Shakes Naval Academy," New York Times, May 20, 1990. Congressional Research Service 28 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services women experienced at least one form of sexual harassment during the 1990-91 academic year.142 In 1992, complaints of sexual harassment and assault arose at a Las Vegas military aviation symposium hosted by the Tailhook Association. After what was deemed an inadequate investigation by Navy inspectors, the Office of the Inspector General (IG) launched an independent investigation. The IG’s 1993 report identified 90 victims (83 women and 7 men) of indecent assault at Tailhook and highlighted a lack of leadership. In response to the IG report, then-Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Frank Kelso stated Tailhook brought to light the fact that we had an institutional problem in how we treated women. In that regard, it was a watershed event that has brought about institutional change.143 In 1996, a scandal at Aberdeen Proving Ground, an Army training base in Maryland, resulted in charges being brought against 12 male officers and enlisted trainers for sexual assault of females under their command. Sexual harassment and assault of female servicemembers continues to be a concern of both Congress and DOD with the integration of women in the military.144 Recent Changes to Women’s Assignment Policies While laws prohibiting women from serving in combat units were repealed in the early 1990s, until recently it has been DOD policy to restrict women from certain military occupations and units, especially ground combat units. On January 24, 2013, DOD rescinded the ground combat restrictions for women, with the expectation that full implementation by the services would occur on January 1, 2016. The Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Army, and Special Operations Command were directed to develop implementation plans for the review of all closed occupations and units and the standards associated with entry and assignment to those units. Recommendations based on these reviews were reported to the Secretary of Defense by September 30, 2013.145 On December 3, 2015, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter ordered the military to open all combat jobs to women with no exceptions. This most recent policy change followed extensive studies on issues such as unit cohesion, women's health, equipment, facilities modifications, propensity to serve, and international experiences with women in combat.146 Is the Gender Mix in the Military Representative of the Nation? Female participation in the civilian and military workforce has been steadily rising over the past 50 years. In 1970, women accounted for less than 40% of the civilian workforce and less than 4% of the Armed Forces. In 2018, women accounted for nearly 17% of DOD’s active duty force. In comparison, in 2016, women accounted for approximately 47% of the civilian workforce in the United States.147 Growth in female representation in the military has mirrored growth in certain 142 U.S. Government Accountability Office, DOD Service Academies; More Actions Needed to Eliminate Sexual Harassment, NSAID96-4, January 1994, p. 2. 143 Gordon, Michael R., “Pentagon Report Tells of Aviators’ ‘Debauchery’,” New York Times, April 23, 1993. 144 For more information on congressional action, please see CRS Report R44944, Military Sexual Assault: A Framework for Congressional Oversight. 145 A list of all research studies can be found in: U.S. Government Accountability Office, DOD is Expanding Combat Service Opportunities for Women, but Should Monitor Long-Term Integration Progress, GAO-15-589, July 20, 2015, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-589. 146 U.S. Government Accountability Office, DOD Is Expanding Combat Service Opportunities for Women, but Should Monitor Long-Term Integration Progress, GAO-15-589, July 2015. 147 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Household Data, Annual Averages, Employment Status of the Civilian Noninstitutional Population 16 years and over by Sex, 1976 to Date. Congressional Research Service 29 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services historically male-dominated civilian occupations. For example, female representation in the civilian police force rose from 3.7% in 1970 to 14.8% in 2010.148 In 2018, women accounted for approximately one-fifth of all officers in the Air Force, Navy, and Army, and 7.9% of officers in the Marine Corps (see Table 9). Among enlisted ranks, the Navy and Air Force again have about one-fifth of their active duty positions filled by female servicemembers while the Army has 14% women and the Marine Corps has 8.7%. While women make up almost 20% of the officer corps, they account for less than 10% of the highest leadership positions. The disparity between female representation in General and Flag officer ranks relative to the officer corps in current data could be influenced by a number of factors. Some argue that limits on women’s assignments, particularly to combat-related occupations and units, have harmed women’s career and promotion potential to the highest leadership positions. For example, Retired Air Force General Lester L. Lyles, who chaired the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, stated We know that [the exclusion] hinders women from promotion. [ ... ] they’re not getting credit for being in combat arms, [and] that’s important for their consideration for the most senior flag ranks.149 The military personnel system does not typically allow lateral entry, thus the average general/flag officer (G/FO) has over 30 years of service. Therefore, today’s females eligible for G/FO rank likely entered service in 1985 before restrictions were lifted on women serving on combat aircraft (1991), surface combatants (1993), submarines (2010), and before the “risk rule” was rescinded (1988).150 Given this context, it may take some time before effects of current policy changes removing restrictions on female combat assignments can be observed in the data. Another factor affecting the percentage of women in top positions may be related to retention rates for women in the military. Various studies have found that women leave the military at higher rates than men at various points during their career, meaning that while a new cohort of officer accessions may have a high percentage of females, that percentage may have dropped significantly by the time the cohort is eligible for promotion to senior ranks.151 In some past surveys and focus groups, military women have suggested that reasons for leaving the service included perceptions of limited occupational roles, lack of career path flexibility, long hours/shift work, and concerns about harassment and family obligations.152 148 U.S. Census Bureau, 1970 Equal Employment Opportunity Tabulation based on the decennial census and 2006- 2010 Equal Employment Opportunity Tabulation based on the American Community Survey. 149 Daniel, Lisa, “Panel says Rescind Policy on Women in Combat,” American Forces Press Service, March 8, 2011. 150 In 1988, DOD implemented the “risk rule” which excludes women from noncombat units or missions if the risk of exposure to direct combat, hostile fire, or capture were equal to or greater than the risks to the combat units they support. 151 Previous studies have found that female officers generally have lower retention rates than their male counterparts. See for example, Keller, Kirsten M. et al., Addressing Barriers to Female Officer Retention in the Air Force, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 2018. Asch, Beth J. et al., A New Look at Gender and Minority Differences in Officer Career Progression in the Military, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 2012, p. xii.; or U.S. Government Accountability Office, Women in the Military; Attrition and Retention, NSAID-90-87BR, July 1990. 152 Asch, Beth J. et al., A New Look at Gender and Minority Differences in Officer Career Progression in the Military, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 2012. DiSilverio, Laura A.H., Winning the Retention Wars: The Air Force, Women Officers, and the Need for Transformation, Air University Press, Maxwell Air Force Base, AL, August 2003. Congressional Research Service 30 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services Table 9. Female Representation in the Active Duty Armed Forces As of August 2018 Service Branch % of Total Active Duty Force % of Total Enlisted % of Senior Enlisted (E7, E-8, E-9) % of Total Officers (excludes Warrant Officers) Army 15.0% 14.4% 12.0% 18.7% 6.8% Navy 19.7% 19.7% 12.0% 19.3% 8.6% Marine Corps 8.6% 8.7% 5.7% 7.9% 2.1% Air Force 20.2% 19.9% 20.4% 21.1% 9.2% All DOD 16.5% 16.2% 13.5% 18.6% 7.6% % of General/Flag Officers Source: Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/dwp_reports.jsp. Notes: Total Officer calculations exclude Warrant Officers for purposes of compa [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR44321. Public record. Not legal advice.