top of page

Inclusion in the American Military

By Eliza Friend

It must first be acknowledged that the United States of America has never fought a war without the participation of nonwhite servicemen—whether enslaved, drafted, or freely enlisted—women, and LGBTQ+ individuals.[1] This research will, however, focus primarily on developments of the twentieth century and the twenty-first century. This is by no means intended to downplay the contributions of minority servicemembers who took part in conflicts outside of this period, nor their suffering due to discriminatory practices; rather, this choice is made for the sake of brevity and in keeping with the fairly limited scope of the overarching research project.

The following contains discussion of sensitive topics, including sexual assault.

            Within the American political system, fearmongering pundits have long held a leading role in shaping the opinions of the public. Empowered by polarization, these individuals cast politicians with whom they disagree as malevolent antagonists that seek to destroy the so-called “traditional” American way of life. Central to these arguments and the “traditional” conceptions of American life and Americanness are the armed forces: the Marines, the Navy, the Army, the Airforce, the Coastguard, and the Space Force. In the eyes of many Americans, military might is the bedrock upon which the nation stands; to threaten this foundational piece of American political culture, they believe, is to threaten their shared identity. It is this aspect of American national identity that has been capitalized upon by conservative journalists and politicians in their responses to policies that pertain to race, gender, and sexuality in the military. Using labels such as “social experiment” and “social agenda,” individuals including Tucker Carlson[2] and Mike Huckabee[3] present a choice to the American people: experimentation and inclusion, or effectiveness and strength.[4]

            This section examines the role of the military in shaping American society. It describes the history of racial and gender integration in the armed forces, as well as the recognition of LGBTQ+ servicepeople; the ongoing failings of political and military leadership with regard to these minoritized groups are also addressed, with particular emphasis on sexual harassment and assault. The paper concludes that the existing political discourse of “agendas” and demonized “social experimentation” ignores the historical role of the military as a driver of social change and create a false dichotomy; effectiveness and experimentation are not mutually exclusive. Rather, experimentation and inclusion are essential to the idea of Americanness and the strength of America’s armed forces.

Racial Integration

World War Two

            Throughout the 1930s, as Adolf Hitler consolidated his dictatorial power and Europe once again seemed to be inching toward war, African American activists in the United States drew comparisons between the treatment of Jews in Germany and the treatment of African Americans in United States; per Maria Höhn, they “used white America’s condemnation of Nazi racism to expose and indict the abuses of Jim Crow at home.”[5] In 1941, the United States entered World War Two following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, with the conflict being presented to the American people as a direct confrontation between good and evil; in the face of dictatorship, according to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, “[the United States] [had to be] the great arsenal of democracy.”[6] Within this existential threat to democracy, African American activists saw an opportunity for Black soldiers to earn full citizenship through military service; they once again confronted the United States’ unflinching belief in its own morality, urging the government to fulfill its democratic obligation and allow African American soldiers “to ‘fight like men’ side by side with white troops.”[7]

           One particularly powerful criticism of American hypocrisy during this period comes from Langston Hughes. His poem, “Beaumont to Detroit: 1943,” (pictured to the right) was written following a series of incidents of racial violence throughout the urban centers of the United States.[8]

            To meet manpower needs, individuals of color were allowed to serve in the military; however, they were forced to serve in segregated units and most were assigned to “the quarter-master corps, the engineers, and the transportation corps.”[9] In spite of this, many minority servicemembers broke barriers and served with distinction. Notable examples include the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, a Japanese American unit that remains the “most decorated unit for its size and length of service in the history of the US military,” [10] and the 761st Tank Battalion, an African American unit that “countered the German’s last-ditch offensive” during the Battle of the Bulge.[11]

thumb.jpg

Source: Common Ground, 1943

Executive Order 9881

            In spite of the valorous service of soldiers of color during World War Two, the legal end to segregation in the military would not come about until three years following its conclusion. On July 26, 1948, President Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9981:

“Whereas it is essential that there be maintained in the armed services of the United States the highest standard of democracy, with equality of treatment and opportunity for all those who serve in our country's defense…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. 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…”[12]

           Responses to Truman’s executive order were predictable, with many playing upon the trope of social experimentation. Marine Corps Commandant General Clifton B. Cates, for example, argued that “segregation was a national, rather than military problem” and that the military “could not be an agency for experimentation in civil liberty without detriment to its ability to maintain the efficiency and the high state of readiness so essential to national defense.”[13] It should be noted that many White servicemembers who encountered and fought alongside Black units during World War Two “reported that they performed admirably and [that they] would not have issues serving alongside Black units again.”[14] White servicemembers who did not fight alongside Black units were more likely to espouse racist viewpoints and advocate a similar position to that of Cates.[15]

The Korean War and Full Integration

            Though Executive Order 9981 was signed into law in 1948, the practical implementation of Truman’s order was not carried out until the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950.[16] During the first months of the conflict, Army units remained segregated; however, as casualties increased, commanders of White units began filling their losses with Black replacements.[17] Though the majority of African American soldiers continued to serve in segregated units, by the beginning of 1951, forty one “unofficially integrated” units were fighting on the Korean Peninsula, with “no reports of racial friction.”[18]

           In 1952, the Air Force fully integrated.[19] Also in 1952, Army Chief of Staff Gen. J Lawton Collins ordered the organization-wide integration of the Army; though, this goal would not be achieved until 1954.[20] The Marines did not fully integrate until 1960.[21] The Navy, according to the Naval History and Heritage Command, did not “make an earnest effort to integrate until the 1970s” and, prior to this "effort," racial minorities were generally relegated to menial labor.[22]

Literature Review: Racial Integration as a Social Experiment

            As noted by John Sibley Butler in his chapter of Ethnicity, Integration, and the Military, the military was the first American institution to “take significant steps toward equal treatment of personnel.”[23] In his writing, Butler highlights the “irony” under which the military, as a “conservative institution with strong traditions, found itself in the forefront of the experiment of social integration in America.”[24] Further, he identifies two unique characteristics that have empowered the military to take on this important, albeit “[ironic]” position within American society:

  • “Its separation from the larger society”

  • “Its strict hierarchical structure”[25]

           Regarding the former of these two characteristics, Butler remarks that when individuals join the military, they are isolated both physically and “to an extent, psychologically” from their past lives and their past identities.[26] Additionally, regarding the latter characteristic, he highlights that the only hierarchy that is of any importance in the military is that of rank; any preconceived notions of racial hierarchy cannot be openly maintained.[27] Finally, Butler presents the Contact Hypothesis, which states that “under certain conditions, the more contact individuals have with other racial groups, the less their negative racial attitudes.”[28] The combination of the unique characteristics of military life and the effects of the Contact Hypothesis, according to Butler, has had a profound impact on the personnel of the United States military, allowing the institution, over time, to earn its label as a “vehicle of social change.”[29]

Integration of Women

The World Wars

            The first world war marked the first time that women were allowed the serve openly in the United States military.[30] Using a loophole in naval enlistment guidelines, the Navy compensated for their lack of manpower by recruiting women for non-combat roles.[31] The Army Signal Corps and the Army Nurse Corps also hired women as telephone operators and medical workers, respectively.[32]

            During the second world war, all branches of the American military enlisted women in non-combat roles, with approximately 350,000 women answering the call the service.[33] These women often performed clerical work, operated radio and telephones, and repaired vehicles and airplanes; some even “test-flew planes and…trained their male counterparts in air combat tactics.”[34] Gender roles, however, continued to be rigidly enforced; female servicemembers were expected to maintain a high level of femininity and were provided with uniforms that included skirts, rather than more practical slacks.[35] Following the conclusion of the war, female servicemembers were often forced out of their military roles and denied recognition as veterans.[36]

The Women’s Armed Services Integration Act

            On June 12, 1948, President Harry Truman signed into law the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act, which “[authorized] the enlistment and appointment of women in the Regular Air Force, Regular Navy and Marine Corps, and in the Reserve components of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, and for other purposes.”[37] With this act, women were officially recognized as permanent members of the armed services; however, they were also confronted with harsh limitations. According to the guidelines established by the act, women could only make up two percent of enlistees per military branch, with further limits on the number of women that could become officers.[38] Servicewomen faced automatic discharge is they became pregnant and were expressly disallowed from commanding male soldiers, regardless of their own rank.[39] Women were also altogether banned from serving in combat roles under the Combat Exclusion Policy.[40]

Later Notable Developments

            In November 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Public Law 90-130, which removed the two percent restriction on female enlistees and allowed female servicemembers to be promoted to “general and flag ranks.”[41]

            In 1972, female officers were allowed to command male units and, in 1975, it was announced that pregnant women would no longer be automatically discharged.[42]

            In 1988, the Risk Rule was put into effect, which excluded women from assignments “if the risks of exposure to direct combat, hostile fire or capture were equal to or greater than the risk in the units they supported.”[43] This rule was met with backlash and was rescinded only six years later.[44]

             Perhaps most notably, in 2013 Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that women would, for the first time in the history of the America military, officially be allowed to serve in combat positions. In August 2015, “Captains Kristen Griest and Shaye Haver become the first women to graduate from [Army] Ranger School.”[45]

Sexual Assault and Harassment

            In recent years, significant attention has been drawn to the pervasive problems of sexual harassment and assault within American military institutions.

           The Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO), which was established in 2004, aims to address and mitigate these problems through its “five lines of effort,” which include “prevention, victim assistance and advocacy, investigation, accountability, and assessment.”[46] Within the “prevention” line, each of the military branches requires sexual assault education and prevention training.[47] These education programs are referred to as Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) by all branches except the Army, which refers to their program as Sexual Harassment and Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP).[48] The Department of Defense is also currently attempting to create new “infrastructure” to prevent sexual violence and support survivors, including the creation of a “professional sexual assault and sexual harassment workforce.”[49]

“The Predators Perspective,” performed by SHARP Activist and Artist, Chief Warrant Officer 3 Edward Wilson

            The most recent statistics released by the Department of Defense, however, speak for themselves. In Fiscal Year 2021, 8.4% of active-duty servicewomen and 1.5% of active-duty servicemen “indicated experiencing unwanted sexual contact in the past year.”[50] The Department of Defense recorded 8,866 reports of sexual assault.[51] This an increase of 1,050 reports, compared to Fiscal Year 2020.[52] Only 2,683 of the 8,866 reports resulted in disciplinary action.[53]

Legislative Change: The I am Vanessa Guillén Act

            Although Senator Kristin Gillibrand’s Military Justice Improvement Act—which aimed to “professionalize how the military prosecutes serious crimes like sexual assault” and remove survivor’s fear of retaliation[54]—previously seemed to be the most promising contemporary piece of legislation regarding sexual harassment and assault in the military, the act was blocked from being voted upon in the Senate.[55] What has emerged in its place as the preeminent legislation aiming to protect servicepeople from sexual violence is the I am Vanessa Guillén Act.[56]

            Specialist Vanessa Guillén was a twenty-year-old soldier in the United States Army. She was promoted to the rank of Specialist posthumously and, at the time of her death, she was stationed at Fort Hood, a military installment in Bell County, Texas.[57] Fort Hood holds a unique distinction among military bases; it has had, according to the former United States Secretary of the Army, Ryan D. McCarthy, “the most cases for sexual assault and harassment and murders for [the] entire formation of the U.S. Army.”[58]

            Guillén arrived at Fort Hood on December 18, 2018, and by November of the following year she had, according to her mother, become noticeably withdrawn.[59] When questioned, she expressed that she was “tired” and wished to “get out of the Army.”[60] She later confided to a friend that a sergeant had walked in on her in the shower and, in February 2020, admitted to her mother that she was being sexually harassed.[61] She refused to tell her mother the name of her harasser and, when urged to report his actions, she responded,

“No. They laugh at us there. They laugh at everyone. They don’t believe us. We are nobody.”

            On April 22, 2020, Guillén’s family became concerned after she missed her regular midday phone call with her boyfriend.[62] Her boyfriend and sister traveled to Fort Hood and met with military police the following morning, but learned nothing regarding Guillén’s whereabouts.[63] She was reported missing to law enforcement on April 23, 2020.[64] As the search for Guillén began, her family was vocal about their belief that her experiences with sexual harassment were related to her disappearance; however, military officials stated, at the time, that no credible evidence existed to indicate that Guillén has been a victim of sexual assault or harassment.[65] Guillén had reported harassment on two separate occasions; however, superior officers failed to properly investigate the claims or report them up the chain of command.[66]

            On April 28, 2020, law enforcement officers interviewed Specialist Aaron David Robinson, a soldier that was known to “alternately [brag] about his time in Iraq and [talk] about suicide.”[67] He had spoken to Guillén on the day of her disappearance. Witnesses later told investigators that they had seen him struggling with a large transport case outside of the armory room on the same day.[68]

            As the search for Guillén stretched in duration from days into weeks and the eyes of the nation were drawn to the seemingly willful ignorance of Army leadership regarding the treatment of the female soldiers under their command, active and retired servicewomen began sharing their own stories on social media under the hashtag, #IAmVanessaGuillen.[69]

“I was brand new to the Navy, 23 years old on the other side of the world. I was raped, sexually harassed over a span of months & sexually assaulted in public. My rapist’s chain of command “counseled” him and asked me to drop it, I refused. All he got was ADSEP #IAmVanessaGuillen”[70] —Alex Matlock Faunce

“…I was a fresh PFC in 29 Palms, California the first time I was told I needed to label myself so the males would understand where they stood and to treat me as such. I was told that females in the military are only 1 of 3 things: a lesbian, a bitch, a whore. I was told that male Marines don’t see female Marines as people. I was told that I needed to choose wisely because once you’re labeled, that’s who you are. That was the first time the little voice in my head questioned my decision of joining the Marine Corps…I was standing in my doorway holding the door and he was outside. It creeped me out so I said no and laughed it off. That’s when he put his hand on my door and started to push. He was trying to push me in my room so he could come in. I hurried behind my door, dug my feet in and pushed as hard as I could. We struggled like that for what felt like forever. I finally shoved it closed. He stood outside my window and stared at me until I closed the curtain. That is the moment I decided I would be labeled a bitch for the remainder of my time in the Marine Corps…”[71] —Kayla Whitacre

“I was a E3 when I was raped by another service member while being stationed overseas. I have lifetime of trauma while he is still in the Army. This happens more than you know. #IamVanessaGuillen #JusticeForVanessa Guillen” [72] —Ashley Martinez

            The message of posts such as these is clear: Guillén’s experience with sexual harassment was not an anomaly. Each of these women saw a reflection of herself in Vanessa Guillén and each of these stories represents a failure on the part of the American military to protect its servicewomen.

            On June 30, two months after Guillén was reported missing, human remains were found near the Leon River, approximately thirty miles from Fort Hood.[73] The remains were identified as Vanessa Guillén.[74] Cecily Aguilar, the wife of Fort Hood soldier and the girlfriend of Robinson, admitted in an interview with investigators that Robinson had beaten Guillén to death with a hammer in the armory room and that she had helped him dispose of her body.[75] Upon hearing that Guillén’s remains had been located, Robinson fled Fort Hood and died by suicide when confronted by law enforcement officers.[76] Aguilar was arrested and charged with “tampering with a witness, victim or an informant and destruction and alteration or falsification or records in a federal investigation.”[77] Her trial will begin in January 2023 and she has entered a guilty plea.[78]

            An independent review launched following Guillén’s murder found that Fort Hood exhibited a “permissive environment for sexual assault and sexual harassment.”[79] Further, the review panel found that the Sexual Harassment Response and Prevention Program “had not achieved its mandate to control sexual assault and harassment due to structural failures as well as a command climate that filed to instill the program’s core values.”[80] Fourteen officers in leadership roles were suspended or relieved of their positions.[81] However, sexual assault prevention activists and critics argue that the problem is not isolated to Fort Hood; they argue that the “siloed environment” of the military creates opportunity for victimization and limits the ability of survivors to seek justice.[82]

            In memory of their daughter, Vanessa Guillén’s family advocated for increased protection for victims of sexual harassment and assault in the military. Key pieces of their proposed legislation, the I Am Vanessa Guillén Act, which was named for the social media campaign inspired by Guillén’s story, were included in the National Defense Authorization Act and signed into law by President Joe Biden on December 27, 2021.[83] Under the new law, sexual harassment is criminalized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and commanders are “[excluded]” from investigations.[84] They are also required to “request independent investigations within seventy-two hours of receiving formal complaints” of sexual harassment or assault and to “forward the complaints to their next superior officers in the chain of command who are authorized to convene general courts-martial.”[85]

C78AA9BA-435B-4225-9444-E217F36F1F2E.jpg.webp

Mural by Christopher Castro, located in Vanessa Guillén's hometown of Houston, Texas

            As many journalists and public figures have remarked, this legislation is historic for the United States military; it will doubtlessly help victimized servicepeople seek justice and could lead to the creation of a more inclusive culture for gender-diverse soldiers. But the cost of this victory, as well as the structural failures that created a “permissive environment for sexual assault and sexual harassment” should not be forgotten by those who celebrate this change.[86] They certainly will not be forgotten by the Guillén family, who still hope for “justice” for their daughter and wish to “learn the truth of what happened” in her final moments.[87]

LGBTQ+ Recognition

The Blue Discharge and the 1949 Memorandum

           In 1893, the military created the Without Honor Discharge and, in 1913, the Unclassified Discharge; both were conspicuously printed on blue paper.[88] Prior to this, the military had issued only Honorable and Dishonorable Discharges, the latter of which requires court-martial proceedings.[89] Both the Without Honor and the Unclassified Discharge, however, could be issued without court-martial.[90]

Since the first world war, the United States military has had laws concerning acts of “sodomy,” and, by extension, LGBTQ+ servicepeople.[91] During World War One, “sodomy” was considered to be a crime and grounds for automatic discharge.[92] During World War Two, however, the military “used psychiatry’s determination of homosexuality as a mental illness” to justify issuing a blue discharge to gay soldiers.[93] Approximately 9,000 servicemen and servicewomen received blue discharges for reasons related to their sexuality; as discharge information is public record, these individuals were effectively outed by the very military institutions that they had selflessly served.[94] The blue discharge was discontinued in 1947.[95]

             In 1949, the Department of Defense issued a memorandum explicitly banning lesbian and gay individuals from military service:

“Homosexual personnel, irrespective of sex, should not be permitted to serve in any branch of the Armed Services in any capacity, and prompt separation of known homosexuals from the Armed Forces be made mandatory.”[96]

            Though partially based on the “mental illness” label that had seen 9,000 servicemembers discharged during World War Two, this ban also played upon the notions that LGBTQ+ individuals are destructive to unit cohesion and security risks due to their supposed susceptibility to blackmail.[97]

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

            During his presidential campaign, Bill Clinton pledged to end the ban on lesbian and gay people in the military, if elected.[98] In July 1993, the Clinton administration put forward Defense Directive 1304.06.[99] Clinton’s directive stated,

“A person's sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter, and is not a bar to service entry or continued service unless manifested by homosexual conduct…Applicants for enlistment, appointment, or induction shall not be asked or required to reveal whether they are heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. Applicants also will not be asked or required to reveal whether they have engaged in homosexual conduct, unless independent evidence is received indicating that an applicant engaged in such conduct or unless the applicant volunteers a statement that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect.”[100]

            This policy would come to be known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Described in Clinton’s own words,

“[Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell] basically said that if you say you’re gay, it is presumed that you intend to violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice and you can be removed, unless you can convince your commander you’re celibate and therefore not in violation of the code.”[101]

            In December 2010, after more than seventeen year in effect, Congress voted to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell “by a vote of 65 to 31.”[102] On September 20, 2011, the policy was formally repealed and lesbian, gay, and bisexual servicepeople were finally allowed to openly serve in the American armed forces.[103]

Ban on Transgender Servicepeople

On June 30, 2016, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced that “effective immediately, transgender Americans may serve openly [in the armed forces], and they can no longer be discharged or otherwise separated from the military just for being transgender.”[104] This policy change came after an official review determined that it would have “minimal impact” on readiness and that gender affirming healthcare costs would “represent ‘an exceedingly small portion’ of DoD’s overall healthcare expenditures.”[105]

On July 26, 2017, only a year after the Obama Administration’s recognition of transgender servicemembers, President Donald Trump tweeted:

"After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the US Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you."[106]

            In spite of Trump’s claim that his decision was informed by the opinions of “generals and military experts,” the Department of Defense was reportedly surprised by his tweets.[107] The policy ultimately went into effect in a slightly modified form in April 2019. Transgender individuals were banned from serving openly and Department of Defense funding was blocked from being used for gender affirming care.[108] Additionally, though transgender servicepeople would be allowed to remain in the military, individuals who had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria were made ineligible for enlistment.[109]

            On January 25, 2021, only five days after his inauguration, President Joe Biden issued his “Executive Order on Enabling All Qualified Americans to Serve Their Country in Uniform.” Within the order, Biden stated,

“All Americans who are qualified to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States (“Armed Forces”) should be able to serve. The All-Volunteer Force thrives when it is composed of diverse Americans who can meet the rigorous standards for military service, and an inclusive military strengthens our national security…It is my conviction as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces that gender identity should not be a bar to military service…”[110]

            For the time being, the rights of transgender members of the armed forces to serve openly and receive gender affirming care are protected. Though, as evidenced by the existence of this report, the future of gender diversity in the military remains uncertain.

Conclusion

            There is clearly a common thread through these three cases. Each of these groups—racial minorities, women, and members of the LGBTQ+ community—sought to assert their worthiness as equal to that of white, heterosexual servicemen. Likewise, each of these groups was met with opposition as they pursued full integration and recognition in the military.

            Regarding this opposition, it should be noted that the inclusion of these groups has had little to no adverse effect on the overall effectiveness of the military and cohesion within individual units. A survey conducted in 2000 found “no differences in self-reported cohesion ratings for White, Black, Hispanic and Asian soldiers,” with the greatest indicator of cohesion being internal factors such as leadership quality.[111] A 1997 study found that “divisions caused by gender were minimal or invisible in units with high cohesion” and that “the presence of women was…cited as raising the level of professional standards.”[112] A 2012 study was unable to identify any negative consequences of the repealing of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.[113] In 2018, “the heads of the Navy and Marine Corps told lawmakers…that they have received no reports of transgender [servicemembers] impacting unit cohesion.”[114]

            Experimentation is the very foundation of the United States. As politicians and pundits on both sides of the political aisle are fond of referencing, the creation of the nation was an experiment in governance, during a time when monarchy was the international standard. Experimentation therefore must not be demonized during discussion of progress in American institutions; by the same token, traditionalism must not be used as a veil for unfounded assertions and prejudice. In testimony before congress regarding the Combat Exclusion Policy, the American Civil Liberties Union argued:

“Men do not have a monopoly on patriotism, physical ability, desire for adventure, or willingness to risk their lives. Until both the responsibilities and the rights of citizenship are shared on a gender-neutral basis, women will continue to be considered less than full-fledged citizens.”[115]

            Though the above statement specifically references the rights of women, its foundational message applies to all marginalized sectors of American society, particularly gender diverse members of the LGBTQ+ community. To exclude an individual from military service on the basis of their intrinsic qualities, rather than their physical and intellectual capabilities, is to deny their Americanness and suggest that they are less than a “full-fledged [citizen].” Anyone who wishes to devote themself to the service of their country should be allowed to do so, regardless of race, gender identity, or sexuality.

            The failures of the American military with regard to marginalized groups must not be ignored; sexual assault is rampant,[116] LGBTQ+ individuals continue to fear repercussions for openly acknowledging their identities,[117] and servicemembers of color continue to face racism.[118] The legacy of the military as a socially innovative institution nonetheless suggests that improvement of current issues and further inclusion in the future are both tangible goals.

  1. Tucker Responds to Pentagon’s Criticism of His Show, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi-_VqYODLw.

  2. Mike Huckabee: The U.S. Military Is Not a Social Experiment., 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJe-8UebScI.

  3. Jacqueline E. Whitt and Elizabeth A. Perazzo, “The Military as a Social Experiment: Challenging a Trope,” The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters 48, no. 2 (June 1, 2018), https://doi.org/10.55540/0031-1723.2940.

  4. “A Short History of Integration in the US Armed Forces,” accessed November 28, 2022, https://www.af.mil/News/Commentaries/Display/Article/2676311/a-short-history-of-integration-in-the-us-armed-forces/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.af.mil%2FNews%2FCommentaries%2FDisplay%2FArticle%2F2676311%2Fa-short-history-of-integration-in-the-us-armed-forces%2F; Margaret Conrad Devilbiss, Women and Military Service: A History, Analysis, and Overview of Key Issues (DIANE Publishing, 1990).

  5. Maria Höhn Conversation/AP Vassar College via The, “African-American GIs of WWII: Fighting for Democracy Abroad and at Home,” Military Times, January 30, 2018, https://www.militarytimes.com/military-honor/black-military-history/2018/01/30/african-american-gis-of-wwii-fighting-for-democracy-abroad-and-at-home/.

  6. Josh Zeitz, “The Speech That Set Off the Debate About America’s Role in the World,” POLITICO Magazine, accessed December 5, 2022, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/roosevelt-arsenal-of-democracy-speech-213483.

  7. Conversation/AP, “African-American GIs of WWII.”

  8. “Langston Hughes: ‘Beaumont to Detroit: 1943’ | Experiencing History: Holocaust Sources in Context,” accessed December 5, 2022, https://perspectives.ushmm.org/item/langston-hughes-beaumont-to-detroit-1943.Henry A. Dietz, Jerrold Elkin, and Maurice M. Roumani, Ethnicity, Integration, and the Military (Boulder : Westview Press, 1991), http://archive.org/details/ethnicityintegra00diet.

  9. Henry A. Dietz, Jerrold Elkin, and Maurice M. Roumani, Ethnicity, Integration, and the Military (Boulder : Westview Press, 1991), http://archive.org/details/ethnicityintegra00diet.

  10. “Going For Broke: The 442nd Regimental Combat Team,” The National WWII Museum | New Orleans, accessed December 5, 2022, https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/442nd-regimental-combat-team.

  11. “761st Tank Battalion: The Original Black Panthers (U.S. National Park Service),” accessed December 5, 2022, https://www.nps.gov/articles/761sttankbattalion.htm.

  12. “Executive Order 9981: Desegregation of the Armed Forces (1948),” National Archives, September 28, 2021, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/executive-order-9981.

  13. Whitt and Perazzo, “The Military as a Social Experiment.”

  14. “A Short History of Integration in the US Armed Forces.”

  15. “A Short History of Integration in the US Armed Forces.”

  16. Dietz, Elkin, and Roumani, Ethnicity, Integration, and the Military.

  17. “Army Commemorates 60th Anniversary of Armed Forces Integration,” www.army.mil, accessed December 5, 2022, https://www.army.mil/article/11187/army_commemorates_60th_anniversary_of_armed_forces_integration.

  18. “Army Commemorates 60th Anniversary of Armed Forces Integration.”

  19. “A Short History of Integration in the US Armed Forces.”

  20. “Army Commemorates 60th Anniversary of Armed Forces Integration”; “A Short History of Integration in the US Armed Forces.”

  21. “A Short History of Integration in the US Armed Forces.”

  22. “African American Sailors in the U.S. Navy Chronology,” accessed December 5, 2022, http://public2.nhhcaws.local/browse-by-topic/diversity/african-americans/chronology.html.

  23. John Sibley Butler, “The Military as a Vehicle for Social Integration: The Afro-American Experience as Data,” in Ethnicity, Integration, and the Military (Boulder : Westview Press, 1991), http://archive.org/details/ethnicityintegra00diet.

  24. Butler 44-45.

  25. Butler 44-45.

  26. Butler 46.

  27. Butler 46.

  28. Butler 46.

  29. Butler 42.

  30. “Over 200 Years of Service: The History of Women in the U.S. Military,” United Service Organizations, accessed December 6, 2022, https://www.uso.org/stories/3005-over-200-years-of-service-the-history-of-women-in-the-us-military.

  31. “Over 200 Years of Service.”

  32. “Over 200 Years of Service.”

  33. “Over 200 Years of Service.”

  34. “Over 200 Years of Service.”

  35. “Over 200 Years of Service.”

  36. “Over 200 Years of Service.”

  37. “The Women’s Armed Services Integration Act of 1948,” accessed December 6, 2022, https://www.usmcu.edu/Research/Marine-Corps-History-Division/People/Women-in-the-Marine-Corps/The-Womens-Armed-Services-Integration-Act-of-1948/.

  38. Debbie Woods, “Truman and Women’s Rights,” Truman Library Institute (blog), March 1, 2021, https://www.trumanlibraryinstitute.org/truman-and-womens-rights/.

  39. “Over 200 Years of Service.”

  40. “The Women’s Armed Services Integration Act of 1948.”

  41. “President Lyndon B. Johnson Signs Public Law 90-130. The Nov. 8, 1967, Event Opened Promotions for Women to General and Flag Ranks, Lifted Ceilings on Other Ranks and Removed the 2 Percent Ceiling on the Number of Women Allowed on Active Duty. Courtesy Women’s Memorial,” accessed December 6, 2022, https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2001087830/.

  42. “Over 200 Years of Service.”

  43. “The Risk Rule,” The New York Times, August 16, 2009, sec. U.S., https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/us/16womenbox.html.

  44. “The Risk Rule.”

  45. “The (Mostly) Good News on Women in Combat,” accessed December 6, 2022, https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/an-update-on-the-status-of-women-in-combat.

  46. “DoD SAPR Strategic Plan | SAPR,” accessed December 6, 2022, https://www.sapr.mil/dod-sapr-strategic-plan.

  47. “Mission & History | SAPR,” accessed December 6, 2022, https://www.sapr.mil/mission-history.

  48. “Mission & History | SAPR.”

  49. “DOD, Services Moving Ahead on Recommendations to Combat Sexual Assault,” U.S. Department of Defense, accessed December 6, 2022, https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3167285/dod-services-moving-ahead-on-recommendations-to-combat-sexual-assault/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.defense.gov%2FNews%2FNews-Stories%2FArticle%2FArticle%2F3167285%2Fdod-services-moving-ahead-on-recommendations-to-combat-sexual-assault%2F.

  50. “Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2021 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military” (Department of Defense, August 29, 2022), https://www.sapr.mil/sites/default/files/public/docs/reports/AR/DOD_Annual_Report_on_Sexual_Assault_in_the_Military_FY2021.pdf.

  51. “Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2021 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military.”

  52. “Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2021 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military.”

  53. “Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2021 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military.”

  54. “Military Justice Improvement Act | Kirsten Gillibrand | U.S. Senator for New York,” accessed November 28, 2022, https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/mjia.

  55. “Military Justice Improvement Act | Kirsten Gillibrand | U.S. Senator for New York.”

  56. Jackie Speier, “Text - H.R.8270 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): I Am Vanessa Guillén Act of 2020,” legislation, September 16, 2020, 2019/2020, http://www.congress.gov/.

  57. “I Am Vanessa Guillén Act Brings ‘historic’ Military Reform as Calls for Justice Persist,” NBC News, accessed November 28, 2022, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/vanessa-guillen-act-brings-historic-military-reform-calls-justice-pers-rcna12952.

  58. Reese Oxner, “Army Report Finds Fort Hood Soldier Vanessa Guillén Reported Being Sexually Harassed Twice before She Was Killed,” The Texas Tribune, April 30, 2021, https://www.texastribune.org/2021/04/30/vanessa-guillen-sexual-harassment-fort-hood/.

  59. Marie D. De Jesús, “Vanessa Guillén’s Story: A Vibrant Life and Tragic Death That Sparked a Movement,” Houston Chronicle, July 26, 2020, https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Portrait-of-fallen-soldier-Vanessa-Guillen-Texas-15431859.php.

  60. Jesús.

  61. Jesús.

  62. Jesús.

  63. Jesús.

  64. Jesús.

  65. “14 Fort Hood Leaders Disciplined as Probe Finds ‘permissive Environment for Sexual Assault’ at the Army Base,” accessed November 28, 2022, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/probe-launched-after-vanessa-guill-n-s-death-finds-permissive-n1250372.

  66. Oxner, “Army Report Finds Fort Hood Soldier Vanessa Guillén Reported Being Sexually Harassed Twice before She Was Killed.”

  67. Jesús, “Vanessa Guillén’s Story.”’

  68. Jesús.

  69. Alex Horton, “‘The Military’s #MeToo’: Vanessa Guillén’s Slaying Has Many Servicewomen Revisiting Their Own Deep Scars,” Washington Post, July 8, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/07/07/vanessa-guillen-servicewomen-veterans/.

  70. Alex Matlock Faunce [@alexmfaunce], “I Was Brand New to the Navy, 23 Years Old on the Other Side of the World. I Was Raped, Sexually Harassed over a Span of Months & Sexually Assaulted in Public. My Rapist’s Chain of Command ‘Counseled’ Him and Asked Me to Drop It, I Refused. All He Got Was ADSEP #IAmVanessaGiullen Https://T.Co/Hw8SH3V7uO,” Tweet, Twitter, July 3, 2020, https://twitter.com/alexmfaunce/status/1278940073992560640.

  71. Kayla Whitacre Quoted in Horton, “‘The Military’s #MeToo.’”

  72. ashley [@ashtayluh], “I Was a E3 When I Was Raped by Another Service Member While Being Stationed Overseas. I Have a Lifetime of Trauma While He Is Still in the Army. This Happens More than You Know. #IamVanessaGuillen #JusticeForVanessaGuillen Https://T.Co/ZdOIEMlV1B,” Tweet, Twitter, July 1, 2020, https://twitter.com/ashtayluh/status/1278423464718880768.

  73. Jesús, “Vanessa Guillén’s Story.”

  74. Jesús.

  75. Jesús.

  76. Jesús.

  77. “Trial Date Set for Woman Accused of Helping Dismember, Bury Remains of Vanessa Guillen,” khou.com, August 5, 2022, https://www.khou.com/article/news/crime/vanessa-guillen-cecily-aguilar-trial-date/285-e88f1580-f111-42e3-bf12-5afd78500776.

  78. “Trial Date Set for Woman Accused of Helping Dismember, Bury Remains of Vanessa Guillen.”

  79. “14 Fort Hood Leaders Disciplined as Probe Finds ‘permissive Environment for Sexual Assault’ at the Army Base.”

  80. “14 Fort Hood Leaders Disciplined as Probe Finds ‘permissive Environment for Sexual Assault’ at the Army Base.”

  81. “14 Fort Hood Leaders Disciplined as Probe Finds ‘permissive Environment for Sexual Assault’ at the Army Base.”

  82. Oxner, “Army Report Finds Fort Hood Soldier Vanessa Guillén Reported Being Sexually Harassed Twice before She Was Killed.”

  83. “I Am Vanessa Guillén Act Brings ‘historic’ Military Reform as Calls for Justice Persist.”

  84. “I Am Vanessa Guillén Act Brings ‘historic’ Military Reform as Calls for Justice Persist.”

  85. “I Am Vanessa Guillén Act Brings ‘historic’ Military Reform as Calls for Justice Persist.”

  86. “14 Fort Hood Leaders Disciplined as Probe Finds ‘permissive Environment for Sexual Assault’ at the Army Base.”

  87. “I Am Vanessa Guillén Act Brings ‘historic’ Military Reform as Calls for Justice Persist.”

  88. “Blue and ‘Other Than Honorable’ Discharges (U.S. National Park Service),” accessed December 7, 2022, https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/blue-and-other-than-honorable-discharges.htm.

  89. “Blue and ‘Other Than Honorable’ Discharges (U.S. National Park Service).”

  90. “Blue and ‘Other Than Honorable’ Discharges (U.S. National Park Service).”

  91. Bernard D. Rostker et al., “Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: An Update of RAND’s 1993 Study” (RAND Corporation, November 18, 2010), https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1056.html.

  92. G. Dean Sinclair, “Homosexuality and the Military: A Review of the Literature,” Journal of Homosexuality 56, no. 6 (July 31, 2009): 701–18, https://doi.org/10.1080/00918360903054137.

  93. Dean Sinclair.

  94. “Blue and ‘Other Than Honorable’ Discharges (U.S. National Park Service).”

  95. “Blue and ‘Other Than Honorable’ Discharges (U.S. National Park Service).”

  96. “Uniform Discrimination:,” accessed December 7, 2022, https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa0103/USA0103FINAL-02.htm.

  97. “Uniform Discrimination:”

  98. Rostker et al., “Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy.”

  99. “DODD 1304.26, Dec. 21, 1993,” accessed December 7, 2022, https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/dodd/corres/html2/d130426x.htm.

  100. “DODD 1304.26, Dec. 21, 1993.”

  101. “DODD 1304.26, Dec. 21, 1993.”]

  102. “Senate Repeals Ban on Gays Serving Openly in Military - The New York Times | Ghostarchive,” accessed December 7, 2022, https://ghostarchive.org/archive/OYgEs.

  103. “From the Archives: The End of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” whitehouse.gov, September 20, 2012, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2012/09/20/archives-end-dont-ask-dont-tell.

  104. “Transgender Service Members Can Now Serve Openly, Carter Announces,” U.S. Department of Defense, accessed December 7, 2022, https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/822235/transgender-service-members-can-now-serve-openly-carter-announces/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.defense.gov%2FNews%2FNews-Stories%2FArticle%2FArticle%2F822235%2Ftransgender-service-members-can-now-serve-openly-carter-announces%2F.

  105. “Transgender Service Members Can Now Serve Openly, Carter Announces.”

  106. Matt Thompson, “How to Spark Panic and Confusion in Three Tweets,” The Atlantic, January 14, 2019, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/01/donald-trump-tweets-transgender-military-service-ban/579655/.

  107. Twitter et al., “Trump Order Would Ban Most Transgender Troops from Serving, Setting Stage for Court Battle,” Los Angeles Times, March 24, 2018, https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-transgender-troops-20180323-story.html.

  108. “Controversial Trump Administration Ban on Transgender Troops Goes into Effect,” accessed December 7, 2022, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transgender-military-ban-trump-administration-ban-on-transgender-troops-goes-into-effect/.

  109. “Controversial Trump Administration Ban on Transgender Troops Goes into Effect.”

  110.  The White House, “Executive Order on Enabling All Qualified Americans to Serve Their Country in Uniform,” The White House, January 25, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/25/executive-order-on-enabling-all-qualified-americans-to-serve-their-country-in-uniform/.

  111. Robert J. MacCoun and William M. Hix, “Unit Cohesion and Military Performance,” in Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: An Update of RAND’s 1993 Study, n.d., https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1056.html.

  112. Margaret C. Harrell and Laura L. Miller, “Military Readiness: Women Are Not a Problem” (RAND Corporation, January 1, 1997), https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB7515.html.

  113. “One Year Later, Study Shows Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’s Repeal Had No Negative Effects On Military,” HuffPost, September 10, 2012, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dont-ask-dont-tell-study_n_1868892.

  114. Geoff Ziezulewicz, “No Reports of Transgender Troops Affecting Unit Cohesion, Marine Corps and Navy Leaders Say,” Navy Times, April 19, 2018, https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2018/04/19/no-reports-of-transgender-troops-affecting-unit-cohesion-marine-corps-and-navy-leaders-say/.

  115. “Combat Exclusion Policy for Women,” American Civil Liberties Union, accessed December 7, 2022, https://www.aclu.org/issues/womens-rights/womens-rights-workplace/combat-exclusion-policy-women.

  116. “Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2021 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military.”

  117. Meghann Myers, “LGBT Service Members Are Allowed to Be out and Proud, but a Fear of Repercussions Persists,” Military Times, June 19, 2020, https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/06/15/lgbt-service-members-are-allowed-to-be-out-and-proud-but-a-fear-of-repercussions-persists/.

  118. “Deep-Rooted Racism, Discrimination Permeate US Military,” AP NEWS, May 27, 2021, https://apnews.com/article/us-military-racism-discrimination-4e840e0acc7ef07fd635a312d9375413.

reorienting security.

©2023 by The Keck Center for International and Strategic Studies

bottom of page