Charles C. Moskos and John Sibley Butler’s pioneering study of
Black leadership development and racial integration in the United
States Army provides the reader with a glimpse into an institution
that, while not utopian, has achieved remarkable success in race
relations. That success was achieved because the U.S. Army developed
policies which supported a philosophy that believed an absolute
commitment to nondiscrimination and uncompromising standards of
performance are absolutely necessary for achieving its goals. Indeed,
the Army was able to relate nondiscrimination to goal attainment, which
may be the key to solving many of the racial problems in contemporary
American society.
The authors argue that: “The Army is not race-blind; it is
race-savvy.” An important element in their argument is that this
rigidly hierarchical institution, which must exist in a
liberal-democratic society with its emphasis on individualism rather
than team/organizational cooperation can offer a set of principles that
can be applied to the civilian sector.
The book begins with a provocative comparison between the two
authors. Professor Moskos noted how he benefitted from affirmative
actions in obtaining admission to Princeton University, while Professor
Butler was asked by his parent to integrate Louisiana State University
(LSU). Moskos is the first in his family to complete secondary school,
“while…Butler is the fourth generation of his family to receive a
college degree.”
The central premise of the book is that “race is the prime American
dilemma and has unique dynamics.” Evidence of the important role race
plays in America is reflected in the authors’ query, “Ask yourself: Who
is more likely to be considered white in our society, the offspring of
a mixed Anglo-Hispanic or European-Asian union, or the offspring of a
mixed White-Black marriage?”
Thus, the authors skillfully set the stage for a discussion of a
major source of tension in contemporary American society and proceed to
provide empirical evidence to support their contention that the Army
has promoted excellence across racial lines. They conclude this
remarkable study by suggesting twelve key lessons civilians can learn
from the Army’s experience. Indeed, they suggest that while
“differences between military and civilian settings preclude exact
analogies, we can articulate the key principles of the Army’s
experience.”
The authors also offered this caveat: “In noting and celebrating
the success of good race relations in the Army, we are not blind to
real and serious problems that persist. The Army is not a racial
utopia. Black and white soldiers are susceptible to the same kinds of
interracial suspicion and resentments that exist in civilian society.
Although the Army stands in sharp and favorable contrast to nonmilitary
institutions, it is not immune to the demons that haunt race relations
in America.”
In their analysis of the arguments against using the Army as a
model for race relations throughout the society, the authors cite three
major criticisms advanced by opponents:
