Rear Adm A. Stanton Merrill (Dir of Pub Relations),
24 Mar and 4 May 45, 54-1-16. All in Forrestal
file, GenRecsNav.]

Appointment of a civilian aide on racial affairs was under
consideration for some time, but when no agreement could be reached on
where best to assign the official, Forrestal, who wanted someone he
could "casually talk to about race relations,"[3-127] invited the
Executive Secretary of the National Urban League to "give us some of
your time for a period."[3-128] Thus in March 1945 Lester B. Granger
began his long association with the Department of Defense, an
association that would span the military's integration effort.[3-129]
Granger's assignment was straightforward. From time to time he would
make extensive trips representing the secretary and his special
interest in racial problems at various naval stations.

[Footnote 3-127: Quoted in Forrestal, "Remarks for
Dinner of Urban League."]

[Footnote 3-128: Ltr, SecNav to Lester Granger, 1 Feb
45, Forrestal file, GenRecsNav.]

[Footnote 3-129: Ltrs, Granger to Forrestal, 19 Mar
and 3 Apr 45, 54-1-13, Forrestal file, GenRecsNav.
Granger and Forrestal had attended Dartmouth
College, but not together as Forrestal thought. For
a detailed and affectionate account of their
relationship, see Columbia University Oral History
Interview with Granger.]

Forrestal was sympathetic to the Urban League's approach to racial
justice, and in Granger he had a man who had developed this approach
into a social philosophy. Granger believed in relating the Navy's
racial problems not to questions of fairness but to questions of
survival, comfort, and security for all concerned. He assumed that if
leadership in any field came to understand that its privilege or its
security were threatened by denial of fairness to the less privileged,
then a meeting of minds was possible between the two groups. They
would begin to seek a way to eliminate insecurity, and from the
process of eliminating insecurity would come fairness. As Granger
explained it, talk to the commander about his loss of efficient
production, not the shame of denying a Negro a man's right to a job.
Talk about the social costs that come from denial of opportunity