In the APSA Public Scholarship Program, graduate students in political science produce summaries of new research in the American Political Science Review. This piece, written by Raymundo Lopez, covers the new article by Connor Huff, Eric Min, and Robert Schub, “Racial Inequality in War”.
A Tale of Two Histories
When a country mobilizes for conflict, soldiers from different backgrounds are called to fight together under the same flag. Beneath this image of shared sacrifice, however, lies a more complicated reality of the battlefield: who is assigned what roles, when, and why?
America’s history of racial segregation adds another layer to these questions. During World War I (WWI), many military branches, including the US Army, maintained the systemic segregation of Black Americans. Yet, historical accounts often tell two very different sides about the experiences of Black soldiers. On the one hand, personal anecdotes describe Black troops being placed in dangerous roles, treated as expendable in the battlefield. On the other hand, some historians argue that Black soldiers were frequently assigned to noncombat units that kept them away from the front lines. These competing narratives raise an important question—who ultimately bears the costs of war?
Winning at All Costs
Political scientists Connor Huff, Eric Min and Robert Schub tell us that resolving this historical debate requires an up-close perspective. Rather than focusing on bigger-picture data like death rates, they instead examine the decisions made by Army commanders during WWI. Their argument begins with a simple assumption: commanders want to maximize their chances of winning wars. In practice, this means assigning soldiers to roles where they will perform most effectively. A problem that arises from this logic is the element of subjectivity it introduces into military decision-making.
During WWI, these subjective judgements were shaped by racial beliefs, influencing how battlefield resources were distributed between Black and white soldiers. Huff, Min, and Schub therefore turn the question on its head. Rather than asking who dies more in war, they ask a different question: who is placed in danger—and why?
Who Was Sent to Fight and Who Was Sent to Die?
To examine whether commanders distributed danger unequally, the authors assembled two new datasets from historical military records. The first captures how soldiers were assigned within the Army (e.g., occupational specialty). The second dataset draws on individual-level fatality rosters from the National Archives (e.g., cause of death). By combining these sources, the authors trace how inequality unfolds across wartime decision-making and test three related expectations.
” As military recruitment expands in response to declining force numbers, questions about who is drawn into service become increasingly important.”First, were Black soldiers disproportionately steered into support roles? Their data reveal that white soldiers were far more likely to serve in combat units such as infantry regiments, field artillery and machine gun battalions. By contrast, Black soldiers were disproportionately steered into support roles responsible for construction, supply chain logistics and other labor-intensive jobs.
Second, were white combat units more likely to be deployed in dangerous frontline operations? The authors found that white infantry units suffered far higher combat fatalities than Black infantry units. This observation may seem to contradict the idea that racial inequality shaped wartime outcomes, but the authors argue that these fatality patterns reflect commander’s assumptions about combat effectiveness. Because many officers believed white soldiers were most suited for combat, they were more likely to send white units in critical frontline operations. This meant that Black units were intentionally kept away from the heaviest fighting.
Lastly, when combat exposure was held constant, did Black units suffer higher rates from disease and accidents due to worse support? Here, the pattern reverses. Black soldiers were significantly more likely to die from noncombat causes than white soldiers. This disparity stemmed from unequal conditions: Black units frequently faced inferior access to medical care, poor living conditions and inadequate sanitation. In other words, even when Black soldiers were not sent into the most dangerous battles, they were still exposed to unequal risks.
Beyond the Trenches
Huff, Min, and Schub reconcile two competing narratives about race and opportunity in one of the most consequential conflicts in modern history. While many Black soldiers were kept away from the most dangerous combat, their analysis suggests that this pattern was rooted in racial beliefs that portrayed Black troops as less capable fighters. Consequently, these assumptions shaped far more than battlefield assignments, they structured how risk was distributed across WWI.
Their insights invite conversations beyond the trenches. As military recruitment expands in response to declining force numbers, questions about who is drawn into service become increasingly important. Recent research shows that recruitment efforts often concentrate heavily on low-income communities, suggesting that inequality can shape military participation long before soldiers ever reach the battlefield.
This broader perspective sharpens an enduring question about war and unequalness. If racial assumptions once shaped who was sent to fight and who was not, what lessons might this history reveal about how military service is structured today?
- Raymundo Lopez is a PhD candidate in political science at Michigan State University studying survey experiments, intersectionality, and elections. He is the creator of Atom Laboratories, a YouTube channel that uses multimedia storytelling to make political science engaging and accessible to wider audiences. Lopez has collaborated with nonprofits like the Women’s Center of Greater Lansing to simplify ballot initiatives and currently leads the Social Science Initiative at FLI SCI, where he helps first-generation and limited-access students explore social science research and build data literacy.
- HUFF, CONNOR, ERIC MIN, and ROBERT SCHUB. 2025. “Racial Inequality in War.” , American Political Science Review: 1–19.
- About the APSA Public Scholarship Program.
Be the first to comment