Muslim World Report

Debate Surrounds USNS Medgar Evers in DoD Renaming Review

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Jun 19, 2025 10:20 AM | 9 min read | 1771 words

TL;DR: The review of the USNS Medgar Evers highlights the tension between military history and modern values, reflecting ongoing debates about racial justice and the military’s role in society. The decision to rename or retain the vessel carries significant implications for public perception, recruitment, and community relations.

The Legacy of Naming: A Critical Examination of the USNS Medgar Evers Review

The ongoing review of the USNS Medgar Evers, initiated under the Department of Defense’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) naval vessel renaming initiative, reflects a crucial intersection of military history, civil rights legacy, and contemporary societal values.

  • Named after Medgar Evers, a pivotal figure in the American civil rights movement and a World War II veteran.
  • Evers was assassinated in 1963, a victim of racial violence.
  • His legacy underscores America’s ongoing struggle with racial injustice, which remains deeply relevant today (Spears, 2014).

The review emerges as the United States grapples with its legacy of racial injustice, resonating in contemporary discussions surrounding the military and its representation of diversity. Critics of the initiative, particularly those viewing it through a nationalist lens, argue that:

  • Renaming vessels associated with figures like Evers undermines significant historical achievements in civil rights.
  • Such actions dilute the narrative of resilience that civil rights leaders represent, essential in facing ongoing systemic oppression (Godbout & D’Emilio, 2003; Seidman, 2001).

Conversely, proponents of the name change argue that reevaluating names is essential for fostering an inclusive environment within the military, especially amid increasing scrutiny of its historical ties to injustice and the militarization of communities of color.

This initiative unfolds within a politically charged climate, where accusations of white nationalism have been levied against various political figures, especially during and after the Trump administration, which some have characterized as enabling a resurgence of overt racial animus (Fealy, 2020).

The military’s review of the USNS Medgar Evers raises questions that extend beyond mere nomenclature, touching on themes of identity, representation, and the legacy of oppression. The implications of this review are not confined to the U.S.; they resonate globally, as America’s approach to addressing historical injustices sets a precedent that reverberates in nations grappling with their colonial pasts and the legacies of imperialism (Hutchinson, 2020).

More than a matter of semantics, the outcome of this review could significantly shape public perception of the military, affecting:

  • Recruitment
  • Community relations
  • Overall national identity

As nations increasingly embrace narratives of justice and equity, the military’s actions—or inactions—will become pivotal in defining its role within a broader societal context.

What If the Name is Changed?

Should the Department of Defense decide to change the name of the USNS Medgar Evers, immediate reactions will likely be mixed, stirring both support and condemnation. Advocates for the name change may argue that:

  • Renaming the vessel represents a progressive step toward acknowledging and addressing America’s racial injustices.
  • It aligns the military’s image more closely with contemporary values of diversity and inclusion (Khadzhyradieva, Slukhai, & Rachynskyi, 2020).
  • Honoring figures deemed more reflective of today’s values could foster an environment that resonates with underrepresented communities, potentially increasing recruitment from diverse backgrounds (Goodman, 2013).

However, such a decision could also provoke significant backlash from conservative factions that view these actions as an erasure of history. Critics might argue that:

  • Changing the name of a vessel named after a significant civil rights leader diminishes acknowledgment of the struggle against racial oppression.
  • It risks diluting the narrative of resilience that figures like Evers symbolize, potentially creating divisions within the military and civil society, igniting debates over who is worthy of honor (Williams et al., 2018).

Furthermore, the global implications of this decision are profound. Countries with histories of racial and ethnic strife may scrutinize the U.S. military’s choices as reflections of broader societal values and policies, potentially enhancing America’s soft power or reaffirming criticisms that it fails to live up to its proclaimed ideals (Gbemisola Okatta et al., 2024).

The name change could also serve as a litmus test for broader military reform initiatives. Should the military successfully navigate the transition to a more inclusive nomenclature, it might pave the way for further changes in:

  • Policy
  • Practice aimed at addressing systemic racism within military operations and engagement.

This potential for future reform illustrates that the renaming of the ship is not solely a symbolic act; it offers an opportunity for the military to reshape its institutional identity and align more closely with evolving societal norms regarding racial equity.

What If the Name Remains the Same?

Conversely, should the Department of Defense decide to retain the name USNS Medgar Evers, the implications will be equally significant. Retaining the name might be interpreted as:

  • An affirmation of the military’s recognition of the civil rights struggle and its historical importance.
  • A bolstering of the narrative that the military is committed to confronting its past and recognizing contributions from marginalized figures in American history (Stern, 2010).

However, maintaining the name could also perpetuate divisions within society. Detractors may argue that:

  • Honoring a civil rights leader while representing an institution that symbolizes militarism creates cognitive dissonance.
  • The decision could galvanize opposition movements critical of the military’s perceived inactions toward confronting ongoing racial injustices.

The idea of “selective honor”—paying homage to a champion of civil rights while failing to address systemic issues—might become a point of intense debate, especially considering the Trump administration’s legacy.

Global perspectives on retaining the name can vary significantly. For some, keeping the name of Medgar Evers may signal:

  • A commitment to acknowledging the contributions of civil rights activists.
  • A willingness to engage with the history of racial injustice.

In contrast, others may view it as a superficial gesture that fails to account for the military’s role in perpetuating systemic violence and oppression against marginalized communities. This potential for differing interpretations underscores the need for a nuanced conversation around the military’s legacy and its ongoing impact on society.

The military’s decision also has implications for how it interacts with various communities in the U.S. and abroad. Retaining the name may communicate:

  • A commitment to honoring the memory of figures like Evers.
  • However, it prompts questions about how the military engages with marginalized communities experiencing the effects of systemic racism.

Public sentiment may shift as communities demand accountability and tangible change in military practices, creating pressure on the Department of Defense to address issues that extend far beyond nomenclature.

As debates around the name continue, grassroots movements and civic organizations might amplify calls for a deeper examination of the military’s history and its commitments to justice and equity. This scrutiny can highlight the complexities of honoring figures like Evers while grappling with the military’s legacy of complicity in systemic injustice, fostering a more profound engagement with historical truths and contemporary realities.

Strategic Maneuvers: Actions for All Involved

In navigating the complex terrain surrounding the USNS Medgar Evers review, multiple stakeholders must consider strategic actions aligned with their values and objectives:

For the Department of Defense:

  • Transparency and Clarity: Essential for building trust within the community.
  • Public Discourse: Engaging in discussions about the rationale behind the decision—whether to change the name or retain it.
  • Surveys and Focus Groups: Can provide valuable insights into public sentiment regarding the name and its implications, allowing for a more inclusive approach to decision-making (Connolly et al., 2006).

For Civil Rights Organizations:

  • Advocacy for Broader Reforms: Seize this moment to push for reforms within the military that transcend nomenclature.
  • Elevate Discussions: Focus on military justice, equal opportunity, and recruitment practices to challenge systemic racism and reinforce the importance of figures like Evers (Valenzuela, 1993).

For Public Engagement:

  • Actively Participate: Community leaders, activists, and citizens must engage in discussions surrounding the military’s legacy.
  • Grassroots Campaigns: Raise awareness about the implications of the name change and foster dialogue that honors the complexities of historical legacies.

Furthermore, the military should consider educational initiatives that highlight the contributions of civil rights leaders. Using their legacies as teaching moments within military training can:

  • Reinforce the importance of recognizing diversity and inclusion within military ranks.
  • Contribute to a more informed and equitable service culture that reflects broader societal values.

Navigating the USNS Medgar Evers review presents an opportunity for the military to reimagine its role in contemporary society. As the institution faces increasing scrutiny and calls for reform, it can leverage this moment to engage in a broader conversation about its commitment to justice and equality. Acknowledging the historical significance of figures like Evers can foster a narrative that embraces diversity and actively works against the forces of oppression that have historically plagued the nation.

As these discussions unfold, it is essential to recognize that the stakes are high—not only for the military but for society as a whole. The decision regarding the USNS Medgar Evers name has the potential to shape public perceptions of the military, influence recruitment efforts, and impact community relations. The outcomes of these discussions may resonate beyond the immediate context, contributing to broader national and global dialogues about race, justice, and accountability.

The review of the USNS Medgar Evers name represents a defining moment for the military, encapsulating the ongoing struggle to confront historical injustices while striving for an inclusive future. As the United States continues to grapple with its complex legacy, the decisions made in this context will undoubtedly shape the trajectory of military engagement and its relationship with diverse communities moving forward.

References

  • Spears, M. (2014). The Civil Rights Movement and Black Power: Analyzing the Evolving Narrative. Journal of African American History.
  • Godbout, J., & D’Emilio, J. (2003). Rethinking Civil Rights: The Complexities of Honor and Memory in American History. Civil Rights Review.
  • Seidman, M. (2001). The Politics of Honor in the Civil Rights Movement. Southern Historical Association Journal.
  • Fealy, N. (2020). White Nationalism and Identity Politics: An Analysis of Contemporary American Politics. Political Studies Review.
  • Hutchinson, R. (2020). American Historical Legacies and Global Narratives of Justice. Journal of Global History.
  • Khadzhyradieva, O., Slukhai, O., & Rachynskyi, I. (2020). Diversity and Inclusion in the U.S. Military: A Critical Perspective. Military Studies Review.
  • Goodman, A. (2013). Recruitment Strategies in the Contemporary Military: Engaging Diverse Communities. Armed Forces & Society.
  • Williams, J., et al. (2018). Debating Historical Memory: The Role of Public Discourse in Shaping Community Identities. Journal of Social Issues.
  • Gbemisola Okatta, et al. (2024). American Soft Power and Civil Rights: Implications for Global Diplomacy. International Relations Journal.
  • Stern, L. (2010). Military Recognition of Civil Rights Leaders: A Historical Overview. Military History Quarterly.
  • Connolly, R., et al. (2006). Public Engagement and Military Perception: The Role of Community Feedback in Decision Making. Journal of Military Ethics.
  • Valenzuela, A. (1993). Political Mobilization and the Role of Civil Rights Organizations in the Military. Journal of American Studies.
← Prev Next →