On Monday, Jan. 20, President Trump issued an executive order to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America and change the name of Mt. Denali back to Mt. McKinley. These changes were made with the goal of “restoring names that honor American greatness.”
These changes have received a lot of backlash from the media and everyday Americans alike. Many Alaskans are protesting the change because former president William McKinley never even stepped foot in Alaska. In addition, numerous Alaskans argue that Mt. Denali, which can be translated to “the high one,” is more than just a mountain — it’s a cornerstone of Alaskan history, and Alaskans should be able to choose its name. The Gulf of America name change has also been unnecessary and has had no positive impact, while also damaging the United States’ diplomatic relations with Mexico.
On the other hand, many people applauded Yale University’s decision to change the name of one of its colleges, which was named after John Caldwell Calhoun, a former vice president who was a strong advocate of slavery. The school will be renamed to Grace Murray Hopper, a trailblazing computer scientist who, like Calhoun, was a Yale alumn. Instances like these showcase how name changes can be used positively. The voice of the people was heard, stemming from protests that started in 1992, and continued until the eventual name change in late 2017.
So when is it ok to change the name of a landmark or a place? To answer this, we need to take a step back and realize that identifying appropriate targets for name changes is complicated. It might seem like an easy starting point to rename all things named after George Washington or Thomas Jefferson, for example, because of their ties to slavery. While their hateful ideology should never be hidden, they also contributed greatly to the formation of our country. In essence, history is not black and white — and name changes, therefore, are not always straightforward.
Maybe it would be better to start by changing things named after people who are predominantly known only for their negative policies, like Andrew Jackson. However, this also raises problems because this approach implies that people who are predominantly known for other, more admirable accomplishments but less known for their racist or sexist beliefs get a “free pass.”
There is uncertainty when it comes to who things should be named after. There is no formula where a person’s good and bad deeds can be plugged in to find their worthiness. The people as a whole must come together to judge the person. Alaskans should be allowed to decide the name of Mt. Denali/McKinley. Similarly, Yale students should be able to decide the name of one of its colleges. What shouldn’t happen is that the power is given to only one person — such as a college or nation's president — who can change names as he or she pleases to uphold their ideological agenda.
The problem with President Trump’s decision to change Mt. Denali to McKinley or the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America is not that it’s patriotic, the problem is that it is not what the people want. Recent polls have shown that only 25 percent of Americans support the name change. Yet with all of the power in the hands of one man, a lack of support has been ignored.
On the contrary, name changes such as LeConte Elementary School being changed to Silvia Mendez Elementary is a decision widely supported by the Berkeley and surrounding communities due to the horrific comments Joseph LeConte made in his book “The Race Problem in the South” as well as his status as a slave owner. A change like this, where it was the will of the people with widespread community support, is meaningful and has a legitimate purpose.
In a country that prides itself in its democratic practices, steps must be taken to make sure that historic name changes occur when the majority of people want it, and that one individual doesn't hold all the power — allowing the voice of a nation to be heard.