Harvey Milk: Pete Hegseth says naval ship to be renamed after Oscar V. Peterson, here's why
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Friday, June 27, announced that the US Navy has changed the name of USNS Harvey Milk, a fleet replenishment ship, to Oscar V. Peterson. The ship was earlier named after the Navy veteran, who was one of the country's first openly gay elected officials, The New York Times reported. In this image provided by the U.S. Navy, the John Lewis-class replenishment oiler USNS Harvey Milk (T-AO-206) conducts a replenishment at sea in the Atlantic Ocean, Dec. 13, 2024. (AP)
It has now been renamed for Oscar V. Peterson, a chief petty officer, who was posthumously honored with the Medal of Honor for valor during World War II. 'We are taking the politics out of ship naming,' Hegseth said in a statement released on social media platform X, alongside a video.
In the clip, Hegseth noted that they were not 'renaming the ship to anything political' and the naming of the vessel had nothing to do with 'political activists, unlike the previous administration.' Who was Harvey Milk?
Born on May 22, 1930 in Woodmere, New York, Milk was a civil rights leader. He became one of the first openly gay elected officials in the US after winning a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977, according to Harvey Milk Foundation. He was assassinated in the following year and later became a gay rights icon.
The fleet replenishment oiler was named after California's first openly gay politician under the Barack Obama administration in 2016.
Also read: Hegseth orders the name of gay rights activist Harvey Milk scrubbed from Navy ship Harvey Milk's tenure in the US Navy
Milk served in the US Navy between 1951 and 1955. Initially, he graduated from high school to become a high school teacher, but could not do it as his grades at the New York State College for Teachers were fairly poor, National Archives states.
After passing out from the Albany-based institution in 1951, Milk went on to serve in the US Navy during the Korean War. Later on, he was given the 'other than honorable' discharge in 1955 after he was found to have engaged in sexual acts.
As per Newsweek, he had to leave the service due to his sexuality or face court-martial.
Thereafter, he served in many roles and even became a financial analyst in New York. He later opened a camera store after shifting to San Francisco in 1972 and soon became popular in the gay community.
During his last few years, he was engaged in politics and civil rights activism.
FAQs:
1. Who was Oscar V. Peterson?
Peterson hailed from Prentice, Wisconsin and served as the chief watertender on the U.S.S. Neosho when it was attacked by Japan during the Battle of the Coral Sea on May 7, 1942.
2. What's the new name of USNS Harvey Milk?
The fleet replenishment ship has now been renamed to USNS Oscar V. Peterson.
3. Why has the US Navy renamed USNS Harvey Milk?
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the government was 'taking the politics out of ship naming.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
19 minutes ago
- Time of India
Why the Trump Justice Department is demanding the University of Virginia president resign
Trump DOJ demands UVA president resign over DEI policy investigation. (AP Photo) In a move described by legal experts as highly unusual, the US Justice Department under President Donald Trump has privately demanded the resignation of University of Virginia (UVA) President James E. Ryan as a condition for resolving a civil rights investigation into the university's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices. According to a report by The New York Times, the demand was issued several times in recent weeks by Gregory Brown, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, who is also a UVA graduate and previously sued the university as a private lawyer. The pressure is part of a broader campaign led by the Trump administration to dismantle DEI initiatives in higher education institutions across the country. Push to reshape higher education through federal influence The Justice Department has told UVA officials that hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding are at risk due to what the department alleges is the university's failure to comply with federal civil rights law. According to The New York Times, the department claims that President Ryan has not dismantled UVA's DEI programs and has misrepresented the university's efforts to comply with executive orders issued by the administration. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo This is the first known instance in which the federal government has tied the outcome of a civil rights investigation to the removal of a university leader. Legal scholars told The New York Times that such tactics are more commonly associated with corporate investigations involving serious wrongdoing, rather than with educational institutions. Behind the resignation demand: politics, DEI, and Trump's agenda President Trump's administration has increasingly focused on reshaping the ideological direction of US universities, which it views as bastions of liberal thought. The push against DEI efforts is part of a broader initiative that began with an executive order targeting such programs across federal agencies, schools, and private companies. The order did not define DEI practices clearly, resulting in inconsistent institutional responses. President Ryan, who became UVA's ninth president in 2018, has emphasized diversity and service as central to the school's mission. He previously served as dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education and has been praised for his commitment to inclusive academic environments. However, these values have put him at odds with conservative alumni and Republican-appointed board members, who accuse him of promoting a 'woke' agenda, as reported by The New York Times. Ties to America First Legal and conservative pressure Much of the political momentum behind this pressure campaign has been attributed to America First Legal, a group founded by Trump adviser Stephen Miller. The group accused UVA of merely rebranding its DEI programs and called on the Justice Department to 'hold UVA accountable.' Attorney Megan Redshaw, representing the organization, stated in a release quoted by The New York Times, 'Rebranding discrimination does not make it legal. ' Justice Department civil rights chief Harmeet K. Dhillon, who attended UVA Law School alongside Ryan, has also been directly involved in the negotiations, according to The New York Times. Discussions have included members of the university's oversight board, several of whom were appointed by Republican Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin. A broader strategy targeting elite institutions This move fits a larger pattern. The Trump administration has already stripped billions in federal funding from elite universities, including Harvard, and has initiated investigations through multiple federal agencies. The case of UVA is seen as a new frontier—targeting not only DEI practices but also university leadership itself. A UVA spokesperson declined to comment on President Ryan's status, as reported by The New York Times. The Justice Department also did not respond to media inquiries. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
3 hours ago
- First Post
Iran must tread carefully in framing post-ceasefire strategy
As a Persian proverb warns, 'Bravado without power is like a lion's roar from a sheep's throat,' Iran's defiance may echo loudly, but it risks being drowned out by the consequences of its own overreach read more The ceasefire notwithstanding, Iran has a brand new strategic mix for the near future. The first part of Iran's war strategy includes threatening traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint through which a fifth of the world's oil flows. This is a high-stakes gamble rooted in the sea denial principles of the British naval theorist Julian Corbett. Yet, despite its calculated bravado, Iran's approach is likely to lead to a protracted conflict it cannot win, exposing its strategic vulnerabilities and risking regional escalation. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Corbett's sea denial theory, which emphasises disrupting an adversary's control of maritime routes without seeking outright naval dominance, is evident in three facets of Iran's strategy. First, Iran deploys fast-attack boats armed with anti-ship missiles, designed to harass and deter larger naval forces through asymmetric hit-and-run tactics. Second, its naval assets, including submarines and mine-laying vessels, aim to create uncertainty and raise the costs of operating in the Strait. Third, Iran leverages its coastal geography, studded with missile batteries and radar stations, to project power over the narrow waterway, threatening commercial and military shipping alike. These tactics align with Corbett's vision of a weaker navy frustrating a stronger opponent's freedom of movement. Yet Iran's strategy extends beyond the Strait. It is likely to be flanked by the continued threat of missile strikes on American air bases in Qatar, Bahrain, and Iraq, targeting the US military presence that underpins regional security. These attacks, however, are unlikely to yield decisive results. US bases are fortified, with advanced missile defence systems like Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) capable of intercepting most threats. Moreover, such strikes risk galvanising American resolve and international condemnation without significantly degrading US operational capacity. A critical flaw in Iran's plan lies in the geography of the strait itself. Iran controls only the northern half; the southern half is Oman's jurisdiction. This bilateral control severely limits Iran's ability to enforce a complete blockade without provoking Oman or other Gulf states, which would escalate the conflict into a broader regional war. The US Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, further tilts the balance. With its carrier strike groups, destroyers, and air superiority, the fleet possesses overwhelming firepower to counter Iran's naval and missile threats. While Iran's asymmetric tactics may cause temporary disruptions, they cannot match the sustained power projection of the US Navy. The Fifth Fleet's ability to secure the Strait, supported by allies like Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, ensures that any Iranian blockade would be short-lived. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Iran's strategy also risks self-inflicted wounds. By threatening to close the Strait, Iran endangers its own energy exports, which account for a significant portion of its revenue. China, Iran's largest oil buyer, would view such disruptions with alarm, as Beijing relies on stable Gulf energy supplies. Unlike Saddam Hussein, who recklessly attacked oil infrastructure during the Iran-Iraq War, Iran is unlikely to repeat this mistake, aware that alienating China and other trading partners would compound its economic woes. Compounding Iran's challenges is its weakened regional position. Its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, are diminished, with the former reeling from Israel's campaigns and the latter constrained by Lebanon's internal chaos. Iran's influence in Syria and Iraq has waned, eroded by local resistance and external pressures. Domestically, Iran's military is hamstrung by sanctions, outdated equipment, and a lack of air superiority—a critical disadvantage against the US and its allies. Yet this weakness makes Iran dangerous. With its prestige at stake, Tehran may feel compelled to double down and break the ceasefire at the earliest. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Iran's gambit in the Strait of Hormuz is thus a paradox: a bold strategy born of vulnerability. As a Persian proverb warns, 'Bravado without power is like a lion's roar from a sheep's throat.' Iran's defiance may echo loudly, but it risks being drowned out by the consequences of its own overreach. The writer is a senior journalist with expertise in defence. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Trump administration challenges court order allowing international students at Harvard
Trump administration challenges court order allowing international students at Harvard The Trump administration has escalated a high-profile legal battle with Harvard University by filing an appeal against a federal court order that blocked a presidential proclamation aimed at barring international students from attending the institution. The case has drawn global attention to the US education system, raising concerns about academic freedom, the treatment of foreign students, and the broader implications of immigration policy on higher education. The legal dispute centers on a White House proclamation issued on June 4, which accused Harvard of accepting donations from foreign adversaries, specifically referencing Chinese entities. The administration argued that these "entanglements with foreign countries" posed a national security risk, invoking a 70-year-old law designed to restrict the entry of foreign enemies to the US. This action triggered a lawsuit from Harvard, challenging the legitimacy and motivations behind the proclamation. Court order blocks policy, criticizes administration's rationale US District Court Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued a strongly worded order blocking the enforcement of the Trump administration's proclamation, pending the resolution of the lawsuit. In her decision, she accused the administration of "misplaced efforts to control a reputable academic institution and squelch diverse viewpoints seemingly because they are, in some instances, opposed to this administration's own views," as quoted by The New York Times. Judge Burroughs also criticized the administration's use of international students as leverage, stating it had acted "with little thought to the consequences to them or, ultimately, to our own citizens." She dismissed the national security argument as 'absurd,' according to The New York Times. Harvard's international community at the center of the conflict Harvard enrolls approximately 7,000 international students and scholars each year, including around 2,000 recent graduates, accounting for nearly 25 percent of its student body. The Trump administration's policy threatened their ability to attend classes in person, raising fears of deportation or forced withdrawal. While the case proceeds through the courts, Harvard has begun developing contingency plans. Some students may be able to study remotely or from international partner institutions. The New York Times reported that the Kennedy School of Government is working with the University of Toronto to accommodate affected students. A growing debate over foreign influence and academic freedom The Trump administration's appeal has intensified an ongoing debate over foreign influence in US academic institutions. Citing previous legal precedent, including the 2017 Supreme Court ruling that upheld travel bans for several majority-Muslim countries, the administration is attempting to frame the Harvard case within the same national security context. As the legal process unfolds, the case is being watched closely both in the US and abroad. Critics argue that targeting international students may harm the reputation and global standing of American higher education institutions. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
