The unexpected problem started about a month ago. On the afternoon of Nov. 20, The Washington Post reported that the U.S. Coast Guard would no longer classify swastikas as hate symbols, instead adopting new guidelines that would label the Nazi-era insignia as “potentially divisive.” The same policy was intended to apply to nooses, too.
The Coast Guard falls under the Department of Homeland Security, and after the Post’s report, a DHS official described it as “an absolute ludicrous lie,” “unequivocally false” and “fake crap.”
The evidence suggested otherwise. Indeed, as the public learned of the proposed guidelines and outrage over the change grew, officials did exactly what many predicted they would do: On Nov. 21, less than a full day after the Post’s initial report was published, the Coast Guard reversed course in a move that the newspaper described as “stunning and lightning-fast.” Under the revised policy, swastikas and nooses would be considered “hate symbols.”
That was not, however, the final word on the subject. The Post is now reporting that the reversal has been reversed:
The U.S. Coast Guard has allowed a new workplace harassment policy to take effect that downgrades the definition of swastikas and nooses from overt hate symbols to ‘potentially divisive’ despite an uproar over the new language that forced the service’s top officer to direct that both would remain prohibited.
The new policy went into effect Monday, according to written correspondence that the Coast Guard provided to Congress this week, a copy of which was reviewed by The Washington Post. The manual is posted online and makes clear that its previous version ‘is cancelled.’
The same report, which has not been independently verified by MS NOW, noted that a DHS spokesperson called the latest reporting “pathetic” and “false,” though her statement did not address “why the language downgrading nooses and swastikas to ‘potentially divisive’ symbols, rather than hate symbols, was allowed to remain in the new policy.”
As the dust settles on these bizarre developments, there might yet be political fallout from this. In November, when the controversy first broke, a bipartisan pair of senators — Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada and Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma — demanded answers about how and why the initial change was proposed in the first place. Now that the reversal has been undone, it stands to reason that their questions could return to the fore.
If so, they’ll have plenty of company. Late Tuesday, Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanding that she “revoke this policy and make it clear to the brave men and women serving in the Coast Guard that hate has no place in the service.” Blumenthal added in his correspondence, “Granting hate symbols like swastikas and nooses even an ounce of respectability is absolutely an anathema. This edict besmirches the Coast Guard’s honor, and DHS should be ashamed. At a time when antisemitic and racist violence are at unconscionable levels, it is absolutely appalling that DHS is doubling down on such a hateful, destructive policy.” Noem has not yet commented publicly. Watch this space. This post updates our related earlier coverage.
Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans' War on the Recent Past."
Latest Post
Recommended
