Reconciliation in Place Names Act Proposes Advisory Committee to Review and Rename Offensive Landmarks Over 5 Years

This bill, the Reconciliation in Place Names Act, gets straight to the point: it wants to create a formal process for reviewing and changing geographic names across the country that are considered offensive. We're talking names that use slurs, perpetuate stereotypes, or honor historical figures known for racist views or actions, particularly against Native Americans and other minority groups. The core idea is to establish a 17-member Advisory Committee on Reconciliation in Place Names within 180 days to tackle this head-on.

Setting Up the Review Crew

The bill lays out who gets a seat at the table for this new Advisory Committee. Appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, it's designed to bring together diverse perspectives: four members from Indian Tribes, one from a Tribal organization, one from a Native Hawaiian organization, four civil rights experts, four academics (think anthropology, history, geography), and three folks representing the general public. Their main job? To create a system for handling proposals to rename offensive spots, gather suggestions from Tribes, governments, and the public, and then make formal recommendations. They'll propose new names for geographic features directly to the existing Board on Geographic Names and suggest changes for Federal land units (like National Parks or Forests) to Congress.

What's 'Offensive' and How Does This Work?

The Act defines an "offensive place name" pretty broadly. It covers names containing racial or sexual slurs, terms that perpetuate harmful stereotypes, or names honoring individuals who held "repugnant racial views," committed atrocities against Native Americans, supported discriminatory policies, or carried out injustices against racial minorities. The Committee has five years from its start date to develop its process, solicit input (including public comments), and submit its renaming proposals. Once the Committee sends a proposal to the Board on Geographic Names, the Board has three years to approve or reject it. The bill pushes the Board to approve these proposals unless there's a "compelling reason" and "substantial public interest" to reject it, or if it breaks federal law. This aims to streamline a process that the bill itself notes can be slow and lack transparency.

Real-World Ripple Effects

So, what does this mean practically? It means that mountain, river, or town name you might have side-eyed could come under formal review. The goal, according to the bill's findings (Sec. 2), is reconciliation and ensuring place names reflect equity and dignity. This committee structure, with its required consultations and public comment periods, aims to make the renaming process more systematic and inclusive than current methods. While the focus is on removing offensive names, the process involves suggesting new names, offering a chance to honor different histories or figures. Of course, changing names isn't always simple – think updated maps, road signs, and GPS databases – but the bill prioritizes addressing the harm caused by offensive names through this structured, time-bound federal process.