The Army Took Down Its Page Commemorating a Civil Rights Icon ⁠51%

By Chasity Hale⁠0%

7/4/2026, 11:30:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Biased Writer Voice, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Politically Left Leaning Bias as the most egregious example at 29.7% saturation with 190 hits. Analysis detected 1,785 faulty-reasoning hits from 640 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠51% (10,435 of 21,230 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 50.90% of the article peer group.

Back in March, I wrote about the late Sarah Keys Evans, a Black veteran who played a key role in desegregating interstate travel. 
Before the summer of 1952, the 23-year-old private first class had never even taken part in a civil rights protest—but after she was arrested and jailed overnight in her Women’s Army Corps uniform for refusing to give up her bus seat to a white Marine, Keys Evans spent years fighting for justice through the courts, paving the way for Rosa Parks and the Freedom Riders. 
I discussed Keys Evans’ underappreciated but important case with the author Amy Nathan, whose latest book, *Riding Into History*, tells her story. 
Her profile had risen in recent years, as I wrote at the time: 
In 2020, nearly 70 years after Evans’ arrest, Roanoke Rapids installed a series of murals about the veteran’s fight for justice, which Evans told a Time reporter she saw as a tribute to all the overlooked women who “kept the spark going” during the Civil Rights Movement. 
But weeks after that first piece ran, I received a tip that the Army had removed an article about Keys Evans from its official website. 
Based on screenshots captured by the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, the article by T. 
Anthony Bell, first published in February 2014, was taken down last July, at the height of the second Trump administration’s campaign to scrub Black history from public monuments, institutions, and records. 
It remains unavailable. 
Keys Evans’ story is just one of thousands about women and people of color in the armed services to be removed since Trump returned to office in January 2025. 
That February, at the behest of the president and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the assistant to the secretary of defense for public affairs issued a memorandum ordering senior Pentagon leadership to wipe military websites of any content promoting “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” 
“In accordance with recent policy changes and renewed digital content guidance, the Army temporarily unpublished content featured on cultural observance months webpages,” Christopher Surridge, an Army spokesperson, told Mother Jones in an emailed statement. 
“We are tirelessly working through content featured on these webpages, and historical articles will soon be republished to better align with current guidance,” Surridge added. 
“As this is an ongoing process requiring a manual content review, article restoration might take some time.” 
Following public outcry, some webpages were quickly restored, like an article about baseball player Jackie Robinson’s service in World War II and another about the highly decorated 442nd Regimental Combat Team, composed mostly of Japanese Americans. 
But many more articles about the contributions of marginalized communities to US military achievements are still hidden. 
Hegseth’s attacks on DEI go beyond censoring history. 
In the past year and half, the defense secretary has ordered the military to end its observance of heritage months, proposed strict grooming standards that would disproportionately impact Black and brown soldiers, and personally blocked women and Black service members from promotions. 
On the eve of the nation’s 250th anniversary, which the administration has commemorated through sanitized displays seemingly designed to paper over the country’s complex past, the lessons of Keys Evans’ fight for justice and equality feel especially pertinent. 
Her story serves as a reminder that, in the words of T. 
Anthony Bell, the author of the Army’s now-spiked article: 
The modern civil rights movement was much broader than the contributions made by the likes of Dr. 
Martin Luther King Jr., the NAACP or Rosa Parks in changing America’s unjust racial climate. 
It was more about the thousands of unheralded, everyday citizens whose brave actions and collective voices blended together to create rumbles that shook the country’s consciousness, giving rise to individuals and organizations that would lead the struggle. 
Pfc. 
Sarah Louise Keys was one such citizen. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.2%Chasity Hale: 4.3%Mother Jones: 4.0%Confirmation Bias17.2%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Chasity Hale: 3.1%Mother Jones: 3.2%Availability Heuristic2.0%This article: 15.0%Chasity Hale: 3.8%Mother Jones: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic15.0%This article: 10.2%Chasity Hale: 2.5%Mother Jones: 0.8%Hindsight Bias10.2%This article: 4.5%Chasity Hale: 1.1%Mother Jones: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias4.5%This article: 7.7%Chasity Hale: 15.1%Mother Jones: 7.2%Framing Effect7.7%This article: 5.6%Chasity Hale: 1.4%Mother Jones: 0.6%Loss Aversion5.6%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.9%Chasity Hale: 1.0%Mother Jones: 1.6%Optimism Bias3.9%This article: 5.9%Chasity Hale: 1.5%Mother Jones: 1.8%Pessimism Bias5.9%This article: 15.3%Chasity Hale: 10.4%Mother Jones: 9.6%Negativity Bias15.3%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Chasity Hale: 1.6%Mother Jones: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error6.6%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Chasity Hale: 1.1%Mother Jones: 1.6%Halo Effect4.5%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.8%Chasity Hale: 1.2%Mother Jones: 1.1%Recency Bias4.8%This article: 3.6%Chasity Hale: 0.9%Mother Jones: 0.3%Primacy Effect3.6%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.3%Chasity Hale: 1.3%Mother Jones: 3.6%Appeal to Authority5.3%This article: 3.6%Chasity Hale: 0.9%Mother Jones: 1.4%False Dilemma3.6%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.1%Chasity Hale: 10.7%Mother Jones: 4.7%Hasty Generalization11.1%This article: 1.9%Chasity Hale: 0.5%Mother Jones: 0.2%Red Herring1.9%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 16.6%Chasity Hale: 5.8%Mother Jones: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion16.6%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 1.8%Mother Jones: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 21.6%Chasity Hale: 5.4%Mother Jones: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)21.6%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 25.3%Chasity Hale: 6.3%Mother Jones: 2.3%Anecdotal25.3%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 15.2%Chasity Hale: 3.8%Mother Jones: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)15.2%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.4%Chasity Hale: 2.9%Mother Jones: 1.8%Unattributed Quote11.4%This article: 2.0%Chasity Hale: 0.5%Mother Jones: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection2.0%This article: 23.1%Chasity Hale: 11.6%Mother Jones: 9.3%Biased Writer Voice23.1%This article: 5.3%Chasity Hale: 1.3%Mother Jones: 1.8%Indoctrination5.3%This article: 29.7%Chasity Hale: 29.4%Mother Jones: 4.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias29.7%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chasity Hale: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

640 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker12%attributed speech564writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 65 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageChristopher Surridge • 34 words • 100.0% coverageChristopher Surridge • 25 words • 0.0% coverageChristopher Surridge • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Christopher Surridge

100%flagged-word coverage
76 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Indoctrination+44.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Christopher Surridge: 44.7%44.7%Politically Left Leaning B-33.7 ptsWriter: 33.7%Christopher Surridge: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-26.2 ptsWriter: 26.2%Christopher Surridge: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+12.4 ptsWriter: 9.9%Christopher Surridge: 22.4%22.4%Quote-first Misdirection-2.3 ptsWriter: 2.3%Christopher Surridge: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.