I just finished a CNA course at a public technical college.
On our last day of class we had a small graduation ceremony with the students and a few residents of the nursing home where we did clinicals.
Our instructor invited a guest speaker from a religious group she belongs to. The guest speaker preached about her religion and put down everyone who doesn't practice the same religion.
We had to go up one by one to receive a certificate from our teacher and a New Testament book from the guest speaker.
The school is not a private school and has no religious affiliation. This is a state approved program. The program had no religion component, discussions, or learning material. We were never asked if we felt comfortable with this before we were blindsided with it.
THIS ALL TOOK PLACE BEFORE OUR FINAL REVIEW WITH THE TEACHER FOR THE CLASS!
Is this legal?
What would you do?
How would you feel if you felt forced to participate in something like this outside of your own religious beliefs?
Thanks for your kind words, however I want to add. I didn't take this class to get a job. I took this class as a requirement to get into this school's ADN Program. Had I taken the class as a career move and not with the intent of furthering my education with this school I would probably be more willing to just ignore the situation, move on, and find a job without looking back. However, I'm planning on taking several more pre-req classes at this school and then full time nursing classes for two years. I'm worried that if what happened during my CNA graduation is acceptable what more do I have to look forward to as far as discrimination and being put down for who I am and what I believe or don't believe? Also, if I complain will it be held against me, even though I was the victim?
Shoes, everything is held against you. I would, frankly, keep my mouth shut as a means of self-preservation. The reality is that it WILL be held against you if you rock the boat.
Specializes in med/surg, telemetry, IV therapy, mgmt.
hold on, everyone. famous people get asked to speak at graduations all the time--the president, politicians, movie stars, ceos of huge corporations. what do they talk about? themselves and their beliefs. tune into the news at 6 for a complete report. these are a public forum for these people to get their views out to the people. so, this was a smaller group. still, it was in the public and the last time i looked, the u.s. constitution still allowed free speech.
is this legal?
yes
what would you do?
nothing. i probably would have donated the new testament that i was given to the facility without making a comment about it. if i wanted to be nasty i could hand the book back to the speaker later and say, "thank you, but i don't believe in god." (by the way, that's not true.) that should start something! there are always choices. i know some people who would have gotten up and walked out; others who would have thrown the bible in the trash (that's a little out of line even for me).
how would you feel if you felt forced to participate in something like this outside of your own religious beliefs?
i'd never forget it. it will make for a great bit of conversation in years to come when you are sitting around with friends discussing the worse stuff you've had to endure. imagine all the grads who disagree with but have to listen to president bush or some other politician, especially one running for an office, talk at their graduation ceremonies. how do you think they feel?
Shoes, everything is held against you. I would, frankly, keep my mouth shut as a means of self-preservation. The reality is that it WILL be held against you if you rock the boat.
It's wrong, but the truth.
Exactly the reason why I made up a new email address to send an email to the Dean, refused to disclose my name, made a new name on this website, and haven't used any identifying information about myself, the school, or the location.
Posting on here has helped me work through a lot of my feelings. Many posters have been supportive and this has helped me greatly. I realize in my future career as a nurse I will run into situations when I will have to deal with people with beliefs other than my own and I am proud to say I know I will be able to handle the situations and move on as I have done with this situation. I was the victim, yet I showed more respect and tolerance towards the people who offended me, than they showed to me.
Freedom of speech is a restriction on the government from infringing on the rights of private citizens and isn't applicable when speaking on behalf of the government or with the implicit endorsement and backing of the government. Thus, "freedom of speech" isn't relevant to this scenario.
The fact that cases such as this- just on a grander scale (ie high school graduations) go to court and appeals courts routinely (with opinions both ways) should demonstrate that the legality of such practices is highly up for debate.
I am an Atheist and believe everything you just said was complete and utter idiocy congruent with mental illness. Can I go and say this at a graduation, as it is my belief and all.
Let's remember though that we like to respect one another here to have their opinionis and beliefs without resorting to saying those beleifs border on mental illness.
More in keeping with how we like things to go here, perhaps you can say "As an atheist, I completely disagree with everything you just said, because............."
Let's remember though that we like to respect one another here to have their opinionis and beliefs without resorting to saying those beleifs border on mental illness.
More in keeping with how we like things to go here, perhaps you can say "As an atheist, I completely disagree with everything you just said, because............."
All opinions are valid and should be respected.
Thanks.
I don't think jbeau actually thinks that (or at least was seriously directing it at that poster). I think he was using it as an example to point out to those who see nothing wrong with the scenario as described in the OP.
Specializes in med/surg, telemetry, IV therapy, mgmt.
Freedom of speech is a restriction on the government from infringing on the rights of private citizens and isn't applicable when speaking on behalf of the government or with the implicit endorsement and backing of the government. Thus, "freedom of speech" isn't relevant to this scenario.
The fact that cases such as this- just on a grander scale (ie high school graduations) go to court and appeals courts routinely (with opinions both ways) should demonstrate that the legality of such practices is highly up for debate.
If "freedom of speech is a restriction on the government from infringing on the rights of private citizens" then by your own definition there is no reason that this lady couldn't have made her speech at this graduation. There is no basis for a lawsuit because no law was broken.
If "freedom of speech is a restriction on the government from infringing on the rights of private citizens" then by your own definition there is no reason that this lady couldn't have made her speech at this graduation. There is no basis for a lawsuit because no law was broken.
In your quotation of my post, I think you accidentally skipped the sentence following the one above where I stated that it isn't applicable where there is implicit (or of course explicit) endorsement and backing of the government.
Here's an analogy. You're a school principal and you invite Fred Phelps to come speak to your kindergarten class. He does not have the freedom of speech to say his quite clearly insane thoughts regarding his particular brand of religion.
He and the school would be considered liable in such a situation and he would not be able to claim freedom of speech as he is not acting as a private citizen.
There is basis for a lawsuit following several metric tons of precedent in this very area. It would accomplish little in the grand scheme of things- a drop of reason in a pool of confusion, if you will, but that doesn't make what she did any more legal.
Specializes in med/surg, telemetry, IV therapy, mgmt.
In your quotation of my post, I think you accidentally skipped the sentence following the one above where I stated that it isn't applicable where there is implicit (or of course explicit) endorsement and backing of the government.
Here's an analogy. You're a school principal and you invite Fred Phelps to come speak to your kindergarten class. He does not have the freedom of speech to say his quite clearly insane thoughts regarding his particular brand of religion.
He and the school would be considered liable in such a situation and he would not be able to claim freedom of speech as he is not acting as a private citizen.
There is basis for a lawsuit following several metric tons of precedent in this very area. It would accomplish little in the grand scheme of things- a drop of reason in a pool of confusion, if you will, but that doesn't make what she did any more legal.
And, what law did Mr. Phelps break? Again, you are contradicting yourself.
And, what law did Mr. Phelps break? Again, you are contradicting yourself.
There's the catch.
It isn't Mr. Phelps breaking the law, it's the school.
And the law is the first amedment of the Constitution, which states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
And has through numerous USSC decisions along with the 14th amendment been applied to all levels of government.
The landmark case that is now known as the "Lemon Test" is Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), which found that state reimbursement of teachers' salaries at Catholic schools was unconstitutional. This case established a three prong lemon test to determine whether or not a government action is considered unconstitutional. If any of the three prongs is violated, the scenario is unconstitutional.
I urge you to apply the three prongs to the OP's scenario or any of the multitude of hypotheticals within this thread. Here are the prongs:
The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
This case has been affirmed by many other cases to date, and the "Endorsement Test" is directly based off of it.
Now, did the school's choosing of this particular speaker have a secular purpose? Hard to tell. If they were well aware of her message before hand, probably not.
Did the school's choosing of this particular school not have a primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion? Quite clearly this prong was violated.
Was it an excessive entanglement? Maybe, maybe not. The determination of such is why cases exactly like these end up in appeals courts and even the USSC routinely.
ShoesOnTooTight
11 Posts