HTML Limitations

From a novice perspective:

Knowing relatively nothing about HMTL personally, I would have to say that one of the biggest limitations of HTML is that it is not user-friendly. Learning how to use HTML is comparable to learning another language, one that does not look even vaguely similar to the language I am familiar with. It is for this reason alone that I have yet to master learning how to effectively utilize HTML.

From an expert perspective:

Seeing as I know relatively little regarding HTML, I consulted an expert to obtain his perspective on limitations associated with using HTML for web design. In his opinion, the biggest problem with HTML is that the specification is so slow moving. The world wide web consortium is too diverse and expansive, with individual companies holding steadfast to their own agendas, causing a lack of cohesiveness and efficiency when attempting to release a new HTML specification. For example, it has been over 10 years since the release of HTML 4.01. In a rapidly evolving medium, the inability to create new specifications in an efficient manner is limiting.

Using Creative Commons as a Solution to Copyright Law

Photo courtesy of timefornurses (http://www.flickr.com/photos/timefornurses/5071249770/)

Copyright Law as it Pertains to Nursing Education

Copyright law has significant implications for educators, and nursing education is no exception. Under the current U.S. copyright law, written work is protected for 70 years following the death of the author of the protected work, unless it is a work of corporate authorship, where it is protected for the shorter of 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation. Once the copyright has expired, the work enters the public domain, where it can be used by anyone without restrictions.

There is an exception to the copyright law, which is termed "fair use". Under the fair use doctrine, copyrighted material can be used for certain purposes, including criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Under the fair use doctrine, certain factors must be considered:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

Information retrieved from http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html 

What legal issue keeps me up at night?

Nursing educators are faced with the dual purpose of not only educating future nurses, but also protecting the public by denying graduation to those nursing students who do not show sufficient knowledge and/or technical skill to render them competent to provide nursing care. However, proving that a student does not possess enough knowledge and/or skill to be considered minimally competent is often problematic, especially in the clinical setting.

My major concern is that I will be faced with the situation where I need to fail a student, but lack documented evidence regarding the reasons for failure. In the clinical setting, the students receive weekly reports on their performance. However, instead of stating the specific mistakes the students made, my teaching philosophy is that it will be more beneficial to the students to describe what they did well, and to provide them with areas for improvement. However, it is documented only as an area that could use improvement, which does not imply that the care they provided was unsafe. Therefore, I would not have sufficient proof that the care they provided was unsafe in the event that I would need proper documentation.

Engel v. Vitale 1962 Presentation

http://prezi.com/amrdid-t7rsi/edit/#3_3033671

Engel v. Vitale 1962

Citation: 370 U.S. 421 Engel v. Vitale

Topic: Prayer in school

Issue: Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment?

Facts: The respondent Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9, New Hyde Park, New York, acting in its official capacity under state law, directed the School District's principal to have the following prayer said aloud in each classroom at the beginning of every school day:

"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."

This daily procedure was adopted on the recommendation of the State Board of Regents, a governmental agency created by the State Constitution to which the New York Legislature has granted broad supervisory, executive, and legislative powers over the State's public school system. These state officials composed the prayer which they recommended and published as a part of their "Statement on Moral and Spiritual Training in the Schools," saying: "We believe that this Statement will be subscribed to by all men and women of good will, and we call upon all of them to aid in giving life to our program." Children would not be required to recite the prayer.

Shortly after the prayer was initiated, the parent of ten pupils filed suit, insisting that use of this official prayer in the public schools was contrary to the beliefs, religions, or religious practices of both themselves and their children.

Arguments:

For Engel (the parents): The separation of church and state requires that the government refrain from prescribing religious activities of any kind. The Regents' prayer violated the 1st Amendment and should therefore be barred from the schools.

For the Regents of the State of New York: The New York Regents did not establish a religion by providing a prayer for those who wanted to say it. Countless religious elements are associated with governments and officials, reflecting the religious heritage of the nation. New York acted properly and constitutionally in providing an optional, nonsectarian prayer. It would be an intrusion into State matters for the Supreme Court to strike down the right of the Regents to compose the prayer and encourage its recitation.

Findings: Yes, the reading of the prayer each day violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Neither the prayer's nondenominational character nor its voluntary character saves it from unconstitutionality. By providing the prayer, New York officially approved religion.

Decision: 6 votes for Engel, 1 vote against.

The Court found the New York Regents' prayer to be unconstitutional. Justice Hugo Black wrote the opinion for the 6-1 majority: “We think that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents' Prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. There can, of course, be no doubt that New York's program of daily classroom invocation of God's blessings…in the Regents' Prayer is a religious activity…”

Black further explained that “When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain…. The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its 'unhallowed perversion' by a civil magistrate.”

To support the Court's finding, Black referred to the following ideas of the Framers: “To those who may subscribe to the view that because the Regents' official prayer is so brief and general [it] can be no danger to religious freedom…, it may be appropriate to say in the words of James Madison, the author of the First Amendment:… 'Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?'”

The Court's decision was not, Black pointed out, antireligious. It sought, rather, only to affirm the separation between church and state. “It is neither sacrilegious nor antireligious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers…” Thereafter, State governments could not “prescribe by law any particular form of prayer which is to be used as an official prayer in carrying on any program of governmentally sponsored religious activity.”

Implications: This was the first in a series of cases in which the Court used the Establishment Clause to eliminate religious activities of all sorts, which had traditionally been a part of public ceremonies. Despite the passage of time, the decision is still unpopular with many Americans.

References

Engel v. Vitale, 370 US 421-Supreme Court 1962. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14815219471388213647&q=Engel+v.+Vitale+(1962)&hl=en&as_sdt=2,36&as_vis=1.  

Pearson Education, Inc. (2005). Engel v. Vitale (1962). Retrieved from http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar10.html.