Vet, Vetted, Vetting

Vet, Vetted, Vetting Vet, Vetted, Vetting Vet, Vetted, Vetting By Maeve Maddox The verb vet, â€Å"investigate someone’s suitability for a job,† took the American media by storm during the presidential campaign of 2008. Vet was Number Two on Merriam-Webster’s Word of the Year list that year. (Bailout was Number One.) Although the word has been in American dictionaries for close to 100 years, few US speakers seem to have heard of it before 2008. Some forum participants continue to puzzle over it: The past presidential election is the first time I heard the term â€Å"vet† or â€Å"vetting  a candidate.† What does it mean? (2012) Honestly, I had never heard the word before until today. (2013) Here are some examples of the word’s current use on the Web: Hollywoods medical storylines vetted by those who know 10 Steps for Vetting Unknown Internet Sources The Garda Central Vetting Unit (GCVU) provides the only official vetting service in the Republic of Ireland. While it is general practice for most employers to call references and confirm previous employers, vetting an employee delves a little deeper into the applicants background. Some speakers–apparently lacking access to a dictionary–speculate that the verb vet may derive from veteran or veto: Coming from the word veteran maybe? From Latin veto (to prohibit), referring to the practice of having an opportunity to veto a decision before it is finalized. Wrong. The verb â€Å"to vet† is derived from the noun veterinarian. It originated as a term meaning, â€Å"to submit an animal to examination or treatment by a veterinary surgeon.† The earliest citation in the OED illustrates the word in the context of horse racing: 1891: Beau is shaky in his fore legs. I shall have him vetted before the races. By 1904, the term had spread to general usage with this meaning: to examine carefully and critically for deficiencies or errors; specifically, to investigate the suitability of (a person) for a post that requires loyalty and trustworthiness. As for veteran and veto, the English word veteran comes from a Latin word for old. â€Å"Old soldiers,† for example, were called veterani. Veto translates as â€Å"I forbid,† a declaration spoken by Roman tribunes of the people when they wished to oppose measures of the Senate or actions of the magistrates. The Latin source word for veterinary and veterinarian is veterinus: â€Å"a beast of burden.† Veterinus may have been a contracted form of vehiterinus, a word related to the verb vehere, to carry or convey. A beast of burden carries things. Veterinarians care for beasts of burden. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Vocabulary category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:100 Idioms About NumbersOn Behalf Of vs. In Behalf OfWhile vs. Whilst

Jones v. Clear Creek ISD (1992)

Jones v. Clear Creek ISD (1992) If government officials do not have the authority to write prayers for public school students or even to encourage and endorse prayers, can they allow the students themselves vote on whether or not to have one of their own recite prayers during school? Some Christians tried this method of getting official prayers into public schools, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that its constitutional for students to vote on having prayers during graduation ceremonies. Background Information The Clear Creek Independent School District passed a resolution allowing high school seniors to vote for student volunteers to deliver nonsectarian, non-proselytizing religious invocations at their graduation ceremonies. The policy allowed but did not require, such a prayer, ultimately leaving it to the senior class to decide by majority vote. The resolution also called for the school officials to review the statement before presentation to ensure that it was indeed nonsectarian and non-proselytizing. Court Decision The Fifth Circuit Court applied the three prongs of the Lemon test and found that: The Resolution has a secular purpose of solemnization, that the Resolutions primary effect is to impress upon graduation attendees the profound social significance of the occasion rather than advance or endorse religion, and that Clear Creek does not excessively entangle itself with religion by proscribing sectarianism and proselytization without prescribing any form of invocation. What is odd is that, in the decision, the Court admits that the practical result will be exactly what the Lee v. Weisman decision did not permit: ...the practical result of this decision, viewed in light of Lee , is that a majority of students can do what the State acting on its own cannot do to incorporate prayer in public high school graduation ceremonies. Usually, lower courts avoid contradicting higher court rulings because they are obligated to adhere to precedent except when radically different facts or circumstances force them to reconsider previous rulings. Here, though, the court didnt provide any justification for effectively reversing principle established by the Supreme Court. Significance This decision seems to contradict to the decision in Lee v. Weisman, and indeed the Supreme Court ordered the Fifth Circuit Court to review its decision in light of Lee. But the Court ended up standing by its original judgment. Some things are not explained in this decision, however. For example, why is prayer in particular singled out as a form of solemnizing, and it is just a coincidence that a Christian form of solemnization is picked? It would be easier to defend the law as secular if it only called for solemnization generally while singling out prayer alone at the very least serves to reinforce the privileged status of Christian practices. Why is such a thing put up to a student vote when exactly that is least likely to take into account the needs of minority students? The law presumes that its legitimate for a majority of students to vote to do something at an official school function which the state itself is forbidden from doing. And why is the government permitted to decide for others what does and does not qualify as permitted prayer? By stepping in and asserting authority over what sorts of prayer are permitted, the state is in effect endorsing any prayers which are delivered, and thats precisely what the Supreme Court has found to be unconstitutional. It was because of that last point that the Ninth Circuit Court came to a different conclusion in Cole v. Oroville.