By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Employees at a VA hospital in Hampton, Virginia, reportedly received a warning earlier this month against displaying LGBTQ+ Pride-themed items. The directive, potentially stemming from an executive order, allegedly originated from local leadership, specifically interim executive director Michael W. Harper, who allegedly stated that staff could not “promote” the LGBTQ+ community, but later appeared to walk back those comments. The alleged directive caused concern among staff, with some reporting threats of disciplinary action for non-compliance. While the VA has not clarified the origin or approval of the ban, the incident comes amid recent actions by the VA that have restricted transgender healthcare access.
Read the original article here
VA hospital employees allegedly told not to wear rainbow items because of president’s order. “Anything rainbow like lanyards can get us fired on the spot.” This situation really does seem to be about a restriction on VA hospital employees, and it is pretty unsettling to hear of this directive coming down the line. It’s the kind of thing that makes you scratch your head, wondering what’s really driving such a policy. Based on the reports, the employees were told, specifically, not to wear anything rainbow-colored, including lanyards. The reported justification centers around an executive order and the potential for serious consequences, up to and including termination. It’s a pretty heavy statement, implying that the administration is taking a very strong stance on this, which is concerning.
The reports also mention supervisors at Hampton relaying this information, and the potential for disciplinary action. There are claims of hospital leadership instructing staff to comply to avoid problems. There’s a narrative that suggests the order isn’t necessarily coming directly from a local level, but instead, it is coming from somewhere higher up in the chain of command. The suggestion is that there’s a directive from a higher-up position and that this is being passed down through the VA’s Central Office. It does paint a picture of an environment where conformity, at least concerning outward displays of support for LGBTQ+ communities, is apparently expected.
The rationale behind these kinds of policies can be hard to understand. Some might interpret it as a political statement or a means of enforcing a particular ideological view. The sentiment expressed about Christian nationalism and other groups is a strong one, but it does reflect a feeling of being targeted, which is a common emotion when someone feels their freedom of expression is limited. The idea of this potentially violating religious freedoms, or being un-American in its nature, definitely resonates in the discussion.
Thinking about the impact this could have on the people working in these hospitals, it could create an atmosphere of anxiety and fear. It also really forces them to choose between their jobs and their identities. What would this look like for the patients? This kind of policy could make LGBTQ+ patients feel unwelcome and unsupported, which is really the opposite of what a healthcare setting should be.
The irony here is pretty evident. Some people are saying that it’s against the values that are supposed to be central to America. You have to wonder about the motivation behind the order. The comments about a rainbow being a symbol of God’s promise in the Bible, and then restricting its use, seem to be a bit of a contradiction, and it highlights how complicated this all is. The question of whether it violates the freedom of religion is a valid one, especially when you consider that a rainbow can be a symbol for several different groups.
The reactions within the thread range from expressions of anger and disbelief to ideas on how to resist the policy. The idea of using the situation as grounds for a lawsuit is a recurring theme. The comments suggest that many feel this policy is unjust and potentially illegal. In a workplace where there’s already a shortage of staff, this kind of policy makes the situation even more difficult. The thread raises the point of supporting the troops and it’s something that has been part of the American landscape for a long time. The suggestion of potentially facing disciplinary action is a definite signal of how serious this apparently is.