# Personal beliefs and who you train / train with?



## Andrew Green

There is a thread in the Japanese arts section regarding the supposed practice of a Koryo instructor not to train people with Tatoo's.

Whether or not this is true aside, at what point should martial arts instructors be able to pick and choose who they train?  Obviously being a private club they could basically do whatever they like, but putting that aside.  I don't have a tatoo, but at the same time I wouldn't train under someone with a rule like that on principle.

But what, if anything, would you consider acceptable exclusion based on personal beliefs?

ex-cons?

Muslims?  Fundamentalist Muslims?

Christians? Fundamentalist Christians?

Atheists?

Satanists? Scientologiests?

Communists? Fascists? 

Hippies? Homosexuals?

Tattoos? Piercings?  Well, piercing I can understand as a safety issue, take them out or don't train, if they don't come out and can't be secured, some systems are a safety risk, same for long nails.

Is there an acceptable point where it is ok to turn someone away for there personal political, religious, or lifestyle choices?


----------



## CoryKS

No mimes.  Their kiais suck.


----------



## Carol

CoryKS said:


> No mimes.  Their kiais suck.



:lfao: :lfao:


----------



## CoryKS

Seriously though, I think it depends.  It _should_ be acceptable to choose your students using whatever criteria you want.  Not sure what the legal ramifications are for a commercial facility, however.  Shouldn't even have to tell them why, either.  You could get a bad vibe off a thuggish sort, for example.


----------



## Kacey

Andrew Green said:


> Is there an acceptable point where it is ok to turn someone away for there personal political, religious, or lifestyle choices?



If they are a danger to themselves or others for physical reasons; if they are unstable mentally or emotionally as demonstrated by outbursts, bullying-type behavior, etc.
if they preach their personal choices as "the only way" in class (outside of class is their problem, unless it causes problems in class)
if they have a history of violence-related problems that have not been addressed in any fashion (I have a couple of students in my class who told me up front that they have anger management problems and started class to learn to control their reactions - physical and emotional - after completing appropriate anger management programs - not a problem for me, and they're great students).
if there is any other clear and clearly-demonstrated reason why being in the class would not be safe - for example, a friend of mine once had a very gung-ho student who had a medium case of brittle bones syndrome; after several weeks, he found out that every night after class she went home and soaked in a tub of cold water and ice because of injuries (mostly micro-fractures) line drills inflicted upon her, and no matter how much she wanted to be there, he couldn't stand putting her through that much pain; I also knew another students who had partial/absence seizures, and would suddenly lose his focus and wander off during class - annoying during line drills and patterns, but occasionally dangerous during sparring.
Other than issues like the ones given - your life choices are your own; keep them out of the dojang.  I do, however, warn my students (especially those still in high school or younger) that if I find out they've used what I've taught them inappropriately, I will kick them out of class.


----------



## Touch Of Death

No Scientologists bouncing on the furniture.
Sean


----------



## JBrainard

CoryKS said:


> No mimes. Their kiais suck.


:lol:


----------



## Andrew Green

A violent person is a safety risk in class, and I think that most people would accept that.  What I am thinking is more things that wouldn't impact there training directly, but are simply differing views on other issues.

Sort of the same lines as doctors withholding birthcontrol on religious grounds. Is there a point where it is morally acceptable (I'm not suggesting I think those doctors are) to turn someone away because you disagree with there beliefs on unrelated issues?


----------



## JBrainard

My teacher has a very simple policy. He keeps the good people and sends the *******s who want to learn how to hurt people to SBG.
IMO, besides people with violent tendencies/intent, no one should be turned away from a dojo/school.


----------



## Touch Of Death

I trained in a school that turned a man away for being a Gypsy. It stuck in my craw a little; I found it was just a symptom of a larger problem with that instructor.
Sean


----------



## Kacey

Andrew Green said:


> Is there a point where it is morally acceptable (I'm not suggesting I think those doctors are) to turn someone away because you disagree with there beliefs on unrelated issues?



Not as long as they keep it out of class.  As soon as someone's personal beliefs disrupts class, then there needs to be a discussion about why it needs to stop, and either the disruption ends, or the student's participation ends.  There are a lot of things discussed during class - especially as related to when to use various levels of techniques, and the morality involved in doing so - but anything unrelated to class does not belong in class, especially if it disrupts training.  If you want to preach your philosophy to your fellow students, there's a time for that outside of class - but not inside.


----------



## Carol

I'd have a difficult time with many old orthodox practices, such as not being allowed to look in to the eyes, or phsycally tough, a member of the opposite gender.

If someone is going to turn the school in to a captive audience for proselytizing the next meeting of Communist Gay Hippie Athiests for Buddha, then I'd have an issue with the proselytizing.  If the class is (say) mostly fundamentalist somethingorothers that distract from class because a gay person joined up, then I'd have an issue with the fundamentalists.

IMO - it's not description of the person that would be an issue,  it's whether they can get along without creating an unnecessary distraction.


----------



## mrhnau

Andrew Green said:


> ex-cons?


I know the Bujinkan does not allow criminals.



> 4.  Those not upholding the guidelines of the Bujinkan, either as practitioners or as     members of society, by committing disgraceful or reproachable acts shall be expelled.     Until now, the Bujinkan was open to large numbers of people who came to Japan. Among them,     unfortunately, were those committing violent drunken acts, the mentally ill, and trouble     makers who thought only of themselves and failed to see how their actions might adversely     affect others. Through their actions, such people were discarding the traditional     righteous heart of the Bujinkan. From this day forward, all such people shall be expelled.





> Muslims?  Fundamentalist Muslims?
> 
> Christians? Fundamentalist Christians?
> 
> Atheists?
> 
> Satanists? Scientologiests?


Hard to do this with religion. I don't know many people that will go in and annouce "Teach me how to kill *insert favored enemy*". People also don't tend to declare their religions, especially if there might be potential conflict.



> Communists? Fascists?
> 
> Hippies? Homosexuals?


again, hard to identify. Most don't wear name-tags "I'm Joe, a fascist"



> Tattoos? Piercings?  Well, piercing I can understand as a safety issue, take them out or don't train, if they don't come out and can't be secured, some systems are a safety risk, same for long nails.


agree with the piercings, assuming they could potentially cause a problem.


----------



## Bigshadow

The Bujinkan has guidelines set forth by the Soke.  We follow those as guidelines.  I am good with that.

  My instructor has a sleeve (I think that is what it is called) or it could be just a huge tattoo on his arm and got a few odd looks from what he told me when he showed up at the hombu wearing a T-Shirt (until he was properly introduced).

What follows is my opinion based on personal opinions of some who are in Japan and others who have been, so it can all be taken with a grain of salt.

As for the Tattoos & Japanese Koryu (sp?), keep in mind that it is the Japanese culture they were talking about...  I don't know how long that rule (if one would call it that) has been around or even if it is in effect.  However, I think there is a perceived connection between tattoos and Yakuza.  Yakuza from the documentary media I have seen do get tattoos and pretty much cover their bodies up to the point of not showing them in normal street clothes.  It may be that tattoos in Japan have been long since attached to the criminal element.  

Not that it is a credible source of information, but even on the old version of Zatoichi, the crime boss lady has a very large tattoo of a dragon on her back.  So maybe there is something to be said of that with regards to the Japanese culture which is what the other thread was about.

Additionally, I understand that that mindset is fading as tattoos are becoming more popular with the younger generations.


----------



## Blindside

I do think there is something to be said for your students reflecting back upon the school.  As an example, I don't like racism and wouldn't accept a white supremacist (or black, or blue) as a student, no matter how good a student he was.  His actions and beliefs will reflect back upon me, and I don't want to be associated with that.  

Lamont


----------



## Ninjamom

Carol Kaur said:


> IMO - it's not description of the person that would be an issue, it's whether they can get along without creating an unnecessary distraction.


Bingo!

...and just for the record, I want to make it clear that I have nothing personal against Communist Gay Hippie Athiests for Buddha.


----------



## Andrew Green

mrhnau said:


> Hard to do this with religion.



I imagine in places that it was a issue they might ask.  Even some political offices have laws that prevent an atheist from holding the office.  Whether those laws would hold up in court is another matter.



> again, hard to identify. Most don't wear name-tags "I'm Joe, a fascist"



Let's say they are pretty outward about it.  They come in wearing clothes that have Che on them, lots of socialist buttons and things.

Or lets say you have a student in class who's same sex partner drops them off and gives them a little kiss on the cheek.  If they where opposite sex no one would care.

Or just ignore the how it was found out, just assume it is.  Is turning students away based on there political / religious / lifestyle beliefs valid?


----------



## Bigshadow

mrhnau said:


> Hard to do this with religion. I don't know many people that will go in and annouce "Teach me how to kill *insert favored enemy*". People also don't tend to declare their religions, especially if there might be potential conflict.



I think alot of it will come out in the wash.  I can only speak based on my experience, but the training methodologies of the Bujinkan is such that it takes too long to learn.  Those who are not sincere eventually just fade away or wander off to never be heard from again.    It is strange how that works.


----------



## CoryKS

Andrew Green said:


> Or just ignore the how it was found out, just assume it is. Is turning students away based on there political / religious / lifestyle beliefs valid?


 
I believe it is valid.  People don't simply disapprove of something for the sake of disapproving of it.  They usually believe, correctly or not, that someone else's political/religious/lifestyle beliefs carry with them consequences toward that person and _his_ beliefs.  They disapprove of the cause for fear of the effect, and to tell them they must set aside their beliefs because one doesn't agree with them is just as much an imposition as what they are doing.


----------



## Bigshadow

Andrew Green said:


> Is turning students away based on there political / religious / lifestyle beliefs valid?



If their lifestyle is crime, yes.  Political views and religious affiliation is not an issue, as long as it doesn't become a distraction.  I mean, would you let a nudist train in the buff?  :rofl:


----------



## Touch Of Death

Bigshadow said:


> If their lifestyle is crime, yes. Political views and religious affiliation is not an issue, as long as it doesn't become a distraction. I mean, would you let a nudist train in the buff? :rofl:


That would depend on the nudist. 
Sean


----------



## Bigshadow

Touch Of Death said:


> That would depend on the nudist.
> Sean



I intentionally left that opening BTW...


----------



## Andrew Green

Bigshadow said:


> If their lifestyle is crime, yes.



Let's suppose they have done there time and cleaned themselves up.  Is it still a issue?

Of course if you believe the RIAA / MPAA you just shut out 95% of the under 25 population


----------



## Bigshadow

Andrew Green said:


> Let's suppose they have done there time and cleaned themselves up.  Is it still a issue?




According to the Bujinkan guidelines, YES.  In general, depends.  Just my opinion.


----------



## shesulsa

We have a sign stating:

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

Personally, I don't like training with people who have active addiction problems and by that I mean people who are still using.  I don't trust them and most of the people I've been burned by have these issues in particular.

I don't like to work with people who have rage issues because of the liability factors.

I don't like to work with sex offenders or violent criminals and once I run my own school, yes I just might require a background check to verify that.

Other than that, I think I'd probably take everything else on a case-by-case basis.


----------



## Andrew Green

shesulsa said:


> yes I just might require a background check to verify that.



I think you'd loose a lot of possible students as soon as you told them they needed to bring you a criminal record and check to join.


----------



## jdinca

Other than safety, sanity, criminal issues, I think who a person trains with is their choice. This America, after all (yes, I know, we have international members too). A person has a right to believe, or look as they wish and I have the right to agree, disagree, associate, or not associate with them as I see fit. Personally, I take it on a case by case basis and am much more concerned about the character of the individual, as opposed to their beliefs, customs, or appearances. 

Case in point, since it's such a hot topic these days, I would have zero problem training with a muslim. On the flip side, if that muslim was aligned with the more radical elements of the religion, i.e. was a firm believer in Shia Law, I would probably choose not to train with them because I disagree with those beliefs.

I would have no problem with training someone who was gay. However, if that person chose to flaunt their orientation and make it a statement, I would probably choose not to associate with them, either. 

Both cases involve people being, believing and doing what they want, which is their right. Within the context of those examples are people I would train with, and people I wouldn't.


----------



## shesulsa

Andrew Green said:


> I think you'd loose a lot of possible students as soon as you told them they needed to bring you a criminal record and check to join.


Perhaps ... and ... maybe they'd be the right ones to lose.


----------



## Xue Sheng

NO Germans!!!!!

Oh wait... I'm mostly German... forget I said said that

You read nothing


----------



## Touch Of Death

Andrew Green said:


> I think you'd loose a lot of possible students as soon as you told them they needed to bring you a criminal record and check to join.


You can run a check without informing the student.
Sean


----------



## Andrew Green

Touch Of Death said:


> You can run a check without informing the student.
> Sean




That's kind of frightening.  Can't do that up here.


----------



## Carol

Andrew Green said:


> That's kind of frightening.  Can't do that up here.



In most cases, you can't do that down here either without violating federal law.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Carol Kaur said:


> In most cases, you can't do that down here either without violating federal law.


In Spokane you can check a website for the number of child molesters living near the given address. Google decided all my financial woes were public domain (the Bastards!). I don't see why you couldn't do a bit of checking on the sly.
Sean


----------



## Carol

mrhnau said:


> Hard to do this with religion. I don't know many people that will go in and annouce "Teach me how to kill *insert favored enemy*". People also don't tend to declare their religions, especially if there might be potential conflict.



In America its hard to do so because we don't classify people by religion, we classify people by race.  EEOC forms that employers ask for upon applying for a job, for example.  

In Asian nations, where there is much less racial diversity, people are classified by religion.  These classifications run as deep as language and culture, with many phrases and idioms geared towards what religion the speaker identifies themself with.  Many people that hail from such a culture bring such a practice to the US.  Even Asian-Americans that don't speak the indiginous language of their relatives know enough of the distinct greetings.  If I hear any of these phrases when a person is talking...even something as simple as answering a phone call...I can tell what religion the person is.

Same with the U.S.  Most people that mention "Lord" or "God" in conversation are from some sort of Christian background whether they actively practice their faith or not.  The Jewish faith forbids mentioning the name of the Almighty in reverence to His greatness.

This goes beyond the stereotyping of names, such as believing someone named Muhammad al-Barrak is from a Muslim background and someone named Seamus McConnell may be from a Catholic background.


----------



## Carol

Touch Of Death said:


> In Spokane you can check a website for the number of child molesters living near the given address. Google decided all my financial woes were public domain (the Bastards!). I don't see why you couldn't do a bit of checking on the sly.
> Sean



It's not against the law to check a website for the number of child molesters living in an area, nor is it against the law to google somebody's name, as neither constitutes a background check.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Carol Kaur said:


> In America its hard to do so because we don't classify people by religion, we classify people by race. EEOC forms that employers ask for upon applying for a job, for example.
> 
> In Asian nations, where there is much less racial diversity, people are classified by religion. These classifications run as deep as language and culture, with many phrases and idioms geared towards what religion the speaker identifies themself with. Many people that hail from such a culture bring such a practice to the US. Even Asian-Americans that don't speak the indiginous language of their relatives know enough of the distinct greetings. If I hear any of these phrases when a person is talking...even something as simple as answering a phone call...I can tell what religion the person is.
> 
> Same with the U.S. Most people that mention "Lord" or "God" in conversation are from some sort of Christian background whether they actively practice their faith or not. The Jewish faith forbids mentioning the name of the Almighty in reverence to His greatness.


Images of "Monty Python's life of Brian" come to mind.
Sean


----------



## Kacey

Carol Kaur said:


> In America its hard to do so because we don't classify people by religion, we classify people by race.  EEOC forms that employers ask for upon applying for a job, for example.
> 
> In Asian nations, where there is much less racial diversity, people are classified by religion.  These classifications run as deep as language and culture, with many phrases and idioms geared towards what religion the speaker identifies themself with.  Many people that hail from such a culture bring such a practice to the US.  Even Asian-Americans that don't speak the indiginous language of their relatives know enough of the distinct greetings.  If I hear any of these phrases when a person is talking...even something as simple as answering a phone call...I can tell what religion the person is.
> 
> Same with the U.S.  Most people that mention "Lord" or "God" in conversation are from some sort of Christian background whether they actively practice their faith or not.  The Jewish faith forbids mentioning the name of the Almighty in reverence to His greatness.
> 
> This goes beyond the stereotyping of names, such as believing someone named Muhammad al-Barrak is from a Muslim background and someone named Seamus McConnell may be from a Catholic background.



I agree with nearly all of what you say here... the only thing I'll dispute at all is why the Jewish faith forbids mentioning the name of the Almighty (at least, from what the rabbis taught me in religious school):  one commandment (the third, if I recall correctly) states "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" - well, if you don't know it (and the true pronunciation was lost with the Temple), you can't take it in vain - which is sort of what you said, but from a different direction.

The problem with stereotyping of any type is that mythical "average" and/or "representative" person does not exist... and therefore any decisions made about individuals, rather than groups, based on those stereotypes is bound to contain errors.  In addition, people are individuals, and should be treated as such - lest you _drive_ them into acting like the stereotype when they otherwise wouldn't.

As I said before, if the person is a danger to self or others (including potential dangers, in some instances), or a distraction to others in the class _because_ of their ideology, then I will consider excluding them - otherwise, I feel that I, as an instructor, am bound to accept all students who register.  Also, remember when I say this that I teach at a Y - and unlike private instructors, I have very little say over who they register new, as I don't meet them until they start the class - but I do have a say in who re-registers, and have barred one or two people (one involved a restraining order I had to file... but then, that gets back to danger to self or others - and _I_ was the other in danger at that point - not good).


----------



## Monadnock

Bigshadow said:


> As for the Tattoos & Japanese Koryu (sp?), keep in mind that it is the Japanese culture they were talking about... I don't know how long that rule (if one would call it that) has been around or even if it is in effect. However, I think there is a perceived connection between tattoos and Yakuza. Yakuza from the documentary media I have seen do get tattoos and pretty much cover their bodies up to the point of not showing them in normal street clothes. It may be that tattoos in Japan have been long since attached to the criminal element.
> 
> Not that it is a credible source of information, but even on the old version of Zatoichi, the crime boss lady has a very large tattoo of a dragon on her back. So maybe there is something to be said of that with regards to the Japanese culture which is what the other thread was about.
> 
> Additionally, I understand that that mindset is fading as tattoos are becoming more popular with the younger generations.


 
I think at some point in Japan's history tattoos were a way of marking criminals. I think once something is associated as "dirty" it is generally frowned upon after that. This may also be why some koryu do not want them.


----------



## Last Fearner

Andrew Green said:


> at what point should martial arts instructors be able to pick and choose who they train?
> 
> Is there an acceptable point where it is ok to turn someone away for there personal political, religious, or lifestyle choices?


 

As a school owner (for nearly 30 years), I have the power, and final decision to refuse to train anyone that I choose for whatever reason I choose (with the exception that I do not discriminate based solely on their race, or sex). Sexual orientation, however, is another issue. I do not advocate, nor condone homosexual behavior, therefore this behavior may not be practiced, or promoted at my dojang. What someone does in private is their own business, but I can, and will refuse to tolerate such displays in my presence, in front of my children, and around my students.

Religion is up to the individual, but if those beliefs are openly discussed, and deemed by me to be negative, destructive, or associated with satanic practices, then the student can be dismissed. Furthermore, I will take issue with the actions of students who join street gangs, commit acts of violence or vandalism, engage in drug or alcohol abuse, break laws, or otherwise dishonoring themselves as Martial Artists.

Now, with all of that in mind, I will state that there is seldom (if ever) an instance that I find it necessary to refuse to train anyone. There is a big difference between accepting a person as a student, and promoting them in rank. Nothing says I have to teach them how to fight, nor to allow them to advance in rank. If I find a student has character flaws, or problem behavior, I have no problem with keeping them at white belt indefinitely, and working solely on their behavior and character. If they don't like the training I provide, they can quit, but I would not refuse to train them.

My school - - My rules! :mst: 

I teach students what I feel they need to develop themselves as a whole person. If they are a good student, they will learn effective self defense in time, and promote accordingly. If need be, I will put a student in a private class of discipline, and spiritual philosophy education so as to not distract or endanger other students. I typically do not turn away students because they are a problem, or because of their past (regardless of their crimes). I am there to help change people, and change the world for the better - - not turn these people back out into society to continue being a problem. If I were not up to the challenge, I would not consider myself a Master Instructor.

This is my own personal philosophy for the way I teach, based on decades of experience. I understand it would not be the appropriate choice for all instructors.

CM D.J. Eisenhart


----------



## qi-tah

Last Fearner said:


> As a school owner (for nearly 30 years), I have the power, and final decision to refuse to train anyone that I choose for whatever reason I choose (with the exception that I do not discriminate based solely on their race, or sex). Sexual orientation, however, is another issue. I do not advocate, nor condone homosexual behavior, therefore this behavior may not be practiced, or promoted at my dojang. What someone does in private is their own business, but I can, and will refuse to tolerate such displays in my presence, in front of my children, and around my students.


 
Geez... what would you consider "homosexual behaviour?" (Assuming ppl arn't having sex or foreplay right in front of you!) A hug between 2 ppl of the same sex? (Can straights get away with that at yr dojo?) What about partner's dropping off or picking up students - t-shirts, bumper stickers etc? What about tattoos of stuff like rainbow flags? A female with a shaved head? etc etc. 

Just wondering.


----------



## Thesemindz

Andrew Green said:


> Is there an acceptable point where it is ok to turn someone away for there personal political, religious, or lifestyle choices?


 
Well, let me start by saying that I believe in unrestricted free market capitalism, including the right of a business owner to refuse to serve anyone for any reason at all. Even reasons which many would find offensive, such as race, religion, or sexual orientation. Not because I'm a bigot, but because I feel people have a right to be bigots, and then the rest of us should judge them for being bigots. If someone says, "I don't want purple people shopping at my store," he should have that right, and then the rest of us should go to his competitor and refuse to support his business because he's a bigot. The government shouldn't force him to be nice, public censure and market pressures can do that. I think when the government punishes people for being bigotted scumbags we force people to hide their true feelings. I'd rather know who the jerks and idiots are up front, and then we can all judge them and avoid them.

That being said, I don't have a specific list of dos and don'ts. I trained with people who had a good attitude. I trained with ex cons, drug users, christians, buddhists, atheists, homosexuals, the physically and mentally handicapped, government employees, men, women, and children. If someone is there to improve themself and interested in learning, I'm interested in training with them. If someone is interested in hurting people or starting trouble, I'm interested in their departure.


-Rob


----------



## Last Fearner

qi-tah said:


> Geez... what would you consider "homosexual behaviour?" (Assuming ppl arn't having sex or foreplay right in front of you!) A hug between 2 ppl of the same sex? (Can straights get away with that at yr dojo?) What about partner's dropping off or picking up students - t-shirts, bumper stickers etc? What about tattoos of stuff like rainbow flags? A female with a shaved head? etc etc.
> 
> Just wondering.


 
These are very good questions. Since the original question was about if and when it is ok to refuse training, my answer is not so much about exactly what criteria I use, but simply the fact that I have the option at my discretion. Personally, I don't believe in discriminating against physical traits that a person can not change.  If every business owner did that, these people would not be able to enjoy a free and happy existence in this country (USA).  Such things as a persons race, skin color, height, birth defects, etc. are things they can not change and should not be refused equal opportunities because of them.

I believe in freedom of religion, but this is a choice, and needs no outward expression to be free to believe what you want.  Places for openly practicing different religions are made available in society, but need not be exercised in the Dojang.  I don't usually take issue with some expression of religion in my Dojang, but the fact that I am a Christian, and I do incorporate compatible lessons in the teaching of my Martial Art classes, I might restrict conflicting expressions by people of other faiths. I absolutely will not allow any expressions, symbols, or conversations in support of satanic worship. If I choose to accept a student who has such beliefs, my focus would be on convincing them that this is wrong (in my opinion), but I would not permit open expression of devil worship in or around my Dojang (this includes jewelry, tatoos, t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc.).

Homo-sexuality is addressed in a similar fashion. What someone does on their own is their own business, but once they reach the Dojang property, I will require adjustments in topics of discussion, open displays of affection between same sex partners, or any clothing, jewelry, signs, etc., which promote such behavior. Shaved heads, or generic symbols which could be interpreted to represent homo-sexuality are not a problem.

While I'm not going to debate the legitimacy of homo-sexuality or people's rights to be homosexual, I do personally disagree with it, and will choose if and when such discussions, symbols, and displays are inappropriate at my Dojang. "Straight" couples are a natural union for the purposes of reproduction, and whose purpose and affection is understood and accepted by other heterosexual people (again, not here to debate it, just stating my personal viewpoints).

Shaking hands, and hugging are acceptable forms of greeting and friendship by anyone. Holding hands, caressing, and kissing are more intimate. I allow a respectful amount of such display between heterosexual couples at the Dojang, but excessive displays are not permitted. Such intimate displays between same sex partners are not permitted at all. Each issue and action is decided by me, at my sole discretion. 



Thesemindz said:


> If someone is there to improve themself and interested in learning, I'm interested in training with them. If someone is interested in hurting people or starting trouble, I'm interested in their departure.
> 
> -Rob


 
This is well said, Rob, and I agree with you (for the most part). I have additional rules of behavior which address things that I feel are disruptive to the learning environment, but mostly, I am concerned with the attitude of the individual. I will not refuse a trouble maker from the start, as I look for the opportunity to change them into a better person. They might spend many years doing discipline training and not learning much in the way of fighting skills, or they might quit, but as long as they are there, I will work on them.

CM D.J. Eisenhart


----------



## Carol

LF, you have me curious as you've voiced some of the strongest beliefs out of everyone here.

Do you let potential students/parents know of your views before signing them to your school?  If you do...given that they touch on some awkward subjects, how do you bring up the subject in conversation?

Or if you don't let folks folks know beforehand, why not, since they seem like a strong passion?  

I'm just curious.  Keep in mind this is curiosity from someone that has never run a school


----------



## Xue Sheng

Andrew Green said:


> There is a thread in the Japanese arts section regarding the supposed practice of a Koryo instructor not to train people with Tatoo's.
> 
> Whether or not this is true aside, at what point should martial arts instructors be able to pick and choose who they train? Obviously being a private club they could basically do whatever they like, but putting that aside. I don't have a tatoo, but at the same time I wouldn't train under someone with a rule like that on principle.
> 
> But what, if anything, would you consider acceptable exclusion based on personal beliefs?
> 
> ex-cons?
> 
> Muslims? Fundamentalist Muslims?
> 
> Christians? Fundamentalist Christians?
> 
> Atheists?
> 
> Satanists? Scientologiests?
> 
> Communists? Fascists?
> 
> Hippies? Homosexuals?
> 
> Tattoos? Piercings? Well, piercing I can understand as a safety issue, take them out or don't train, if they don't come out and can't be secured, some systems are a safety risk, same for long nails.
> 
> Is there an acceptable point where it is ok to turn someone away for there personal political, religious, or lifestyle choices?



Martial arts instructors have been picking and choosing who they train for a very very long time, at least in China. They could decide not to teach you bases on their belief your body type did not fit the style if they wanted and you either tried your best to prove him wrong (Which may or may not work) or you moved on to another sifu. Chances are in old China if I wanted to train Wing Chun I would be told no but if I wanted to train Xingyi I would have a better chance. Of course this is assuming I was Chinese. If I were American, no one would have trained me. In my opinion it is the sifu's prerogative to teach whomever he wants to teach. I don't necessarily agree with the practice, but it is his style, his class and his decision. To be honest I have trained with a few people over the years that if it were up to me I would have kicked them out of class. But this was based on either complete lack of seriousness (and not training) or over aggressiveness (which continued after multiple warnings) on the part of the students in question. Is it ok to not teach someone because they are;

Overly violent? Not serious? 

Refuse to actually train? 

Have been convicted of a violent crime? 

Convicted sex offenders?

My Sanda sifu is incredibly picky as to whom he will teach and as far as I am concerned that is his prerogative. He will teach no one sanda if he feels they will use it for negative things and if at any point during training with him if you do say go out and start getting in fights to beat people up or test your skill, he WILL stop training you. However I do not think he cares about tattoos. 

Also I have not read the post which spawned this one about the Koryo instructors not teaching the tattooed. Could this have anything to do with not wanting to teach members of the Japanese Mafia? They are heavily tattooed and could this not teaching the tattooed come from this?


----------



## qi-tah

Last Fearner said:


> These are very good questions.


 
Why thank you kindly 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







Last Fearner said:


> Shaved heads, or generic symbols which could be interpreted to represent homo-sexuality are not a problem.


 
So it's kind of like a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, hey? So what about issues regarding bullying or name calling based on sexual orientation? As a frequent user of public transport, i often hear teenage boys (sometimes up to age of 40! :shrug indescriminantly using words like "******" etc as perjorative terms. If you are gay and in the closet, it's a horrible thing to hear and know that such language refers to you, but not feel able to stand up and defend yourself. Is such language permissable in your dojo?



Last Fearner said:


> "Straight" couples are a natural union for the purposes of reproduction, and whose purpose and affection is understood and accepted by other heterosexual people (again, not here to debate it, just stating my personal viewpoints).


 
If you are just stating yr personal point of view, then it is usually customary to preface your statement with something along the lines of "I believe that...", otherwise you do run the risk of offending others. 

We all bleed the same colour LF, regardless of our differences, and i believe that we are all deserving of respect, whether in the dojo or not.


----------



## qi-tah

Oops, i didn't realise that word wouldn't come out the other side of the language censor thingie! Still, i'm sure you get the gist... just think of any unkind thing to call a gay person.


----------



## Carol

qi-tah said:


> Oops, i didn't realise that word wouldn't come out the other side of the language censor thingie! Still, i'm sure you get the gist... just think of any unkind thing to call a gay person.



qi-tah, you did exactly what we (as MT moderators) want you to do.  Just type the word out that you think fits.  If its not an acceptable word, the filter will kick in and no harm done.


----------



## qi-tah

Carol Kaur said:


> qi-tah, you did exactly what we (as MT moderators) want you to do. Just type the word out that you think fits. If its not an acceptable word, the filter will kick in and no harm done.


 

Thanks Carol.


----------



## Bill Bednarick

Personally I don't feel any displays of affection are appropriate in a training hall. Hetro, Homo, try-curious, or whatever has no place in training.

Not out of some sense of PC fairness but out of a sense of focus on the task at hand.

This is martial arts training not speed dating, keep your hormones in check.

As far as training "bad people"?

Most criminals will probably get a weapon before they waste their time with training. 

Done the crime, and the time? Well maybe, if I trust you. There are alot of people that are crooks, some never get convicted of anything yet they steal and cheat everyone they meet. Sorry no trust, no training.

Rage freaks and angry people? Maybe, depends on the person. Again it's a trust issue. No trust no training.

Sex offenders? Hmmm... well they will probably need to learn to fight if they end up doing time but I'm not training them. I don't trust them so... no training.

Religious Fundamentalists of various kinds? Again, no trust, no training. 

Tattoo'd and pierced? Don't care, take out the metal before it gets ripped out in class. No rings either, they get caught on stuff.

I guess with me it's all about trust.  

It's easy enough to ask someone if they would agree to a background check if you get a bad feeling about them. Doesn't mean you have to check, but the answer they give could be all you need to decide from.


----------



## Laurentkd

Last Fearner said:


> This is well said, Rob, and I agree with you (for the most part). I have additional rules of behavior which address things that I feel are disruptive to the learning environment, but mostly, I am concerned with the attitude of the individual. I will not refuse a trouble maker from the start, as I look for the opportunity to change them into a better person. *They might spend many years doing discipline training and not learning much in the way of fighting skills, or* they might quit, but as long as they are there, I will work on them.
> 
> CM D.J. Eisenhart


 
I don't want to pull the thread off track, but what do you mean by discipline training?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

I remember in the last year or so I had a prospective student come and check out the Training Hall.  As we were talking I started to get some bad vibes from him and I quickly directed the conversation to talking about the law enforcement officers that train with us.  Next thing you know he was gone in a flash.

I like to train with good people who are genuinely interested in what I am teaching.  If someone meets those requirements then they can train.  If not then they can train somewhere else.


----------



## Bill Bednarick

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I remember in the last year or so I had a prospective student come and check out the Training Hall.  As we were talking I started to get some bad vibes from him and I quickly directed the conversation to talking about the law enforcement officers that train with us.  Next thing you know he was gone in a flash.



LOL!

He should have thought cool I will be on good terms with some of the local 
officers.

No trust, no training.


----------



## DavidCC

Andrew Green said:


> at what point should martial arts instructors be able to pick and choose who they train?
> ...
> But what, if anything, would you consider acceptable exclusion based on personal beliefs?


 
Ask the question in reverse and the absurdity of it beceoms clear:

should MA instructors be prevented from choosing who they train?
should there be any acceptable exclusions?

Under no circumstances should any teacher be forced to teach someone that they don't want to teach, for whatever reason the teacher has.  Like every other choice, it will have consequences, good and bad.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I remember in the last year or so I had a prospective student come and check out the Training Hall. As we were talking I started to get some bad vibes from him and I quickly directed the conversation to talking about the law enforcement officers that train with us. Next thing you know he was gone in a flash.
> 
> I like to train with good people who are genuinely interested in what I am teaching. If someone meets those requirements then they can train. If not then they can train somewhere else.


 

My first sifu got bad vibes from someone who wanted to train with him and let the guy train anyway. This guy later (about a month) broke in and stole all of his weapons. Good call brian


----------



## Last Fearner

Carol Kaur said:


> LF, you have me curious as you've voiced some of the strongest beliefs out of everyone here.
> 
> Do you let potential students/parents know of your views before signing them to your school? If you do...given that they touch on some awkward subjects, how do you bring up the subject in conversation?


 
Hi Carol!  Admittedly, my beliefs are strong and passionate.  I figure that if it is important to me and my personal faith, I need to stand up for what I believe while trying not be cruel to others.  Obviously, two people's freedoms and rights can conflict with each other, and sometimes not co-exist (we can not stand in the same spot, or walk the same path in opposite directions without someone, or both, giving up some freedom).

I do let potential students know the rules before joining, and I have a full page, line by line, description of rules, regulations, and legal requirements that new students (or parents) read and initial each line.  There are too many variables to cover everything, but it is made clear that the instructor's rules, written or verbal, are to be followed, and no conflict of religion, or personal beliefs, etc., shall supersede the rules of the Dojang.

If an awkward subject needs to be addressed, the way I handle it is in private conversation in my office.  I politely explain that personal beliefs, or lifestyles might conflict between other students or with my staff of instructors.  I let the student know what my viewpoint is, and why I want the particular subject or activity to remain outside of the training environment.  I always encourage them to privately voice any concerns they have by speaking with me in my office so as to avoid complaints and negative talk floating around the Dojang (which is also against the rules).

I do my best to show respect to the individual, and express that different lifestyles are not always acceptable by everyone.  Therefore, within my place of business, the behavior that I am comfortable with is what is allowed, and everything else should be kept out of the Dojang.


CM D.J. Eisenhart


----------



## Last Fearner

qi-tah said:


> So it's kind of like a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, hey?


Pretty much.  Although, I am not opposed to the student telling me the truth.  In fact, I would rather hear about it from them (if they are comfortable being out - either way, I keep all conferences confidential).  Knowing about it might help me to identify problems if other students become aware or are being cruel or insensitive.  If a gay student is showing signs of stress, I might have a better insight as to why if I already know what they could be experiencing in the way of harassment.



qi-tah said:


> So what about issues regarding bullying or name calling based on sexual orientation?


Not permitted in my Dojang, or in my presence wherever I am.  I will voice my objection to anyone who is cruel, abusive, or bullies anyone for whatever reason.



qi-tah said:


> If you are gay and in the closet, it's a horrible thing to hear and know that such language refers to you, but not feel able to stand up and defend yourself. Is such language permissable in your dojo?


Absolutely not!



qi-tah said:


> If you are just stating yr personal point of view, then it is usually customary to preface your statement with something along the lines of "I believe that...", otherwise you do run the risk of offending others.


You are correct.  I should state that these are my personal points of view, however sometimes I feel it is redundant if I believe it is clear, rather than having to repeat that in each sentence.  However, this particular statement was to something that I believe goes beyond opinion, and personal choice or lifestyle.

Nature dictates (thus far) that reproduction is accomplished through interaction of a male and a female.  Thus, the marriage, or union for that purpose is a natural one, and (as I stated) Heterosexual people tend to openly accept these relationships because of their necessary existence for survival of the species in nature.  Other reasons for unions between male to female exist, as well as for same-sex, but I was only noting the acceptance of heterosexual because of nature's laws which is outside of any personal opinion as far as I can determine.



qi-tah said:


> We all bleed the same colour LF, regardless of our differences, and i believe that we are all deserving of respect, whether in the dojo or not.


 
Yes we all do bleed the same color, and so long as no one is bleeding in the Dojang, I have no problem with what color their blood is.  I do agree with you that all are deserving of respect, and I try to enforce my rules, based on by personal beliefs, without disrespecting anyone.  However, some my become offended anyhow.

There is an issue that has not been addressed.  Speaking of bleeding, there are always concerns of close contact in the Martial Art with blood issues, infections and diseases.  Now, it is not that I would imply a direct connection between anyone who is homosexual and a virus such as AIDS, but the concern is there.  Ignorant as it may be, many clients are hesitant to join an activity simply because of possible contamination, regardless of sexual orientation.  Open displays of Homosexual lifestyle will undoubtedly raise concerns that I can not prevent, and students might quit, or not join.  It is easy for some to dismiss this as "their loss," and let them go, but businesses do not survive without customers.

I would say the same goes for a straight person who leads a promiscuous lifestyle or a known drug user.  If they have such a reputation among the community, students and parents might not want to train with them, or have their children exposed to the risks.  I would hold conferences with any student whose lifestyle might raise concerns or objections within a close, physical contact environment.  The obvious difference is that homosexual partners can be as monogamous, and healthy as straight people (sometimes more-so), but it does not remove the concern, and objections based on personal differences over physical contact with a person who is gay.

I can see where this could get into a very heated discussion, and perhaps a bit too much off topic here, but there are strong beliefs on both sides.


CM D.J. Eisenhart


----------



## Last Fearner

Laurentkd said:


> I don't want to pull the thread off track, but what do you mean by discipline training?


Hi Lauren.  I don't believe it is off track as this is one option to simply refusing to train someone who has an attitude problem, is not motivated, or misuses their fighting skills.  By "discipline training," I mean that I would have the student remain a low rank (even suspending or reducing rank), and only participate in arduous exercises instead of learning more skills.

I would spend more time with drill sergeant like tactics to test their resolve, their respect under pressure, and to build their self-discipline.  As they show signs of improvement, I reward with more personal attention, and learning new techniques.  I also use regular conferences to discuss their behavior and progress.  They might be required to vacuum the dojang, clean the bathrooms, help other students with various tasks, but will remain on probation until they change their attitude.



DavidCC said:


> Ask the question in reverse and the absurdity of it beceoms clear:
> 
> should MA instructors be prevented from choosing who they train?
> should there be any acceptable exclusions?


I like your reverse logic here, David! Very insightful, and quite revealing.  It is difficult to imagine forcing someone to teach a student they did not want to teach (you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink).  You can't force a person to learn, or do well in their studies, and you can't force a teacher to teach, or do it well if they don't want to.

CM D.J. Eisenhart


----------



## jks9199

Last Fearner said:


> There is an issue that has not been addressed. Speaking of bleeding, there are always concerns of close contact in the Martial Art with blood issues, infections and diseases. Now, it is not that I would imply a direct connection between anyone who is homosexual and a virus such as AIDS, but the concern is there. Ignorant as it may be, many clients are hesitant to join an activity simply because of possible contamination, regardless of sexual orientation. Open displays of Homosexual lifestyle will undoubtedly raise concerns that I can not prevent, and students might quit, or not join. It is easy for some to dismiss this as "their loss," and let them go, but businesses do not survive without customers.


 
Blood-borne pathogens is worthy of a thread all by itself, but it's important to realize that there are dangers in ANY body's blood.  There's AIDS/HIV, hepatitis (in all it's forms), and lots more -- and exposure is only partly a factor of "lifestyle choices."  I think it's a reasonable bet that most martial arts students won't be IV drug users, etc. -- but there are plenty of other ways to get exposed to many of these diseases.


----------



## qi-tah

Last Fearner;

Thank-you, I appreciate the time you have taken to answer my last post and am glad to hear that you do not tolerate name-calling or harassment in any of its many, ugly forms. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






Last Fearner said:


> You are correct. I should state that these are my personal points of view, however sometimes I feel it is redundant if I believe it is clear, rather than having to repeat that in each sentence. However, this particular statement was to something that I believe goes beyond opinion, and personal choice or lifestyle.
> 
> Nature dictates (thus far) that reproduction is accomplished through interaction of a male and a female. Thus, the marriage, or union for that purpose is a natural one, and (as I stated) Heterosexual people tend to openly accept these relationships because of their necessary existence for survival of the species in nature. Other reasons for unions between male to female exist, as well as for same-sex, but I was only noting the acceptance of heterosexual because of nature's laws which is outside of any personal opinion as far as I can determine.


 
Sure (with qualifications to take in IVF etc), but reproduction as the natural order of things (ie. survival of the species) is a big numbers game, not something that i believe can be assigned "natural" or unnatural" on a personal basis. We had an interesting example recently in Australia where this old duffer Senetor Bill Heffernan got up and described the Labor IR spokeswoman Julia Gillard as "deliberately barren" (she chose not to have children). He was technically right, but was also terribly crude and offensive to Ms. Gillard. And when he went on to say that for this reason she was unfit to represent her constituency, his comments became indefensible on any level! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



The other interesting thing about the whole nature thing is that homosexual behaviour is not confined to _Homo sapiens_, it occurs across many species. So in a way, it's just as natural as heterosexual behaviour.



Last Fearner said:


> There is an issue that has not been addressed. Speaking of bleeding, there are always concerns of close contact in the Martial Art with blood issues, infections and diseases. Now, it is not that I would imply a direct connection between anyone who is homosexual and a virus such as AIDS, but the concern is there. Ignorant as it may be, many clients are hesitant to join an activity simply because of possible contamination, regardless of sexual orientation. Open displays of Homosexual lifestyle will undoubtedly raise concerns that I can not prevent, and students might quit, or not join. It is easy for some to dismiss this as "their loss," and let them go, but businesses do not survive without customers.
> 
> I would say the same goes for a straight person who leads a promiscuous lifestyle or a known drug user. If they have such a reputation among the community, students and parents might not want to train with them, or have their children exposed to the risks. I would hold conferences with any student whose lifestyle might raise concerns or objections within a close, physical contact environment. The obvious difference is that homosexual partners can be as monogamous, and healthy as straight people (sometimes more-so), but it does not remove the concern, and objections based on personal differences over physical contact with a person who is gay.


 
Ah yes, the HIV thing. Actually, as far as HIV is concerned, it's incredibly hard to pass on the virus outside of intimate contact. There have been some cases of people who have contracted HIV through gay-bashing, but these cases generally involve large amounts of blood and damage, not yr average bloody nose at the dojo. In fact, i seem to recall a case several years ago in Australia where a gay, HIV positive man was barred from playing in his local Aussie rules football league for OHS reasons; he took them to court and successfully had the ban recinded. The court heard expert testimony to the effect that the chance of infection occuring as part of play was less than 1 in a million. I remember being quite interested as i was involved in HIV research myself at the time.

On to Hepititis - Hep C, although it is far more common than HIV in IV using populations (think bodybuilders - steroids, anyone?), is also very hard to contract outside of intimate contact.To be honest, it's Hep B that you really need to watch out for as it is so easily transmissible (faecal -oral route) and there is no cure for it. And i seem to recall reading that Hep B is on the rise worldwide these days. Really, anyone taking part in contact sport ought to be vaccinated against the virus. 

I really do think that it is important to get this information to as wide an audience as possible - there is so much mis-information regarding how HIV and Hepititis can be transmitted and what the risk factors are. It's all just part of basic first-aid info.



Last Fearner said:


> I can see where this could get into a very heated discussion, and perhaps a bit too much off topic here, but there are strong beliefs on both sides.


 
Can i say amen to that? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Thank-you again Last Fearner. I have enjoyed this discussion very much.


----------

