Personal beliefs and who you train / train with?
- Thread starter Andrew Green
- Start date
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
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.
"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.
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
Master Black Belt
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.
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.
Perhaps ... and ... maybe they'd be the right ones to lose.
You can run a check without informing the student.
Sean
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
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.
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.
Images of "Monty Python's life of Brian" come to mind.
Sean
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
2nd Black Belt
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
2nd Black Belt
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
Brown Belt
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.
