Regulating Martial Arts Instruction

[shaolin ninja 4]

This debate comes up from time to time...and recently, I was asked to bring it up again...so here it is.


Korea has government regulation of martial arts instruction. You can't just go to Korea and hang a shingle. You must be licensed. Today, you even need to have earned a degree in Martial Arts Education to even get a job.

Great Britian requires those who would teach martial arts to meet certain criteria to open and run a program.

We in the U.S. have long fought the intrusion of government regulation into the martial arts industry. But why? Who will it harm? Who will it benefit?

It seems to me, the only way many of the problems we all complain about within the Martial Arts community can only be resolved by outside intervention. After some 60 years, it seems obvious we, the grand community of various schools, organizations, arts, etcetera ad infinitum, have proven ourselves completely incapable of policing ourselves. Thus, it will have to come via some regulatory body. Every other commerical and professional industry has already submitted to such regulation. This one seems to have had a rather long run...perhaps...overdue....for regulation. Already we have seen regulation enforced in certain communities, and some states have take up the gauntlet with mixed results.

Nonetheless....it will probably happen sooner or later. Thus, it is incumbent upon us to think now about what criteria should be applied, how it should be applied, and who should apply it. I would like posters in this thread to take up this discussion and list specifics they believe should be addressed. Rather than just post the usual rhetoric railing against regulation....please accept the challenge of trying to come up with an actual solution instead of just complaining about it. It is easy to sit back an criticize. It takes greater application of cognitive skill and character to offer a viable plan. Debating the pros and cons is quite acceptable, but please don't let it degridate into a pitched battle of words about how something won't work. At least explain in detail why.

JH

Back ground check on instructors would be a great idea.
I dont want some criminal teaching my kid.

 

[exile]

I dont want some criminal teaching my kid.

Me neither. And if I have the slightest suspicions about someone who's teaching my kid anything, I'm going to check it out till I know whether or not that person checks out OK. But look at it from a law enforcement point of view: people take classes in everything from calligraphy and pottery to violin and piano to line dancing and gymnastics. And every parent of every kid in every one of those classes feels the same way. How are you going to mandate a thorough enough background check on every one of the instructors in every one of the classes someone's child is taking? What law enforcement agency has the resources to do this? Most people do not have criminal backgrounds---how open to scrutiny should their civil records be? These aren't trivial questions; there have to be convincing answers before you can make the case that everyone who teaches children must have a full criminal-record background search on them. To me, even leaving the privacy vs. security issues out of it, it just looks undoable.

 

[EmperorOfKentukki]

To the poster that mentioned being a cop and knowing background checks won't work. Well...you aren't the only one in the law enforcement profession posting on this board....and whether they work or not is not as black and white as we'd like...but it would be a deterrent. Knowing it is there would keep most known felons from drawing attention to themselves by applying. And it isn't that difficult to do a background check for criminal history...and your local sheriff's office can do it. Being able to do it and dispensing the information are two different things. The Sheriff's office doesn't have to fork over a copy of the criminal history, they can simply note felony records exist and where they can be found. If someone want to take the time to go dig them up...they are public record...and that would be up to them. Nonetheless, the Sheriff Office would be reporting the criminal history check to the governmental licensing agency...thus avoiding your problems with dissemination of someone's history to the public at large indiscriminantly.

OK....let's recap. First....I'm just bringing this topic up...and I took the pro side of the base issue of regulating MA's so we'd have a starting point for discussion. I'm not all out advocating such a thing....I'm simply stating we should talk about it in detail. That can't hurt anyone. And it will give us a chance to look at it from all angles. Several of you have brought of great points of contention that would need to be address. But that is provided legislation is moved forward...and we seem to have a majority at this time saying they are not in favor of regulation. HOwever, a great number of posters have expressed they do favor background checks and licensing for schools that run day care/after school/ or heavily catered to children programs. That might be a gauge of jurisdiction of any law...meaning it would apply to only those schools engaging in certain types of practices and programs if they want to run said programs. I hope you will all to continue to debate that idea further and refine it.

As some have mentioned, we could end up with some politician who has no basis of expertise in MA drafting law that could affect us all. That simply supports my argument we should be discussing things like this now...before something like that happens.

I'm not very concerned about a 'Count Dante' or 'Ashida Kim' (btw..these are both alias and not their real names) obtaining a position as a MA Omnibudsman. You all know and keep up iwith everyone in your own communities...and I'm sure you'll all beat feet to the media and your local law makers if there ever were such a person attempting to gain the position. So I think that fear is unfounded. Also, if such a position were kept at the local level as I suggested (by Circuit Court District)....it would stay local enough that you would definitely be able to keep up with who is seeking the position.

WHich brings me again back to the fear of one style having influence over all the others. FOlks, I initially detailed that any such regulation would NOT be specific to any style. It isn't a factor in the law and wouldn't come into play. Too many of you are still thinking along the lines of 'regulating styles'. You are trapped in your own style box. Change your paradigm and look at a bigger picture. Such a law would include all pugilistic schools, ie. boxing, wrestling, fencing and martial arts in all it variety. So the law could never be style specific. We aren't interested in if your school thinks you need three tournaments and two seminars with two years of teaching in house and a letter from your grandmaster. Nobody would care. The idea is....basic experience. WHich is why I thought of something based upon a number of hours committed to the 'activity' prior to being allowed to just go out and claim to be Joe Master Kung Fu to the masses. It was a rough idea. I was hoping someone would pick it up and tweek it, roll it around, come up with something workable even it if was different and spit it back out at us. It is easy to say, 'It won't work' and how do we know this one is doing what that one is doing. Look...that is more along the lines of dictating curriculum...and I already state any law would have to be NON-style specific; ergo....unrelated to curriculum of any type. Again....change your paradigm and stop thinking about this from your own particular style.

Obviously this is a good issue to debate because we do see some folks saying they have concerns...whether they be about McDojo's, flakes, or safety and welfare of kids.

So don't worry about this poster's 'intentions' or whether they pave the way to hell or not. Just as you have to stop thing style specific about this topic....you have to stop making it personal (and that mean attributing your subjective evaluations to the person who brings the idea up. Attack the idea...leave the person alone....'cause you may be wrong about the person...which means you could be wrong about the idea too). I know its hard to seperate them sometimes...but please try.

The Emperor

 

[SFC JeffJ]

I find it ironic that the person who is now saying don't make it personal is the same one who told some of the first posters on this thread that their concers where "whining".

Jeff

 

[EmperorOfKentukki]

Perhaps....but I didn't single anyone out.


And to complain without contribution is whinning....which is why the whinning comment was made.


So.....anyone got something to contribute?


JH

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Perhaps....but I didn't single anyone out.


And to complain without contribution is whinning....which is why the whinning comment was made.


So.....anyone got something to contribute?


JH

So, if we don't play along with your premise that it is going to happen, we aren't contributing?

I think it's a bad idea. I also don't see it happening anytime in the near future. And many people have contributed to this discussion.

Jeff

 

[EmperorOfKentukki]

No. I'm just saying if you simply want to state you don't like and don't think it will ever happen.....post that. But don't hijack the thread with complaints which are subjective evaluations. It distracts time and energy away from those trying to tackle the issues to see if it even workable in any form. Of course that doesn't mean it will ever happen. But if the subject doesn't interest you....go to a thread that does interest you.

I've already seen threads on this site get hijacked several times. Sometimes by accident (serendipity effects)....sometimes on purpose because someone didn't like the subject matter or was simply bored with it.

JH

 

[Kacey]

Perhaps....but I didn't single anyone out.


And to complain without contribution is whinning....which is why the whinning comment was made.


So.....anyone got something to contribute?


JH

I contributed quite a bit earlier in the thread, which neither you nor anyone else has responded to... so I see no reason to retype it, or even copy it. Feel free to either backtrack or follow the link.

 

[EmperorOfKentukki]

Sorry. But I did respond to several points you made in your previous post (I thought some of them were quite good). But if there is some specific point you want 'ME' to address....please IM with it or repost it, please.

I have mad cow disease and forget things easily. LOL!

JH

P.S. I'll have to wait til tommorrow to check back. I have to stop now so I can watch Tito Ortiz *****slap Ken Shamrock again.

 

[Kacey]

No. I'm just saying if you simply want to state you don't like and don't think it will ever happen.....post that.

Quite a few people have done just this... only to have you complain that they are "whinning" - which, by the way, is spelling with one "n" - "whining" - your spelling would be read as winning - which I doubt is what you mean.

But don't hijack the thread with complaints which are subjective evaluations. It distracts time and energy away from those trying to tackle the issues to see if it even workable in any form. Of course that doesn't mean it will ever happen. But if the subject doesn't interest you....go to a thread that does interest you.

This is an open forum. You are welcome to post your opinions (within the forum rules, of course) and so is everyone else. Unless you've become a moderator while no one was looking, you don't have the authority to tell anyone what they can and cannot write, simply because you don't want to read it. If you don't like what someone write, you can choose to ignore them through the ignore feature... or you can go to a thread that does interest you, by not annoying you in this fashion.

I've already seen threads on this site get hijacked several times. Sometimes by accident (serendipity effects)....sometimes on purpose because someone didn't like the subject matter or was simply bored with it.

As I said, this is an open forum. If you truly feel the thread has been hijacked, click on the little red triangle in the upper right of a 'hijacking' thread, state your concern, and submit it to the moderators, who will then deal with it appropriately. That is their job - not yours.

Now, if you're quite done with hijacking this thread yourself, by complaining about people hijacking the thread, perhaps we can return to the discussion at hand.

happen.....post that. [/quote]

Quite a few people have done just this... only to have you complain that they are "whinning" - which, by the way, is spelling with one "n" - "whining" - your spelling would be read as winning - which I doubt is what you mean.

But don't hijack the thread with complaints which are subjective evaluations. It distracts time and energy away from those trying to tackle the issues to see if it even workable in any form. Of course that doesn't mean it will ever happen. But if the subject doesn't interest you....go to a thread that does interest you.

This is an open forum. You are welcome to post your opinions (within the forum rules, of course) and so is everyone else. Unless you've become a moderator while no one was looking, you don't have the authority to tell anyone what they can and cannot write, simply because you don't want to read it. If you don't like what someone write, you can choose to ignore them through the ignore feature... or you can go to a thread that does interest you, by not annoying you in this fashion.

Sorry. But I did respond to several points you made in your previous post (I thought some of them were quite good). But if there is some specific point you want 'ME' to address....please IM with it or repost it, please.

Given the length and non-specifity of your response, it was quite difficult to determine just who, and what, you were responding to. Therefore, I did not realize you were responding specifically to my points, or to anyone else's.

 

[MJS]

Moderator Note.
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Mike Slosek
-MT Super Moderator-

 

[Kenpodoc]

So far all I'm hearing is a lot of whinning. The very thing I asked you not to do. If you think 'McDojo" operator's will take over, explain WHY. Better yet......how about a solution to THAT problem. A criteria to keep the McDojo owner from overrunning the process.

The Emperor

The solution is to not regulate the Martial Arts and let the market control. I can never understand why people are always worrying about regulating MA schools. If you don't like a school leave and tell your friends why. If someone else likes that school, respect them enough to allow them to make their own decision. In general central regulation leads to mediocrity. Personally I like a society where there may be some risk secondary to lack of regulation but there is also the opportunity for innovation and greatness.

Jeff

 

[Ceicei]

The solution is to not regulate the Martial Arts and let the market control. I can never understand why people are always worrying about regulating MA schools. If you don't like a school leave and tell your friends why. If someone else likes that school, respect them enough to allow them to make their own decision. In general central regulation leads to mediocrity. Personally I like a society where there may be some risk secondary to lack of regulation but there is also the opportunity for innovation and greatness.

Jeff

Jeff, I really like what you say. Find a niche and make it better...

- Ceicei

 

[exile]

Maybe we could try to restart this from the basics of the previous back-and-forth. There seem to be two separate points that have emerged from the original unspecified idea of `regulation': one, background checks to ensure that MA instructors don't have shady pasts; two, some kind of professional credentialing. That's one dimension of the discussion. The other is, government or private? They're not totally independent, because the issue of background checks seems to require some kind of involvement of law enforcement agencies in the deal, and that's a problem a lot of people have commented on in terms of both the civil liberties/privacy/aversion-to-gov't-involvement perspective or the bueaucratic mess aspect or both. The credentialing aspect on the other hand doesn't require government involvement, but does seem to involve the potential of (i) undesirables who know how to play the system getting into positions where they can use the credentialing system to attack competitors, or (ii) incompetents who will make grossly uninformed decisions which will make life miserable for MAists, especially small school operators who don't have the clout (= $$$) that bigger belt-mills have, allowing the latter a lot more influence in how things are done.

EoK thinks that (a) the background check issue is one where a lot of people want some kind of law enforcement oversight of MA schools, particularly where children are taught (which is going to be an awful lot of them). He thinks that (b) the credentialing aspect can maybe be handled nongovernmentally---I think---and can be handled in a `style-neutral[ way. A lot of people are uncomfortable with both (a) and (b).

Is this a fair way to summarize very broadly the sides people have been coming down on? I'm a little punchy from all the posts and the arguments on various sides, so this summary might be missing some important points... it probably is. But does it seem to be at least roughly where we've got to by this point in the discussion?

 

[tshadowchaser]

I can never understand why people are always worrying about regulating MA schools

because that person who realy has no experence in the arts but has fake certs up the *** my well put you out of business if they can fake a program for kids and sweet talk the adults into thinking they earned that blackbelt they just paid $1500 to test for.

OK, on the one hand you don't want more gov't regulation, and most people on this thread seem to feel that way too. But you also think fakes should be shut down... like, if an MA school deliberately deceives their members. What's the bridge between the two

Personally I like the old fashion way. GO in and close it down but that gets one involved in all sorts of legal situation where the fake usually will win. Somehow it was easier when you could call out a fake in front of his students and beat the **** out of him.
I was at a school the other day and saw certs on the wall that I know the instructor had made for himself. His instructor in the only style that He has any real rank in doesn’t seem to care or is to dense to figure that a person claiming to be a master in a couple of styles puts the 1st dan in her system above the master ranks. The rank certs where right in front of me and his instructor as I talked to her. I can’t for the life of me figure out why she puts up with it other than he is getting her to promote his students in a legit art while he promotes them( behind her back) in his system.
I know that putting the truth in the local newspaper when one knows a fake is opening a school will also end up in a long legal battle tat will be very expensive but it is one solution. Perhaps an anonymous letter to the editor or one with a fake name and address from the sender exposing the flaws in the fakes certs and history is a way.
Exposing these fakes is hard at time because people will believe what they

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Best way to get rid of bad schools is word of mouth, not government regulation.

Do you honestly think having someone sign off on a piece of paper attesting that they trained so many hours will help get rid of bad instructors? They'll just pad each others sheets. Or will the bureaucrats come in to go through records to verify training? Or will we have to pay a government employee to sit and take notes who was and wasn't at class training?

About the assumption that it's going to happen, why? I'm not hearing a public outcry saying martial arts needs to be regulated. The vast majority of people just don't care one way or the other.

The whole idea is silly and fruitless.

Jeff

 

[exile]

I know that putting the truth in the local newspaper when one knows a fake is opening a school will also end up in a long legal battle tat will be very expensive but it is one solution. Perhaps an anonymous letter to the editor or one with a fake name and address from the sender exposing the flaws in the fakes certs and history is a way.Exposing these fakes is hard at time because people will believe what they

The problem with the approach you're alluding to is always the same: the ordinary reader of the newspaper, with no knowledge of the situation, will view it as he-said-she-said, and pretty much dismiss it all with a plague-on-both-your-houses reaction, or else, even worse, decide that you're the problem, that you have an agenda and are going after some guy who's a competitor in order to subvert his business... basically, getting the story upside-down. Anonymous letters almost always trigger skepticism in a lot of people---`if you're telling the truth, why are you hiding behind anonymity' etc.etc.

The original problem you refer to in this post is the problem of Gresham's Law---bad money drives out good money. The anxiety that drives the call for regulation is I think what you say in your post---bad MA schools will drive out the good, by the very nature of the difference between them. But at the same time, you think that getting gov't into the picture will do way more harm than good. EofK has a vision of some kind of credentialing program that will protect the good schools and force the bad ones to come up to scratch, but people don't seem to be buying the idea that this is going to be doable. I'm getting the sense that most people feel the current situation, with all its faults, is preferable to any of the regulatory steps that have been proposed, and that it's not a case of Gresham's Law after all---a good school can survive even with a dozen bad schools swimming hungrily around it---the idea being that quality will prevail in the end.

Not sure where else the discussion can go, at this point...

 

[EmperorOfKentukki]

Somehow it was easier when you could call out a fake in front of his students and beat the **** out of him.

Ahhhh. The good ol' days. (LOL)

I'm not sure where this thread will go next either. I just hope it goes on. We've already covered a lot of ground...and at least a few other people are thinking about it....whether it be that it is a 'silly and fruitless' idea....or that there may be some way to devise a system to help midigate the problems of frauds or predators in our midst.

I have to freely admit...the thought of "LOCAL" legislation doesn't frighten me. I suffer no paranoia in that regard. Of course it is something we as a people should have a voice in...but I'm not all that afraid of a system that bears no bias by design somehow being used to shut down honest business owners. It seems to me, the one's who would scream the loudest against such regulation would be the one who would be exposed or found out by the process. When the DUI laws were toughened, there were a lot of people who screamed that forcing motorist to subject to chemical testing at the request of law enforcement was an invasion of their fourth admendment rights. But today, does anyone think the DUI laws were a bad thing. No. I don't need some personal horror story of an innocent person who got convicted. I think the science of todays testing bears out the legitimacy of the test. I've seen far more 'slip through the system' to avoid a wrongful conviction. In fact...I can't find a single case where a truly 'innocent' person was convicted. Now that doesn't mean if we enacted any kind of regulatory law with regard to MA's the same would apply. But I certainly am not skiddish about examining theoritically a program to see if it can be fair, balanced and sound (even scientific if possible). It might never come to fruitation...and I guess thus be fruitless....but I hardly think it would silly to engage in the intellectual exercise.

I'd be interested to see anyone explore some other design for qualifying MA's at large for licensing to operate a school of MA instruction. I think the key has to be it has to be non-art and non-style specific (ergo...no bias), practical and logical. We could discuss other issues such as fees or funding allocations seperately, although at some point they would have to be addressed. Also, we definitely would need to look at what degree of disclosure would be acceptable and what limitations should be in place (i.e. the background checks....should they be criminal history checks?). Lastly, there would be the issue of WHO would have the oversight. As I previously suggested, I think this could and should be managed locally even if it was empowered at the State level. I agree that this is not some thing the Federal government should ever be involved in. But if you think about it....most other professions are regulated at the State level with little to no regulation from the Federal level.

And I do grant that after such a mental exercise, we might just decide that it is not something we want anyway. The devil we live with might be prefered to the devil we create, so to speak.

Thoughts anyone?

 

[SFC JeffJ]

I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my "silly and fruitless" remark. It was not meant to be about the discussion, but about the implantation.

It does bear talking about just to clarify why it would be bad.

If a school acts like a daycare provider, by all means, treat it as such. One of the three schools in my community is just this. The pick up the kids from school, have them do their homework, then do an hour of some of the worst TKD I've ever seen. The school even has it's own forms. Parents pay a lot for this service, and it is in essence day care with an organized gym class. Call it a day care center in gi's and be done with it. I will look to see if they are licensed as such. If it's in this little town, schools like it must be all over the place.

I asked this before, but I'm assuming you missed it in all the other posts, if you think this is going to happen, why is that? I've heard of a few tries to do something like this in a couple of states (NY and NC), but it really didn't have a chance from what I've read.

JeffJ

 

[Rook]

If you want the government to help get higher quality martial arts instructors, maybe you should be lobbying to lower the barrier to come here from Taiwan - that way more of the high ranking CMA people could come here themselves and see the state of the people who claim to be part of their system in America.

Some of the CMA experts on Taiwan have little idea what is being passed off as their style in America - and if there was an alternative to learning Chinese, flying to Taiwan, searching for a CMA teacher, figuring out who could set up an introduction and then persuading him to teach you, there might be a much higher overall quality of CMA here.