ADA and Martial Arts Schools [Archive] - MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

Steve

01-12-2009, 11:41 AM

This comes from the Jr. Black Belt (http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71485)thread. I started to post this there, but realize that it's getting too far afield from the original post. So, I wanted to make a new one.

Sir, I totally agree with you. I reject any sort of entitlement mentality. Just because I have something you want, doesn't mean I should be legally obligated to give it to you. In martial arts school, accepting students you don't want can be detrimental to the other students, your reputation, and possibly the community. If you make exceptions and excuses for each student out on the floor, then you have no minimum, universal standard. You can't have any consistent quality that way, which seems important in an endeavor that may involve death. Plus, if you profess to teach someone 'deadly' skills, how can you in good conscious teach every person that wants them.

I'm not sure if this is in reference to my posts or not, but I just want to say that we can discriminate in America (in fact, it's our right to) unless it's in violation of the law by being based upon one of the several protected categories. As has been brought out in this thread, things get hazy, but to be sure, you can pick and choose unless your criteria involves race, color, religion or gender.

I've been doing more reading since this thread came up. Once again, while my understanding may be flawed, I haven't found anything to suggest that a martial arts school is exempt from civil rights laws and the ADA. If I'm mistaken, I'd appreciate it if someone could help me out. The stuff I'm reading points to reasonable accomodation and/or direct threat to safety stuff, which I understand. What it doesn't say is that a martial arts school can create blanket policy to deny access to disabled individuals, including individuals with mental impairments.

Where I'm looking is here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00012181----000-.html (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00012181----000-.html) where it defines the terms, including "public accomodation." And here: http://classweb.gmu.edu/jkozlows/2000NOV.htm (http://classweb.gmu.edu/jkozlows/2000NOV.htm) where a little bit down it identifies the martial arts school as falling within this provision. And here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/12182.html (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/12182.html) where it talks about what constitutes and what doesn't constitute discrimination.

Again, I'm not saying that this means a school owner has to take anyone and everyone who turns in an application. I'm saying that it seems to me that a school owner is breaking the law if they have a policy to deny anyone with a physical or mental impairment. There is a difference between making decisions about the fitness of a particular applicant for his or her own safety and "I don't do physically, mentally handicapped, and I don't do kids because the material is over their heads. And as long and I am the teacher, I'll decide who I should teach, not you, or anyone else. Sorry, but in America, that's just how we roll. Get your head out of - the clouds, and put your feet on the ground. I've never heard of anyone that I wouldn't teach, who couldn't find someone who would. They have the absolute right to learn somewhere, but they don't have a right to learn from me. I decide. End of discussion." The entire reason I'm posting is because I'm still not sure that this is actually how we roll.

So, my questions are, if I'm mistaken, what am I missing? And if I'm not, do I simply misunderstand what's been said previously in the thread?

stickarts

01-12-2009, 12:33 PM

I don't know the detail of the law here in CT. I expect some of it would come down to what the judge thought if it ever came to that. We take everyone in that we think we can help. If we don't think we can help someone we will let them know that and our specific reasons why. If there are health or safety concerns we will request a note from the students doctor approving their training and even then I would have the final say as to who trains if there is a safety issue.
Over the years we have had many different people come in with varying challenges. Some we can help and some we can't. Ethically, I do feel obligated to helping anyone that we can although we do reserve the right to not accept a student if we have good reason to back it up. The few students that we have turned away or referred elsewhere has never been an issue since it was always mutually agreed, after discussion, that we weren't the best fit for them. If in doubt, I would talk to my attorney before I made a move that I thought could be a problem.

BrandonLucas

01-12-2009, 12:39 PM

This comes from the Jr. Black Belt (http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71485)thread. I started to post this there, but realize that it's getting too far afield from the original post. So, I wanted to make a new one. [/i]

I'm not sure if this is in reference to my posts or not, but I just want to say that we can discriminate in America (in fact, it's our right to) unless it's in violation of the law by being based upon one of the several protected categories. As has been brought out in this thread, things get hazy, but to be sure, you can pick and choose unless your criteria involves race, color, religion or gender.

I've been doing more reading since this thread came up. Once again, while my understanding may be flawed, I haven't found anything to suggest that a martial arts school is exempt from civil rights laws and the ADA. If I'm mistaken, I'd appreciate it if someone could help me out. The stuff I'm reading points to reasonable accomodation and/or direct threat to safety stuff, which I understand. What it doesn't say is that a martial arts school can create blanket policy to deny access to disabled individuals, including individuals with mental impairments.

Where I'm looking is here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00012181----000-.html (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00012181----000-.html) where it defines the terms, including "public accomodation." And here: http://classweb.gmu.edu/jkozlows/2000NOV.htm (http://classweb.gmu.edu/jkozlows/2000NOV.htm) where a little bit down it identifies the martial arts school as falling within this provision. And here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/12182.html (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/12182.html) where it talks about what constitutes and what doesn't constitute discrimination.

Again, I'm not saying that this means a school owner has to take anyone and everyone who turns in an application. I'm saying that it seems to me that a school owner is breaking the law if they have a policy to deny anyone with a physical or mental impairment. There is a difference between making decisions about the fitness of a particular applicant for his or her own safety and "I don't do physically, mentally handicapped, and I don't do kids because the material is over their heads. And as long and I am the teacher, I'll decide who I should teach, not you, or anyone else. Sorry, but in America, that's just how we roll. Get your head out of - the clouds, and put your feet on the ground. I've never heard of anyone that I wouldn't teach, who couldn't find someone who would. They have the absolute right to learn somewhere, but they don't have a right to learn from me. I decide. End of discussion." The entire reason I'm posting is because I'm still not sure that this is actually how we roll.

So, my questions are, if I'm mistaken, what am I missing? And if I'm not, do I simply misunderstand what's been said previously in the thread?

The way I read it, basically, you can't deny your services that are provided to the general public based on the reason of a disablity or handicap.

If you turn a person who's handicapped or has a disability, there needs to be another reason that you're turning them away.

Now, a way to look at this is that if a person is physically disabled, then you may not have a cirriculum that would support their disability. If this is the case, and the point is argued, then allow the person to join the class, and test them on the same grounds that everyone else is tested on. If they can pass, then great. If they are unable to pass, then you are not discriminating against them because they simply have a disibility, rather, you have given them the same opportunity that you give the general public to pass or fail.

In this light, you are not being discriminatory. However, if you passed them up in rank and are slack in their judgement, then you are being just as discriminatory as you would be to deny them the right to participate in class.

On a related side note:

My father is a disabled veteran. He injured his back in '92, and as a result had several slipped disks and had a great deal of difficulty in walking...in fact, he was told that he would never walk again, but he beat the odds.

Around '97, I had just earned my 1st dan, and my father decided to try to take a couple classes from my instructor, taking seperate classes from me. He enjoyed the classes, and actually earned the rank of green belt before his schedule wouldn't permit him to attend class.

Even though my father still, to this day, has a great deal of difficulty walking, he completed the required cirriculum to the best of his ability, and with effectiveness against a resisting opponent to earn his green belt. I was and am still very proud of what he accomplished in the face of adversity, and for the fact that despite his disability, he was able to mold the Tae Kwon Do that was taught the same to him as it was to everyone else into something that was effective for him to be able to defend himself.

The moral of the story is this:

Just because someone has a disability or handicap doesn't prevent them from making the same cirriculum that everyone else is taught work for them. Give them the chance, at least, to fail on their own, instead of failing them before they begin class.

KempoGuy06

01-12-2009, 12:53 PM

first, the quoted post is in response to my post in that thread.

second. why and how can the law force someone to accept a student they do not wish to teach when they are paying for the services in question?

I understand the law when it comes to jobs, but when it comes to learn MA's it is different. If someone with a physically handicap can not do the required material set by the instructor at that school and he/she explains then upon refusal to teach them than that should be the end of the discussion. If the instructor makes it plain and clear that he/she is not accepting the prospective student in question because they would not be able to perform the required material to standards for advancing to the next rank due to their handicap and that anyone with or without and handicap who could not perform the required material to standards would also fail, than i see no problem.

I can hear some people saying: "well how do you know said person will fail because of their handicap?"

my response would be: "lets say the person in question has one are and what if the art they are looking into requires them to be able to perform a double chuck form at the beginning rank. how the hell is a one armed man going to swing around 2 chucks and perform the form correctly?"

(i know this is highly unlikely but go with me).

B

BrandonLucas

01-12-2009, 01:21 PM

harlan

01-12-2009, 01:33 PM

It seems to me that depending on the impact of 'mainstreaming' a disabled student, that the teacher has the right to decline to accept a student in a class if accomodating them is not possible or impractical.

I thought the extreme nunchaku example was interesting....because I mainly study kobudo. In the back of my mind, I tried to visualize how to teach a one armed person bo...the basic weapon. What would I do? Teach them only what they handle...and change the katas, and bunkai, and what weapons they could handle? That would be a highly personalized curriculum...and detract from other students who are paying to learn a system.

There are schools that have 'handicapped classes'...if one's ego can handle it...and private lessons.

Steve

01-12-2009, 01:50 PM

first, the quoted post is in response to my post in that thread.Great. It provided some food for thought.
second. why and how can the law force someone to accept a student they do not wish to teach when they are paying for the services in question?Well, the simple answer is because in our country it was decided that there are groups of people who should be specifically protected from being discriminated against. These groups include race, religion, and gender, as well as disability.
I understand the law when it comes to jobs, but when it comes to learn MA's it is different.That’s exactly what I’m interested in learning more about. While we’re all at least passing familiar with job related discrimination, the protections extend further to any public accomodation.

Someone in the previous thread (and I do apologize for forgetting who) said that he didn’t think that a martial arts school fell under the label of “public accomodation.” I posted a link to a summary of a case in which the martial arts school didn’t dispute that it clearly did meet the definition.
If someone with a physically handicap can not do the required material set by the instructor at that school and he/she explains then upon refusal to teach them than that should be the end of the discussion. If the instructor makes it plain and clear that he/she is not accepting the prospective student in question because they would not be able to perform the required material to standards for advancing to the next rank due to their handicap and that anyone with or without and handicap who could not perform the required material to standards would also fail, than i see no problem. The rules of reasonable accomodation apply here, as well. In work or in this case, I’m not suggesting that the school dilute their standards. An accomodation is something that allows a disabled person to do the critical job functions at work, or participate without “fundamentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden.” (from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00012182----000-.html)

I can hear some people saying: "well how do you know said person will fail because of their handicap?" I can’t find it again, but this line of reasoning was specifically mentioned as being unnacceptable. Wish I could remember where I ran across that.

my response would be: "lets say the person in question has one are and what if the art they are looking into requires them to be able to perform a double chuck form at the beginning rank. how the hell is a one armed man going to swing around 2 chucks and perform the form correctly?"

(i know this is highly unlikely but go with me).

BAs I see it, there are two issues, ultimately. The first being should you be required to admit a disabled person if there is no direct threat to the safety of the others in the school or to the individual?

The second is CAN you be required to do these things?

To answer the second question first, based upon my reading, I haven’t seen anything to suggest otherwise. If it’s possible to make an accomodation so that the person can participate, to do otherwise seems to me to be discrimination under the ADA. Once again, this is unless your school qualifies as a private club, which would make it specifically exempt.

Again, I am not saying I’m right. I’m saying that this is my lay understanding and I welcome a more informed position.

The first question is a should question. Should you as a school owner be made to do these things? I believe you should. The laws exist for a reason. While you don’t necessarily need to promote an individual beyond their abilities, to deny them access to training is discriminatory. That’s my opinion.

To clarify, I’ve said before that I may not ever become a black belt in BJJ. I may not ever meet the objective criteria for advancement. But I am still able to train and haven’t been denied service. I wasn’t refused service because I might not meet the standards for advancement in the future.

As an example and probably why I find this subject so interesting, I have mentioned before that the guy who ran the school that first introduced me to martial arts several years back now had no function in one arm. It was completely paralyzed above the shoulder. He was able to accommodate the disability. If I remember correctly, he was in a motorcycle accident and actually went back (perhaps required to go back) to white belt so that he could relearn his style using only one arm. While I left his school for a variety of reasons, it certainly wasn’t his martial skill. He is a very, very capable martial artist, likely better than I will ever be. Could he do a specific technique involving that arm? Of course not. But he was able to accommodate the disability and excel in the style.

KempoGuy06

01-12-2009, 02:21 PM

stickarts

01-12-2009, 02:25 PM

These are people coming to us to learn and improve their lives. If they are willing to have the courage to overcome their challenges, then i am willing to teach them.

Steve

01-12-2009, 02:29 PM

Ok so basically we are talking about equality, right?

If that is the case than let me ask you this, is it right if I a perfectly capable white male with such and such degree is not given a job because the company i applied to is required to keep a quota of hiring minorities and gave the job I wanted to a less qualified person because they were handicap?

BI don't think it's about equality. It's about discrimination, the difference being subtle but I think important.

To answer your question, I would say absolutely not. If, however, the final two candidates for a position are a white male and a minority male who are both equally qualified, I would have no problem with someone choosing the minority male in order to improve underrepresentation. Two equally qualified candidates, it becomes the employer's choice. If he chooses to give the job to a minority, it's his choice. Often, this is the case, but the white dude presumes it was reverse discrimination. I've seen this situation time and again.

This becomes much more complex when you're in a situation where the two final candidates bring different pros and cons. The white guy might very well get passed over because he has a bad attitude as a result of the giant chip he has on his shoulder at having been passed over for promotion in the past. He blames reverse discrimination, but it's his own crappy attitude keeping him from promotion, not equal opportunity.

Tez3

01-12-2009, 02:29 PM

Common sense has to be the priority surely. Clubs and schools should have an open door policy, this incidentally means you have the largest choice of potential students apart from any discrimination issues that could arise. Instructors and potential students can discuss training and any health and medical problems that could arise then an informed decision can be made by both sides. It is as simple as that I believe. It's the policy we pursue in our club and we've never had any problems with being 'made' to take anyone with a disability. it's not as bald as 'refusing' to take a student, it's more that the person sees for themself whether it's possible to train and attain the grades they wish. I doubt anyone with a disabilty wants to be patronised by lowering the standards for them or just taking them on because you feel sorry for them. also people with disabilities I know would far rather you talked to them honestly about those disabilities rather than beat around the bush then make up an excuse why they can't do something.

What is wrong I believe ( and probably illegal) is a statement to the effect that the club/school will not take people with any disabilities or conditions, without discussions and don't bother even applying!

As for people with missing limbs, I'm sure that the Samurai and the original masters of martial arts were more than passing aquaintances with injuries that left disabilites and didn't stop training unless they relly couldn't compensate for them.

In the British Army now we have several serving soldiers who have had amputations, especially legs. Afghan and Iraq has left many injured, however especially with modern prosthetics many soldiers are going back on active service as infantry soldiers able to do everything they could before losing a leg.they aren't taking desk jobs, they are going back on patrols etc.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news-old/top-stories/2008/10/02/exclusive-brave-solider-who-lost-leg-in-taliban-bomb-to-return-to-afghanistanfront-line-115875-20765506/

Talking is the trick with any new potential student, that and an open mind!

KempoGuy06

01-12-2009, 02:40 PM

I don't think it's about equality. It's about discrimination, the difference being subtle but I think important.

To answer your question, I would say absolutely not. If, however, the final two candidates for a position are a white male and a minority male who are both equally qualified, I would have no problem with someone choosing the minority male in order to improve underrepresentation. Two equally qualified candidates, it becomes the employer's choice. If he chooses to give the job to a minority, it's his choice. Often, this is the case, but the white dude presumes it was reverse discrimination. I've seen this situation time and again.

This becomes much more complex when you're in a situation where the two final candidates bring different pros and cons. The white guy might very well get passed over because he has a bad attitude as a result of the giant chip he has on his shoulder at having been passed over for promotion in the past. He blames reverse discrimination, but it's his own crappy attitude keeping him from promotion, not equal opportunity.

discrimination and equality go hand in hand. The first bold statement is blatant reverse discrimination, by giving the job to the minority male just so the company doesnt look bad. that is outrageous.

The second bold statement gives the impression that you do not believe that reverse discrimination is real, is this true or false? merely asking not passing judgment, please take no offense.

B

KempoGuy06

01-12-2009, 02:42 PM

Steve

01-12-2009, 02:59 PM

discrimination and equality go hand in hand. The first bold statement is blatant reverse discrimination, by giving the job to the minority male just so the company doesnt look bad. that is outrageous.

The second bold statement gives the impression that you do not believe that reverse discrimination is real, is this true or false? merely asking not passing judgment, please take no offense.

BOkay. Let's take a step back and define some terms so we're clear. Discrimination exists in every single decision we make. Choosing one wine over another demonstrates a form of discrimination. Reverse discrimination occurs, essentially, when someone is white and/or male and/or christian and instead of perpetrating discrimination against a protected group is instead discriminated against. Does that sound about right? If not, let me know.

I agree with you in your first scenario. If a person is passed over due to race in favor of a less qualified minority, that's clearly discrimination. If, however, he was passed over for an equally qualified person (or more qualified person), any allegation that race, religion or whatever else was a factor is purely conjecture. My own experience has been that it is often NOT a factor in reality, but only in the mind of the person who feels slighted, and is usually the product of their not wanting to own their flaws and accept responsibility for their own actions. In other words, it's easier for a person to blame the guy's race than to accept that they just didn't cut the mustard. Ego.

Does reverse discrimination occur? Absolutely. I'm sure it does. That's not what I was addressing. I was building on your idea, that being passed over in favor of a less qualified minority is discrimination and I agree with you that it is wrong. I was adding my own experience, that "less qualified" is subjective, where in addition to tangible qualifications there are a large number of intangibles including, potentially leadership ability, realiability, personality and attitude that can all influence hiring and promotion selection.

KempoGuy06

01-12-2009, 03:09 PM

Okay. Let's take a step back and define some terms so we're clear. Discrimination exists in every single decision we make. Choosing one wine over another demonstrates a form of discrimination. Reverse discrimination occurs, essentially, when someone is white and/or male and/or christian and instead of perpetrating discrimination against a protected group is instead discriminated against. Does that sound about right? If not, let me know.

I agree with you in your first scenario. If a person is passed over due to race in favor of a less qualified minority, that's clearly discrimination. If, however, he was passed over for an equally qualified person (or more qualified person), any allegation that race, religion or whatever else was a factor is purely conjecture. My own experience has been that it is often NOT a factor in reality, but only in the mind of the person who feels slighted, and is usually the product of their not wanting to own their flaws and accept responsibility for their own actions. In other words, it's easier for a person to blame the guy's race than to accept that they just didn't cut the mustard. Ego.

Does reverse discrimination occur? Absolutely. I'm sure it does. That's not what I was addressing. I was building on your idea, that being passed over in favor of a less qualified minority is discrimination and I agree with you that it is wrong. I was adding my own experience, that "less qualified" is subjective, where in addition to tangible qualifications there are a large number of intangibles including, potentially leadership ability, realiability, personality and attitude that can all influence hiring and promotion selection.
Thanks for the clarification. I just wanted to make sure we are on the same page. actually you seem to be many chapters ahead of me but im trying to catch up...LOL

B

BrandonLucas

01-12-2009, 03:15 PM

discrimination and equality go hand in hand. The first bold statement is blatant reverse discrimination, by giving the job to the minority male just so the company doesnt look bad. that is outrageous.

The second bold statement gives the impression that you do not believe that reverse discrimination is real, is this true or false? merely asking not passing judgment, please take no offense.

B

First, here, where you're talking about the first bolded statement:

If, however, the final two candidates for a position are a white male and a minority male who are both equally qualified, I would have no problem with someone choosing the minority male in order to improve underrepresentation.

This is not blatant reverse discriminition. If you're down to 2 equally qualified canidates, then it's the employer's decision as to which candidate is the best.

Now, even if the decision is based solely on race, then it's still up to the employer's discretion...the key here being that both candidates are both equally qualified, meaning that neither candidate actually has an advantage over the other candidate in any way.

It would essentially be the same as choosing a name out of a hat, but less random.

For it to be reverse discriminition, then the minority candidate that was chosen for employment would have to be less qualified in some way, no matter how small, than the other candidate. This means that even if being hired for whatever company relied on the results of an apptitude test, then whoever scores the highest should be considered the most qualified, no matter what the color. If both candidates come out with the same score after a series of retests, then the decision should be free to be made by whatever means necessary.

As far as your second question about changing the cirriculum to accept someone with a disablity, I stated in one of my earlier posts that this would be no better than saying that they are not allowed to participate.

If safety is a question, then the person should be made to sign a liability waiver stating that any and all injuries incurred are understood to be the fault of the student, possibly as result of the disability. Also, it should be stated in the waiver that the individual is understood to have a disability or handicap, and that they accept that they will be taught the same cirriculum as everyone else, and have the same requirements as everyone else.

If the person could possibly injur others, then another adendum should be made that states that the person may be required to attend single teacher/student classes.

There are always ways around those kinds of things. IMO, it's still wrong to deny someone instruction because you think that they are not able to participate. Of course, this is all under the assumption that a doctor has allowed the person to participate.

Like I said before, if they're going to fail, then let them fail. But allow them the chance to fail.

KempoGuy06

01-12-2009, 05:07 PM

First, here, where you're talking about the first bolded statement:

If, however, the final two candidates for a position are a white male and a minority male who are both equally qualified, I would have no problem with someone choosing the minority male in order to improve underrepresentation.

This is not blatant reverse discriminition. If you're down to 2 equally qualified canidates, then it's the employer's decision as to which candidate is the best.

Now, even if the decision is based solely on race, then it's still up to the employer's discretion...the key here being that both candidates are both equally qualified, meaning that neither candidate actually has an advantage over the other candidate in any way.

It would essentially be the same as choosing a name out of a hat, but less random.

For it to be reverse discriminition, then the minority candidate that was chosen for employment would have to be less qualified in some way, no matter how small, than the other candidate. This means that even if being hired for whatever company relied on the results of an apptitude test, then whoever scores the highest should be considered the most qualified, no matter what the color. If both candidates come out with the same score after a series of retests, then the decision should be free to be made by whatever means necessary.

As far as your second question about changing the cirriculum to accept someone with a disablity, I stated in one of my earlier posts that this would be no better than saying that they are not allowed to participate.

If safety is a question, then the person should be made to sign a liability waiver stating that any and all injuries incurred are understood to be the fault of the student, possibly as result of the disability. Also, it should be stated in the waiver that the individual is understood to have a disability or handicap, and that they accept that they will be taught the same cirriculum as everyone else, and have the same requirements as everyone else.

If the person could possibly injur others, then another adendum should be made that states that the person may be required to attend single teacher/student classes.

There are always ways around those kinds of things. IMO, it's still wrong to deny someone instruction because you think that they are not able to participate. Of course, this is all under the assumption that a doctor has allowed the person to participate.

Like I said before, if they're going to fail, then let them fail. But allow them the chance to fail.

I understand what you are saying.

by picking the minority male over the equally qualified white male simply for the fact that you are trying to improve under representation has to be reverse discrimination.

Basically you are telling the white male "we are picking the other guy, who you are equal to in every way except that you are white and well we just arent hiring white people right now because we need to keep up or racial quota so we do get our ass sued"

am I wrong?

B

SL4Drew

01-12-2009, 05:18 PM

Where I'm looking is here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00012181----000-.html (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00012181----000-.html) where it defines the terms, including "public accomodation." And here: http://classweb.gmu.edu/jkozlows/2000NOV.htm (http://classweb.gmu.edu/jkozlows/2000NOV.htm) where a little bit down it identifies the martial arts school as falling within this provision. And here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/12182.html (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/12182.html) where it talks about what constitutes and what doesn't constitute discrimination.

You have to be careful, the summary of the opinion stated that no one was challenging whether the school was a public accommodation. For whatever reasons, the attorneys for the school didn't argue that. So, for purposes of the decision, the court assumed it was so without expressly deciding it was so. Unlike those attorneys, I would have personally taken a run at it because the one part of the definition that would facially cover martial arts schools is if you considered it a gym, a spa, or a health club.

If you notice, the school won (and the court also found they won on the state law claims). And two of the issues I posted on in the other thread where mentioned, safety and whether the modifications sought (or offered) where reasonable. Also keep in mind that money damages are also not generally available, which reduces the number of people willing to sue.

So, while I wouldn't advise someone to have a blanket policy (and if you did to state it), you could probably base a denial of participation on a legal and legitimate reason.

Steve

01-12-2009, 05:34 PM

You have to be careful, the summary of the opinion stated that no one was challenging whether the school was a public accommodation. For whatever reasons, the attorneys for the school didn't argue that. So, for purposes of the decision, the court assumed it was so without expressly deciding it was so. Unlike those attorneys, I would have personally taken a run at it because the one part of the definition that would facially cover martial arts schools is if you considered it a gym, a spa, or a health club.

If you notice, the school won (and the court also found they won on the state law claims). And two of the issues I posted on in the other thread where mentioned, safety and whether the modifications sought (or offered) where reasonable. Also keep in mind that money damages are also not generally available, which reduces the number of people willing to sue.

So, while I wouldn't advise someone to have a blanket policy (and if you did to state it), you could probably base a denial of participation on a legal and legitimate reason.I did notice those things you mention. In the summary I referred to, it was specifically dealing with HIV/AIDS which changes the circumstances dramatically from what we're talking about which is largely dyslexia and loss of limbs. What was relevant was the point about whether the school qualified as public accomodation. I appreciate the distinction you make between being found to be a public accomodation and simply not contesting it. I wish I had time and resources to look into it more.

I also understand that money is not generally available for damages. That's not really the point I was getting at. I'm not in any way suggesting that people sue for damages or that this could be a way for someone to take advantage of a school owner.

Regarding your last point about blanket policies, that was really what I was driving at initially. Doc started by taking a very severe position and has since backed off of it somewhat. I appreciate that. At the same point, I've read about situations in which someone has a "soft" policy of discrimination who eventually gets nailed. Eventually, a lack of representation can be damning. It's a difference between saying, "I don't accept students who are physically or mentally impaired because they cannot meet the standards of the program," and "I'll accept students who can meet the standards of the program whether or not they have a physical or mental impairment."

Steve

01-12-2009, 05:35 PM

Thanks for the clarification. I just wanted to make sure we are on the same page. actually you seem to be many chapters ahead of me but im trying to catch up...LOL

B
I wouldn't say that's true. I appreciate your responses. It's all food for thought. Right?

SL4Drew

01-12-2009, 06:40 PM

I did notice those things you mention. In the summary I referred to, it was specifically dealing with HIV/AIDS which changes the circumstances dramatically from what we're talking about which is largely dyslexia and loss of limbs. What was relevant was the point about whether the school qualified as public accomodation. I appreciate the distinction you make between being found to be a public accomodation and simply not contesting it. I wish I had time and resources to look into it more.

Yes and no. A disability is a disability under the act. So you could substitute any disability in there and the basic analysis does not change, e.g. whether you are a public accommodation will not vary based on type of disability. What will change are the factually driven analyses, such as what is reasonable or safe. What maybe reasonable or safe with someone with ADHD is not probably not the same as someone with Anti-Social Personality Disorder. Also, in Doc's situation, his operation is more like a private club than a commercial school at issue in the case. So, yet another distinction.

Regarding your last point about blanket policies, that was really what I was driving at initially. Doc started by taking a very severe position and has since backed off of it somewhat. I appreciate that. At the same point, I've read about situations in which someone has a "soft" policy of discrimination who eventually gets nailed. Eventually, a lack of representation can be damning. It's a difference between saying, "I don't accept students who are physically or mentally impaired because they cannot meet the standards of the program," and "I'll accept students who can meet the standards of the program whether or not they have a physical or mental impairment."

That's practicing abundance of caution on my part. Why create problems for yourself needlessly? (It is unheeded advice that keeps lawyers in business.) I can't speak for him or put words in his mouth, but I think he meant the latter. This is supported by the fact that his actual practice has been to be inclusive of dyslexic students. If they couldn't meet his standards, they'd have to go elsewhere. But they do, so he teaches them. So, I really think he meant it as more of a normative statement than a positive one.

Also consider that if the law doesn't apply to you, then you can truthfully and legally say you don't teach disabled students. So, even though most lawyers would advise you against saying it, if you're right then you're right.

Blindside

01-12-2009, 06:58 PM

Also, in Doc's situation, his operation is more like a private club than a commercial school at issue in the case. So, yet another distinction.

How is a "private club" differentiated from a "commercial school" in the legal sense to not fall into the public accommodation issue?

thanks,

Steve

01-12-2009, 06:59 PM

Yes and no. A disability is a disability under the act. So you could substitute any disability in there and the basic analysis does not change, e.g. whether you are a public accommodation will not vary based on type of disability. What will change are the factually driven analyses, such as what is reasonable or safe. What maybe reasonable or safe with someone with ADHD is not probably not the same as someone with Anti-Social Personality Disorder. Also, in Doc's situation, his operation is more like a private club than a commercial school at issue in the case. So, yet another distinction.Okay. Forgive me, but what am I missing? I don't think I said anything that contradicts what you are saying. I said I appreciate that you pointed out the distinction between being declared a public acommodation and simply not contesting the issue. I think we're on the same page regarding the nature of the disability. As I said, I figured that the HIV/AIDS aspect was irrelevant because dyslexia can in no reasonable way be considered a health risk as can HIV/AIDS.
That's practicing abundance of caution on my part. Why create problems for yourself needlessly? (It is unheeded advice that keeps lawyers in business.) I can't speak for him or put words in his mouth, but I think he meant the latter. This is supported by the fact that his actual practice has been to be inclusive of dyslexic students. If they couldn't meet his standards, they'd have to go elsewhere. But they do, so he teaches them. So, I really think he meant it as more of a normative statement than a positive one.

Also consider that if the law doesn't apply to you, then you can truthfully and legally say you don't teach disabled students. So, even though most lawyers would advise you against saying it, if you're right then you're right.Okay. Sounds good. Once again, correct me if i'm wrong, but I think... you're agreeing with me? I think we're saying much the same thing.

The only thing that I'm not convinced of, but am willing to take your word for, is that the law doesn't apply to the school. But until someone pushes the issue in court, we might not really ever know for sure, I guess. :)

Steve

01-12-2009, 07:02 PM

How is a "private club" differentiated from a "commercial school" in the legal sense to not fall into the public accommodation issue?

thanks,A private club is specifically exempted. I haven't looked, but I'm presuming that there is a specific criteria that an establishment would have to meet in order to qualify as a private club. Funding would probably be a part of it. I don't have time to google it, but I'm confident it can easily be found. Maybe sl4drew can put his fingers on it quickly.

SL4Drew

01-12-2009, 09:28 PM

Okay. As I said, I figured that the HIV/AIDS aspect was irrelevant because dyslexia can in no reasonable way be considered a health risk as can HIV/AIDS.Okay. Sounds good. Once again, correct me if i'm wrong, but I think... you're agreeing with me? I think we're saying much the same thing.

OK. I think I misunderstood what you were saying. I was pointing out, in part, that although not every disability is a health risk, they can be other risks. I just wouldn't say it changes things 'dramatically.'

The only thing that I'm not convinced of, but am willing to take your word for, is that the law doesn't apply to the school. But until someone pushes the issue in court, we might not really ever know for sure, I guess. :)

I can't just agree with you...they'll take away my license... :)

SL4Drew

01-12-2009, 09:48 PM

How is a "private club" differentiated from a "commercial school" in the legal sense to not fall into the public accommodation issue?

thanks,

Here is relevant portions of the statute:
(1) Commerce The term “commerce” means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication—
(A) among the several States;
(B) between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State; or
(C) between points in the same State but through another State or foreign country.

(2) Commercial facilities The term “commercial facilities” means facilities—
(A) that are intended for nonresidential use; and
(B) whose operations will affect commerce.

(7) Public accommodation The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce— (L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation.

To be covered, you have to fall within the scope of the statute. So if you aren't a public accommodation you are basically exempt. There really isn't a definition of a private club so it becomes a case-by-case adjudication. Courts often use the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a guidepost to determine whether a club is private under the ADA. Some factors courts look at are: (1) whether the club is highly selective in choosing members; (2) whether the club membership exercises a high degree of control over the establishment's operations; (3) whether the organization has historically been intended to be a private club; (4) the degree to which the establishment is opened up to non-members; (5) the purpose of the club's existence; (6) the breadth of the club's advertising for members; (7) whether the club is non-profit; (8) the degree to which the club observes formalities; (9) whether substantial membership fees are charged; (10) the degree to which the club receives public funding; and (11) whether the club was created or is being used to avoid compliance with a civil rights act.

Groups like the Boy Scouts have been found to be private. I believe so have other fraternal organizations like the Elks, Lions, Eagles, and so forth. If you remember the fuss a few years over the Augusta Country Club and the Masters, they responded that they were a private club and told NOW to buzz off.

So there you have it.

(And remember kiddies, this is just basic legal information. It is not intended to provide advice. Use it at your own risk and consult an attorney before you rely on something posted on Martial Talk. :))

Steve

01-12-2009, 10:14 PM

OK. I think I misunderstood what you were saying. I was pointing out, in part, that although not every disability is a health risk, they can be other risks. I just wouldn't say it changes things 'dramatically.'I can accept that. A matter of a few degrees.

I can't just agree with you...they'll take away my license... :)I have several close friends who are attorneys. I understand completely.

Groups like the Boy Scouts have been found to be private. I believe so have other fraternal organizations like the Elks, Lions, Eagles, and so forth. If you remember the fuss a few years over the Augusta Country Club and the Masters, they responded that they were a private club and told NOW to buzz off.Isn't this also how places in California circumvent the smoking ban?

Steve

01-12-2009, 11:35 PM

(And remember kiddies, this is just basic legal information. It is not intended to provide advice. Use it at your own risk and consult an attorney before you rely on something posted on Martial Talk. :))Two quick things. First, that's a funny disclaimer. I, for one, look for all of my legal advice from anonymous posters on the intarweb. :D

Two, I need to think of some way to drum up some controversy. This thread is in danger of coming to an amicable resolution in less than 3 pages. Ummm... your mother ... I can't do it. ;)

Tames D

01-13-2009, 12:03 AM

KempoGuy06

01-13-2009, 08:35 AM

A one armed man has the right to learn to defend himself.

Bob White has an amazing black belt student who happens to have one arm. He competes in tournaments.

I'm not sure if Mr. White alters his curriculum or not but I think it's great that he has given this man an opportunity to learn the art and to gain confidence in his fighting abilities. And I would guess that since he is a BWKK student he has actually earned his keep. Mr. White has most likely tailored the art to suit his students needs.
I completely agree with you. anyone should have the right to learn if they are willing to put in the time.

My argument is that the government should not be allowed to force a school to change the way it does things to tailor to a disabled person if they do not want to. This argument does not fall into the same lines as it does in the workplace. Most people would agree that if you are paying to take martial arts it is considered a luxury as a job is considered a necessity. You can survive without martial arts in your life (well the people who dont already have the bug like many of us do here on MT :)) but you can not survive with a job to provide for yourself

B

harlan

01-13-2009, 09:04 AM

Oops...I see my question was addressed on page 2. Apologies:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1103073&postcount=26

An ancillary question: it seems to me that MA schools, especially if they don't use any town buildings, are more in the nature of 'clubs'. And some schools operate/are registered 'non-profits'.

Would this be treated differently/be out of the scope of ADA?

Steve

01-13-2009, 11:24 AM

I completely agree with you. anyone should have the right to learn if they are willing to put in the time.

My argument is that the government should not be allowed to force a school to change the way it does things to tailor to a disabled person if they do not want to. This argument does not fall into the same lines as it does in the workplace. Most people would agree that if you are paying to take martial arts it is considered a luxury as a job is considered a necessity. You can survive without martial arts in your life (well the people who dont already have the bug like many of us do here on MT :)) but you can not survive with a job to provide for yourself

BI do want to make sure that everyone understands reasonable accomodation (whether at work or not). I run into people at work all the time who have misconceptions about it. That being said, I agree with the ADA that everyone should have equivalent access. It's about quality of life. A person who is disabled should be able to exercise in any way they want. They shouldn't be turned away from the pool without cause or from the weight rack, or in my opinion, the dojo. Again, key words: without cause.

The idea isn't to change things in such a way that standards are lowered. Rather, the idea is to identify the core requirements and then try to determine whether there's a way to accomodate the disability. It's more results oriented.

For example, if the ability to execute a triangle choke is a core requirement, it's likely that a person without legs could never accomplish that at this time. Technology isn't there yet. But, if the core requirements are more results oriented, involving more than just one or two techniques, it then becomes much more feasible to accomodate the impairment.

The example brought up earlier was a technique using two hands. Does it HAVE to be done with two hands? Or, if so, is that technique required, or can a one handed technique be substituted? Or even if that can't be done, can the person train other techniques and perhaps accept that he or she might not ever progress in rank beyond where they're at, functionally auditing the program? The answers to each question may end up being, "No." That's possible. There are people who are simply unfit either physically or mentally to do certain things.

I guess, if anyone gets two things out of this post it would be these. First, it's case by case. In my opinion, every single situation should be approached from the perspective of "How can we accomodate?" Rather than "Do we have to?" This thread is, I freely admit, a reaction I have to blanket policies that smack of discrimination. There are a few things that are my hot buttons and this is one of them.

Second, I am in no way suggesting and neither is the concept of reasonable accomodation, that standards should be lowered. The idea is to identify the core standards and then figure out alternative ways to meet them.

DavidCC

01-13-2009, 12:58 PM

Common sense has to be the priority surely. Clubs and schools should have an open door policy, this incidentally means you have the largest choice of potential students apart from any discrimination issues that could arise.

Why should martial arts schools have an open-door policy?
Not all teachers are looking to have the largest student body possible.
Some have other goals for their school.

A one armed man has the right to learn to defend himself.

He does, but no teacher has any obligation to teach him.

In my opinion, every single situation should be approached from the perspective of "How can we accomodate?" Rather than "Do we have to?" This thread is, I freely admit, a reaction I have to blanket policies that smack of discrimination. There are a few things that are my hot buttons and this is one of them.

Second, I am in no way suggesting and neither is the concept of reasonable accomodation, that standards should be lowered. The idea is to identify the core standards and then figure out alternative ways to meet them.

Why should I have to be looking to accomodate, if I want to be highly selective in who I train. Why should I be looking for ways to circumvent (or 'alternatively meet') my standards?

My local baseball team is not obligated to take as a player a man with no arms. My local book club is not obligated to take members who can't read. Why should I be required to take on a student who is not qualified?

Steve

01-13-2009, 02:42 PM

Why should martial arts schools have an open-door policy?
Not all teachers are looking to have the largest student body possible.
Some have other goals for their school.

He does, but no teacher has any obligation to teach him.

Why should I have to be looking to accomodate, if I want to be highly selective in who I train. Why should I be looking for ways to circumvent (or 'alternatively meet') my standards?

My local baseball team is not obligated to take as a player a man with no arms. My local book club is not obligated to take members who can't read. Why should I be required to take on a student who is not qualified?These are exactly the ideas I was hoping to discuss. The discussion's going two different directions, which is fine by me. The first seems to be whether it's in violation of the ADA and the second is whether it's just simply the "right thing to do."

Regarding the first, sl4drew suggests that it's not a violation. I understand his points, even if I don't agree. As I said, it's moot until it comes up in an actual lawsuit.

The second is more of a philosophical discussion. You bring up book clubs. A book club would actually be a good example of a pretty clear violation of the ADA if they excluded people for being blind. Braille readers are a great example of a reasonable accommodation.

On a baseball team, there are people with disabilities who play. I seem to recall at least one baseball picture with one arm. If he can play, why would you exclude him?

Ultimately, you ask the question, "Why should I be looking for ways to circumvent (or 'alternatively meet') my standards?" my immediate reaction is to wonder "why wouldn't you?" It makes no sense to me. We do it anyway on a case by case basis for everyone. No two people learn the same way or come to the mat with the same abilities and aptitudes. Sometimes, the differences are more pronounced. And has already been stated, some are just not capable for whatever reason.

Someone comes in out of shape and you work with them to elevate their fitness level. Someone has a bad back (like me) and we find ways to work around it. Someone has bad habits from a previous sport, they get taught. Someone is really smart and overthinks... someone isn't very smart and needs more time to absorb material. Even if the differences are subtle (ie not "dumb vs smart" but rather a matter of degrees... less smart... less agile... less flexible) the instructor has to make allowances. I'm not talking about reduction in standards.

Flying Crane

01-13-2009, 03:13 PM

I think a lot depends on how the school presents itself to the public. If the school is in a commercially zoned region of the city, occupying a storefront space, charging substantial fees and being run as an obvious business, that is quite a different scenario from the guy teaching a couple friends for free in his garage. This is sort of the continuum, and many schools and clubs would fall somewhere along the continuum.

A club located on a university may be required to take any student or faculty or staff member who wishes to participate, but may not be open to people not somehow affiliated with the university.

A class taught thru a health club or YMCA may be forced to take any member as a student, but again may be closed to non-club members.

And another point is the instructor simply recognizing his own limitations. While a handicapped person who walks into a McDonalds restaurant has a right to expect service as a patron, that same person cannot automatically expect a martial arts instructor to teach him. The teacher may simply lack a reasonable understanding and experience of how to teach and work with handicapped individuals, or may otherwise lack the confidence to do so. I think it simply makes sense for the instructor to acknowledge his own limitations and be honest about it. This may become a policy of not accepting handicapped individuals, but it is based on concrete reasons.

And certainly the guy teaching a few friends for free in his garage can turn anyone away for any reason, or for no reason at all. It's not even a business, it's just how this group decides to spend their time. Nobody has the right to force themselves into that situation, uninvited.

SL4Drew

01-13-2009, 04:12 PM

The second is more of a philosophical discussion. You bring up book clubs. A book club would actually be a good example of a pretty clear violation of the ADA if they excluded people for being blind. Braille readers are a great example of a reasonable accommodation.

Staying with the realms of hypothetical, it would depend. If you started it and invited a few friends, you could exclude whomever you wanted. If the library started one, then probably not.

On a baseball team, there are people with disabilities who play. I seem to recall at least one baseball picture with one arm. If he can play, why would you exclude him?

In part, it's the whole Casey Martin thing again. If accommodation you gives you an advantage, then you probably won't be successful in a suit. Also consider the Olympics. You cannot compete in track events with some of those fancy prosthetics. Then consider the fact that there are 'Special Olympics' for the very reason that you can't 'water down' the competition to meet the lowest level desiring to compete.

So we are talking about two things: whether a person with a disability who can perform should be allowed to participate. And the second class are those that could participate if changes were made. I think everyone agrees that if you can perform up to standards without giving yourself an advantage or another a disadvantage, then great. But the ADA goes further than that and demands that changes be made in some cases. Not all these changes would be desirable.

Ultimately, you ask the question, "Why should I be looking for ways to circumvent (or 'alternatively meet') my standards?" my immediate reaction is to wonder "why wouldn't you?" It makes no sense to me. We do it anyway on a case by case basis for everyone. No two people learn the same way or come to the mat with the same abilities and aptitudes. Sometimes, the differences are more pronounced. And has already been stated, some are just not capable for whatever reason.

I don't agree with this, at least the way it is presented here. If you come to college unprepared, you flunk out. You meet the standards or you leave (on your own or otherwise.) If you have a 1,000 different standards, it really isn't a standard anymore. The university's degree is suppose to represent that you completed the same course of study everyone else did, at least to the minimum level of competence.

Continuing with the analogy, most schools have a minimum SAT/ACT score just to get in. This is suppose to assure a higher quality student, so the 'minimum' from a higher caliber student is relatively better than the minimum from a lower tier student. If you are a school that wants a good student body, you set your admission standards high. You don't change them to accommodate everyone that wants to get in. Those that don't get in or flunk out can almost certainly find someone to take them. So, they go there.

So, as a general matter, I disagree with the notion you have to have flexible admission standards or adjust graduation standards to everyone so they can be 'successful.' You wouldn't want your surgeon's medical training to have been dumbed down the the lowest standard of anyone that wants to be a surgeon. Under this system, is your surgeon really successful if he doesn't know what he's doing and kills you? "Well, he graduated med school" will not be a consolation to anyone.

In my mind, there a myriad of reasons why people can't always get want they want. Sometimes these reasons are 'fair' and sometimes not. So, I'd say that giving people equal opportunity to meet standards and expectations is acceptable, but changing them is not.

Someone comes in out of shape and you work with them to elevate their fitness level. Someone has a bad back (like me) and we find ways to work around it. Someone has bad habits from a previous sport, they get taught. Someone is really smart and overthinks... someone isn't very smart and needs more time to absorb material. Even if the differences are subtle (ie not "dumb vs smart" but rather a matter of degrees... less smart... less agile... less flexible) the instructor has to make allowances. I'm not talking about reduction in standards.

But isn't making allowances a change in standards? And isn't it usually a reduction in standards? If you have the time, desire, and skill to want to give someone more attention, in the hope that they'll be able to reach the minimum with more help, great. That means you're probably a pretty good (and underpaid) person. But you shouldn't be forced or expected to give away your time, education, and expertise to everyone.

I have limited time. I have to expect a certain minimum level. I just don't have the resources to personally bring everyone to that level. So, I make a choice. And I shouldn't be forced to make a different one.

DavidCC

01-13-2009, 04:50 PM

why shouldn't I be looking for way to accomodate people who don't meet my standards for admission to my school?

this raises the question - why do I have standards at all?

let's say that I have something unique and special to teach. I consider it to be very valuable, and I know that it is difficult to learn. I know that to be successful requires certain personal attributes, and without those a student will not succeed.

I also know from my experience as a teacher that having students in class who do not posess these attributes not only reduces the ability of others to learn efficiently, but can also be dangerous to that student and all the other students.

What benefit is there to me, to the school as an institution, or to the other students in accomodating people who do not posess the required attributes for success?

Some schools, the best they have to offer is to be a vehicle for self-improvement; a school with that mission could certainly benefit from taking on students with lesser abilities and raising them up to heights that they previously could not have achieved. This is in fact what my school's kids program excels at.

but it is absolutely NOT the only mission for a martial arts school.

btw -
blind member of book club <> illiterate member of book club.
1 armed pitcher <> 0 armed outfielder.
illiterate trap shooter <> blind trap shooter.
1 armed drummer <> 2 armed drummer. Oh wait... that Def Leppard guy got better.

Steve

01-13-2009, 04:57 PM

I don't agree with this, at least the way it is presented. If you come to college unprepared, you flunk out. You meet the standards or you leave (on your own or otherwise.) If you have a 1,000 different standards, it really isn't a standard anymore. The university's degree is suppose to represent that you completed the same course of study everyone else did, at least to the minimum.I think I must not have been clear. I'm not saying standards should be changed. Take this example: a university setting. In a history class, the professor requires that his latest edition publication be purchased (for an obscene price), but because it hasn't been picked up outside of a small, academic publishing house it's not available in an alternative format. There's a student who is blind and requests a braille copy. He's not unprepared or illiterate. He's capable of absorbing the information and succeeding in the class. He just can't see the words on the page.

Now, legalities aside (please), my point is that the instructor should figure something out. Whether required to by law or not, my personal opinion is that this is the right thing to do. The class isn't a reading class. It's a history class. The mechanism for absorbing the information is arbitrary and irrelevant. It's the information that's critical. Providing this student a braille copy (or an audio copy or an electronic version so that it can be read by a screen reader or any one of several possible workarounds) simply creates an alternative way of acheiving the same end: getting the information to the student.

Again, I am not suggesting that standards be lowered or altered.

Continuing with the analogy, most schools have a minimum SAT/ACT score just to get in. This is suppose to assure a higher quality student, so the 'minimum' from a higher caliber student is relatively better than the minimum from a lower tier student. If are a school that wants a good student body, you set your admission standards high. You don't change them to accommodate everyone that wants to get in. Those that don't get or flunk out can almost certainly find someone to take them. So, they go there.Most universities also have alternative admissions standards, as well. I never took the SATs and graduated from high school with a 1.7 GPA. After 4 years in the military, I went through the community college, graduated with honors and transfered to a very good University where I ended up doing very well.

In addition, the SATs are a part of an overall standard. Outside activities, GPA, volunteerism, letters of recommendation, letters of intent... all of these things are a part of the process, designed in theory to create an overall picture of both the aptitude and character of the applicant. Sure, the SATs are a part of the standard, but the goal isn't strictly to get the students with the highest SATs. It's to get the students who are most qualified. The latter being more than just one test score.

So, as a general matter, I disagree with the notion you have to have flexible admission standards or adjust graduation standards to everyone so they can be 'successful.' You wouldn't want your surgeon's medical training to have been dumbed down the the lowest standard of anyone that wants to be a surgeon. Under this system, is your surgeon really successful if he doesn't know what he's doing and kills you? "Well, he graduated med school" will not be a consolation to anyone.I am very sorry that you drew this conclusion from what I wrote, because I am also very much opposed to adjusting grading standards in order to engineer bogus success. My point is simply this: identify what the real standard is and then be willing to consider alternative means of truly acheiving that standard. Not lowering it. Not changing it. Once again, focusing strictly on an SAT score is missing the forest for the trees. The standard is to have the most qualified student body. One test or indicator is an SAT score. One of many.

In my mind, there a myriad of reasons why people can't always get want they want. Sometimes these reasons are 'fair' and sometimes not. So, I'd say that giving people equal opportunity to meet standards and expectations is fair, but changing them is not.I agree.

But isn't making allowances a change in standards? Possibly. Depends upon the nature of the standards. Once again, the difference between "having the most qualified student body" and "having a student body with the best SAT scores in the nation." The two don't necessarily correlate.
And isn't it usually a reduction in standards? Absolutely not.
If you have the time, desire, and skill to want to give someone more attention, in the hopes they'll be able to reach the minimum with more help, great. That means you're probably a pretty good (and underpaid) person. But you shouldn't be forced or expected to give away your time, education, and expertise to everyone.I respectfully disagree with this opinion, and I'm not sure I agree with the implication that this will require a significant amount of time. I'm also not sure I understand the idea of giving away one's education or expertise and this is the very nature of instruction, regardless of the student.

I have limited time. I have to expect a certain minimum level. I just don't have the resources to personally bring everyone to that level. So, I make a choice. And I shouldn't be forced to make a different one.

(I wrote this on the fly, please excuse any mistakes.)It's the very presumption that this all necessarily takes time and resources that I'm talking about. It may. Of course. And I understand about writing things on the fly. :D

Steve

01-13-2009, 05:12 PM

why shouldn't I be looking for way to accomodate people who don't meet my standards for admission to my school?

this raises the question - why do I have standards at all?Oh boy. Hold on while I get my sled as we approach the slippery slope. :D

let's say that I have something unique and special to teach. I consider it to be very valuable, and I know that it is difficult to learn. I know that to be successful requires certain personal attributes, and without those a student will not succeed. I am with you so far.
I also know from my experience as a teacher that having students in class who do not posess these attributes not only reduces the ability of others to learn efficiently, but can also be dangerous to that student and all the other students.This doesn't yet contradict anything I've said.
What benefit is there to me, to the school as an institution, or to the other students in accomodating people who do not posess the required attributes for success?None. This is not in any way what I'm suggesting. The point that I'm making is that very often, particularly where disabled individuals are involved, we adhere to irrelevancies under the guise of standards.

Not always. I've gone out of my way to make that clear.

In many cases, such as in SL4Drew's post, what is referred to is not the standard; it's the litmus test. If having high SAT scores is your standard, I would submit that your standards could be higher. It's easy to study for one exam.

Some schools, the best they have to offer is to be a vehicle for self-improvement; a school with that mission could certainly benefit from taking on students with lesser abilities and raising them up to heights that they previously could not have achieved. This is in fact what my school's kids program excels at.

but it is absolutely NOT the only mission for a martial arts school. True and once again, I hope I have made it abundantly clear that I agree.

btw -
blind member of book club <> illiterate member of book club.
1 armed pitcher <> 0 armed outfielder.
illiterate trap shooter <> blind trap shooter.
1 armed drummer <> 2 armed drummer. Oh wait... that Def Leppard guy got better.One of the things I've noticed on this board is that there seems to be a tendency for people to think that there is malice behind any changes. I wasn't trying to mischaractarize your examples. I was simply trying to use your examples as a way to further explain my own position.

Or if you prefer, you got me. I am guilty. ;)

Nolerama

01-13-2009, 06:30 PM

I don't think that you should discriminate in the MAs. However, I don't think that the disabled person should ask that that someone change their entire training curriculum in order to accommodate the disabled person.

Disabled people can, and have competed in the MAs. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5R75GGUovg) If an instructor can't handle a disabled person in his/her gym, that instructor is at a personal loss. Just like in life, a disabled person can hang with the best of them, and find a way to overcome the disability. Just like a physiologically-typical person has to keep up with the pack, so will the disabled person.

SL4Drew

01-13-2009, 06:38 PM

I think I must not have been clear. I'm not saying standards should be changed. Take this example: a university setting. In a history class, the professor requires that his latest edition publication be purchased (for an obscene price), but because it hasn't been picked up outside of a small, academic publishing house it's not available in an alternative format. There's a student who is blind and requests a braille copy. He's not unprepared or illiterate. He's capable of absorbing the information and succeeding in the class. He just can't see the words on the page.

Sure. I think no one would disagree (I hope). What my concern is when it something analogous to being forced to select a different book or (worse) forcing the entire class to read the text in braille. To me, that's difference between focusing on the standards and giving the student and opportunity to meet it and focusing on the student and changing the universe around to make the student 'successful.'

Now, legalities aside (please), my point is that the instructor should figure something out. Whether required to by law or not, my personal opinion is that this is the right thing to do.

It is some what of a moral or ethical judgment. Again, in the situation above, I don't think you'd get much of a disagreement But in others...

Again, I am not suggesting that standards be lowered or altered.

It sounded that way. I appreciate the clarification.

Most universities also have alternative admissions standards, as well. I never took the SATs and graduated from high school with a 1.7 GPA. After 4 years in the military, I went through the community college, graduated with honors and transfered to a very good University where I ended up doing very well.

In addition, the SATs are a part of an overall standard. Outside activities, GPA, volunteerism, letters of recommendation, letters of intent... all of these things are a part of the process, designed in theory to create an overall picture of both the aptitude and character of the applicant. Sure, the SATs are a part of the standard, but the goal isn't strictly to get the students with the highest SATs. It's to get the students who are most qualified. The latter being more than just one test score.

I thought about this when I posted it. The analogy isn't perfect because every school is a little different, but I think it is still functional. When I wrote this I was actually thinking about Law School admissions. The LSAT score is a HUGE deal. But whatever your metric is, you are trying to get a certain class of student and reject the rest. If you evaluate the student against your metric, you don't make excuses for him/her, you simply reject them. You may admit students on the bubble and give them extra help, but, at least on the merits, the dean of admissions wouldn't go too far past a 'bubble student.'

Taking a lot of students below your minimum either sets them up for failure or pulls everyone else down with them. Neither seems like a good option.

Absolutely not. I respectfully disagree with this opinion, and I'm not sure I agree with the implication that this will require a significant amount of time. I'm also not sure I understand the idea of giving away one's education or expertise and this is the very nature of instruction, regardless of the student.It's the very presumption that this all necessarily takes time and resources that I'm talking about. It may. Of course. And I understand about writing things on the fly. :D

Its about efficiency really. If you were a manufacturer, you wouldn't keep buying sub par parts to put into your goods, spend a lot of time to fix them (at your own cost) then place the product into the marketplace at a cost higher than everyone else with dubious quality and expect to be competitive and profitable. Or you wouldn't routinely hire an employee far beneath your minimum qualifications, pay them the same as everyone else, but then spend oodles of time trying to coach them to the place where you could have hired 20 other people. And perhaps they'll never reach that level of competence. So you've committed waste in the form of your time and money. So, you will unlikely be able to provide the quality product or service you want if you do by doing such things.

Outside the realm of commerce, I recognize that many look at martial arts instruction as a form of 'public service.' I don't. And I don't think I should be forced to treat it that way. Just like every high school athlete can't play in the FBS, or a regular BCS contender, I think we should allow for instructors to determine that a student isn't able to 'play at the next level.' We expect the coach to pick the best talent and make them better. I see no reason to demand more from a martial arts instructor. To demand them to take someone below their benchmark is a disservice to the team, the school, and his own coaching talents.

DavidCC

01-13-2009, 06:39 PM

One of the things I've noticed on this board is that there seems to be a tendency for people to think that there is malice behind any changes. I wasn't trying to mischaractarize your examples. I was simply trying to use your examples as a way to further explain my own position.

no problem here ;)

SL4Drew

01-13-2009, 06:54 PM

The point that I'm making is that very often, particularly where disabled individuals are involved, we adhere to irrelevancies under the guise of standards.

I think at its heart, that is what the ADA and the Civil Rights Acts were supposed about. So, the idea that the laws should 'shield' people from unwarranted discrimination really isn't controversial (again, I hope). The problem, which is part of the discussion here, is where some seek to use such laws as a 'sword' to force people to do things that infringes on their own personal freedom and liberty. Some discrimination is justified and is even recognized as constitutional, e.g. certain types of gender discrimination.

How far is going too far when protecting people, is something of a judgment call based on what you perceive to be the higher value.

Steve

01-14-2009, 11:09 AM

I read this last night, but was on baby duty. Gave me some time to think about it.

First, I just want to thank you and everyone else in this thread for keeping the conversation civil and not equating disagreement with disrespect. It's been refreshing.

I think at its heart, that is what the ADA and the Civil Rights Acts were supposed about. So, the idea that the laws should 'shield' people from unwarranted discrimination really isn't controversial (again, I hope). The problem, which is part of the discussion here, is where some seek to use such laws as a 'sword' to force people to do things that infringes on their own personal freedom and liberty. Some discrimination is justified and is even recognized as constitutional, e.g. certain types of gender discrimination.

How far is going too far when protecting people, is something of a judgment call based on what you perceive to be the higher value.I think that where I fall on this issue is to say that historically, it takes a significant push, usually toward (if not all the way to) the other extreme before things finally settle somewhat in the middle.

Steve

01-14-2009, 11:10 AM

no problem here ;)
Awesome! :D

Daniel Sullivan

01-14-2009, 04:53 PM

I think at its heart, that is what the ADA and the Civil Rights Acts were supposed about. So, the idea that the laws should 'shield' people from unwarranted discrimination really isn't controversial (again, I hope). The problem, which is part of the discussion here, is where some seek to use such laws as a 'sword' to force people to do things that infringes on their own personal freedom and liberty. Some discrimination is justified and is even recognized as constitutional, e.g. certain types of gender discrimination.

How far is going too far when protecting people, is something of a judgment call based on what you perceive to be the higher value.
I'm quoting this because I feel that it summarizes the dilema quite well. The big factor in this is "Reasonable accomodation."

Reasonable accomodation starts with the building, so the facilities should be up to ADA standards to begin with. Not just for the students, but for student's family and friends who come to visit, some of whom may be disabled.

The next part is participation. One of the problems in martial arts is that 'reasonable accomodation' will vary depending upon the art. A wheelchair bound individual, for example, would be unable to participate in WTF sparring and all of the kicking techniques. The self defense curriculum in TKD is likewise noncondusive to the wheelchair bound. I wouldn't be able to teach him because I have no curriculum for him.

Being a wheeled device, a wheelchair will have certain dynamics that an occupant with good arm strength could take advantage of, so it wouldn't surprise me if a specialized wheelchair based SD exists, and that would be appropriate for such an individual. This is not, however, something that I am qualified to teach.

On the other hand, the one armed man mentioned earlier, or heck, even a no armed man, could participate in some of the TKD curriculum (hand techniques would be out) and provided they were really good at dodging, could certainly spar in the style. How about advancement? Well, all of the forms have hand techniques, both offensive and defensive and would be unable to completely perform the taegeuks, so this would present a problem, particularly with a no-armed man, though a one armed man could probably perform them. Advancement would be largely up to the teacher and how much emphasis her or she places on being able to fully complete the forms and hand techniques.

A blind person could be taught TKD, but would need one on one instruction, as all moves would need to be taught by touch. Such a person would not be able to just jump into a regular class, but I do have curriculum and in theory, could teach them privately. Such a student could even be taught to spar in the style, though they would be at a serious disadvantage in terms of competition.

To a great extent, what it is that the student is looking for and whether or not the school is capable of providing it need to be considered before a disabled student joins the class. If nothing else, the potential student should watch some classes before signing up.

Lastly, I can certainly see where people with a disability could become frustrated with perhaps being frequently written off as incapable when in fact, they may be very capable.

Daniel