ADA and Martial Arts Schools

[SL4Drew]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

(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.

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]

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

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.

 

[KempoGuy06]

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]

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]

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

I 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Steve]

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.

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]

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. 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.