To Screen Or Not To Screen!!

[sensei8]

The MA, while it can be viewed by those who are residences of both sides of the fence, MAists and non-MAists, across a wide stroke of any type of brush, that the MA is both beautiful and deadly, it's context, after all, is to injure our attackers in the light of survival.

We don't learn the MA because it's entertainment and all, but moreover, because we want to learn how to defend ourselves, families, friends, and the innocent to the very best of our abilities at all costs.

The MA is construed to be a violent act, and oftentimes, the aftermath can become fatal, whether one intends it to be so or not.

Not everyone uses the MA to cause ill will to another human being. Not everyone uses the MA to carry out the most heinous crimes against another human being. Not everyone uses the MA to perpetrate an evil act against another human being.

Not everyone!!

However, with the good, bad rears up it's ugly head against society for their selfish needs at any costs; there's a bad apple among the good apples, and in that, that bad apple gets by, which is their intent, at spoiling the bunch.

Newspapers, social media, TV, and main media report story after story that depicts a MA who's used their MA skills/knowledge/experience unlawfully. Rapes, molestation, robbery, and murder, to name just a few acts of moral turpitude world wide against the unsuspecting citizens wherever they might live.

So, let me ask you this, if I may...

Do MA instructors have any duty to screen their students before teaching them the skills of physical violence?

[singularity6]

My master instructor has told several students that they can no longer learn anything from him... Attitude and demeanor go a long way in our school!

Tough-guys need not apply!

That being said, I feel like I might be in a bit of a minority when it comes to why I train. I do not expect to ever need my training to defend myself. Instead, I train for physical fitness, and for emotional stability. Physical violence is of almost no interest to me, but training has been quite cathartic. Hopefully I will never be one to be "screened out!"

[mushybees]

Not screen as such but instructors should be alert to character problems in students and be prepared to halt their training if they discover anything troubling.

There's a chap at our club who has shown a worrying lack of control which only manifests when he is sparring women or teenagers. Never with the men.

There are rumblings of problems at home, controllng behaviour and intervention by social services.

Imo these are red flags which would/should be cause to part ways.

[singularity6]

Not screen as such but instructors should be alert to character problems in students and be prepared to halt their training if they discover anything troubling.

There's a chap at our club who has shown a worrying lack of control which only manifests when he is sparring women or teenagers. Never with the men.

There are rumblings of problems at home, controllng behaviour and intervention by social services.

Imo these are red flags which would/should be cause to part ways.

That guy would be gone in a heartbeat at my school.

[sensei8]

Screening a student before they join is doable, if the CI wants to spend the necessary money and time for a through background check; money and time well spent.

However, that method, while good for all concerned, is a trickle flow of new students joining; the P&L statement will start screaming.

I believe in order to satisfy all things concerned, the CI must be attentive to their students. Looking for those red flags, and act upon them once verified. Being proactive in the protection of the general masses as well as their own students should be paramount. Turning a deaf ear or a blind eye on a suspicious red flag only invites harm to the innocent.

Bullies are immediately counseled, and if their actions continue, then they are expelled with cause!!

[Bulltahr]

Perhaps a quick visit to the local police dept if there are any red flags starting to appear. They may not disclose the details but the may be able to advise in other ways.

I think absolutely the CI has a responsibility, perhaps not so much the initial background check , but bullying or thuggish behavior would not be tolerated in most "trad" dojos.

The MMA type where the testosterone flows freely and the egos are huge maybe no so much....

[Spartacus Maximus]

The original question of this thread is about ethics and morals. From that point of view a martial arts instructor must, in one way or another, make sure that the skills taught are not abused. The moral and ethical duty of the instructor is to explicitly and specifically explain why and when it is acceptable to use martial arts.

Everyone certainly has free will to think, choose and act but it is morally and ethically wrong for an instructor to ignore a student abusing their skills and continue teaching that person with full knowledge that said student is using martial arts to willfully and intentionally harm, threaten or intimidate other people for personal gain or enjoyment.

The law may or may not hold an instructor responsible for the behaviour of a student, but ethics certainly will. Knowingly accepting and continuing teaching a violent, or criminally inclined person techniques which will make that person more dangerous will certainly have social repercussions. These might follow the instructor as a reputation long after any incident dues down.

The problem is that not everyone shares the same sense of morals and self-respect. An instructor with a minimum of that cannot accept or continue to teach someone knowing that there is a chance that this person will not or cannot control themselves or that said student will harm others.

[sensei8]

The original question of this thread is about ethics and morals. From that point of view a martial arts instructor must, in one way or another, make sure that the skills taught are not abused. The moral and ethical duty of the instructor is to explicitly and specifically explain why and when it is acceptable to use martial arts.

Everyone certainly has free will to think, choose and act but it is morally and ethically wrong for an instructor to ignore a student abusing their skills and continue teaching that person with full knowledge that said student is using martial arts to willfully and intentionally harm, threaten or intimidate other people for personal gain or enjoyment.

The law may or may not hold an instructor responsible for the behaviour of a student, but ethics certainly will. Knowingly accepting and continuing teaching a violent, or criminally inclined person techniques which will make that person more dangerous will certainly have social repercussions. These might follow the instructor as a reputation long after any incident dues down.

The problem is that not everyone shares the same sense of morals and self-respect. An instructor with a minimum of that cannot accept or continue to teach someone knowing that there is a chance that this person will not or cannot control themselves or that said student will harm others.

Solid post!!

Then there's the CI who could care less one way or another!! If we, who are of deep morals and ethics across the board, and we ignore it for whatever our reason(s) might or might not be, then aren't we as guilty as those who could care less one way or another?!?!? Some don't want to be involved; concerning with only their own plight.

The moral and ethics compass is suppose to point the right way, but oftentimes, the darn things broken; darn if one does and darn if one doesn't.

That fine line really isn't that fine!!

[Nidan Melbourne]

The original question of this thread is about ethics and morals. From that point of view a martial arts instructor must, in one way or another, make sure that the skills taught are not abused. The moral and ethical duty of the instructor is to explicitly and specifically explain why and when it is acceptable to use martial arts.

Everyone certainly has free will to think, choose and act but it is morally and ethically wrong for an instructor to ignore a student abusing their skills and continue teaching that person with full knowledge that said student is using martial arts to willfully and intentionally harm, threaten or intimidate other people for personal gain or enjoyment.

The law may or may not hold an instructor responsible for the behaviour of a student, but ethics certainly will. Knowingly accepting and continuing teaching a violent, or criminally inclined person techniques which will make that person more dangerous will certainly have social repercussions. These might follow the instructor as a reputation long after any incident dues down.

The problem is that not everyone shares the same sense of morals and self-respect. An instructor with a minimum of that cannot accept or continue to teach someone knowing that there is a chance that this person will not or cannot control themselves or that said student will harm others.

Solid Post Spartacus Maximus.

At my club, we don't screen students at all; albeit unless it becomes apparant early on there are some red flags that may appear. If we have any genuine concern, we will inform them that we will no longer have them join us at our club.

For me it is ethically and morally wrong to do so, as it feels like an invasion of privacy. But for the safety of others I would if I had a genuine reason for doing so.

[JR 137]

A CI IMO has a moral/ethical obligation to act on red flags. Unless the person is a known criminal, I don’t think there’s much screening that really can or should be done. If I had to go through some sort of background check, I’d have most likely joined a different dojo to be honest. And I’ve been fingerprinted and screened due to being a teacher, so obviously I don’t have anything in my past that would exclude me.

But here’s the thing about background checks... they only indicate if you’ve been caught or are currently being accused. Case in point is there was a child molester working at school I used to work at. He’d passed his background check and everything was fine at hiring. He hadn’t been accused of anything. Once charges were brought against him, the school was promptly (I’m assuming) informed and he was immediately placed on unpaid leave pending the outcome. People criticized the school for hiring him once the allegations were brought forward. But there was no way anyone knew anything until that point. A background check doesn’t reveal what someone’s actually doing, only what they’ve been accused of and/or convicted of.