OK watch this video of a 1959 Chevy crashing head on into a 2009 Chevy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJrXViFfMGk

OK what does this have to do with the profession of Interior Design- you ask?…..and you should. Keep in mind the post crash analysis shows that the driver of the ’59 would have died almost instantly- the driver of the ’09 would have suffered minor leg injuries (due mainly to the inertia of the heavy iron ’59)

As mentioned in my previous post there are those whose mission in life is to de-professionalize interior design.  They insist that ours is a profession beholden to artistic flair and that customers are fully capable of selecting a “designer” to suit their needs. In other words licensing and credentials earned via education experience and examination mean nothing.  Natural creative talent and natural selection of marketplace competition are all that are needed to call oneself an “interior designer”.  Their view of the profession is much like it was in the 1960’s and 1970’s when the practice of interior design began to distinguish itself from interior decoration.  They will do whatever they can to make sure the professional domain remains wide open to all comers and posers, qualified or not. 

The anti-regulation proponents claim that the protection of the health safety and welfare of the public is a moot basis for ID regulation and the government has no need to make sure the public is suitably protected by our work.  Well when I watched  this video it struck me (pun intended) as a good metaphor for the anti-regulation effort. If they could have it their way the government would not have imposed regulations for auto-makers to make vehicles safer, the insurance industry would not have made efforts to make a safety a concern and the general public would still be driving around in 4 ton steel coffins. The desire to raise the bar of professional status via the protection of public’s health, safety and/or welfare and official validation thereof is a natural urge for any logical individual or like minded professional domain. To say it isn’t a necessary component of a “profession” is a public disservice at best and negligence of our obligation to each other at worst.

Facts and figures have no effect in deterring the efforts of the anti-regulation movement maybe shame will.