Very usefull info. Thanks!…

Now to clarify my position on legislating the practice of interior design based on our supposed ability to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public: It is stupid.
Is that clear?
So let me reiterate. There is a clear distinction between advancing the profession of interior design via education, experience and examination (amongst several other measurement tools) and legislating the practice, or terminology, of interior design. So for you to claim that education, experience and examination (as defined by NCIDQ/CIDA/IDEC) is part and parcel of the legislation effort is actually shooting yourself squarely in the foot by de-professionalizing the entire domain of interior design.
Be careful what you wish for.

And Mike, I disagree with your stated requirements for defining professional status. “Professionalism” is, first and foremost, a state of mind an approach to things. It can’t be legislated, and it most especially has nothing to do with supporting professional organizations.

While I do agree that education and experience are important, there are many ways to obtain the requisite knowledge. I don’t see what role examination has at all in this (at least in the form of tests such as the NCIDQ) - unless it *is* to be used for practice or title act purposes.

So, I don’t understand the distinction you are making when you claim you are opposed to legislation and yet in favor of the very same process that the pro-legislation people are trying to set up as *the* path to being able to become licensed and to be able to practice.

The effort to validate the profession of interior design via legislation is not the best way for the profession to advance itself. I am not a member of ASID/IIDA and I do not support Interior Design practice or title legislation. So no it is not necessary.

What is necessary however is that as a member of the profession of interior design (I do consider myself a professional interior designer) that you accept certain obligations to your profession and that you do everything in your ability to define, advance and promote the professional society. That means that you accept that one of the prerequisites for professional status is a strictly defined education and supervised experience leading to a test of one’s knowledge of, and skillset in, the profession.

You are free to criticize the effort to legislate interior design based on our supposed responsiblity to protect the health safety and welfare of the public. But if you are also going to eschew education, experience and examination as some grand conspiracy to exclude you from the profession then maybe you are not really serious about interior design and the professional society that it is.

In other words there are really 2 distinct issues at play here.
1. The advancement of the profession via government legislation and
2. The advancement of the profession via education, experience and examination amongst other less tangible measurements.

You should not confuse them. To do so indicates that you really are not serious about maintaining professional status and that maybe you would be better off calling yourself an interior decorator. No harm. No foul.

Three of the top arguments used by proponents of licensing are:

1. Health, safety, and welfare
2. Garnering respect for the profession
3. Consumer protection

ASID and its funded coalitions have spent the last 30 years advocating for regulation based on the canard that government regulation of the Interior Design profession is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. In all that time, however, they have not provided one verifiable example of anyone, anywhere being harmed by the unlicensed practice of Interior Design. (And, by the way, they never will because none exists.)

The idea that requiring government licensing of Interior Designers promotes respect for the profession, is another widely disseminated talking point of the pro-licensing crowd. Since when has it been the proper role of government to actively and aggressively promote and enable a small group of insiders to control an industry, thereby allowing them to limit their competition, and enhance their careers while putting others at a disadvantage?

As far as consumer protection is concerned, there are codes, inspections, etc. that are already in place that must be followed regardless of whether a designer is licensed or not. There has been no outcry from consumers that they have been harmed in anyway by the unlicensed practice of Interior Design. Furthermore, the Federal Trade Commission concluded that regulation would only serve to escalate costs and limit consumer choices.

In 2007, the Supreme Court of the state of Alabama struck down their Interior Design Practice Act. In his opinion, Justice Parker stated: “Nor should this Court embrace the paternalistic notion that the average citizen is incapable of choosing a competent interior designer without the State’s help. The economic liberty of contract remains a protected right in Alabama, especially in a field like interior design that involves expressive activity.”