Talk:Interior design regulation in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

2009-2010 comments[edit]

The objective to enact interior design regulation in the United States began in the 1970’s as a way to garner respect from the public.”

The primary objective of regulating the practice of interior design is to provide a clear distinction between those that claim an inalienable right to label themselves interior designer, and their work as interior design, regardless of their abilities AND those who consider interior design a legitimate profession. As with any established professional society membership within that profession, at a minimum, requires rigorous education, apprenticeship/training, proficiency in a multitude of aspects of the built environment, proof of such education and proficiency, ongoing advancement of the professions body of knowledge and proof that the profession actually provides a unique benefit to society.

  • The only legitimate reason to regulate a profession and thereby limit who can enter is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. There is not a shred of evidence to warrent a conclusion that the unregulated practice of interior design places the public in any form of jeopardy. The legislature should not provide "distincition" between levsls of designers -- it is the responsibility of each designer to market their own credentials and talents to the public.
  • The "inalienable" right to call oneself an interior design without having to be licensed has been upheld in court. The term "interior designer" is legally free for all designers, whether licensed or not, to use.
  • Trade associations have every right to determine the qualifications of their members, including passage of the NCIDQ which is the same criteria for licensure. They do not have the right to impose their membership criteria on the design community at large, who do not need or want it, and have not asked them to speak on their behalfInterior Design Professional (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Interior Design Professional

The “resist and repeal” movement has gained some traction with their campaign to subvert the profession of interior design by claiming that the legislation of the practice of interior design should not be government regulated. The aspect of unnecessary governmental regulation and the confusion inherent in any governmental legislation provides legitimate ammunition for the anti-ID legislation effort. While the value of using government regulation to advance the professional society is debatable the inherent desire of the profession to hold itself to higher level of standards via education, practice and examination should not be confused with the legislative effort.

  • Biased and unsubstantiated opinion. The position of those in the "Freedom Movement" is that they encourage education and private certification as a means to gain higher proficiency and enhanced marketability, but oppose a state-mandated one-size-fits-all pathway for interior designers.

Those that care to learn more about the profession of interior design as established by The Council for Interior Design Accreditation, The Interior Design Educators Council and the National Council for Interior Design Qualification should contact those organizations.

  • Those organizations did not "establish" the profession of interior design. They merely advocate for occupational regulation. Only four states have seen fit to adopt their criteria for practice -- and one (AL) has already been struck down as unconstitutional and another (FL) was partially struck down with the rest undergoing appeal.

Mike Dudek (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

* For:  Licensing protects the health, safety and welfare of the public.
    • Against: No evidence has ever been presented to warrant a conclusion that the unregulated practice of interior design places the public in any form of jeopardy.

DISCUSSION: While public record of court decisions regarding direct correlation of interior design and public safety are few the aspects of interior design’s ability to effect the health and welfare of the public are numerous and vetted via academic research

  • For: Licensure would garner respect for the profession.
    • Against: The legislature should not regulate occupations for the sole purpose of providing state-sanctioned marketing advantages for some in a profession while placing the rest at an unfair competitive disadvantage.

DISCUSSION: There are numerous means that professional societies establish their basis for existence. Education, experience, examination to prove expertise in the profession is one commonly accepted first step into a profession. The profession of Interior Design has established this model for access into the profession. As a relatively young professional society, interior design continues to be misperceived by the public as nothing more than interior decoration. The legislation of interior design started as an effort to distinguish the profession of interior design from the occupation of interior decoration. As it develops the profession of interior design is endeavoring to clearly prove that it does provide a unique benefit to society which in turn would garner the public’s respect without the burden of governmental regulation

  • Interior design already exists. The three E's are certainly not the only path of entry into the field. Clients hire interior designers for their talent and vision, not their ability to read codes. If the trade associations that are behind the push to regulate had spent as much money, time and effort on educating the public about interior designers' "unique benefit to society," we would not be having this discussion today. And thank you for admitting that capricious and arbitrary governmental regulation is a burden. I wholeheartedly agree.Interior Design Professional (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Interior Design Professional
  • For: Consumers need to be assured that they are hiring a qualified professional.
    • Against: There has been no public outcry from consumers that they are confused about interior design services. The public does not lack the ability to make informed choices about who they retain for design services and do not need the government to dictate who they may or may not hire.

DISCUSSION: This may be true for basic residential interior decoration services but should not be confused with the design of contract or commercial level interior spaces involving life safety and accessibility regulations amongst other higher level technical requirements

  • For: Designers cannot fully practice because the International Building Code (IBC) requires interior designers to be “registered.”
    • Against: The IBC (Sec. 106.1) does not require that all construction documents be prepared by registered design professionals. What it actually says is, ‘’[C]onstruction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional ‘’’where required’’’ by the statutes of the jurisdiction in which the project is to be constructed.’’ The IBC defers completely to state law as to whether or not construction documents must be prepared by an architect or an engineer or may be prepared by anyone else including interior designers.

DISCUSSION: Requirements for licensed professionals (architects, interior designers, engineers, etc.) vary from state to state. The onus is on the design professional to understand those particular requirements.

Mike Dudek (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits. The previous user merely put his/her original edits back in. Those edits were entirely biased and contained little or no verifible facts or statistics, just rhetoric and opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interior Design Professional (talkcontribs) 00:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So you know, reverting a good faith edit by another user because you do not agree with them (as you just stated) is a violation of one of wikipedia's most important tenants. In the future please use the talk page and provide justification for your reverting an edit beyond "those edits were entirely biased and ..."Nitack (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Weasel wording and biased wording[edit]

Edits to remove weasel wording and remove biased terms were reintroduced yesterday. Refering to the "anti-regulation" arguments as "pro-freedom" introduces bias as it paints the other side of the debate as anti-freedom which carries a negative connotation. It is pure bias wording and is against the Wikipedia guidelines. Removing valid, reputable citations in favor of op-ed pieces by an admittedly biased party is also against Wikipedia policy. Weazel wording speaks for itself, please read the guidelines. Nitack (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Alabama also enacted a practice law, but it was subsequently struck down. This is verifiable, accurate and relevant information for this article.Interior Design Professional (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Execellent... not cite the source. This is an encyclopediaNitack (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Original motive not verifiable. According the original proponents, the American Society of Interior Designer's book A History of the Profession: Interior Design From Practice to Profession', "Attaining legal registration was considered by interior designers as a way to garner respect from the public and allied professions." Page 31. Interior Design Professional (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"All" states with practice laws to not exempt residential design. Louisiana interior design statutes 3183 does not exempt residential interior design. See Interior Design Professional (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, but a more accurate wording is "most". Good catch Nitack (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Previous information about the Institute for (not to) Justice is not verifiable. They do not oppose all regulations, but have four core areas: school choice, free speech, economic liberty, and property rights. See Institute for Justice or their website at as verification. Interior Design Professional (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The judge's decision was that commercial interior decorating was not subject to restriction under the state's regulations. This can be verified by the judges decision at and also through the judge's own words as documented in the official transcript of the hearing at Interior Design Professional (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There is however no residential interior decorating law either, so the previous wording was correct. Nitack (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Providing links to one side's editorials instead of to the official ruling violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability Interior Design Professional (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That document explained the court ruling. Nothing editorial about it. And just FYI, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, is for how the Wikipedia article is written, not the source used. Nitack (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)