|Action||Requirement for CACREP accreditation for educational programs|
|Comment Period||Ends 7/1/2015|
A parody of our profession's foolishness
'Hi. I'm the counseling profession.' I wanted to invite you to consider social psychology of thinking that other people think the same thing that I do, but in reality, I don't know what they're thinking, it just seems like the norm. It's called pluralistic ignorance. It sure does look normal to have "one accreditation" standard for education a profession. It sure does seem logical to follow this idea especially when those other professions look to be operating very well. Should I say they are better professions, right, since ours is so full of such lesser alternative accreditations, and all those likely 70%+ (thousands) of individuals who devoted their lives to those alternatives certainly couldn't do a good job or bring competition, uniqueness, or creativity to our profession, they can be ignored even though our ethics call us to honor them greatly as colleagues.
None of the other professions allowed for their education requirements to develop for decades under several options for licensure and licensure requirements. So if C happens when A (the 'better' profession) chooses to do B (pick one standard) for their professional group, then if we take the same B option, then somehow this would turn us in to A profession.
No. That's an error of logic, it's FALSE logic. The A profession STARTED OFF with the 1 standard, or cut off alternatives within a few manageable years of its inception. Back in the early days when counselors we're pretending to be junior psychologists, the psychology and social work bodies were already aware of the need to collect one standard. OUR PROFESSION HAS OPERATED FOR DECADES WITH SEVERAL OPTIONS FOR LICENSURE, which is a HUGE DIFFERENCE. So to cut it down to 1 SINGLE rather than ONE SOLID GROUP of shown and proven standards, is leading to the destruction of all of those approved and legitimate standards of the past, and all people (the majority of the professional body) who followed them.
So then the consequence of choosing to do option B, when we are NOT STARTING off in the same situation or choosing from any similar scenario as group A, is not going to lead to the effect, the consequence C that we're hoping for in rhetoric and mindset. It's OBVIOUSLY creating another consequence, one that is severely different than C. No matter how much we rationalize that it's "okay" or "better" to accept the slaughtering or defamation of professionals who come from other backgrounds, we're using false logic, and creating damaging consequences for the majority of people of our profession.
What a bureaucratic joke that when we try to get to C, we really are just reminding everyone of why we're profession X. We're full of unknowns, multiple titles, multiple standards, and to discredit all of them is absurd, it's just creating more shame and absurdity, which is what we're supposedly trying to avoid. X is absurd, it won't create itself as an A profession unless we collect a unity of what's there, we can't force a unity through the option B exclusive.