James W. Healey, DC
Early in 1990, I wrote that it was my opinion that two accrediting agencies were necessary in the field of chiropractic education. My conclusion was based on several key factors.
First, there were and still are two schools of thought within the chiropractic profession. These two segments are different from one another in several ways, perhaps most important in the fundamental issue of their concepts of chiropractic. I am not concerned with making an argument for which is better or which is right or which is honorable or anything of that nature. Practitioners will choose the one that suits them best or meets their needs, and I expect that they would find their own reasons for why one should be chosen over the other. So, I'll leave that argument up to each of you. My point is that it is well-established that there is a division and there are differences.
The two concepts have come to be identified as mixing and straight chiropractic, primarily distinguished by whether the professional objective, briefly stated, is the diagnosis and treatment of diseases and ailments, or detection and correction of subluxations. Many incorrectly hold that the distinction is in methods used; e.g., the use of machines or the use of hands only. In this example of misconception (a very common one), it is quite obvious that either mixing or straight could be accomplished with either machines or hands. Therapy by modalities is just as much within the mixing objective as therapy by manual massage; and adjustment of subluxation by mechanical stylus is just as much within the straight objective as adjustment with nail point #1.
Second, the logical consequence of this is that there would evolve two separate and different kinds of chiropractic colleges to teach the two different kinds of chiropractic and, further, that these colleges would need two different sets of standards by which they could assess and improve their educational programs. This is not to say there is a double standard, as some have sourly claimed, where one is higher or lower than the other. They would be two separate measures of high quality for each of the two different programs. For example, at the county fair they may judge the tomatoes on how red they are. This could not apply to the cucumbers, of course. And a cucumber which is not red is not a lesser standard of tomato. It will be held to a high standard of how green it is instead, appropriate to its nature as a cucumber. Naturally, then, for chiropractic, there needed to be two appropriate sets of standards.
Third, immediately before SCASA was founded there was only the CCE, which provided standards only for mixing chiropractic colleges. Further, even last year, CCE was not willing to formulate straight standards or appropriately accommodate straight colleges.
Given the circumstances that: a) there were two distinct schools of thought; b) they required differing standards appropriate to their needs and characteristics; and c) the CCE would not consider accommodating straight chiropractic colleges; I concluded that two agencies in chiropractic were necessary. They would each deal with their respective segment of the profession, CCE with mixing, SCASA with straight.
Now, a year later, its still clear that my conclusion was correct. There is now some change in one of the factors that needs consideration. It's not that straights and mixers have united; the division still exists. And it's not that the divisions now have the same educational needs; they don't. It's that there is some sentiment that chiropractic should try to include straight colleges and mixing under one accreditation of one agency. Recently CCE, in an open letter, had indicated that it has an interest in such an arrangement. SCASA has never been opposed to this as long as the one agency could adequately and fairly accommodate both schools of thought.
I believe that if both agencies sincerely agree that this is worthwhile and desirable, then they could accomplish it relatively easily, particularly when weighed against the great effort required to be locked in battle as has been their recent history. It certainly appears that one agency committed to fair accommodation of both mixing and straight colleges in its accrediting activities would be a more efficient use of the profession's resources and more palatable to the political and bureaucratic bodies that regulate our profession in so many ways. It might even bring us a step closer to intra-professional harmony.
I still believe two agencies are necessary if one alone cannot or will not accommodate both schools of thought. But I am also fully willing to support the notion and the reality, should it come about, the one agency could suffice. Just like the judge at the county fair who can scrutinize tomatoes and cucumbers for what they are and appreciate the appropriate high-quality characteristics of each, chiropractic's one agency should be dedicated and able to evaluate the success and excellence with which a chiropractic college presents its own educational program, whether it be mixer or straight.
James Healey, D.C.
Princeton, New Jersey
