“You know, I always wanted to pretend to be an architect,” George Costanza told Jerry Seinfeld.
But you wouldn’t want Art Vandelay as your architect. Why? Because Vandelay — the sometimes alter ego of Seinfeld’s George Costanza — is not really an architect.
That’s where licensing comes into play: establishing, verifying, and enforcing the necessary minimum qualifications to practice critical professions such as engineering and architecture competently and safely.
Unfortunately, efforts are underway to undermine licensing and erode the public protection it provides. In state after state — Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, just to name a few — there is an orchestrated campaign to weaken professional standards by slipping legislation through during the COVID-19 crisis so a distracted public won’t see it happening, or by invoking the crisis as a justification.
During the COVID-19 crisis, doctors and other medical professionals have been allowed to practice across state lines and mobilize where they are most needed. Those seeking to eliminate professional licensing are using this as a “gotcha” moment to push an anti-licensing agenda.
Their argument: If licensing requirements can be relaxed so doctors can practice in states where they are not licensed, then clearly licensing standards for every occupation and profession can be weakened or eliminated. This conveniently ignores a critical fact: The reason states could trust that out-of-state doctors were qualified to help was that they were able to have confidence in the strong underlying licensing requirements and the licensing systems that uphold them.
In every state, medical professionals must meet stringent licensing standards. The country’s ability to respond to the crisis was made possible because of a strong licensing system — not in spite of it. If COVID-19 taught us anything about licensing, it’s that strong, consistent licensing standards are a critical foundation for professions entrusted to protect the public.
We agree that some reforms, such as those allowing licenses to be more portable across states, make sense. What is not warranted is the wholesale gutting of licensing requirements for all occupations and professions — even professions such as engineering and architecture, for whom proven licensing models are already in place and working well.
Despite that, some anti-licensing groups — notably, the Koch network and its affiliated state institutes — are still pushing a wholesale anti-licensing agenda. Often using hair braiders and barbers to make the case against overzealous licensing requirements, anti-licensing proponents are lobbying for a one-size-fits-all downgrading of licensing requirements, qualifications, and oversight.
Despite what proponents of weakening or eliminating licensing say, the ramifications of their proposals are not limited to the barbershop. In fact, their proposals fail even to acknowledge differences across the multitude of occupations and professions. In their world, nail technicians, tattoo artists, hairstylists, teachers, architects, engineers, and CPAs should all be subject to the same licensing standards — or lack thereof.
Some proposals even go so far as to suggest that no license is needed as long as consumers are informed and sign a waiver acknowledging that the service provider is unlicensed. The problem, of course, is the work done by complex, highly technical professions such as CPAs, architects, engineers, surveyors, and landscape architects affects the public at large, not just one consumer who commissions the job.
When it comes to professions that protect our physical safety — such as civil engineers who design, construct, and maintain public infrastructure, including bridges, airports, dams, and systems for water supply — and our financial security— such as CPAs who uphold the integrity of our financial systems — rigorous standards based on education, examination, and experience are critical. Weakening or outright eliminating these standards put public safety and welfare at risk.
Indeed, no reasonable person thinks we should be using Yelp reviews instead of licensing standards to judge the qualifications of an engineer determining the weight and wind load for a suspension bridge. You or someone you love might have to drive over that bridge someday.
Are some reforms needed for some occupations and professions? Yes. Should licensing that ensures rigorous standards for complex, highly technical professions that impact public health, safety, and welfare be gutted as well? Absolutely not. Pretending to be an architect is funny in a sitcom. It’s dangerous in real life.
Christy Van Buskirk, P.E., is chairwoman of the American Society of Civil Engineers Committee on Licensure.
