Cory Henry. UPenn Graduate Design Studio. Photo by Ivy Gray-Klein

Last year, my family and I moved to a new home. After we were settled in, I shared with one of our neighbors that I taught and wrote about architecture. She was stunned and told me that there was another neighbor, right next door to me, who taught and practiced architecture also.

Shortly after, I met Cory Henry, and we began having regular discussions about architectural education and practice. Cory is the Principal and Founder of Atelier Cory Henry, a Los Angeles-based interdisciplinary design practice. He is currently a Kea Distinguished Professor at the University of Maryland, a Visiting Critic at Syracuse University, and has served as a Visiting Critic at the University of Pennsylvania, and a Visiting Assistant Professor in Architecture at Penn State University.

Cory has also helped me with some of my writing, most recently, my essay on tokenism in architectural practice. In our discussions, we soon dove into issues of equity in architectural education and decided it would be interesting to publish our conversation. I have gained many insights from Cory in the last few months. Enjoy the conversation.

[Sean Joyner] You and I have had a few conversations over the past month about issues of race within architecture, and more recently, issues of race and equity in the academic space. Where do we begin? There's the dilemma of inequity within the traditions and systems of architecture, what you’ve called "willful ignorance." Or we could dive into the lack of representation of the Black experience within architectural academia. Perhaps, I'd be most curious to know, what you believe to be the biggest predicament in architectural academia during these times?

[Cory Henry] I have consistently called it “willful ignorance,” and it has continued to nurture a field of inequity so deep and wide-ranging that it is impossible for me to isolate the biggest predicament within academia. How about we start by discussing the lack of diversity in faculty and leadership positions at institutions? There is a severe lack of diversity in the academy in terms of faculty racial makeup, thinking, and socioeconomic backgrounds. The latter might be slightly more difficult to get through. However, in my view, it is essential to have this in order to cut the gordian knot of privilege and subjectivity in design pedagogy. 

Throughout my formal education, at three institutions, I had one non-White and not one Black professor. I have seen very few over those many years, and all were adjuncts except one. Thus, they are underpaid, overworked, and not connected with the school in a significant way. There is an uncomfortable unspoken blanket of tokenism that the adjunct position comes with. You speak about this in your piece Thoughts on Black Tokenism in Architectural Practice. On top of that, the lack of diversity and inclusion obviously informs the metric of value and success of the work but also the experience and advancement of students and faculty. 

The reality that there are differences in freedom of occupation and mobility through our built environment by different demographics has somehow become an epiphany for many educators.

What I am speaking of applies to the many forms of design disciplines that I have been a part of (art, urban design, and architecture), and quite frankly, the academy in general. However, for an example of the exclusionary effects on design thinking, let’s consider the conversations over the last few months on public space. In general, the discourse of public space and the democracy of the shared city have changed significantly. The reality that there are differences in freedom of occupation and mobility through our built environment by different demographics has somehow become an epiphany for many educators. The ignorance of multiple narratives and sociospatial structures was cultivated because of the homogeneity in faculty experiences and thinking. 

My occupation in the academy is one of a scholar and a practitioner. I have a design firm. Thus, my commitment to the institution is different than that of someone who is solely an academic. Yet even with this understood window of engagement, I gladly spend a significant amount of time speaking with students within, and outside of, my own courses because the same homogeneity that I mentioned creates a sense of exclusion within the very space that they’re being educated in. For the obvious reasons, I am often seen as an adviser on how to operate through, and/or despite of, these conditions. This happens at nearly every institution because of the severe lack of diversity.

I would not normally bring this up in our conversations; however, since this may get published, I do feel that it is important for institutions to know that they can have multiple Black educators in the same space and yield very different results and perspectives. Marc Miller, Sekou Cooke; Mira Henry; Felecia Davis; Justin Garrett-Moore; Sean Canty, myself, etc., operate, think, and research differently from one another. Black is not monolithic. 

[SJ] Yes, the lack of diversity in faculty and leadership is a good one. In my formal education, at two institutions, I only had one Black professor while attending community college before university, and he was an adjunct. As sad as it sounds, the sight of a Black professor in one of my studios, while I was attending university, would have left me utterly astonished. 

You say: “The ignorance of multiple narratives and socio-spatial structures was cultivated because of the homogeneity in faculty experiences and thinking.” I totally agree, and then I think of the larger issue of diverse representation in architecture as a whole. I’ve been trying to think through this. Maybe you can offer some insight. Here’s my thinking:

There are a small number of qualified Black architects/designers who might teach at an institution (this may be a false premise on my part). Assuming an institution genuinely desires to bring about equity of representation within its faculty, they hire Black faculty (the few that they have to choose from, or who even want the job). In an effort to be inclusive, they heavily “engage” with this new Black faculty member, who then feels alienated and tokenized. And, by nature of the Black faculty member’s singular experience as an individual, they cannot realistically provide an empirical account of all things “Black experience.” It isn’t possible. One person can only offer a more personal account of “my Black experience.” I think this is the value in your final point on the chorus of voices you alluded to.

Ultimately, my dilemma has been asking myself if there is even a way to legitimately avoid some degree of tokenism working at any institution. As you know, I’ve recently started teaching at Woodbury University, my alma mater, and I’ve had many students ask me about my tokenism essay. They want to know how they can avoid becoming a diversity hire or a victim of tokenism. But, I don’t know if that’s the right question. My response has consistently been that we cannot mull over other people’s secret motives, good or bad. Still, we can only be aware of the subtle phenomena that occur around an issue (equity in this case) and use it as a means to navigate through life. 

But maybe there is a better response in this context. For Black faculty and faculty of color, do you think there is a way to avoid this uncomfortable unspoken blanket of tokenism? My solution has been transparency with my colleagues and the expression of certain boundaries, but what am I missing? 

I also want to come back to your points on public space and your dual role of scholar and practitioner. 

[CH] I would not necessarily say that your take is a false premise. The number of Black people practicing and teaching disciplines in design and/or the built environment is low. However, I do have a slightly different view on this. Also, bear with me. I am an integrative thinker, so I may point to several conditions within a network of complexities for one topic.

In terms of the low numbers, there is a significant cost of entry into the design fields for someone who does not come from a background with certain advantages. This is social and economic. For Black people in general, a group who have been historically disenfranchised, face staggering wealth disparities, and operate under oppressive conditions literally daily, architecture can be difficult. The threshold for entry for a student, practitioner, or educator can be high. Staying in even higher. 

The lack of actual investment and distribution of power does beg the question as to whether there is an actual interest in making change -or- is there a comfort in ostensibly trying?

As the academy attempts to address the inequities within their system, they will heavily engage with Black faculty, as you have experienced. Which they should. However, this engagement often lacks any true empowerment and fuels that feeling of tokenism. While I do not know a single Black faculty member who was not asked to be part of an antiracism effort, I also do not know one who is being paid decently, if at all, for this. I also know very few who are given the resources to make significant change; team, hiring capabilities, etc. The lack of actual investment and distribution of power does beg the question as to whether there is an actual interest in making change -or- is there a comfort in ostensibly trying? 

You stated not knowing the secret motives of others. It is impossible to know what is ignored and what is ignorance. Regardless, I do not believe that asking someone to work for free – especially while simultaneously acknowledging their severe generational oppression – is an endeavor toward equity. Empowerment and tokenism should be concerns from the privileged side as well. It is incumbent on them to unpacked and correct these issues. They also have to make sure that there are many empowered Black voices within the institution’s programs and at the table for real decisions. That brings us back to your point that another negative of tokenism is that it often results in a single voice speaking for an entire community.

There is diversity within the Black design community. Our backgrounds, interests, approaches to our work are wide-ranging. One voice in any institution being asked to speak for an entire group shows a belief that said group is monolithic in thinking, experience, and emotions. That is a concern in and of itself. To create much-needed change, there must be discourse from multiple perspectives. I do believe that it is possible to have multiple Black voices at any/every institution. Institutions should not seek this out only in times of their acceptance of a crisis.

Within all of that is how I believe institutions can begin to address a few issues, including tokenism. To your question as to how faculty can avoid it, is to set up boundaries of engagement and call out tokenism when it is there. As I mentioned, there should be more diversity in leadership positions, institutional investment in the success of Black faculty and partners, far more Black tenured faculty, etc.

I am curious as to the boundaries that you have set and what were the responses to them? I also want to get to your inquiry regarding me as a scholar/practitioner and my points on public space.

[SJ] The barrier to entry has always been a challenge for me. The issues we’re discussing go far beyond architecture but are sadly embedded in our history. And I agree with you. The privileged should be concerned with the more profound implications of these. To your question on the boundaries I have set, it’s something that I have learned to do over the years, mostly from mistakes I made earlier in my career, allowing people to use me for their agendas.

At both Archinect and Woodbury, I took the time to get to know the leaders before working there. Because of my professional position (I am not in a traditional firm setting), I think that I may have had more of an ability to do this than others might. I certainly couldn’t have done so right out of school.

In any case, I joined these teams for a few reasons: I believed in the visions of each organization, it was clear that I would have a high degree of creative freedom, and it was clear I would be able to stay true to myself in all of my work. So when all of these racial issues started to come up in the media, I was never singled out or put on the spot. And there was never any implication that I should speak up on behalf of either team. Because of my personality, which is to be relatively open and transparent, I voluntarily shared that I did not want to speak up on behalf of anyone and that I did not want to be, or even appear to be, anyone’s “Black voice.”

Instead, I wanted to engage with the issue in a way that I felt comfortable and at a time when I felt comfortable. That was received with great respect and humility. With Archinect, I initially addressed the issue by celebrating my Black colleagues’ good work through written profiles, and then not until recently, in this tokenism essay. But before that, there wasn’t much from me because I just needed the space to figure out how I felt about everything, and the entire team respected that. However, as a result of my position at these organizations, I will say that outside invitations for my time (unpaid, of course) have never been greater. Perhaps a conversation for another time.

With all of that said, I’d be interested to hear about your role as a Black practitioner and scholar. I think it is safe to say that Blackness does indeed play a significant role in both our vocation and academics, for many of the reasons we’ve just discussed. What are your thoughts on this?

[CH] My background, in general, plays a significant role in me as a designer and academic. My teaching-research is not always a part of an immediate project that I am working on in practice. Nonetheless, there is a linkage through the interrogation of the program and deep consideration of context. I am interested in the sociopolitical complexities and cultural production of space. The academy primarily looks at design, architecture, public space from a European lens. With the metrics of success ignoring the multiplicity of narratives and experiences. Especially the Black experience. Many of the conversations that are now prevalent in design schools regarding these complexities were happening far less, and without the same depth, before May of this year, which leads to the role that being Black has played in my experience as a scholar.

Many times, I found myself shoehorning the consideration of multiple experiences into the academic setting. Great as it is to see a few academic institutions make changes, as a Black person who operates within the academy, there is a “So it took a pandemic for you to stop and hear us” feeling inside. Hence why I remain concerned that not enough is being done to change the status quo.

As I get through a barrier, it is important that I share the experiences and information that I’ve learned with others whenever possible. 

In regard to how being Black plays a role in me as a practitioner, there are significant barriers within architecture that make entry and upward mobility for someone from a disenfranchised community extremely difficult. As I get through a barrier, it is important that I share the experiences and information that I’ve learned with others whenever possible.

Within my work, there is a social consciousness that is considered, likely based on the weight of inequalities that I have experienced and/or understand, and I work across different programs and scales. Just to give a range, I am currently working on private homes -to- the urban design of a neighborhood revitalization project. Within that, there are teaming opportunities, various types of consultants, etc. I select collaborators based on abilities and merit first and foremost. Within that, I also try to present opportunities to similarly emerging consultants. It is important to create paths for opportunities, empowerment, and upward mobility.

[SJ] I also share a similar feeling that it took all of the pandemonia this year for people to stop and listen. As sad as it sounds, I’ve often toned down my rhetoric from being “too Black” because it was evident that what I wanted to investigate was not well received. However, there have been settings where I was encouraged to the contrary, specifically from specific mentors in my past.

I’m happy that you’ve said you select collaborators based on abilities and merit first and foremost. Even if Black or otherwise, I’ve never believed that someone should receive false kudos if their craft is not up to par. For me, it is highly condescending and patronizing because it’s always the privileged coming from a position of allowing the underrepresented to “play with the big boys.” 

It seems this is a different thing from the barriers to entry we spoke about. Would you agree? And you contrast that here when you say that you present opportunities to emerging consultants. I like this approach — that one should offer opportunities, but then ability and merit win out. Of course, there are many ripples on how one determines merit in a creative sense, but I imagine the scale is easier to read in a professional sense. For example, someone can either deliver the services requested or they cannot. 

I understand your point that the academy’s eye is a biased one, looking through a European lens, but I’d be interested to hear more about the conversations you see growing from the events this year and your thoughts on them.

[CH] You are correct. The barriers in academia and practice are different. However, they come from the same broken system. As you stated, determining what the metrics for “merit” is important. The reason being that the current system has a set of metrics that is set against someone who does not come from a certain social and economic background.

Also, there is a lack of diverse voices in decision making positions in urban planning, policymaking, and real estate development. This has allowed racist urban development practices and policies to exist. We can also look at nonprofits that operate in the built environment. Far too few have boards and decision-makers who come from or even look like the communities they say they serve. Even less collaborate with minority-led practices in any substantial way. These are a few of the issues that are being discussed more now due to the moment. They are still very much just conversations.

I am hopeful that this is a watershed moment for society. Nonetheless, I am cautiously optimistic. To untangle the oppression, racism, and the system of abuse, those who benefit from privilege will have to relinquish at least some of it. We have not seen too much of that. What we have seen are a lot of cathartic social media blasts and theatre. You previously mentioned receiving a deluge of calls for unpaid work during this moment. Every Black academic and practitioner that I know has. It exacerbates some of the conditions that we are fighting against.

An unfortunate common thread in many conversations is Black people having to watch those who have taken advantage of their privilege to subjugate them to additional cruelty and inequities, put out statements about their ‘support for Black people’ and pledges to ‘make the world better.

The conversations that I have been a part of regarding the profession have centered around the aforementioned conditions and candid discussions regarding the experiences Black practitioners have faced. An unfortunate common thread in many conversations is Black people having to watch those who have taken advantage of their privilege to subjugate them to additional cruelty and inequities, put out statements about their ‘support for Black people’ and pledges to ‘make the world better.’ Nonetheless, I hope that there is a genuine reckoning and understanding of structural racism and anti-Blackness. And that as a society, we are moving in the right direction.

I am encouraged by a few academic institutions that have created several tenure-track positions targeting Black minds, art galleries exhibiting more Black artists, etc. There are still far too few spaces for Black brilliance and creativity; however, more now than this time last year.

[SJ] Can you speak a bit more about your interest in the sociopolitical complexities and cultural production of space? These conversations and examples you've outlined make a lot of sense. I’d love to hear more about your work and engagement with some of these ideas.

[CH] My mother raised my sister and I in the Bronx. We also spent significant time in Jamaica, where my mother and family are from. Spending time in and navigating through different environments has contributed to a development of values and critical thinking about place, context, and the politics of space.

I entered architecture due to my interests in the arts and humanities. I took two art electives, and a professor said that I should either major in art or architecture. I wanted to design high-end residences, so I left computer programming and went with architecture. However, my interdisciplinary interests and critical design approach never let architecture get in the way of my architecture education or even practice today. I am constantly blurring or testing the agency of architecture.

 I am constantly blurring or testing the agency of architecture.

I collaborated with the City of Los Angeles in strategizing the Skid Row Homeless Refresh Spot and was later invited by the City of LA to be part of a small yet diverse group - which included Tamika Butler, Karen Mack, James Rojas and Adonia Luga, and a few others – to address Equitable Spaces in the county. Both projects require a critical examination of the politics of space, and a lens outside of architecture, to be impactful. At a larger scale, I am working on two urban design projects that prioritize spatial equity and inclusiveness and recovery of the community’s cultural heritage, which was erased by urban renewal. I designed a school in Uganda and currently working on one in Cameroon. To come full circle, I am also working on a private residence. 

[SJ] Thanks, Cory. We’ll have to have another conversation to dive deeper into some of these projects. Anything else you’d like to add to close out the discussion?

[CH] I am looking forward to that.

We are in a moment of time in which we are being heard more than ever before. We will soon see if we are being listened to. Hopefully when we start to come out of the pandemic, issues of structural inequities, Anti-Black ideologies etc will become a priority concern to address for many, if not all, institutions.

Thank you for the discussion.