This Op-Ed explores how unconscious bias of mentors, tokenism, and resultant patterns of system justification reinforce a status quo that marginalizes women and people of color. These complex and long-lived dynamics are unpacked through personal anecdotes, historical analysis, and contemporary research. By examining repeating organizational behaviors, we can better discuss the barriers that women and people of color face within the industry. I hope that the anecdotes act as a lens to another perspective to those without these experiences and give voice to those with similar.

The phrase vanilla architect has stuck with me for a decade since an industry firm crawl of a well-regarded AE practice. A volunteer docent piloted our group from bottom to top of their two-story office space while dutifully highlighting amenities and company culture talking points throughout — MTV Cribs meets corporate networking and charcuterie buffets. This office location was packed with all the bells and whistles a large firm could boast at a time when the industry was still regaining its economic legs in the years that followed the 2008 recession. We passed kitchenettes filled with numerous snack options, Italian-manufactured espresso machines, and finally — the docent assured us — a highly coveted soda tap machine. 

Looking among the office photos on the wall, I observed an exclusively white male architect team, which contrasted with my own firm experience at the time and, for that matter, the incredibly diverse city we lived in. 

I continued my visual scan down the hall towards the open-office studios for signs of diversity among the remaining architecture team but found it only among the faces of administration employees, interior designers, and some of the engineers. Why had this office remained so unchanged by time, while adjacent industries in the same building diversified? Somewhere between the second-floor conference rooms and a talking point about the company baseball team, an older white male colleague I carpooled with regaled one of the firm's principals about the upcoming industry golf mixer. The company dress code of khakis, polo shirts, and button-ups further projected an optics of monoculture to me that by the time our tour concluded, I started to wonder if our group had quantum leaped into The Truman Show. A word began forming at the tip of my tongue as I tasted the sensation of a white collar-masculine environment that was so distinctly and palpably vanilla.  

There is a lingering wariness that women and people of color in the industry know all too well. We have learned to be vigilant before entering the workforce, only to relive the sensation as emerging architects in the gentleman's profession. We relive it in conference rooms and design studios, where our ideas are routinely talked over or undermined by [white][male] colleagues. We relive it through the jury who reserve the harshest feedback for our projects or even our demeanor — remarking how our presentation quality would be improved if we smiled more. We relive it through comments on appearance regarding [non-white] hairstyles as “unruly” or “unprofessional.” We relive it through inappropriate remarks ranging from “Princess,” “Buttercup,” and “Do you have a boyfriend?” when visiting construction sites or on consultant coordination calls. We relive the sensation through patterns of firm politics that historically eschews generations of women aspiring for design trajectories yet systemically hedges them into technical support, interior design, socially engaged, or people-management roles. We often rationalize away the wariness of the predominantly white or male legacy because we want to see the profession as incrementally changing for the better, not to mention, maintaining hyper-vigilance throughout an entire career is simply exhausting. We often silently absorb these experiences of microaggressions because patterns of undermining can be hard to prove, and when confronted, are often met with denial or dismissal. Therefore, we live out alternating patterns of either assimilation or resistance to the societal status quo.  

There is a lingering wariness that women and people of color in the industry know all too well. We have learned to be vigilant before entering the workforce, only to relive the sensation as emerging architects in the 'gentleman's profession.'

The wariness of “vanilla architect” culture is not the sensation of walking into The Truman Show nor in a company's activities centering around predominantly affluent white male hobbies. Rather, it is the wariness of an embodied anachronism. It connotes that such a company may be slow or even resistant to diversifying and, by that effect, resistant to rearranging power structures, specifically that of an affluent white male legacy. Often, when job-hunting, we sleuth through staff photos of prospective employer websites for a glimpse as to what the company culture will be. A diverse team at various tiers of the company outwardly signals to prospective employees a variety of minds and backgrounds can co-habitat in one environment. The case for diversity is further compounded in creative industries where the creative class (artists, architects, musicians, authors, etc.) are more likely to come from the margins of society or more likely to think neurodivergently and, therefore, seek comfort in diverse environments.1 

A diverse team signals to younger generations of minorities entering the industry that there are potential mentors of shared backgrounds to learn from. It is worth noting that minorities have increased chances of finding mentors with similar backgrounds in larger cities compared to smaller cities. While it is not a necessity that mentors look and share backgrounds with their mentees, it is undeniable that a person's unconscious bias plays a significant part in their demeanor towards those they work with. Studies show that the average mentor seeks out younger versions of themselves or individuals that look like them in some capacity due to their unconscious bias,2 and therefore more amenable to those who mirror their traits. As a mentor-heavy profession, finding one can provide a crucial leg-up to an emerging professional's trajectory in this complex industry. Adversely, that mentor may subconsciously dismiss, undermine, or bully those that contrast with their lived experience and hold different perspectives. Across a long-lived career such as architecture, such biases can be the barrier or the boon.  

A particularly frustrating experience with a [white male] studio professor illustrated this to me. I felt like I was working overtime to yield constructive discourse or communicate concepts without being misconstrued. Nearly every week, I was interrupted mid-sentence by this professor during desk critiques as he jumped to the wrong conclusion of what I was about to say next. I had to course-correct conversation after conversation. I began to see how my design was held to a higher scrutiny after three consecutive weeks. He insisted a 1,000-foot-long trail meet ADA compliance, yet a male peer's design for a spiral pedestrian ramp with an excessive slope of 15%, which served as the only circulation path, barely registered to this professor. At best, he would remark, “I don't hate it,” when there was nothing to criticize, but during a memorable desk critique, he simply referred to my floor plan as “stupid.” Despite fulfilling my obligations as a student to complete course deadlines while pushing my design to a higher and better outcome, I felt frequently maligned and talked down to during that time. Such crude remarks lack instructional value in a setting intended to be instructional and are, at best, personal subjecture. Personal opinions are valid among creative pursuits, but the delivery or frequency of who and what those kind of remarks are directed towards can be telling. I never witnessed interruptions or snappish remarks during his conversations with the three male students sitting adjacent to me. 

Another group in the class, comprised of minority students, felt frustrated with this professor's tendency to rush through their desk critique time so that he could spend more class time with a specific student perceived as the professor's favorite. Unsurprisingly, that perceived favorite student fit a similar profile to the two student interns previously hired by this professor — a white male student with attributes similar to the professor. Later that year, that specific student went to work for the professor, while at the same time, an external jury awarded my design concept with the very same “stupid” floor plan in the top 10 of 120+ competitors.  

While system justification illuminates why an individual or group might perpetuate and defend negative cycles, it is not an excuse from personal accountability. 

What is often overlooked is how the legacy of masculinity and whiteness manifests generational trauma beyond the ceiling-breaker era. Aspiring architects of Millennials and now Generation Z contend with patterns of system justification — a psychological concept in which long-oppressed groups, struggling to make sense of an unfair world, internalize negative stereotypes.3 In addition to potential harassment from the majority group, younger minorities entering the workforce may also contend with harassment or undermining from other minorities, perpetuating that systemic misogyny or racism. This means that a younger female employee might routinely face harsher criticism from another female or male minority supervisor than a white male colleague would experience from the same supervisor. Similarly, an international student might face negative bias from another minority student and/or professor. These negative patterns are corroborated in other predominantly male professions, from Law to Tech to Police Force(s)4, where a scarcity mindset around opportunities specific to minorities induces competitive behavior towards other minorities. 

System justification can also play out at the socioeconomic level — one of the most damning industry examples being the perpetuation and defense of unpaid internships by for-profit firms. Long acknowledged as both an exploitative labor practice and a barrier to lower-income or minority groups,5 the tradition of unpaid internships continues because it benefits the In-group. This is compounded by an inherent survivorship bias among previous generations of architects who graduated with little or no student debt and impose this negative cycle onto the next generations under the false equivalence of “Well if I had to do it, then so should you.”  

Tension inevitably erupts when the individual(s) confronting negative patterns or abusive supervision perpetuated by the In-group are dismissed. This can take the form of a supervisor's perfunctory defensiveness, “Well, that's the way things have always been done here,” or dismissal for not being able to hack it, “I had to deal with harassment from [white] [male] [supervisors] [teachers], too, and I turned out fine.” In fact, they were not fine — that female supervisor was reported by two other women for their “Queen Bee” behavior specific to female colleagues. She would vocalize sexist stereotypes such as “women are catty” in the office and overcorrect other women's work, yet behaved as a deferential collaborator towards men in the office. While system justification illuminates why an individual or group might perpetuate and defend negative cycles, it is not an excuse from personal accountability.  

To understand system justification better is to understand that environments of historical or contemporary tokenism, such as “vanilla architect” firms, contribute to it. When underrepresented groups are only recruited and promoted in small numbers, there is a perceived or real scarcity of opportunities specific to those groups. As a result, tokens contend with lack of upward mobility and inability to affect positive change even from positions of power. Often firms attract diverse talent but may fail to retain them long-term because such conditions impact token employees negatively. This could be a combination of challenges including but not limited to higher visibility than majority members; therefore, their performance is more heavily scrutinized, or they have heightened fear of making mistakes due to heavier scrutiny; lack of inclusion with the majority culture; pressure to conform to stereotypes or are stereotyped by coworkers.6 For example, people of color may feel pressured to code-switch their speech patterns to sound more “middle-class white,” or worry about how their surnames are received on applications to prospective employers. Additionally, they may feel pressured to adopt certain hairstyles to fit into the traditional [white] corporate dress code. Similarly, behavioral expectations placed on women to be communal and nurturing towards their colleagues, or take on more non-promotable tasks in the office setting further gender stereotypes.7 Historically, the first critical masses of women in the AEC industry worked in roles perceived as more feminine or domestic, such as interior designers or administration. Even now, there are firms where the only woman in a position of leadership, or the entire firm, is the Interior Designer. Female architects aspiring for boundary-pushing roles such as lead architect and designer positions often had to start their own firm. Given that female entrepreneurs were not allowed access to business loans legally by themselves until 1988, this was a difficult feat without a husband or male relative to co-sign.

There is no denying that stereotypes can impact who is assigned what project or which role and, to a greater scale, systemically exclude some groups from more desirable positions such as design or leadership roles. Recently I met a young female architect who would be the first female and minority Project Designer in a firm that existed since 1968 — an achievement I perceived as vastly delayed given the tenure and size of the firm. Unsurprisingly, that firm's leadership profile fit the “vanilla architect” archetype of all white male principals until last year. Conversely, studies reveal that in occupations where men were the underrepresented group in a traditionally female-dominated industry, e.g., nursing or K-12 teaching, they were often fast-tracked towards  promotion.8 This phenomenon, known as the glass escalator effect, exhibits how men typically hold structural advantages in the workplace while women must “take the stairs.”  

Company drawing standards were revamped from the exclusively used “He, Him” pronouns to “They, Them” pronouns in the general notes referring to the Architect of Record.

Years later, I accepted a role at an office that fit the “vanilla architect” archetype. The firm had a multi-decade legacy of all-white-male principals up until that year, when a male minority principal joined, followed months later by a female principal. Diversity Equity Inclusion (DEI) was at the forefront of the company's agenda that year, rolling out monthly presentations and performing internal sweeps to update the firm culture to be more inclusive. Company drawing standards were revamped from the exclusively used “He, Him” pronouns to “They, Them” pronouns in the general notes referring to the Architect of Record. 

While all these measures point towards a brighter future for the firm, I still experienced and witnessed the same systemic frustrations. I experienced more mansplaining in my first few months than I did in the past two years. I saw a female colleague talked over by men again and again. During a particular round table highlighting three female architects and their experiences as women in the industry, a [male] colleague piped up to say that the two women he encountered early in his career had no negative experiences regarding their gender. Tone-deaf comments such as these overlook that two individuals can go to the same office every day and experience completely different workplaces simply because of gender, race, circumstance, etc. While those negative experiences occurred alongside some wonderfully positive experiences and supportive connections, I couldn't help but wonder at the time, why isn't our industry further past this? In a profession of creative problem solvers, why do certain organizational behaviors persist? 

Why isn't our industry further past this? In a profession of creative problem solvers, why do certain organizational behaviors persist? 

The good news is that newer faces and fresh voices are increasingly being platformed as deans and chairs of professional organizations where there previously were none. Data shows consistent improvement towards diversity within both academia and the profession.9 While individual results may vary, implementing DEI can further strengthen the pipeline of recent graduates to licensed architects. However, when DEI is done sparingly or with minimal effort, the cultural status quo will not shift where there is no incentive to — how can it? Hiring a token minority employee into a leadership position is not the silver bullet to a profession's lineage of masculinity, gentilism, and white-collar culture. Shifts in organizational behaviors require a critical mass or collective effort to affect systemic change. Studies show that when a specific group's representation falls under 15%, they feel tokenized.10 

When DEI is implemented successfully, the average employee feels more included, and they become more engaged in the company's mission. Engaged employees work harder — so why the backlash against DEI when such policies can lead to higher performing teams? Some of the prevailing criticism around DEI is not without merit. For example, land acknowledgments delivered without any meaningful reflection or reciprocation are denounced as performative politics. Another prevailing critique points out how white men are often excluded or feel excluded from DEI committees and round-table discussions, which only perpetuates cycles of In-group and Out-group antagonism. Recentering the profession away from the parochial lens of the “vanilla architect” legacy is a nebulous challenge fraught with some inevitable missteps. What critics of the DEI movement overlook regarding the future of our industry is this question: Where is the harm in trying to make our work environments more inclusive for everyone?  

___

1 Richard Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class--Revisited: Revised and Expanded (Hachette UK, 2014).

2 Brown, Yalonda. “Unconscious Bias in the Workplace.” Engage Mentoring, March 17, 2023.
https://engagementoring.com/unconscious-bias-in-the-workplace/. ;

3 Gino, Francesca. “Another Reason Top Managers Are Disproportionally White Men.” Scientific American, February 20,
2024. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/another-reason-top-managers-are-disproportionally-white-men/.

4 “Why Do Women Bully Each Other at Work?,” The Atlantic, September 2017, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-queen-bee-in-the-corner-office/534213/.

5 Archinect. “Unpaid Internships ‘deepen Existing Barriers’ for Emerging Architects, Says NCARB,” n.d.  https://archinect.com/news/article/150285602/unpaid-internships-deepen-existing-barriers-for-emerging-architects-saysncarb.

6 Academy of Management, “Being a Token Is More Difficult for Some Employees,” January 6, 2023, youtube.com/watch?v=Krocz7b1DQw.

7 Theus, Dana. “Which Double Standard for Women Applies to You? All of Them? - InPower Coaching.” InPower Coaching, May 10, 2024. https://inpowercoaching.com/double-standard-for-women/.

8 Fast Company. “Research Shows Us Workplaces Need This Level of Diversity to Prevent Tokenism: Tokenism Can Hurt Individual Performance and the Business Overall According to an Analysis of 80 Studies Over the Past 25 Years.,” June 13, 2020.

9 “Where Are the Women? Measuring Progress on Gender in Architecture - Association of Collegiate Schools of  Architecture.”  

10 Watkins, Simmons, and Umphress, “It’s Not Black and White: Toward a Contingency Perspective On the Consequences Of Being a Token.”