yeah, history theory is full of radical leftists. 

fck that shit.

You want to look for programs that use the term "social justice" in some of their curricula offerings. Ball State was working towards offering a social justice track or emphasis in their program; I'm not sure what the status of that is right now but there are many professors there with social justice as a specialization of the their work.

Edit: Sorry, you mentioned worldwide. Social justice is a US term, so I'm not sure how schools across the globe identify similar leanings.

Probably the one with the highest tuitions.

Social Justice Track? Holy sh*t...

Basically all architecture schools are leftists and then 95% of firms are leftist. Sounds like you'll be fine wherever you go. 

doesn't "leftist" mean different things in different countries and cultures?  The OP's history suggest he went to school in the mideast, is interested in Yale, and wants to work somewhere other than the US.  i think he could explain what he's looking for a bit better

of course if he means "leftist" as the opposite of "tea partier," then of course any school that attracts people interested in learning things and getting an education would be "leftist."

I'd pick the one with the most Che posters in the dorm rooms.

LITS4FormZ, Question: did the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, which essentially created the Interstate Highway System, have an impact on the built environment of the US and how its citizens interacted with that built environment? Did some people benefit greatly from the IHS, while others were negatively affected?

That's the kind of questions a social justice track in architecture would consider. Do you not think that's a valid avenue of study?

This is the only social justice I experienced in my extremely leftist school. There was a lot of dude hating for some reason. Oh and the weekly wednesday no blood for oil chants...oi vey I'm dating myself.

Social justice is like intolerance of intolerance. Conclusions are not contingent on facts; rather, facts are contingent on conclusions. 

Anything can be a valid course of study these days if enough people buy into the message. So if a bunch of kids in Indiana want to imagine ways to shake things up, more power to them. 

that looks like a girl who enjoys her sandwiches.  i don't see how that could be construed as negative?

perhaps social justice is a necessary course now because the boomers have been so self-absorbed that there isn't anyone left to teach the next generation how to give a shit about other people (or give a shit in general).  if we want to build stronger communities and develop policy, such as the interstate example donna gave or even local zoning ordinances, that are designed to improve other people's lives instead of only our self-interest, where do we turn for examples?

if you live in midwest bfe and you want to give a shit, where else do you turn for guidance or mentorship or any help at all?

LITS4FormZ, you totally ignored my question, because you don't like the answer.  Here it is again: did the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, which essentially created the Interstate Highway System, have an impact on the built environment of the US and how its citizens interacted with that built environment? Did some people benefit greatly from the IHS, while others were negatively affected?

Or keep making up your own facts and conclusions because you don't like the real ones, but at least make me a sandwich while you're at it, mm'kay?

Hello, well yes the term 'leftist' is quite vague... i had to put it in one word in the headline though. I mean, if we look at certain Italian schools in the 60's and 70's, there was an active sphere of marxist thinkers *producing* work on the political role of architecture. I am trying to figure out whether there is an equivalent of that in the world today, or at least similar. I find many schools to have a very neoliberal orientation these days, and political discourse is very shallow. Where there is, mostly it is pure academic study (or as some might term, intellectual masturbation). 

People who get a degree with a concentration in dividing and complaining is good for society? What am I making up? 

If only Donna were around to stop the evil people from putting highways in low income areas. Society would be so much better now. 

Keep fighting the good fight. Here's what your social justice gets you.

See Robert Moses effect on the SouthBronx....

i dont know what neo liberal means?

and i dont know what the insult is?

intellectual?

or masturbation?

is either bad?

Still can't answer my question, eh, LITS4FormZ? 

Donna, was not one of the tangential goals of the Eisenhower Interstate project to facilitate the evacuation of cities and, more importantly, the movement of soldiers and/or nuclear missiles across the country?

she wasn't really asking about the intent, was she?  it was more a question about the effect rather than the cause, which is something we could learn to be more mindful of with 'social justice' being included in our educations.

Point of clarification: Don't blame the government for our failing infrastructure. They just created the unsustainable beast. It's millennials who are to blame for not buying enough cars and gas to keep it in tip-top shape.

As for the social justice part ... shh. If nobody talks about it, maybe it will go away. Plus, I already feel guilty that I only own one car and I take mass transit to work everyday. I'm going to have to do my civic duty and go car shopping this weekend; I don't want to have to worry about anything else.

wow.  that is a great article EI.  blows my mind.

i was reading it and thinking the whole time, "all my problems are because millenials," and completely disregarding any responsibility for the choices i make in life until i got to this part, which is an actual quote from the article.

Not everyone blames millennials

then i thought the article must just be BS :(

do people believe this stuff?  the onion is on it's way to becoming the most trusted name in news......

Exactly right, curtkram. Eidt: meaning, exactly right what you said to non Seq, not about the Onion-esque article.

I'm talking about a three-tiered analysis: policy decisions that effect the built environment that then effect social activity in that environment. Those last two are totally within the realm of architects, and given our intimacy with them, one would think it logical that we try to influence the first piece, too.

Non Sequitur, yes, troop movement was one aspect of the IHS. But as curt said, that's not the question I posed to LSTZIFORIM whatever his name is.

Frankly, anyone who doesn't understand that social inequality is a huge issue facing our country, and in many ways specifically our profession, is being willfully ignorant, which is a lot easier than being truthful, I know. But if there's one thing architecture school did not teach any of us it's how to be lazy.
 

neoliberalism has an entirely different meaning than what the OP means by "liberal"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Donna, Curt, I think I understand the point... I was just throwing something in the mix for shits and unicorn giggles.

Yes, rob-c, much of that is true. But if as architects we understand how designs influence behavior, we can include design decisions that have a beneficial impact while not negating our clients' requirements.

Very tiny-scale example: my Means and Methods professor showed us an example of a parking garage that he called (to much uncomfortable giggling among my fellow 19yo classmates) "a rape pit".  Design for personal safety has come a long, long way since 1986! But it's possible to design spaces that meet the client's brief and simultaneously don't create places that are either unwelcoming OR rapey.

^ we just put panic stations in rapey corners now.

curtkram, I wish is was an Onion article, or at least Onion-esque. Here's a link to the original Standard and Poor's (you know the S&P part of the S&P 500) research report the article is written about: Millennials Are Creating Unsafe Conditions On U.S. Roads--But Not In The Way You Might Think.

I'm not trying to point out that everyone hates millennials for some type of sympathy. If anything I'm trying to point out how screwed up society is when a company for which everyone looks to for economic research and analysis starts blaming failing roads on the fact that young people are driving less, and when they do drive they do it in much more fuel efficient vehicles (as if that was the problem). 

Meanwhile, a lot of architectural education, at least when it comes to urban planning and sustainability, is teaching anything but buy more cars and use more gas.

pretty sure if you look at a Map of USA the schools would be on the left and probably down a bit.

your north-centrism is disgusting.

upper and right

This thread reminds me of the Hollywood moguls who take their Prius to the airport to board their $60 million dollar Gulfstream corporate jet to go from LA to NYC. Their hearts are in the politically correct, sustainable place. In this case its "pay us $50,000 a year tuition and you can be a bleeding heart leftie, too".

Attending university in America sure sounds weird...
 

Leftist or liberal political leanings are dependent on the individual faculty and primarily the ones with tenure. You can have a leftist scholar in a tenure position in a right wing university, and you can have the most liberal minded student body and have all regressive right wing homophobes on the faculty both can be leftist or both can be something else. The political inclination of an architecture program is a moving target and is dependent on a lot of variables.  If you are seeking a learning environment that is going to be comfortable for someone with leftist views then you need to consider the entire university community not just the department, also the smaller the institution and the more rural i'ts location the more frequently the political ideology shifts as individuals and charisma have greater impact on campus.

Probably Washington, Columbia and GSD (maybe) 

@Donna

The highways were not built for our or someone's else welfare or wellness for firsthand. They were built for pure military reasons. Ike had witnessed the German's super mobility and military efficiency using Hitler's Autobahns. Ike knew that in the cold war such system would be the perfect way for military operations, resource distribution and self-defense. So he decided to build the same highways he had seen in Germany. Everything else was juts a "byproduct" resulted from military purpose.

Now, I truly believe that you don't think having an army means socialism or any sorts of leftism, which I don't' have anything against of.

Unamuno, I don't know what your last sentence means. The reason I brought up the Interstate Highway System is that the impacts its construction had on various social communities over time are well-documented.  Studying those kinds of impacts - from the highways to indoor malls to needle towers to dams - is within the purview of architects in general, and can be studied relative to social justice impacts in particular.

@Donna

I agree, those highway system have had a great impact on everything, and yes the construction process was very beneficial for some group of people and was harmful for some group of people.

But the government did not build them to create new jobs or to make Unamuno's and Donna's commuting easy and smooth. No, they built for military and self-defense operations, the perfect example would be Alaska highways.

They thought that the road system should be a matter of private business, like the continental railroad was. Apparently they realized that the market is not always interested in military organisation systems.