[Elsie Owusu] alleged that the election [for Riba’s vice-president of practice and profession] was rigged in favour of a rival candidate, and in a complaint to Riba’s president, Jane Duncan, she claimed it was “tantamount to institutionalised racism in my view”. [...]
“The banter, discrimination and treating black people worse than other staff goes through architecture like a stick of rock. It’s absolutely disgraceful and it starts at the top with Riba."
— theguardian.com
In response to Owusu's allegation, RIBA has initiated a formal investigation, and states that a report will be filed in time for discussion at the next national council meeting in March of 2016.
According to the Guardian, the allegations include not only accusations that the election of the Vice President of Practice and Profession was rigged in favor of Owusu's competing candidate, who is not black, but also references "sexist" banter by council members.
Also as quoted in the Guardian, Owusu invokes the Equality Act of 2010 in her claim that being passed over in the election constitutes institutional racism:
And this is an example: when there are two people up for a job, one an elected member, the other not, to use the weight of the institution from the president’s chair to support a white person over a black person, when we are both equally qualified, to me is the institution using its power to support behaviour that is tantamount to racism.
More details on the allegations can be found here.
129 Comments
(I'd also venture that one of the goals of the formal complaint is reduce non-productive name calling in favor of disciplined investigation, observation and reflection- and will be considered as such)
bullocks, it clearly works for Trump
Marc, your point is exactly what I was saying about BIG's influence, and Olaf agrees. What I do not get is how the confluence is not clearly recognized in the structure of the current global system. Thoughts?
ARP1, I'm not entirely clear with what you are getting at with the second part, but I'll take a messy stab at it.
It's not my point, it's a point made by Ms. Owusu- repeatedly and in plain sight. I have not seen this point made so explicitly by anyone in BIG (but would welcome it).
Gender (and race) does matter, and it matters because the implicit problem she points to is that we still need to look to persons representative of historic hegemonies for approval AND advocacy. We have witnessed this before in this online community.
Put another way, I'm not clear why we would look to BIG and NOT to Elizabeth Diller, Petra Blaise, Eva Jiricna or Kathryn Gustafson- Or Julie Snow, Jeanne Gang, or Annabelle Seldorf or...
-except for maybe two reasons
1- We still look for male heroes as a matter of practice passed on from the first architectural history course.
2- Architects are just as human as everyone else, meaning they are just as selfish and territorial, and want to associate/share with others who look like them.
#whitetearsdoesntmakemygardengrow
I'm not why she is racist given that her long standing argument is based on a goal for a more inclusive discipline. For her to be racist it would need to be exclusionary in its message. It's a questionable argument to say that her campaign to opening doors is really about closing them.
Olaf is not meant to agree ARP1, that is so anti-Olaf, such Sophistry......but I will try from another angle on this supposed 'global confluence'................Modern thought starting with Descartes (I think therefore I am) key gymnastic manuever is the ability to detach thought from time, develop an abstract concept and then re-apply to time. Modern Architecture followed suit and re-invented the profession by removing it from its tradition and re- evaluating itself in a timely manner towards the end of the Industrial Revolution...................... Globalization as we know it for the most part is historically and essentially English with a heavy dose of German banking and thinking. ............ You could argue that Ms Owusu who had presumably a Western architecture education is quite capable of 'modern' thought and effectively applied it to an organization with presumably engrained tradition based on its historical development. ................Without getting into detail and supporting documentation - globalization and modern thought for the most part have been traditionally applied and generated by WASPY men. When a non WASP uses same methid to apply very 'other' traditions and thoughts to an organization it is essentially 'counterculture' and for legitimacy, my points above and offering of Schumacher, must still be spelled out in tradition of the culture it is addressing........The interesting thing to note is that modern, western,and mainly globalization are often not considered 'real'culture. Rem Koolhaas spells this out all to well in 'Junkspace'. outside architecture, major disenfranchisement of 'other' cultures also occur,enough to produce a 'counterculture' of violence........... the main difference between Global and 'other' culture is that 'modern global' (as i am defining it) is to be 'progessive', which means it cannot maintain the old traditions and therefor must constantly change..........it is not uncommon for those of 'other' cultures to use this 'progressive' feature of the modern global world to introduce often 'regressive' cultures and claim some type of institutional discrimination if not accepted.........i doubt most people would think introducing women and those of other races into more 'globally' proportional roles at the top qualifies as 'regressive'..........ARP1 - thoughts?
incase you can't google it, WASP = white anglo-saxon protestants. this would pretty much cover England to Northern Germany/France and all places in between (Netherlands, Belgium,etc....) nearly all, if not all, US presidents besides Kennedy and Obama would have been classified as WASPs....you get the idea
FRaC, anonymous troll, just called a respected practitioner "trash".
I'm rage-stroking. I'm not quite sure what to do with it. Marc, I so respect your ability to keep explaining things rationally and politely. I'm ready to punch my computer screen.
Agree with Marc's two points. Why look to white males only for "the answer" when there are many respected females already (we're we talking about gender or race--two very different identities)? Don't think we should celebrate white males that try to exploit the issue (where's the humility in that?) nor should we be demonizing white male panels or organizations when they are not really at "fault" for being that way.
But calling out an institution as "institutionally racist" is not polite or rational (though it is media friendly, see the 100+ comments here)... think the issue can only be settled when the popular media starts exploring architecture in a more substantial way, then credit will go where credit is due.
Not their fault, for being that way? You're only proving the point; White Males need to be coddled, they're fragile flowers.
This is 2015, if these "men" - and man do I wish we had a way of representing low-lower case - can't vagina up, perhaps they should move to an island, form a drum circle, and cry their white tears.
Donna, here's a wild thought-
There's a lot of speculation and conjecture in this discussion, so about a 1:1 interview? Not about the complaint (that is still an active case), but about her work and dedication towards diversity in RIBA.
Myth of Black Racism
Pretty simple. Black on White racism, all made up in the minds of the simple.
Race is actually made up if you want to get technical. You say no way? let's get technical here - by skin color alone when are you not white anymore or black? country heritage, whatever, how far back in history do you want to go? if you white white, Italians are not white, even the blond hair blue eyes.. The Census bereau used to only have three options in 1850 - White, Black, Mulatto. it also asked if you were - blind, mute, def, retard, or ignorant (no shit - find an 1850 or 1860 Census survey, easy to located on Ancestry.com)........my 3 year old nephew whose father is white boy like me (brother) and mother from Haiti, has already begun addressing the differences between his mom and dad. He can clearly tell the difference on color but at that age its funny and kind of an interesting observation like hair color. I mean, you do associate blondes with certain behavior but what's hair color got to do with it. he requested his mother deliver his brother white like dad and asked why he was brown and not white like his dad (he wants to be like his dad phase now) and noted at least his hands were white. color mixing like paint was used as an explanation. at 3 years old you wouldn't know why any of this matters, but when you grow up - holy shit does it mean something, sounds all make believe to me.........so to prove institutional racism I think we would have to use color matching techniques to log the people in the system and then equate data to the spectrum of the color (Census Bereau we appreciate your divisiveness)........i chalk most this up as - there are assholes out there and they can often influence those around them. like Larry David heckled on Saturday Night Live "Trumps a racist."
i just remembered another family story which only further proves how crazy we get when we get older over make believe ideas ...........one of my cousins was adopted and according to Census Bereau half black/half samoa islands. When his black side of the family heard a white family was adopting him they quickly requested legal access to spending time with him. he was about 8. he spent a week with them. upon his return my uncle asked him "how was it?"......he responded "they are so black." (remember 8 years old).........uncle "but you are black."..........kid "i like it here.".................'here' is an indicator of place and not race...............as much as I have offered up "rational" and " structural" methods to prove "structural" and "institutional" racism here, its kind of sad that we have to play the game by its rules, as games are nonsense to begin with.... a Social Game = virtual ideologies that cause physical realities to be altered.
^ So true Olaf. A census worker came to my house last week. They had Hispanic as a category and it included Spanish (as in Spain)...I was like wtf? You do know that is in Europe right? For that matter why not include Portugal and Italy in there...
Olaf: Why are you so anti-science?
Just FYI. https://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-r-b/
@Marc Miller – that's a great idea. I'll reach out to Owusu to see if she's interested.
I went back and re-read the original article, and this quote from Owusu stood out to me as particularly damning toward her position and character:
“I am pretty familiar with the Equality Act 2010, and what that says is, all things being equal, if you have two people for a job, both are equal, both have the same qualifications, and if it is a job in a predominantly male arena, then it is within the capacity of whoever is making the appointment to decide they are going to take positive action and appoint a female. If it is a predominantly white group, again, positive action would say you could appoint a black person.”
She is not asserting that a less-qualified candidate was selected over her. She just wants special treatment based on her skin color and sex, plain and simple. Another case of special-snowflake syndrome.
snowflakes are white gwharton
do you know what the point of affirmative action is?
it's the white people who rely on white privelage that are stuck in entitled special snowflake mode. the other people have to work harder to overcome assumption of guilt or assumption of incompetence or any other assumption that prevents them from equal access to the same jobs and other institutions you and i take for granted.
@ Amelia Taylor-Hochberg- thank you. I hope it can happen.
philosophy will cure all gwharton, although you can't be a Sophist on everything.
jla-x they still come to people's doors?
She's also suing a former employer for racism or something. A pattern of behavior is emerging.
gwharton; "A pattern of behavior is emerging."
Ya think? Forgive me, but you are stating the obvious, only your assumption is wildly incorrect. Most of the world loved to point a wagging finger at America about our racism, well guess what; Black people are having a problem with the "pattern of behavior" exhibited by whites all over the planet.
A pattern of behavior is emerging.
Now comes the reckoning.
I think this case is interesting in particular in that it suggests a conflict between diversity and democracy, in the sense that this case implies an open election should be overturned in favor of the minority candidate who lost. Here, Owusu lost 22-33 against a single candidate endorsed by the president.
No details on the opponent, but Owusu was a board member only a few months before running for election. I find it quite plausible she simply hadn't built any strong network of support among councilors in such a brief time.
In a position like this, there really is no such thing as equivalency - 2 candidates will always bring 2 different skillsets, outlooks and professional networks. Both may be qualified, in the sense that Clinton or Rubio are both qualified for president (any 35-year old American born citizen is): that doesn't mean they are equivalent, or that one can be acceptably substituted for another.
Should elections be overturned in cases such as this? Should a figure such as the current president (a woman, btw) be prohibited from speaking openly in favor of any candidate. Suppress political speech in order to support diversity?
I've read through the articles linked a couple times and honestly can't feel confident this is an example of institutional bias. Even worse, it seems to suggest a solution which is as ugly as the problem. Is it possible to support diversity and disagree with the implications of this case?
Midlander, I don't theres a conflict in that at all. It's the extremist positions that are troubling.
There are two points to keep in mind.
1. There is no procedure in place to report (in this instance bias) practices of inequity that are based on patterns and habit with an expectation of change. Same as it ever was- so deal with it. But sometimes you reach a tipping point and decide to take a stand.
With respect to the Owusu case, this is about structural inequity (vs.institutional) but there are no mechanisms in place to directly address those practices, so the institution is called into question. Then it becomes a question of "merit" and institutional ethics to determine if investigation is warranted.
2. The case must have some merit as it is under review. We won't know the details, and will likely have moved on to some other mud slinging when we can look at the details.
Again, this is not a new tactic. It's been used by countless types of provocateurs with countless goals, with a range of desired impacts. I think this is an interesting case and would love to hear more of the story.
Marc,
I follow what you're saying and agree that this is likely about exposing underlying harrassment or other biases. But my reading of the articles was that this is being made in direct response to losing the election. If that is the case it seems like a disingenuous strategy, and one which is likely to lead to a lot of criticism of her cause. Or at least tying this to the election muddies the problem and makes it hard to explain the real issue of concern.
Either way, I too feel under-informed about this and curious to learn more.
midlander and marc, the media is amazing isn't.
on one hand it's Tabloid titles that grab your attention but you do not read futher
on the other if you do read what's available, as if it were legal statements or the truth, you would make the conclusions many of us have made so far about this case.
a case, is legal, much of the what the media rights would never be accepted in the court of law.
for instance, the subtle nuances of sentence structure and over arching rationale that cause a specific perspective, you can not do that in law or even Architectural documentation - but the media can give you very smart looking stuff with very different intents.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.