On Harvard's campus, students in their Graduate School of Design programs are pressuring the administration to respond to an anonymous spreadsheet that catalogued incidences of assault, harassment and other abuses in the industry. The spreadsheet, known as the Shitty Men in Architecture list, was created after Richard Meier was accused by five women of sexual harassment, ushering in a #metoo moment for the industry. Inspired by the Shitty Media Men list that outed numerous predatory journalists back in October of last year, the anonymous creator(s) launched the crowdsourced document to give the architecture community a platform for sharing their own stories of abuse in an anonymous and safe way. They insist, in a disclaimer that is part of the document, that the content should not be seen as "legally true."
According to the school's paper, The Harvard Crimson, the list "contained anonymous accounts of sexual misconduct and racist acts allegedly perpetrated by more than a dozen GSD students, faculty, and administrators including the current dean." Executive Dean Patricia Roberts has addressed the list stating that "at the GSD, we take such issues very seriously. While I cannot comment on specific aspects of the list or individuals included on it, it is itself a signal that we must do better to promote an open dialogue about these issues and to strive for transparency in how we as school deal with them."
On Friday, students, equipped with plotters, continued to demand the school do more to take action with a printed out a statement that hung from the Gund Hall trays—tiered workstations where students at the school work on their projects. The statement read, in part, as follows: “We, student leaders, stand united in response to misconduct. We expect and demand respect. We expect and demand transparency. We cannot stand silent to injustice. This cannot end in conversation. This must end in action.”
Student groups at the school say they would like to see GSD held accountable and provide substantial responses to the spreadsheet. Last week, the dean hosted an open forum conversation with students to inform them of steps the school has taken in the past and to seek their ideas on how to move forward to address these issues both in the academy and in practice. It was a conversation, Roberts says, they are eager to continue.
Phillip Denny, a first-year PhD student who posted images of the statement to instagram, told Archinect that the action was organized by a large coalition of student groups
Phillip Denny, a first-year PhD student who posted images of the statement to instagram, told Archinect that the action was organized by a large coalition of student groups including the GSD Student Forum (student government organization) and Women in Design. Despite having been involved in collegiate schools of architecture as a student, instructor or researcher for almost a decade, Denny noted that "this is the first time he's seen widespread, student-led efforts to combat systemic problems that all of us are acutely aware of." Denny says he sees the demonstration in the trays as "a step toward taking the design disciplines in more equitable and more inclusive directions," adding that "it gives [him] tremendous pride to be part of this community, and [is] optimistic that we can change things for the better."
The anonymous administrators of the list, which has been temporarily taken down, wrote in an email to Archinect that they "are very grateful to GSD students for materializing the spirit of the list in the very spaces where abuse of power takes place" and that they "encourage others to confront what the list has exposed and to fight for accountability and solidarity IRL. It is extremely important to translate the virtual bravery of individuals into collective physical resistance and from this, structural change."
If I understand the dissenting opinions correctly, students at Harvard are all privileged and wealthy (this in itself is a problematic assumption), therefore they should accept abusive behavior.
If this had come from someone at a less prominent or cash strapped school, would it have made a difference? Or would it have been, "these kids need to realize that this is how it is in the real world and they should be grateful for the feedback."
"foolish assertion that the school ought to make a statement of solidarity "
literally the opposite of what is being asked for. students want action, not statements of solidarity. its somewhat clear that admin has been protecting serial abusers. you'd know that if you had even read the statement or had context about the list and what is contained therein.
All 7 Comments
They forgot a space after the comma between leaders and stand.
low pass
Ha... brilliant. I'm not particular fond of their choice of font.
What did you expect from Harvard?
That's not the only grammatical faux pax.
Miles, you must refer to "student leaders"?
*faux pas :)
“We demand safety!” You go to Harvard! You’re so oppressed :(
Still waiting for the list of “shitty countries in architecture”. The Kurdish women above could use some of the awareness as can the 25-45 million present day slaves. Not to minimize the plight of women in architecture, but conflating “my professor yells a lot” with serious charges of misconduct and real worldwide injustice against women really dilutes things. You are in Harvard, you have privilege. More so than the average American and certainly more so than the average person of the world. Perspective please...
If you go to Harvard and don’t recognize that you are very privileged, you are a spoiled shit.
“It is extremely important to translate the virtual bravery of individuals into collective physical resistance and from this, structural change." It’s very important to acknowledge that reporting your boss for making a dirty joke is not brave. Reporting a real assault IS brave. Reporting real violence IS brave. Reporting insensitive people and meanie is what kindergartens do. Used to be called tattle telling before the pussies took over.
We need to end abuse of power! But that doesn’t end through slogans and bullshit...it ends with empowerment. In this particular field, that means autonomy to practice or seek licensing without the mandated subservience to “shitty men”. Reform that first.
Having a list is one thing, demanding that the school make a conforming statement about it is another. As if you are entitled to the blind solidarity of others.
You're on the wrong side of another issue today. Congrats.
oh please do explain....
what irks me is this constant call for a statement to be made about one thing or another. Do they really expect authenticity in the statements under the extreme microscope of scrutiny these statements are held to and how they are forced out? "I am extremely disturbed...." Its becoming fucking generic.
Privilege is not a one-dimensional characteristic and even extremely privileged people can be put in positions of exploitation by more powerful people within their institution.
I don't know when "Hey maybe no one should be sexually harrassed" became a complicated intellectual debate.
It should not be complicated. It became complicated when the sjw left began redefining the qualifiers of harassment by subjective things like “micro aggressions.” The problem is, the staff cannot speak honestly, because any attempt at nuance, or misstep of wording will be seen as a confrontation and they will be unfairly labeled as sexist, complacent, etc. So, they are put in the awkward position of staying silent and being labeled, or accepting the entire position of the other side. No logical decent person is not against sexual assault/misconduct. This sense of entitlement to blind solidarity though is ridiculous. The list is full of some real dirtbags, some questionable ones, and some students that are complaining about yelling and really wimpy shit.
“Privilege is not a one-dimensional characteristic and even extremely privileged people can be put in positions of exploitation by more powerful people within their institution“............Correct, which is why the idea of victimhood and privilege needs to be individually measured, not distilled into groups of victim and oppressor. I do think it’s safe to say that anyone who is at Harvard is far more privileged than the average person, and to claim that their “safety” is being compromised because a professor doesn’t explicitly pledge allegiance to their cause is utterly ridiculous.
None of this changes the fact or even addresses the fact that sexual harassment and systemic sexism in Architecture and Academia is an ongoing problem.
Im not denying that it’s a problem. We can debate the causes, degree, etc, but it’s there for sure to some extent. I’m questioning the definition of sexism and harassment being left to the subjectivity of the “victim” or “victim” group and being lumped together with the vague category of “shittyness.” We have to understand what constitutes these offenses objectively (which civil and criminal law has already determined), and which is usually pretty obvious to anyone with half a working brain. On that list, maybe half sounded more like wimpy kids not used to hearing yelling adults, crude language, and overall harsh crit tactics. Many seemed like they’ve been culturally sheltered frankly. Putting that alongside claims of serious abuse is convoluting the issue of real abuse.
My beef with the Harvard students here is that they are demanding a response to a list that requires a nuanced breakdown that they are most likely not willing to hear, and that the admin simply cannot provide under the duress of being misrepresented, labeled, and punished in their careers. So it’s a “you’re with us or against us” thing. And a list as varied as that one shouldn’t be the fulcrum for that kind of black/white division.
As for their “privilege,” the sign suggests that failure to react threatens their “safety,” at Harvard, which is laughable to anyone in the real world. The concept of safe space on college campus is the grossest and most anti-intellectual thing since the creationist museum.
"Not to minimize the plight of women in architecture, but conflating “my professor yells a lot” with serious charges of misconduct and real worldwide injustice against women really dilutes things"
This is a lazy response to something no one claimed. You just changed the terms of the problem to make it seem easily dismissed. Try harder please.
Did you read the post? I’m not dismissing anything but the foolish assertion that the school ought to make a statement of solidarity to a list that requires lots of nuanced dissection. They don’t want a “conversation” they want blind allegiance. That’s an intellectual bully tactic.
Of course any sane person is against sexual misconduct. Why are the professors being made out to be guilty of complacency until they make a statement?
"foolish assertion that the school ought to make a statement of solidarity "
literally the opposite of what is being asked for. students want action, not statements of solidarity. its somewhat clear that admin has been protecting serial abusers. you'd know that if you had even read the statement or had context about the list and what is contained therein.
My point is that in 2018 the political climate on campus obstructs action because that requires the admin to determine what is and is not abuse, because the accounts on the list they demand a response to are so varied. They are forced to take a stance and draw a line that will be undoubtedly contested and those drawing it will be putting themselves on the line to be labeled. Hey, look at the intolerance to nuance on similar threads from the archinect community. A good admin should draw that line and take that stance, but that’s easier said than done. Other option is that they fire everyone and open themselves to lawsuits. Puts them in a difficult position. It’s obvious to anyone who’s familiar with the current mindset on campuses that “conversation” means agree with us 100% or you are a [inset sjw label]. The list had some reports of abuse on there, some that were quesionable, and some that were just complaints of typical prick professor behavior. “Serial abusers” should be dealt with, but when firing is on the table that requires due process and objective definitions of abuse which is in direct philosophical contrast to the validity of subjective aggressions, micro aggressions. A list like this one requires very nuanced action and investigation. If a crime or admin rule has been broken the school should do what it needs to do, but demanding a “response” to the list will require them to have the balls to say “hey, that’s abuse, but that’s not abuse you’re just too sensitive.” That is impossible in this climate without backlash. Hence, demanding unbending solidarity is what they are doing whether they’ve explicitly said so or not (which, if you read the article would see that they did call for “solidarity.”) This is why lumping things together under the general category of “shitty” is self defeating and actually protects real abusers that SHOULD be dealt with. Hey man, I’d break someones legs if they pulled some shit on my female friends and family members, so I’m not sympathetic to abusers at all, but hitting on a student, yelling during a review, going to a strip club, are all very different from assault, rape, and coerced sex...Their call for a reaction to the list is really a call for the admin to validate the list in its entirety. Make no mistake, that’s the unfortunate nature of campus culture circa 2018.
"My point is that in 2018 the political climate on campus obstructs action because that requires the admin to determine what is and is not abuse"
I hate the comment system. This has nothing to do with campus culture, but with legal thresholds, defined by congress. An entire office filled with bureaucrats (title IX) exists because of this legal obligation. What you're seeing is a reaction to an administrative system which is clearly failing the students, faculty, and staff who have experienced sexual harassment and assault.
Danger, look at the other thread and you will see exactly what I mean by campus culture 2018. Things have changed a lot from what you probably remember. I am on here trying to add dialogue, debate, etc. I’m not right all the time, I don’t care to be. In fact, I like being proven wrong when someone presents a good argument. You and many others are usually very civil and engage in debate. Even b3 who I often disagree with (but like very much so on the pod casts) is usually fair and offers counter arguments. This new crop of mostly young people however don’t obey the same laws of communication. They are vindictive against anyone who even disagrees with 1% of their narrative. I appreciate the civil counter points that you and others are making. I’m just old school and still believe that people can discuss things. The sjws don’t. It’s like arguing with a super religious person once they've drank enough koolaid. To your point, I don’t feel that rules and laws can be based on subjective interpretations alone. Micro aggression policies are almost
always subjective in nature.
I love this. Architecture students can be so adept at using design - format, existing conditions, scale, etc. - to make a protest look really damn good. This is so simple and strong. Love.
Can we please see the list?
the list has been temporarily removed.
If I understand the dissenting opinions correctly, students at Harvard are all privileged and wealthy (this in itself is a problematic assumption), therefore they should accept abusive behavior.
If this had come from someone at a less prominent or cash strapped school, would it have made a difference? Or would it have been, "these kids need to realize that this is how it is in the real world and they should be grateful for the feedback."
“ The Harvard Crimson, the list "contained anonymous accounts of sexual misconduct and racist acts allegedly perpetrated by more than a dozen GSD students, faculty, and administrators including the current dean.”
Absolutely not what I said Marc. This list is not all about abuse and assault. Privilege is linked to safety and empowerment, don’t you agree? They are relatively very safe and have access to the tools to react to dangers compared to the rest of the world and nation. They are using their “safety” (see signage) as a tactic to illicit action from the admin. That assumes that their safety is at stake. Even in the case of a professor hitting on a student, making a filthy joke, ones actual safety is not at stake. If violent rapists were on the loose it would be different, but nothing in the list that I saw indicated that’s the case at Harvard, just some creepers, jerks, and assholes. These are adults, not elementary school children. It’s very not-empowering to have this kind of mentality, and even more ridiculous when coming from Harvard students. If you feel threatened, make a police report and handle it. Students all over have redefined the word safety to mean “things that offend”. That’s not the same. Yes, they are far safer than I even am going to my local Walmart. Also, there was something in there about making the profession more “equitable” which is laughable because why would you be at Harvard unless you want a big leg up on the competition? FOH, with that bs. You can’t be a Harvard socialist. It’s an oxymoron.
+++Apple....I posted before I saw your response Chris...you said it much better than I did!
Thanks (note: i accidentally omitted the "s" in opinions)
BUT
1- what about the students who aren't are excluded from the generalization of "human rights and well into funded privilege." What if you went to a state school before you attended the GSD and you relied on the endowment to help you afford the program? They no longer matter based on this broad description.
2- The suggestion that human rights (violations?) by default require that they themselves must endure abuse when it occurs is severely judgmental and again marginalizes those other persons you don't think exist.
3- To the point of rapists, you're assuming the only harm that matters must be physical. Further to that, look at athletic programs and tell me how effective action after reporting is. Not mention, the pervy guy who is staring at your chest and not paying attention to your presentation AT ALL, places your professional career advancement at risk simply because they dismiss you- treating you as an object or decoration.
4- The point of the state school, the place that is underfunded, that cannot afford the level of security that Harvard uses to police the grounds or does not have secure barriers to studio space. Would it have mattered if the list came from them?
I think Danger got to the heart of it, my point was to really ask if credibility was in question because of the content of the manifesto, the assumed identities of the people putting it forth, or the place (or a combination of all three).
The list is something created within the social realm. The people who created it have every right to create it, and if false claims are made, the legal avenues to address those claims exist in libel laws and such. No problem. Now, when that list is taken from the social realm and people try to enforce it within the legal realm, even administratively, that’s the wrong way to handle things. The legal mechanisms to address assault and harassment already exist in criminal and civil law, and those with “privilege” have easier access to those mechanisms. To demand that a social media document has legal or administrative effect is not a procedurally correct way to handle a situation. All of these cases should be handled on a case by case basis, and for there to be a legal consequence a victim must report it. You can’t even convict a murder without a victim. This type of social media activism is fine in the social realm, but unethical when it attempts to circumvent the process and translate into action in the legal and administrative realm. So the “privilege” in question, is the notion of entitlement to protections against non-punishable behaviors, and notion that they exist outside of the processes that everyone else in the real world must adhere to (as Chris already said.)
As for state schools etc...anyone in a university is very privileged to be there. The world doesn’t owe anyone a university education. The fact that we live in a time where infinite information can be accessed instantly is also a very privileged thing. Harvard is at the top of that already privileged mountain. The university is the safest and most liberal place in the history of human civilization. So, my point is that we (students, citizens, professionals, educators, etc) have to compare our position to the world before we can make claims of oppression and injustice. Not that within the bubble that doesn’t exist to an extent, but so that we don’t create a warped elevated narrative of the degree to which it exists, and the burden that it creates on our lives. Not only is this bad for the individual psyche, but we also can’t lose sight that while we may have some problems, we are pretty lucky, and others have it far worse. I have a hard time believing the altruism of a movement that doesn’t address the most extreme cases and only focuses on what’s happening in the bubble. University activism used to be focused on “free Tibet” “Save Darfur” “End Apartheid” “End segregation” now it’s all me me me internal affairs. We need to expand our compassion to the rest of the world and community and access our problems accordingly. Architects build for regimes with Horrible human rights violations where women are oppressed, killed, slaves are used, etc. I personally find it very insensitive to use words like oppression and inequality so loosely. Those things are not subjective terms despite the post modernist narrative.
AC I'm not following that line of logic. And JLA, if I understand correctly, you are saying they students should not be using any tools that are available to them beyond what they would see in a "real world" environment, such as actionable items found an HR policy handbook...
Marc, They shouldn’t try to inflict real world punishment without following real world procedures. This should be dealt with case by case through the existing procedural means available. Like I said, nothing wrong with social media being used to inflict social consequences, but being used to inflict administrative and legal consequences is wrong
.
And they're asking for real world procedures. they're asking for actionable items and accountability for inappropriate behavior. Those are real world things. A P - punishable for being offensive is standardized all the time, that's exactly why I mentioned employee handbooks. As I see it, these student are asking for just that. And those are real world things.
Do we have list of what they are deeming offensive, or what they have agreed upon with the School administration to describe as being offensive? Do we have a list of outcomes or actions that would be a consequence?
And again, this word privilege. If this was posted at Ohio State or Missouri State would you use that descriptor? Or is this really about the apparent demographics of the GSD.
So the answer is “no, you don’t have any of the above mentioned lists.” This makes all the political theory moot because you really have nothing to compare it to.
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.