The Tu White School of Architecture isn’t an actual institution. It’s a work of satire taking the form of a website that discusses whiteness in the architecture industry, articulates the importance of diversity of race, gender identity, class, and experience in higher education, and proposes ways that an architecture school could change its policies and practices to affirm diversity and reject white supremacy. — Curbed
Curbed's Diana Budds takes a look at the "Tu White School of Architecture," a "hopeful exercise" created by designer and advocate Chris Daemmrich that seeks to spur dialogue regarding "what a commitment to justice and equity could look like for an architectural institution."
Daemmrich, who is an alumni of the Tulane School of Architecture, tells Curbed, "People talk often—particularly in the world I’m in—about justice and equity as a concept, but the words are divorced from the links with economic equity, racial equity, and gender equity. I wanted to take this opportunity to be specific and think about programs and policies or steps that could be taken by an institution.”
Good number of HBCUs have architecture. FAMU, Howard, Hampton, Tuskegee, come to mind. Know quite a few FAMU arch grads. But in total black architects are less than 3%. We are a small bunch.
My guess is that most barriers for POC working in the profession are not happening at college admissions, but start far earlier than that. In this era of equity and inclusion, the problem is not that applicants are not getting in; it is that the applicant pool is too small. Opportunity and exposure to architecture must start at a much earlier age to expand the applicant pool if you want to achieve real diversity in the profession. Articles like this strike me as being politically divisive and do not address the real problem.
sorry...
"They include paying living wages to all employees, including facilities and maintenance staff; (Cuz the rent is too damn high and everyone's efforts need to be respected. On a side note, raising the salary of staff is a fairly neutral request. Regardless of who you identify as and how urban/rural/diverse your community is being paid so a significant amount of your salary is not directed towards a commute is a beneficial thing)
renaming buildings that are currently named after slave owners and constructing monuments to those who were enslaved (This is an inclusive move that impacts all those on campus, not just designers);
hiring at least four tenure-track professors by 2020 who identify as black, with no less than half of them also identifying women or non-binary; (Lofty given retirement and hiring practices, but still a commendable goal- however, this could be expanded to include more underrepresented groups)
quadrupling the percentage of black undergraduate and graduate students so that representation is on-par with the general population, 13 percent; (agree with the earlier comment that this is a systemic issue, but increasing representation is an important part of addressing these issues)
adding cultural history and theory to the curriculum so that architecture students are learning about their work in a social context; (YES, probably the most direct impact on pedagogy with the widest reach)
and establishing a “whiteness oversight council” composed of students, alumni, and faculty to ensure that the policies are carried out. (I'm assuming that this is tongue and cheek, given that all the previous initiatives would resolve much of these issues)
I'm on board with critically reflecting on education and who it serves. Speaking specifically in the context of the United States, knowing that we are will be experiencing a significant demographic shift over the next several decades, I see no problem with updating content to reflect that. I'm not suggesting that we throw everything out and start from scratch, but I AM saying that education needs to be more inclusive. The point about teaching in history in context (in conjunction with a broader range of content) is an important one.
Much off this is due to the lessons learned out of context lead to formal strategies devoid of direct context- which is leading to the "p word." Furthermore, let's be honest about how tradition was made and represented.
Examples- Three institutions celebrate(d) centennials in the past year (and now).
1-The Bartlett- which embraced big thinking and architecture as cultural and conceptual practice (yes, I see eye rolls- concept bla bla bla...)
2-The Bauhaus- which embraced craft and making in an emerging machine age (more eye rolls- modernism, blargh)
3-The University of Virginia- which spent a lot of time constructing the identity of Thomas Jefferson as an Architect. If that isn't a conceptual agenda, or a political one, or a social one, that is meant to send a message about what is good and who it is for... (pause digest before you grumble- why else would they make the concerted effort to argue that Jefferson was a great architect too?)
From the perspective of Landscape Architecture- Olmsted learned what Landscape by visiting (read: NOT self-taught) Buttes Chaumont in Paris (which was built to erase the memory of the lime mine and the people who died there for the benefit of an emerging middle class) and he copied many of the strategic moves (including razing Seneca Village, displacing African Americans and 1st Nation peoples- for the benefit of an emerging class).
Does it impact how you assemble things- no.
Does it impact how you think about your future clients- potentially.
Does it help you to understand how architecture has been impacted by larger non-material -social/cultural/economic forces- yes.
Does it demonstrate how privilege is an implicit part of architectural practice- yes.
Finally, the snark- there are other African Americans/other people of color in this community. The comment about representation is taken out of context and references a web of threads and podcasts at a point in time when people were being attacked for what they looked like on this site (read: avatars) which had potential impacts on careers. This also goes to a long complex history of complaints about anonymity. It may have been inaccurate description of the population, but if I recall correctly, it was an accurate assessment of the digital/visual representation at that time.
Again, apologies for the length of this comment/reply.
All 17 Comments
I'd be curious to hear from "the main black voices on archinect"
As one of the black voices on archinect I find your question racist.
Whose question, the articles or Thayers? Or someone else?
I didn't ask a question... speaking as a part black voice on the archinect. (not sure if my blackness is enough to qualify;)
At a $57,000 a year tuition and a mediocre reputation any student - black, white, brown, or yellow, would be better off someplace other than Tulane.
Based on my experience with Tulane grads I'm not convinced the reputation you claim they have is deserved. Good bunch of folks. Still too fucking expensive.
As someone who is a white, I'll tell you what I think Thayer-D. I think Chris has posted here before, and I've been interested in his work, and his desire to do the work, many of us haven't. He's connected practice and the problem of being a white [hetero?] male, and our implications upon the built world. I also applaud his willingness to take risks, and from his work, he's thoughtful, respectful, and the best representation of what a good ally does; educates himself, and doesn't ask black people, and POC to educate him.
You've already lost the argument when you play a zero sum game -- it's not about making architecture more inclusive, its about my little school being "too white" ... ick. Maybe you should have gone to a good state school instead of Tulane? Probably more diverse and better work. The PC police is a certain kind of grift -- usually attention seeking white people in brooklyn -- that won't solve the underlying problems in architecture and society.
much better article:
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/ezra-stoller-turned-buildings-into-monuments
"It was a kind of long tail in which a ferocious idealism and technical curiosity in Gropius’s generation of architects diffused deeply, by direct education and indirect example, into American heartlands and hinterlands"
Please provide sources that indicate "The PC police" is a real thing.
Every department has an inclusion panel now filled with sociology majors... and yet my school was diverse without the pretentious
Please explain how this indicates the existence of "The PC police". Again, cite your sources. Anecdotes and general statements of assumption are not sources.
while there are real panels and commissions at university with the social justice buzzwords that isn’t exactly the problem— the PC police is more in the water of the media and university level discourse. This article is a good examination of this:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-the-Grievance/244753
If you say something un PC on campus, you get called into one of these: https://www.google.com/search?q=office+of+diversity+and+inclusion+campus
Neither of those links proves the existence of the "PC Police".
I also challenge you to use a phrase other than "PC" to describe what has you so upset. Does it bother you to be expected to consider the views, opinions, feelings, and beliefs of people with which you disagree or dislike?
I’m interested in opinions and feelings as they have to do with architecture. Otherwise take it to the grievance studies department
It's stunning how upset people are when they find out they can't act like an asshole with impunity anymore.
I know it upsets me, for sure. But getting over it is an eye-opening journey.
yes!
adding cultural history and theory to the curriculum so that architecture students are learning about their work in a social context;
This is the point that needs emphasis. And people from diverse backgrounds can provide insight based on experience that middle class to wealthy suburbanites simply do not have (who happen to be mainly white). How can the latter, for example, design social housing? Design a more equitable society? A fair economy?
and establishing a “whiteness oversight council” composed of students, alumni, and faculty to ensure that the policies are carried out.
Anyone who's been in academia (35 years for me) knows how toxic—and pointless—these can be.
The whiteness oversight council is how we got to be where we are.
If your school doesn’t consider social issues and context — and isn’t diverse so that you need a panel — you just go to a crappy school
What you have in departments is a lot of white people accusing each other of being white racists. I don't know how much sarcasm and exaggeration there. What I do know is that people just shut up and withdraw when discussion should be open and searching. It is a zero sum game, as Chemex says. I certainly can't speak from personal experience, but I suspect such behavior puts non-whites in a tight spot.
Racism, is a white people problem, and white people need to be the ones to solve their own shit.
"How can the latter, for example, design social housing"
Maybe design it so it doesn't look like 'social housing'? Just a guess.
Architecture is being hijack by leftist grifters to become a political service lobby. But it isn’t supposed to solve racism but instead build better spaces where all people can thrive. This isn’t really about “diversity” but driving white men away from the practice
^triggered incel?
If driving white men away allowed more non-white folks and non-men folks into the profession (especially at design lead, management, and above) then I'm all for it.
^Ding ding ding
At least you are honest about your anti-white men views. I’d prefer to expand the profession itself rather than instigate crazy academic fights over smaller and more irrelevant scraps. Campus lefties like to bully self-critical groups because they know the B-school or Engineering have a lower tolerance for self-defeating sanctimony
Yeah, lefties are the intolerant ones. Have you considered a career change to accidental comedy?
"Racism, is a white people problem" ok.
It's not? Tell me how it isn't. Elucidate.
Racism is everybody’s problem.
White people constructed racism, are in charge of systemic racism, it's as simple as that; a construct based on the tyranny of othering. Happy Indigenous People's Day. #fuckcolumbus
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/12/opinion/columbus-day-italian-american-racism.html
BUTTER EMAILS!
Good number of HBCUs have architecture. FAMU, Howard, Hampton, Tuskegee, come to mind. Know quite a few FAMU arch grads. But in total black architects are less than 3%. We are a small bunch.
My guess is that most barriers for POC working in the profession are not happening at college admissions, but start far earlier than that. In this era of equity and inclusion, the problem is not that applicants are not getting in; it is that the applicant pool is too small. Opportunity and exposure to architecture must start at a much earlier age to expand the applicant pool if you want to achieve real diversity in the profession. Articles like this strike me as being politically divisive and do not address the real problem.
it’s a shame Daemmrich didn’t drop out and offer his place to a non-white student. He must have been so disappointed in his non-diverse elitist educational experience. Not disappointed enough to drop out or transfer, of course. but he can write an article and get ally social credit, which is much better! Win-win (for him).
.
Chemex, who's the better person: someone who acknowledges injustice and attempts to use their position of power to help mitigate it or someone who denies injustice is occurring and sits in their position of power whining about people acknowledging injustice and attempting to use their position of power to help mitigate it?
It's fascinating that Chemex doesn't understand the basics; white people created racism, and white people need to solve for whY.
While I appreciate the sentiment, I find it less fascinating and more heartbreaking.
the idea that architecture needs positions of power dictated from up high is what needs to die — architecture is for everybody. I’ll leave politics to the political hacks
It’s also hubris to think racism can be solved, much less by white people. But by all means turn the one productive facet of society into a hall of mirrors
^wrong
Naw, your wrong. White people didn’t invent racism, humans did. Ever hear about the slaves or barbarians? How do you think those names came about? And are whites responsible for Japanese racism? Come on now, crack a book.
Please explain "But by all means turn the one productive facet of society into a hall of mirrors".
Thayer, as usual, you're conflating issues, while seemingly related - not all slaves were bought and sold, but garnered through conflict - are not specifically "racism". Racism is historically rooted in white hegemonic cultures.
White people invented race, therefore racism.
the idea that architecture needs positions of power dictated from up high is what needs to die — architecture is for everybody. I’ll leave politics to the political hacks
But you don't. You hack away just as much as anyone.
"I’ll leave politics to the political hacks" is a political statement in defense of the status quo.
.see Tom Wolfe on this subject, on 'modernism' .
As one of those being "targeted," I've just seen this. I'll read and respond when I have time...
sorry...
"They include paying living wages to all employees, including facilities and maintenance staff; (Cuz the rent is too damn high and everyone's efforts need to be respected. On a side note, raising the salary of staff is a fairly neutral request. Regardless of who you identify as and how urban/rural/diverse your community is being paid so a significant amount of your salary is not directed towards a commute is a beneficial thing)
renaming buildings that are currently named after slave owners and constructing monuments to those who were enslaved (This is an inclusive move that impacts all those on campus, not just designers);
hiring at least four tenure-track professors by 2020 who identify as black, with no less than half of them also identifying women or non-binary; (Lofty given retirement and hiring practices, but still a commendable goal- however, this could be expanded to include more underrepresented groups)
quadrupling the percentage of black undergraduate and graduate students so that representation is on-par with the general population, 13 percent; (agree with the earlier comment that this is a systemic issue, but increasing representation is an important part of addressing these issues)
adding cultural history and theory to the curriculum so that architecture students are learning about their work in a social context; (YES, probably the most direct impact on pedagogy with the widest reach)
and establishing a “whiteness oversight council” composed of students, alumni, and faculty to ensure that the policies are carried out. (I'm assuming that this is tongue and cheek, given that all the previous initiatives would resolve much of these issues)
I'm on board with critically reflecting on education and who it serves. Speaking specifically in the context of the United States, knowing that we are will be experiencing a significant demographic shift over the next several decades, I see no problem with updating content to reflect that. I'm not suggesting that we throw everything out and start from scratch, but I AM saying that education needs to be more inclusive. The point about teaching in history in context (in conjunction with a broader range of content) is an important one.
Much off this is due to the lessons learned out of context lead to formal strategies devoid of direct context- which is leading to the "p word." Furthermore, let's be honest about how tradition was made and represented.
Examples- Three institutions celebrate(d) centennials in the past year (and now).
1-The Bartlett- which embraced big thinking and architecture as cultural and conceptual practice (yes, I see eye rolls- concept bla bla bla...)
2-The Bauhaus- which embraced craft and making in an emerging machine age (more eye rolls- modernism, blargh)
3-The University of Virginia- which spent a lot of time constructing the identity of Thomas Jefferson as an Architect. If that isn't a conceptual agenda, or a political one, or a social one, that is meant to send a message about what is good and who it is for... (pause digest before you grumble- why else would they make the concerted effort to argue that Jefferson was a great architect too?)
From the perspective of Landscape Architecture- Olmsted learned what Landscape by visiting (read: NOT self-taught) Buttes Chaumont in Paris (which was built to erase the memory of the lime mine and the people who died there for the benefit of an emerging middle class) and he copied many of the strategic moves (including razing Seneca Village, displacing African Americans and 1st Nation peoples- for the benefit of an emerging class).
Does it impact how you assemble things- no.
Does it impact how you think about your future clients- potentially.
Does it help you to understand how architecture has been impacted by larger non-material -social/cultural/economic forces- yes.
Does it demonstrate how privilege is an implicit part of architectural practice- yes.
Finally, the snark- there are other African Americans/other people of color in this community. The comment about representation is taken out of context and references a web of threads and podcasts at a point in time when people were being attacked for what they looked like on this site (read: avatars) which had potential impacts on careers. This also goes to a long complex history of complaints about anonymity. It may have been inaccurate description of the population, but if I recall correctly, it was an accurate assessment of the digital/visual representation at that time.
Again, apologies for the length of this comment/reply.
Well articulated, Marc. Thanks for taking the time to write it out.
ty
Actually Olmstead was a self-taught amateur from a wealthy family. He was slated to go to Yale but did not attend because of a medical condition. New York's Central Park, designed with a mentor, was his first project after a career in journalism and traveling.
Actually, he went to Buttes Chaumont prior to designing Central Park... He toured the park with Alphand (the designer)- to learn.
The self learned bit is part of the "Father of Landscape Architecture" trope.
Before this tit for tat goes further (neither of us have time...), http://www.harvarddesignmagazine.org/issues/36/landscape-as-architecture
just wanted to say thanks, Marc, for your time and effort at writing responses to this piece. though I've read some of The Cotton Kingdom there's so much more about Olmsted I didn't know and now I'm so glad to have learned more. the myth of 'self-taught genius' is always just that. In so many cases it obscures realities of exploitation and dislocation, like Monticello the enslaved labor camp, Seneca Village and Buttes-Chaumont (which I didn't know about, but am glad I now do!)
with regard to the idea that barriers to the profession start far earlier than college admissions: I hear this said often (particularly as a mentor in NOMA's Project Pipeline high school architecture and design justice program) and increasingly, I see it deployed as an excuse for not changing our currently racist institutions.
"Starting early" and "supporting the next generation" is too often a lazy attempt by the people currently in power to wait out unrest and defer action to this 'next generation'. This strategy prevents accountability, because high school students in a mentoring program can't as easily voice their objection to paternalistic, racist education as college students and practitioners can. Support mentoring programs, but know that once they grow up, their graduates will be shut out from White institutions and the profession unless we change these institutions now.
Thanks for the kind words and the insight. As a point of transparency I've become increasingly suspicious of the sole emphasis on pipeline programs because emphasis is place on how can the profession increase the number of Black and other people of color in education and offices. Or- how can we maintain staffing levels while appearing to be sensitive.
Instead, I think there should be more emphasis on patron programs- or how can we encourage communities of color to expect more from the design professions than what is being provided to them today- and how can the design professions be transformed to include their the American experiences in a meaningful manner. The point being- you don't get significantly increased engagement from people if you don't make it relevant their social and cultural experiences. But this is already obvious given the insistence of fokes to rely upon historicist European/colonial models.
Probably better for POCs to not get involved in this dumpy profession, frankly.
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.