Princeton University School of Architecture Dean Monica Ponce de Leon has issued a statement on behalf of the school offering solidarity with the growing protest movement seeking social and economic justice for Black people in America.
In a letter sent out to the Princeton SoA community, Ponce de Leon explains that "it is essential for us to acknowledge that the discipline of architecture and its institutions have always been complicit in social, economic, health, and environmental discrimination."
She adds, "Without this acknowledgement, we will be powerless to impact the grotesque structural injustice that Black Americans and other groups have been subjected to for far too long."
Going further, Dean Ponce de Leon points to architecture's lengthy, complicated, and expensive educational and training system—and particularly, architectural licensure—as a key nexus within design that must be reconsidered if the field is ever to address discrimination and inequality within its ranks.
The dean writes, "The system of licensure that has defined the architecture profession needs to be eliminated or radically transformed. We are one of the few professions that requires both a licensing exam and years of practical training. Both are structured to perpetuate discrimination and inequity. This exclusionary tactic is inexcusable, indefensible and must end."
To help better understand issues related to diversity and inequality as they relate to the architecture community, Ponce de Leon has announced that the school will establish a new open database to help track diversity initiatives within the industry.
"As we launch this project," the dean writes, "we hope that other institutions will share their data with us and be willing to make it public."
"Data drives diversity," Ponce de Leon explains.
The statement is the latest to come from architecture school leaders in support of the protest movements and is particularly notable in that it includes the beginnings of a plan for moving forward.
Dean Ponce de Leon's full statement is included below:
The loss of life to police violence is appalling. The murders of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Ahmaud Arbery in Glynn County, Breonna Taylor in Louisville, and countless Black lives across our nation must stop. Black lives matter.
It is time to not only speak up, but take action.
We should all join Kimberly Dowdell, NOMA National President in her call to action: “We must all leverage our positions of privilege to help our most vulnerable citizens, neighbors and colleagues strive for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I urge you to consider what’s happening right now as an American problem that we must all face together.” (See her full statement here).
While our individual actions may seem small within the enormity of widespread racism, in unity we have the potential to affect change. First, it is essential for us to acknowledge that the discipline of architecture and its institutions have always been complicit in social, economic, health and environmental discrimination. Without this acknowledgement, we will be powerless to impact the grotesque structural injustice that Black Americans and other groups have been subjected to for far too long.
We must—once and for all—end the inequities that plague our own discipline. For too many years, I have heard too many excuses about lack of diversity in the academy and the profession. Let’s be clear: while unconscious racial biases are never going to disappear overnight, we must work to ensure that our student body, our faculty and practitioners look like the rest of America. We must change admission policies as well as faculty recruitment and promotion practices. We need to correct the funding structures that for long have perpetuated the exclusion of Black Americans. We can do this, and we can do this now.
Ultimately academia and the profession will not change if we do not have access to precise information. Today the AIA, NCARB, and the NAAB provide fragmented, outdated or hard to decipher demographics. To address these issues, at Princeton we are developing an open database to bring together this disparate information, dig for more, and make it easily accessible. As we launch this project, we hope that other institutions will share their data with us and be willing to make it public. Data drives diversity.
These actions, however, will not be enough to address structural inequity in architecture. The system of licensure that has defined the architecture profession needs to be eliminated or radically transformed. We are one of the few professions that requires both a licensing exam and years of practical training. Both are structured to perpetuate discrimination and inequity. This exclusionary tactic is inexcusable, indefensible and must end.
The national crisis is bigger and more urgent than architecture. Architecture’s complicity in structural injustice cannot end without structural change of its own,
Monica Ponce de Leon Dean and Professor, School of Architecture, Princeton University
98 Comments
These schools should probably ask themselves if supplying starchitects with lowly paid staff that know little to no knowledge of what licensure requires is a meaningful model moving forward. Blaming licensure and professional exams for what the schools willfully refuse to teach - either out of ignorance or arrogance - is particularly disingenuous. If overcoming injustice is indeed a goal, the practice of having overseas students subsidize Americans should be expanded to cover those who cannot afford to attend Princeton.
"We are one of the few professions that requires both a licensing exam and years of practical training. Both are structured to perpetuate discrimination and inequity."
Financial aid from the fat cats at NCARB and AIA could go a long way. But the massive disconnect between these bodies and coastal schools doesn't help - there is a break in one's education from graduation to licensure and in that gap, neither school nor NCARB steps in. And if schools are willing and able to cover practical building knowledge tested by the AREs, a lot of students would benefit. There are some excellent state schools that do this but for whatever reason most of the Ivies prefer to spend their time prepping students to be design stars while turning a blind eye to the fact that the vast majority will not.
fair criticisms, but it shouldn't also take away from the many valid points addressed. i think the broader point is that it is superfluous to require both a lengthy apprenticeship AND a demanding examination process. not to mention schools are not simply professionalized training grounds (one goes to school for both skills training but also to learn..)- the profession should ultimately be held accountable for the standards it makes.
also- correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought princeton gave very generous scholarships. not to mention this data from their website is very strong, even when compared to state schools. you should do some research first before throwing out generalizations..
Financial aid covered 100 percent of tuition, room and board for
students in the most recent freshman class whose families earned up to $65,000. This aid was provided in the form of grants, which do not have to be repaid. Princeton was the first university in the country to eliminate loans from its financial aid package.
https://www.princeton.edu/admi...
For anything structural hire an engineer...
totally agree. to be clear it's certainly the AXP experience program that really cuts down both the young and minorities. predicating licensure on getting a large amount of well rounded experience under the supervision of a supportive mentor puts an unreasonable burden on those who most need help. the burden of responsibility is on the unempowered unlicensed graduate - firms have literally no obligation to support this process.
i don't think many people in the older generations get just how unlikely it can be that your first job out of arch school is going to expose you to all the experience categories required for AXP within a reasonable time frame.
in a weak economy (which is about 30% of the years for anyone starting since 9/11) getting one of these adequately supportive jobs is just as challenging as getting into a good university itself. it can mean passing up better paid non-traditional arch jobs for lower paid jobs in a generalist firm. it can mean moving to different cities to look for jobs.
all of this is easier for graduates with family connections and money to support them. the people least likely to have those are those same minorities who eventually just have to move on in life as something other than architects. i've seen this and recognized how much it helped me that my parents could make introductions to old friends working as architects, lend me money to get an apartment, cover living costs while i worked low-paid summer internships for experience.
i am licensed; i've never used it. it's just a credential to list on rfp's for projects my firm pursues, very few of which have been in my state of licensure. i think the whole system of state-by-state licensure is outdated and based on an idealistic notion of practice that covers very little of the work architects do today.
impeding access to a career in the profession is just one more side effect of a misguided mission - one that particularly harms minorities and the non-affluent.
Ms. Ponce de Leon’s comments are particularly timely given that architecture, as well as architectural education, are currently at a crossroads. Not only does the onerous burden of licensure disfavor nonwhite, nonwealthy students, it also breeds a dangerous monoculture that produces narrowly trained graduates unable to engage in the kind of necessary interdisciplinary design strategies needed to innovate in the profession. Credentialism in architecture is certainly nothing new, but architecture itself as a practice stands to benefit from the removal of licensure because it frees students up to spend their time gaining experience using their skills in novel ways that may exist outside of the constraints of the apprenticeship requirements. For educational institutions, it allows them to advance interdisciplinary programs that focus more on applying the broad swath of skills in architecture to specific ch makes their graduates sharper. Schools like Pratt, Parsons, and Sci-Arc have all been experimenting with postgraduate programs that exist outside of programs focused on professional licensure that deal with domains traditionally explored by architects. Architecture is too precious to be left up to architects. My hope is that ending licensure restores some of he creativity to the discipline and practice that has been lost in the era of starchitecture.
agree, i've had colleagues go off to work in real estate development, construction, software development, or even just in foreign architecture offices - all of them have basically dropped out of the licensure track. but for a firm with aspirations to do more than commodity design work they all have essential uncommon experience. there should be more accommodation for the very different roles architects perform in the broader industry. we don't need only expert generalists; sometimes we need people who know other things.
can't agree with this more. i have a pretty diverse background in architecture adjacent industries (including construction), all of which you would think would make me a better architect, yet it was treated as a roadblock on the path to licensure. this issue is certainly about diversity in terms of socioeconomic questions, but also those of the nature of the type of work architecture engages in. happy to see how this broader conversation is making its way into architecture.
I think you're hijacking a discussion to make an unnecessary argument that's personal and has more to do with why you're not as successful as you would like to be and less about this topic.
I've been pretty open about my issues with folks being subtly racist or willfully ignorant. This is the first openly and blatantly racist post I've seen, though. Good job, you racist.
As per usual, my posts above were in response to deleted posts made by Richard Balkins from Astoria.
fulcrum must be an AIA board member
Agree with Ponce de Leon 100%. The entire profession is structured in a way that keeps design from really reaching the larger public. It's not about design at all, but a system of arbitrary checkmarks that can only be achieved by those that can afford 6 years of expensive school and 10 years of indentured servitude. It's artificial supply control.
There was a group of black students at my undergrad arch school who all graduated but had to give up the dream because who can afford another 2 years of overpriced school? The whole system is dumb. The AIA and NCARB has done more damage to architecture than any other organization, including the New York Times.
there are many ways to make a profession more inclusive, and eliminating the profession is not among them.
So our doctors can get through their boards with no residency because it's racist ? This quest to remove everything should stop.
Honestly, probably the real joke is that architects matter. Just another liberal controlled academia puff piece.Engineers put people on the moon before all this crap, and the US was better then.
US was never better then, there's literally never been a time.
Medical residencies are managed by the states to ensure an adequate supply of jobs for training future doctors. Placements are regulated and managed - not perfect, but far better than architecture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Resident_Matching_Program ALSO - Doctors have a really obvious and direct impact on public safety, and residency is clearly useful to controlling this. Architects have a tangential and indirect impact on public safety, and internships do almost nothing to control this! BIG DIFFERENCE
The US wasn't better then and it isn't better now. In theory and on paper maybe those white slave owners were on to something when drafting that declaration of independence, but in practice it has always been a country founded on genocide, slavery, racism and white supremacy and continues to be so...till this day. For matters of consistency of argument BLM should blow up Mount Rushmore instead of going after a few statues here and there as...
There could never really be justice on stolen land
–KRS-One
midlander, exactly. as i've mentioned buildings codes, which are far older than the profession, do far more to protect public safety than professionalized architects do. in architecture, professionalization = a marketing tool.
Administering a structured practicum instead of IDP/AXP will help. No barriers to entry. Implement a learning and growth model. We know what to do, its doing it that matters.
i don't want to speak for tintt, but in my view IDP/AXP is anything but structured; it might appear so at first glance because of the specific categories, but from the perspective of an individual, it can be difficult to nearly impossible to fulfill all of these categories at a single firm (others have touched on this). one has to jump around firms, which requires significant connections and resources. in other words, it is an exclusionary process. a medical residency on the other hand is completed at one hospital, allowing the candidate to focus on the work ahead instead of fretting about complying with an ever-growing list of restrictive categories- there's no reason architecture couldn't be the same.
Ponce de Leon is wrong.
Work to reform your unnecessarily expensive academia which destroys the freedom of graduates to buy assets, start firms and choose their own passions after graduating.
There is nothing racist about professional licensure and if you think there is, you are the bigot for having such low expectations for groups of people.
Opinion 1. *backup evidence not provided*
Opinion 2. *backup evidence not provided*
Opinion 3. *backup evidence not provided*
ben foster, let me show you what it means to back up your claims with evidence. it's pathetic- this profession is completely complicit in lack of representation in leadership and licensure. but sure, you can continue to be fragile and blame school.. (also see the statistics i posted above; princeton has relatively generous scholarships.)
to play Ben's advocate, didn't he just say princeton is wrong and accordingly, even if they give out a lot generous scholarships isn't it for naught if the obsession for architectural curriculum is completely useless in the real world? The real world is the one in which academia inhabits but effectively isolated from, like a bubble in the ocean. Imagine if Princeton ensured you could get the Core Requirements? Assuming anyone teaching even knows what those are...Ponce is just politically covering her ass, she is part of the problem like Princeton.
SneakyPete and square.
Please explain how our profession and its licensure process is structurally bigoted and deliberately holding down black people.
You're not a hero for highlighting a demographic chart as it does not prove the point that we are a racist profession.
Are there ARE questions that are racist? Are there architecture schools or firms that are racist? If so, it would help to call them out so we can eliminate them.
Could it be true that black people don't want to be in our profession for other reasons? For instance, the cost of graduate school and student debt burden vs. income capability?
I think it's especially absurd that Ponce de Leon and other privileged academics would promote the lessening or eliminating of licensing when it would only cheapen the value our profession. Other than Princeton, why are these other woke graduate schools demanding an unnecessary amount of graduate education at top dollar? Could it be racist to burden marginalized communities with debt?
again, princeton is very affordable and has great scholarships relative to other "elite" schools, so in fact ponce de leon is not being a hypocrite..
and yes, cost of education is a huge problem. don't disagree with that one, i've posted a lot about. these issues aren't mutually exclusive though. what is absurd is to exonerate the profession and ncarb, which dictates experience and licensing costs and procedures. professionalization that requires 10 years and thousands of dollars, in conjunction with working in multiple offices is a huge barrier of entry, and the results of firm and institutional leadership show the evidence of this.
have you seen the demographic make up of the ncarb board? all white males, with the exception of one white female. think that's an encouraging signal for any minorities who want to join the profession?
the point is it's everywhere, and everything needs to be critically examined. i'm not sure who's interests you are defending here, or why you feel so threatened.
i also never said the profession is bigoted. the right loves that word these days.. i said it was exclusionary. and i've explained it enough here and else where. if you open your eyes you'll see all of the ways in which the profession is structured to keep certain people in and others out. i think the point of your perspective is this:
when it would only cheapen the value our profession
i'll agree with you that licensure is not much more than a perceived market value. except, the funny thing is.. architecture isn't exactly compensated well, so the premise that licensure is doing anything to add value isn't backed up by any evidence, infact the opposite: we're working longer for less money every year.
time for a change.
Asking a bunch of open ended questions which YOU COULD GO FUCKING ANSWER YOURSELF WITH SOME RESEARCH is lazy. The burden of proof is on you, and I won't do your fucking homework for you. So stay ignorant if you like, it doesn't make your assumptions any more true.
So you don't have proof of racism?
So you don't have any evidence to back up your initial post?
.
In defense of Ben's statement, y'all are being distracted, essentially but not entirely incorrect. In architecture, wealth and privilege (like Ponce type academics, even if earned, she now sits in a position of privilege) are the real problem. Once you establish the class divide its will be pretty damn clear why its also racist. But to go full hyperbole media like illogical, you kill the seriousness of the point and make Ponce's attempt at a statement be taken less seriously. I would expect such narrow minded thinking on Twitter or Facebook, but assuming most people here are essentially overly educated and under paid, I would hope you would see the key systemic issue with architecture - class! Again, once you accept that it takes little effort to connect the two - race and class in America.
Ben and other's are stating "prove how the ARE and licensure are racists". If you jump to a massive conclusions you will get massive denial responses. "What is a the deflection of a beam?" is a really hard statement to claim to be racist, right.. A systemic argument needs to actually reference a system, and I suggest you start with class, really easy one to prove...but hey! that's social media, you only have 160 character to make a point and to do that you have to leave a lot facts out and then just fucking scream at each other over nothing...
yes, I get it, licensed architects like yourself have an interest in protecting their class privilege. as such, anytime a legitimate criticism of the profession is offered, their first tactic is to blame schools and new graduates (which of course have their own problems) instead of examining what they can do to make the profession better. i’ve seen this over and over again on this thread, and it’s the reason i am at the point that i think the whole damn thing needs to be blown up and restructured.
don't think you do, maybe you just don't have what it takes? No, really, schools are the problem not licensure. It's really not that hard to earn a license if you actually learned the practice of architecture. NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR DESIGNS, except for higher education who take 6 digits of your money for a useless education. USELESS. How to make the profession better, provide a real education system. Or you can just be lazy and blame racism or whatever is trending at the time of your discontent....
i am licensed, you assumed incorrectly. but I am more interested in figuring out why, like I mentioned before, the board of ncarb is 98% white male. that’s schools fault? explain. schools also tend to be much more diverse than these boards and firm leadership, so where is the problem? why aren’t more women and minorities represented? let me guess.. blame school!
“its not that hard to get licensed” - a statement only a person with means, aka privilege, can make. you’re proving my point
define "privilege". Maybe you're just lazy and not that intelligent.
or you could use a dictionary and practice some self-critiism. 0 evidence or data and resorting to generic name-calling; who’s lazy?
looked it up. does not apply to me and many architects who EARNED their licenses. As noted, maybe you are are just lazy and play the victim, when indeed you are just a narcisstic human being who has failed at life? Talk about lazy, you didn't even look up stats for all the people who do earn their licenses every year. Trying to understand what's so hard about getting a job and taking tests?
Most white people aren't even really racist when we have other things to do than to parade around town like filling out job applications...
Whoah.... what? So you consider racism to be like some sort of hobby that white people work on when they have enough idle time? Like fishing or needlepoint? You'd be parading around with your confederate flag but you're too busy filling out paperwork right now, and therefore you're not a racist (this week)?
Yeah... that doesn't help. "We have other things to do than parade..." still means that you think the reason most white people aren't racists is because they're occupied with higher priorities.
ancient i posted it above (NCARB by the numbers), 2% of licensed architects are black in the us. so you must think that is a good number, and they just need to work harder to achieve all the brilliance you have. it’s a world view that is thoroughly stuck in the 18th century. we’ve heard this narrative
for a long time in this country. i understand you feel threatened, but change is coming whether you like it or not.
note how it is possible to have an argument without lazy name calling and bizarre character assumptions, which is how i know you feel insecure about the change we’re seeing.
square you make a lot of assumptions that reflect your character and not mine. there no threat if no one earns what I've earned like many others, moreover why would a color change in skin for architect be a threat? why would I even care. I'm just pointing out that academia is the reason for failure, not the profession. its also not name calling to assume someone lack intelligence and the work ethic to achieve something, albeit an assumption, it as observation or a suggestion on why someone may fail in life.
How many questions on the ARE dealt with redlinning? Lead paint? Lead pipes? Pruit Igoe? Paul Williams, Whitney Young?
Only vaguely remember lead and Pruit on the ARE. Never found knowing an architect or history all that useful though, for actual practice. So maybe beta you could lobby for more lead questions?
#1 - Let me just point out an obvious real statement in a book that is/was important, especially to Traditional Architect - John F. Harbeson's "The Study of Architectural Design"
"This latter is called "niggering" and consists in doing anything the advanced man asks -"... I mean that's literally a RACIST word describing the basic training of an architect, even says MAN not WOMAN. (technically its a deritative of the offical racist word, don't waste time going there, we all know what it says)
#2 - Ponce, Princeton, etc... are not only part of the Problem, but are the problem. Stop propagating the stupid myth of strachitecture (as pointed out above by my forum colleagues) and the importance of "marketing" and "concept design". You have to come from "privilege" to have a shot or be overly talented and intelligent and completely underpaid. Most of us, including the white people don't even know how to behave "privileged", I can't even figure out how to talk to these people, I usually find myself having drinks with the "help" - since they struggle as we struggle, where working pays the bills and not being paid isn't some "moral" opinion by a "privileged" rich person who thinks your mistake doesn't warrant final contractual payment. "It's not about the money." say only wealthy clients.
#3 - Purchase Architectural Graphic Standards, learn CAD and Revit, work for a contractor and within 3 years you will have more experience and understanding of the craft than anyone who did 7 years of schools, 3 years of interns, and took the ARE's...Save yourself $150k in tuition in $1.50 in late library fees. I WOULD HIRE YOU!
i think I like this? ha. i dont disagree that the academy has its own issues, i’m only trying to separate the issues with professionalization in order to critique it, which was the intent of the message. i can see how the messenger is flawed, but the point that the profession has been around for over 100 years and still sees such a lack of representation in its highest intuitions is troubling.
i could give to shits about the aia. i’m talking about NCARB, which is the body that decides how licensure is structured. so yeah, it matters
square the lack of representation is social and historical, mainly class in architecture. I don't think you're going to change it from the profession side, since there are many milestones well outside of the profession starting with : 1) middle or upper class, 2) public or private schools, 3) what university, if you go to some unknown school or Yale there is a big difference in who you befriend, 4) where you get a job, this is after university, 5) if what you learned in school is even useful or pay worthy...and now you're at the profession. on NCARB, I gladly help people who need help out - need a mentor? most people just lie on those hours you need anway, going back to your chart. or you could demand Academia make those hours possible while in school. In some countries an internship in architecture and construction is required prior to graduating. If say getting construction admin on site experience is hard, then have Academia offer it as a class/workshop and NCARB in theory would accept the time.
"i can see how the messenger is flawed, but the point that the profession has been around for over 100 years and still sees such a lack of representation in its highest intuitions is troubling."
Who made you judge and jury about character? You must be in academia, the most troubling part of the USA right now.
I see you've developed a sense of humor! Good job Ricky.
Stop jerking off contractors. Three years of working for a contractor will get you an education in how to cut corners and build things poorly.
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate contractors. But by themselves most of them are about as good at building things as Architects.... just in a very opposite way.
Ҝ丨ㄥㄥ卂丂ㄖㄩ几ᗪ
片工しし丹己回凵几句
ズﾉﾚﾚﾑ丂のひ刀り
killasound!
The injustice in architecture [education]...before coming to Princeton Ponce de Leon as dean at the A. Alfred Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning already earned a whopping $302,848 in 2013...
cool fact, bro
I know!
is that public information?
Yup, right here: https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2013/12/post_10.html
with that kind of money you could actually finance change in theory of course. let's all get on twitter and harass people...kidding.
And it costs $73,450 per year to study there...but licensing is the problem?
Neither the NCARB, the NAAB, or the AIA is looking to have their dinner plate broken.
Then someone needs to shit in it
The architectural profession was founded and controlled by white men, just as all of modern Eurocentric/colonizing societies. Straight white men formed these societies (and the architecture profession) with themselves as the default and everyone else (women, people of color, etc.) as ‘other’ -i.e. a white man needs no qualifiers, he is just a man – the ideal human. Everyone else requires a qualifier: ‘a woman architect,’ ‘a Black architect,’ ‘an openly gay architect,’ etc.
The architectural profession has changed little in the past 100 years – in the way architects are trained, licensed, and practice - and the demographics remain stubbornly antiquated as well. Ponce de Leon is correct in asserting that the profession must change to reflect society. Architects cannot hope to design buildings and public spaces for everyone if only white men are creating these spaces. What nuances of breast feeding does a man understand that would allow him to empathically design a lactation room? What does a white man (or white woman) understand about the historic use of town squares for the spectacles of lynching and the emotional impact of these spaces on Black Americans? These are two very specific reasons why the architectural profession must reflect the society it serves. Diverse voices in the room making design decisions (not just drafting a design the white man in charge hands down) are necessary to create equitable spaces that reflect and shape diverse communities.
As Ponce de Leon points out, licensure must change. The academy must also change to support changes to licensure. The academy will have to embrace teaching the mundane facets of the profession, including codes, practice management, and engineering (structural, civil, and MEP) in a robust way that gives the graduate the tools necessary to fully design, sign, and seal the drawings for a single-family home. The academy must also address its own barriers to entry, as Ponce de Leon rightly points out in the statistics on student diversity.
In addition to reducing or eliminating barriers for entry into the profession, the profession must also address retention of women & minorities in the profession. Even once all of the hurdles for entry can be cleared, if pathways to leadership and ownership remain blocked, the upper echelon of the profession will remain white and male.
If the schools aren't teaching what an entry level employee needs in an architectural firm they should lose their accreditation. If they are teaching what is valuable and required then you don't need all the hours and lengthy internship bullshit before taking the test. One year working as an intern under a liscensed architect for persons with accredited degrees should qualify somene to take the exam.
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.