On February 13, 2021, the Indianapolis Museum of Art at Newfields posted a job listing searching for a new director. While their goal was to find potential applicants for hire, what resulted was another glimpse of marginalization within the hiring process. What made this job description so volatile was their search for an individual who would help maintain "the Museum's traditional, core, white audience." I first learned of this news while scrolling through my Twitter feed and seeing a tweet made by long-time Archinector and Archinect Sessions podcast co-host Donna Sink.
Donna provided a screenshot of the listing and followed up with an updated image of the job post with "corrections" made by the museum a few hours after her tweet was posted. Sure, edits were made, but the damage was already done. Seeing a job description like this was disappointing and stomach-turning, to say the least, but does it shock me? Not entirely.
9am Saturday 13 February 2021 Newfields is still actively searching for a director to maintain their “core, white audience”. Screenshot from M Oppenheimer Executive Search website. pic.twitter.com/JGgZmT1NiI
— Donna Sink, Architect (@DonnaSinkArch) February 13, 2021
While the level of awareness and intentionality to dismantle white supremacist views and racist acts towards Black, Indigenous, and People of Color has grown, it doesn't erase the reality marginalized communities continue to face. The truth of living and working in spaces where one's own culture and overall existence are diminished, appropriated, and erased is all too common.
I'm a woman of color, and after reading a job description presented in that way I was taken aback. Yet, I was quickly reminded that alleviating centuries of structural and institutionalized racism, especially within spaces like museums, will take a lot more than finding the "right person" to spearhead change and increase diversity. Social media's architecture community continued to expand on Sink's post as they shared their thoughts on the matter.
LA-based designer, educator, and LA Forum Architecture and Design Co-President Nina Briggs poignantly shared in a tweet, "believing that attracting a diverse audience and maintaining a white audience are mutually exclusive, they broadcast both their disbelief it can be done and the palatable unicorn candidate they seek." Transdisciplinary designer, urbanist, and design advocate Justin Garrett Moore added additional context to Newsfield's "core, white art audience." In his tweet, he included a map illustrating the museum's site and its location within an area of Indianapolis with a large Black population.
For those following the Newfields "core, white art audience" news, I just want to note that the place where the museum sits at the 'core' of Indianapolis has a large Black population (green dots on the map). The 46208 zip code where the museum is located is 55% Black. pic.twitter.com/46Sg8J8kuK
— Justin Garrett Moore (@jgmoore) February 17, 2021
On February 17, Newfields' president Charles L. Venable announced he is stepping down from his position. While his decision may have also been influenced by the 2,000+ calls and direct responses insisting on his removal, the museum released an open letter expressing their apologies and failures. Venable's interview with the New York Times added context to his decision and use of the word "white" in the job description.
The decision to use 'white' in the employment listing had been intentional
"The decision to use 'white' in the employment listing had been intentional and explained that it was meant to indicate that the museum would not abandon its existing audience as it moved toward greater diversity, equity and inclusion," he shared with Sarah Bahr of the Times. Adding, "I deeply regret that the choice of language clearly has not worked out to mirror our overall intention of building our core art audience by welcoming more people in the door. We were trying to be transparent about the fact that anybody who is going to apply for this job really needs to be committed to (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) D.E.I. efforts in all parts of the museum." However, at this point Venable makes me shake my head in dismay. "This is a six-page job description, not a single bullet point,” he shared with the Times. “We talk a lot about our commitment to diversity in all kinds of ways, from the collections to programming to hiring. I can certainly say that if we were writing this again, with all the feedback we’ve gotten, we wouldn’t write it that way.”
His response made me think of architecture and its own employment trends. How does this example of "what not to do" reflect firms who are seeking to hire their "ideal applicant"? Besides finding highly skilled architects and designers, do employers secretly try to hit their D.E.I. checkboxes or do they present a level of transparency to potential applicants?
I gather, like most social blunders that have faced public ridicule, Newfields will continue to make amends. Yet, in the end, their efforts are examples of a community whose obtuse awareness towards providing jobs and spaces that reflect more than a colonizer's view of the world is merely a reflection of how deep racism lies within institutions tasked with recording and preserving history and culture.
To read the full letter Newfields Board of Trustees and Board of Governors shared on February 17, 2021 click here.
18 Comments
Pointing out both good and bad aspects of this controversy:
The bad: The statement by the Board that Charles was resigning was an apology by *the board*. It was not an apology by Charles Venable or the HR director who both defended, in a staff meeting, their use of the phrase "traditional, core, white art audience". These two people are still so blinded to systemic racism that they mentally can't understand why someone would be upset by this phrasing.
Also bad: Charles' salary approached $800,000 per year and he likely walked away with $1million or more in severance. Ask yourselves: when was the last time you did something hideously inappropriate and thus received a payout of more than your annual salary? This is textbook "failing up".
The good: Indianapolis is blessed with the Central Indiana Community Foundation, which has loudly focused their work in recent years to specifically promoting the dismantling of systemic racism. CICF has supported and continues to support excellent community initiatives, including the series of discussions on inequity in the built environment that PUP (the non-profit I chair) presented in 2019.
Also good: local artists and activists are breathing a huge sigh of relief that a new era will be coming to our formerly excellent art museum, fingers crossed.
Good points. The same rule should apply to all institutions: That the race of the audience or staff should not be a determinant in welcoming or hiring. There are institutions dedicated to the study of ethnic, religious, and racial groups - be it a Chinese American museum or a Department of African American studies. Does being from the ethnic/religious/racial group in question give a visitor or job applicant an advantage in appreciating the work of the institution - or should that assumption be replaced by thorough vetting without their background in mind? Can a Japanese architect, for instance, be entrusted to design a memorial to Native Americans?
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Its a fair question in a diverse, globalized world. Novelists and artists have this conundrum too: Is it possible at all to create work that is true to the experience of an entirely different group without having lived through the individual and collective experiences of the group in question? Does Orhan Pamuk only have the ability to successfully write about Turkish societies? A Chinese sculptor known in part for his Maoist work, was commissioned for the MLK sculpture in DC a few years back. Would an American artist have done a better job? Probably, unless those in charge really wanted the sculpture to look like depictions of Chinese Communist figures.
monosierra: You're reading your own meaning into this and missing the point (I don't know if intentionally or not). This contretemps came on the heels of a high profile resignation by a highly sought-after professional who left *because* she claimed the institution is racist. The director *should have know* he needed to be careful with his language because the institution was already on thin ice on this topic. The wording of the job post was unprofessional *at least*, deeply offensive at worst. The director was called on it by his own staff, he refused to listen; he received public backlash and refused to back down. That is not behavior a leader of a major cultural institution should exhibit, so he's out, for the good of the community. As an analogy: I don't know what Brett Kavanaugh did in high school. But in his Supreme Court job interview he lost his temper and selfishly yelled and *that alone* was reason enough for him not to be confirmed: he showed he didn't have the temperament required for a SCOTUS appointment (of course he got it anyway). This job post listing was such a stupid, bad decision that it could only have come from someone who isn't fit for the job.
Sounds like more heads need to roll. I was there recently (well, three summers ago) and the place reeks of class privilege. Architecturally, it is the most corporate HQ art museum I've ever seen.
It totally looks like a mall. I hate escalators in art museums, from this one to the Broad they are all bad.
the expansion joint running through the middle of the main hall of the addition is one of the most memorable features of the design! haha
Also Bad: The meaning of the posting would not have changed in the slightest had the word "white" never been included or explained. It is emblematized in the juxtaposition of an "inclusive audience" with a "traditional core audience." There is an inherent fear that including more people will result in a loss for the people who are already included when, in fact, the opposite has proven true: from the voting rights act to ADA, when more people are thought of inclusively, the easier things can become for everyone.
help maintain "the Museum's traditional, core, white audience"
What an extraordinarily obtuse statement. Has this guy kept tabs with the art world, the larger world at all? And I don't think anyone has defined diversity to exclude whites.
But while we're on the subject, what kind of art does a core white audience like anyway? Who are these people?
The desire is not only ethnically perverse, it would also lead to lowest common denominator exhibition. The art world has always been fueled by diversity of some sort, of which ethnicity is one. He's ignoring art's animus.
At The MIA, we had Kehinde Whiley paintings occupying spaces of typically "Masters" work. The feedback, was excruciatingly racist.
cast porcelain goose sculptures. This is the midwest after all.
if the guy said our "core 18-35 audience" or our "core <insert demographic other than white> audience" would there be a problem?
the guy didn't. why do you ask?
That seems to be their core audience though...(until now)
.
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.