The new AIA President and Principal in HOK’s Chicago office, Kimberly Dowdell, talked with Crain’s recently, stating diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts must be sustained in the face of the latest anti-DEI pushback parroted by Elon Musk and other business leaders that contributed to the resignation of Harvard University President Claudine Gay and other rollbacks on Wall Street and in corporate America.
"It's really disturbing how quickly the pendulum is shifting back toward a less inclusive and diverse society," she says, referring to different policymakers who are beginning to codify their resistance in conservative states like Florida and Texas.
Revisit our 2019 Archinect Sessions interview with Kimberly Dowdell, then President of the National Organization of Minority Architects
Of her company’s ethos she says, "[It’s] about diversity and its multiple forms in terms of its people but also the work and the kinds of work that we do," something that has underpinned its success commercially. (The McKinsey study mentioned in the article claims that "culturally diverse" companies are 36% more profitable.)
Dowdell has been using her new national platform rather proactively, penning a number of LinkedIn op-eds on DEI and how it benefits the architecture industry at a critical time.
"While serving as AIA President is certainly not my first rodeo as a leader, it has been the first time I’ve felt negativity from those who prefer that I had not been elected to this office. The details of these incidents are not worthy of being shared, but just know that the various 'isms' are alive and well in 2024, unfortunately. This is why Black History Month (February) and Women’s History Month (March) both still matter," she wrote in one recent reflection.
According to the most recent NCARB survey of licensure and the profession, one in every three new architects identifies as BIPOC, while roughly 40% identify as women.
29 Comments
I will chose Elon Musk, the visionary over some DEI implant and her opinion. As a small business owner, I would go out of business fast If i worried about DEI based on race, religion, cultural background. The only Diversity and Equality that matters is diversity of skills, diversity of thought, and Equality in getting paid your fair share based on production.
Long live Elon.
How exactly is "diversity of thought" achieved when one refuses to include people of different backgrounds?
Isn't it interesting how Elon Musk has the same first letters as Emerald Mine? Coincidence, I am sure.
What exactly is a "DEI implant"? You lost any credibility you may have had when you couldn't use the proper word associated with the acronym letter "E". I suppose you just gave up on 'Inclusion'?
@Donna how exactly is diversity of thought achieved when all these people from "different backgrounds" are required to subscribe to the same orthodoxy?
Elon Musk has definitely achieved diversity by having multiple kids by multiple females .
@ShakeyDeal *are* they all required to subscribe to the same orthodoxy? I thought the intent of DEI initiatives was to move away from one controlling orthodoxy?
Disgusting enough to keep pushing the DEI when it just creates unfair advantages for certain individuals
What is unfair about bringing in individuals with diverse voices and different experiences?
Architecture deliberately limited diversity in the history of EU colonies including US, UK, Canada, Australia, Brazil etc . As baby boom retires there will be crisis in architecture due to demographic gaps and technological evolution of the industry . If Architects were developed from diverse backgrounds they can bring different perspectives to social, economic, cultural and political changes including addressing housing shortages in pragmatic ways .
The unfair advantage is when you add another parameter that one cannot change through their hard work and tell them its because of their skin colour , they are not able to get the job ! The only measurement should be how competent are you on your job , and nothing else !
Wait a minute….are you Alejandro Zaera Paolo?!
I'm copying here a paragraph from my company's recent newsletter about communicating with Deaf people.
"Remember that inclusion is an action. “Make Room for Diverse Voices” is one of the key tenets of our work and is about recognizing that some people may need different resources to engage in the conversation. Take responsibility for recognizing the difference between intent and impact when advocating for disabled people, and hold yourself accountable to listening, learning, and unlearning."
Some people are deaf. That means inclusion requires a different set of actions to make sure they are able to be engaged as completely as non-deaf people are.
I'm a visual thinker, that means I can't understand a flashing detail if you describe it with words, I need a drawing or model. That's a different set of actions than a verbal description. Should my coworker refuse to do a sketch for me, is that giving me an "unfair advantage"?
I don't understand why people think that offering different sets of actions to some people who need them means they are getting an advantage.
This is a motte-and-bailey argument, Donna. You are using a reasonable argument (though one that is totemizing deaf people) to defend an unreasonable position (DEI) when that unreasonable position is being criticized.
https://quillbot.com/blog/motte-and-bailey-fallacy/
Appreciate your link to the definition, gwharton. It’s not “totemizing” deaf people, as you suggest, to use deafness as an example of how full inclusivity requires different sets of actions. I could have used ADA ramps or braille signage or correctly calibrated motion detectors or support animals or any number of other examples; I chose deafness b/c that was literally what my company newsletter was about so it was a convenient example. But what I’m curious to hear from you is why DEI is an unreasonable position?
As a deaf person myself, I object to attempts to equate "be considerate and understanding in communication with people" with "we need to penalize some people and subsidize others to create equal outcomes to suit some a priori demand regardless of circumstances" (e.g. DEI ideology). Using the first to push the second is a motte and bailey argument, not made in good faith.
It helps me out a lot of people are understanding and patient when communicating with me, and I appreciate it. I don't demand that they change everything about what they do and who they are to accommodate me. And I really, really, really don't like being used as a totem in somebody else's ideological crusade.
I disagree with your definition of DEI "ideology", and I also disagree with your use of the term "ideology" to describe a set of actions to allow more people to participate more fully and equally in society. We'll never agree on this, gwharton. But let's look back to history: can you name a set of actions that have been fully embraced by society that were later considered a mistake that you would equate with what you think is unreasonable about DEI efforts?
As an example, the US once thought that ramming highways through poor neighborhoods to allow more people to more quickly move in and out of the city core was the best way to build a thriving society. We now see a lot of unacceptable outcomes of these policies. Do you think DEI efforts will similarly be considered failed or "unreasonable" in the future?
You may disagree, but that does not change my mind. You are grossly misrepresenting the DEI agenda. Ultimately, it comes down to Equal Treatment or Equal Results. Those two options are mutually exclusive. You can't have one with the other. DEI chooses Equal Results. I reject that categorically in favor of equal treatment.
And specifically to race-based DEI, does the US have a history of Equal Treatment?
You're changing the subject, but okay. Until the Civil Rights Act and end of Jim Crow in the 1960s-70s, no we did not. That was a significant injustice which we as a society worked hard to remedy in that time period. After that, we did much better with equal treatment under law, until DEI and race-grifting pushed to weight the scales again in the opposite direction. So now we are back to unequal treatment in an attempt to try and create equal results. Racism substituted for racism, only now pretending to be anti-racism.
You honestly, honestly, believe everything you just wrote? Including, but not limited to, the notion that I "changed the subject" by talking about race-based DEI initiatives?
Obviously yes.
Never not relevant in these kinds of conversations:
With it's barriers to entry (mainly the expensive dues) plus various and sundry forms of internal gatekeeping exercised over those can afford to participate, the AIA is mainly a club for affluent firm owners or executives.
I wouldn't go that far, but AIA is extremely exclusionary against people who don't hold a very narrow set of orthodox beliefs about architecture and the world we live in.
LOL they don’t exclude people in any way. You can literally buy your way in. It’s as easy as purchasing a gym membership.
Oh, they'll take anybody's money. They just won't let anything outside of their narrow orthodoxy ever have a voice. AIA is a joke.
That's not been my experience when I was an active member. If someone isn't an active member they won't likely get much out of membership, but they're not excluded.
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.