I recently came across an article in The Architect’s Newspaper titled “The future of our profession depends on diversity.” The author argues that the architectural profession needs to take specific steps to increase diversity. “The architecture profession runs the risk of becoming irrelevant if we do not adapt and create pathways for minorities to enter and lead the profession,” he writes. Received wisdom, but is it true? Or, rather, hasn’t it always been true? When I studied architecture in the 1960s, there were no women in my class, no blacks, and no aboriginal Canadians. But we were a mixed group: five immigrants (two from Hong Kong, two from Europe, one from Jamaica), four Jewish Montrealers, three Anglo Canadians, one French Canadian, one Italian Canadian, one Yugoslav Canadian. Our teachers were likewise international: two Brits, a Pole, a Hungarian, in addition to a scattering of Anglo Canadians. Architecture, at least in Montreal, had always benefitted from diversity. The school of architecture that I attended was founded by Scots, and their Arts and Crafts sensibility (as opposed to the Beaux-Arts background of many U.S. schools) was part of its tradition. I never saw architecture as a closed profession. In 1960s Montreal, the two leading architects were immigrants from Australia and Poland, and the partners of the top firm in the city consisted of three native-born Canadians (two English one French), and two immigrants, one born in Warsaw the other in Athens. My first job was with Moshe Safdie, an Israeli immigrant. Starting in the mid-twentieth century, the architectural profession in the U.S. likewise benefitted from the infusion of new blood, whether it came from immigrants or previously under-represented minorities such as Jews and Asians. And in many cases, these minorities did indeed “lead the profession” (think Louis Kahn, Paul Rudolph, I. M. Pei, and Frank Gehry). My point is that they did so not because of any set-asides or “pathways,” but rather because of their innate talents and abilities.
Witold, I think the rationale for increasing diversity is an extension of the one you make yourself. Modern architecture without Kahn, Rudolph, Pei and Gehry would be much lesser place. The question then becomes how much greater it might it be, if diversity was expanded from white men from other countries, to the even wider world of people of color and the half of the world that isn’t male.
Set asides are much more of a straw man than reality. I work in higher education in intensely liberal California, and racial and gender set asides are prohibited by state law.
Bob, We don’t disagree. But one of the most powerful gate-keepers for the architectural profession, other than talent, is the nature of the clientele. Eight years ago I wrote a blog about this. Until the mid-twentieth century, when the clients were predominantly WASPs, so were the architects. When that changed, the profession changed, too: William Zeckendorf hired I. M. Pei, Jonas Salk hired Louis Kahn. But I do resist the notion that the profession should mirror society in some way. It might, or it might not.