Between writing for this blog, attending conferences, and working on the Out in Architecture book, I keep coming across random essays, past presentation scripts, and correspondence that make me feel like the more things change, the more they really don’t – or haven’t – for the queer architect community.
Below is an email chain with Carl Elefante, FAIA, who in 2017 was the President of the American Institute of Architects (AIA). During the annual meeting of the Knowledge Community leadership, I was able to ask him about the inclusion of queer architects within AIA’s efforts around equity, diversity, and inclusion. Luckily, I had time (or more likely made time) to follow up post-meeting, and even luckier, Carl responded.
Reading back through this, I’m struck at how much of what was happening in 2017 could be replaced with what has occurred politically and professionally in the last few years. While queer architects continue to make strides within the profession, we are still stymied on inclusion in the EDI sphere, on getting actionable data on the number of queer architects, and on getting visible statements of support from our local, state, and national organizations.
I was tempted to make current comments throughout. For example, where I say “especially given the current administration,” you could easily substitute in about Trump potentially being the next administration and the potential challenges we would face.
However, I will let you read through and draw your own conclusions and make your own substitutions. Because in the seven years since this missive was written, while I’m seeing a lot happening within the community, I can’t be sure a whole lot has changed.
Enjoy!
Carl:
Thanks for being open to listening and responding to my question about LGBTQ+ inclusion in the Institute’s EDI work. I probably should have asked that question last year, but being my first KLA, I don’t know that it would have been appropriate. And I’m not sure how receptive Thom Vonier would have been.
Your initial response to my question has really had me thinking. To say that the profession and AIA takes the community for granted because we’ve been part of the profession for so long struck me as somewhat of a fair assessment, but not completely.
Yes, we’ve always been part of the profession. I’m sure since the dawn of time. However, we seem to operate under a don’t ask, don’t tell type of policy. We’re sort of like the arty uncle who lives with his “friend” that no one really talks about at family dinners. We show up and celebrate, but we only talk about surface topics and never what’s really happening in our lives.
I remember how “brave” it was for Philip Johnson to come out in OUT magazine. Towards the end of his career. When he was 87. Because no one in the architecture community knew before then? And then you have people like Paul Rudolph, Charles Moore, and Bruce Goff. During his tenure as dean at Yale, it was well known Rudolph was dating another professor. But when the architecture periodicals profiled him, they presented him as too busy with work to have a personal life.
So yes, LGBTQ+ architects have always been a part of architecture – and by extension the design community. However, if the Institute is intent on creating a balanced playing field for every architect, we must be engaged in the conversation. Our issues are not that different from those of women and minorities, although we do have some that stand out. For example, we have no employment protection at the federal level and consequently, very little at state levels. In 28 states we are still open to being denied access to the housing we help design. Yet we still also face basic challenges like being promoted into leadership positions within practices. Is a conservative firm going to balk at moving someone into leadership if they think they’re too flamboyant?
Obviously I’ve had some time to think about this. I’ve been doing that since last year. In November I presented on this topic at ArchEx in Virginia. And this year I’ll be presenting at the TxA convention and ABX in Boston. Consequently, when I do things like review the EQFA draft chapters or look at the Equity by Design survey results, I’m hyper aware of the absence of the LGBTQ+ community.
And I know there’s not going to be an easy solution. In a conversation with Rosa Sheng at A’17 in Orlando, she commented that they didn’t know how to ask the question. Luckily one of my colleagues sat on the survey committee for the EQxD 2018 survey and was able to get a few more details about LGBTQ+ into the survey. And it’s not like AIA is prepared to poll 90K+ members about their sexual orientation.
However, the Institute needs to be cognizant that we are part of the profession. And in the coming years, you’re going to have more students coming out of school who openly identify as everything from gay to sexually fluid to non-binary. And I don’t know that they are likely to want to go back into the closet. Nor should they have to.
So as we talk about EDI, firms need to be prepared for the next generation. At the same time, the Institute needs to show their support – especially given the current administration. And support needs to be more than one person on an EDI committee, and more than including us in the diversity statement, and definitely more than a cocktail reception at the annual conference.
Again, thanks for sort of answering where the Institute is on this issue. And thanks for reading this e-mail. As I said, your comment really got me to thinking.
Larry
Hi Larry,
I was glad to have you raise concerns about whether AIA is adequately addressing the inclusion of LGBTQ+ issues in its equity initiatives. There is no question in my mind that it is the intent of AIA to be including LGBTQ+ in its gender equity work. While I do get periodic updates, I do not presume to be fully up-to-date with the development of the best practices guides and other work being done under the oversight of the Equity and the Future of Architecture (EQFA) Board committee. The next update will be at the September Board meeting.
The point I was trying to make about the aids era was to say that the horrendous number of aids-related deaths in the profession forced us to recognize the importance of opening to LGBTQ+ issues in the profession. I do not think it is correct to say that we are taking the LGBTQ+ community for granted. In my view, far from it. Just one example that comes to mind is the profession’s solidarity against North Carolina’s HB2. All AIA conferences were located outside the state for a period of about two years, if memory serves.
There is certainly plenty more to be done, especially in the current, backward, political environment. I’m glad to hear you have been active bringing continuing concerns to light by speaking at conferences, etc. From your comments, it sounded like you have been tracking the work of the EQFA. Is that correct? I’d like to know more about what you have observed.
I will check on my end to understand more about how LGBTQ+ stakeholder concerns are being included in current institute EDI activities. I’ll let you know what I find out.
Larry, thanks again for raising your voice. Leadership is not omniscient. None of us are as smart as all of us.
Best regards, Carl
Carl,
I’m going to have to disagree with your disagreement about the LGBTQ+ community being taken for granted by the profession. Although perhaps taken for granted isn’t quite the phrase. Because architecture has been dominated by men for so long, gay men simply fit into the profession as long as we kept our heads down and stayed in the closet. Consequently, we aren’t necessarily seen as being excluded, which makes me think of us as the silent minority.
I’m sure the AIDS crisis made the community hyperaware of how many gay architects existed and how many individuals and firms were being lost as a result of the crisis. However, the resulting backlash probably kept more architects in the closet for fear of being fired for no other reason than fear of AIDS.
As for the AIA’s solidarity against HB2, not hosting conferences in North Carolina was a very passive way to make your position known. And unless our members are mind readers, they might not know that was even discussed or that the decision had been made. I haven’t done any research on this, so forgive me if I misspeak, but did AIA release any statements on HB2?
On that note, in 2017 the LGBTQ+ community spent 8 months fighting the Texas Legislature over their own bathroom bills and other antigay legislation. We lost on some issues, but thanks to the House Speaker, corporate allies, and hundreds of small businesses across the state, we were able to kill the Texas bathroom bill. However, I do know that we lost nearly $70 million in convention business in those first 8 months, and it wasn’t until the special session ended that approximately 15 groups signed their agreements with the convention and visitors bureau.
And we’re going to be going through this process again in January. Which makes me ask – will AIA National issue a statement in regards to this or any other bathroom bill or antigay legislation in other states as well as Texas? I cannot recall anything from national or even the Texas chapter in regard to this. I realize doing so would take some balancing (evidenced by the wild reaction following the 2016 election), but I think everyone could agree that this type of legislation has a negative impact on every area of architecture practice as well as on the profession’s ability to attract talent. I keep thinking how much damage would have been done if a bathroom bill had been in place when Toyota was looking to come to Dallas.
As far as tracking work of the EQFA – I didn’t even know they existed until Kathleen Simpson reached out to me to review those chapters as a member of the PMKC. Definitely interesting reading, and I felt free to add my two cents, including that they need to be aware of any type of unconscious bias in what was being written as well as the need to include LGBTQ+ perspectives. Because yes, we can get harassed the same as anyone. And yes, moving into leadership positions in a very straight-male-centric practice can be a challenge.
Lisa Lamkin is attempting to connect me with Beau Frail, who sits on the committee. I’m curious to hear his perspective and whether he feels he’s being heard. He looks to be about 20 years my junior, so he may have a totally different perspective. On the other hand, it’s easy to include someone so you can check that box but still give less import to what they have to say.
Finally, I really appreciate your taking the time to respond to my e-mail and offer your thoughts. I know your schedule is quite full. However, I am really enjoying sharing my thoughts and having the opportunity to get some of what has been rolling around in my head down on to paper.
Larry