Racism still exists. If anyone thought that was up for debate following Obama’s first presidential election—and indeed, plenty made the claim—they’ve surely lost room for argument in the teen years of the 21st Century.
The recent deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Freddie Gray are as tragic as they are common to American history. This time, however, they have transformed into the watershed moments of a new generation’s civil rights movement. We have seen it unfold online through hashtags like #handsupdontshoot, #blacklivesmatter, and #icantbreathe, and on streets across the nation. With each new protest, more and more Americans are forced to question just how far we’ve come between Selma and Ferguson—or Baltimore 1968 and Baltimore 2015.
This is not simply an extension of the movement of the 1960s and 1970s, though both are rooted in long-standing issues like poverty, unemployment, disenfranchisement, and mass incarceration. Today’s conversation has broadened beyond overt racism to shine some much needed light on the issue of racialization. We saw this with particular clarity during the latest round of unrest in Baltimore in April, and the difference in dialogue is summarized succinctly by John A. Powell of U.C. Bekeley’s Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society:
‘ “Structural Racialization” is a set of processes that may generate disparities or depress life outcomes without any racist actors. It is a web without a spider. … If the depressed life outcomes are produced by structures, then ending conscious discrimination is of little consequence and might actually exacerbate the negative impact of these structural dynamics by insulating the status quo from intervention. … While [racial] disparities may be diagnostic, they cannot be our focus. Rather, our goal must be to foster structures that support positive life outcomes untainted with racial resentment or anxiety.’
To the marginalized or disenfranchised, the system is stacked. But full participants in that system often miss the signs of its faults. The white, the wealthy, the second-generation college educated—these are the fish swimming in the bowl of civically engaged life who couldn’t tell you what water is if you asked.
Within the architecture community, the National Organization of Minority Architects (NOMA) is one of just three architectural associations in the U.S., and the only one for minorities. It was founded in 1971 by 12 African American architects, three years after Whitney M. Young Jr. delivered his famous keynote address to the 1968 AIA Convention, stating, “You are not a profession that has distinguished itself by your social and civic contributions to the cause of civil rights. … You are most distinguished by your thunderous silence and your complete irrelevance.”
Today, NOMA has dozens of local professional and student chapters across the country, through which the organization offers a rare opportunity for minority architects—African American, Asian, and Hispanic alike—to connect directly with working professionals who share similar backgrounds, struggles, and goals to make architecture a more inclusive and diverse field. Among its stated mission and objectives, NOMA claims to “speak against apathy, bigotry, intolerance, and ignorance; against abuse of the natural environment; and for the un-empowered, the marginalized, and the disenfranchised” and “develop a showcase for the excellence and creativity which have been ignored for so long.”
Yet in 2008, it is worth noting, the organization’s Wikipedia entry was taken down because it presented “no indication of importance” or “credible claim of significance,” according to the free encyclopedia’s own “Criteria for speedy deletion.” While we could not access the original page entry to determine why the information was deemed insignificant, its deletion certainly stands as food for thought.
I spoke with NOMA President Kevin Holland about what it means to be a minority architect, what challenges they face, and how the organization is working to affect change in the industry. Our conversation has been condensed for length and edited for clarity. Full disclosure: Following the interview, I discovered NOMA’s pro bono communications consultant is a personal contact of mine, and was inspired to inquire about volunteering my time to the organization as well. This interview was conducted and edited prior to those conversations, and the information that follows is in no way influenced by my decision.
Interiors & Sources: How did you get involved in NOMA?
Kevin Holland: I was introduced to NOMA in October 1997. At that time I had never heard of it. I was in my last year of graduate school at the University of Michigan and the dean’s secretary asked if I wanted to go to
the NOMA conference. They actually flew 12 of us down to Miami to go, and then from about 2000 until today I’ve been a regular member.
I&S: What did NOMA offer you then?
KH: There were three African American students in the architecture program in my graduating class and maybe two master’s students in my class, so when I came across NOMA it was like, Oh my god, there’s a bunch of me’s here.
A lot of schools pride themselves on being able to weed students out, and so it’s an academic, mental, and emotional challenge in some cases. And of course that goes for white students and Asian students, too. It doesn’t matter. The architecture studio culture was the same for all of us. But the difference is that because there were so few, in my case, African American students, sometimes you just felt alone and isolated. The larger experience as a whole was common to all of us, but when you don’t see someone that looks like you or you don’t think they have the same background, it got to feel lonely, and so that was a challenge.
When I went home, I had to explain all this to everyone and it was foreign to them. But you didn’t have to say much when you got to the NOMA conference because the experience was the same.
PageBreakI&S: Why do you think that level of racial disparity exists?
KH: Children aspire to what they see. You don’t know what you don’t know until someone points it out to you. So within a lot of African American communities we’re dealing with a lot of working class, hard-working people who may or may not be professional. In my case, I wanted to be an architect since I was 8, because of a television show. I just happened to ask my mother, “What is this person doing?” and my mother said, “Well, he’s an architect; he’s designing buildings.” As a kid I was just fascinated that an adult was getting paid to sit around and draw, because I loved to draw, and so that’s how I came to learn about the profession, but I didn’t meet an architect until I was 17.
I&S: What other obstacles exist for minorities to succeed in the architecture industry? Are there challenges that you can pinpoint specifically to race?
KH: It’s hard to answer because I don’t know specifically where instances of race led to employment or not being hired. If I wasn’t hired the explanation certainly wasn’t because of my race, so I can’t necessarily answer that. You can always assume, but even then it’s difficult to prove.
I&S: Have you seen the study on racial bias in hiring, “Are Emily and Brendan More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?” that came out of the University of Chicago back in 2002? Names of varying “racial soundingness,” as they call it, were put at the top of identical resumes, and the white-sounding names received 50% more call-backs on average. I love when research like that comes out because it says what no one is willing to say—and perhaps the hiring manager didn’t even know they were doing that or had a problem, but it’s in this subconscious world that’s so difficult to address.
KH: Exactly. In a society that’s still grappling with issues of race in 2015 I can say with a high degree of certainty that race raises itself as a reason for a favorable or an unfavorable position for or against me in this field. This still happens to be an unfortunate obstacle in this country—and that’s not to say that it has not improved substantially, but there’s a reason that the dialogue is continuing. We don’t need to look much further than recent events, whether it’s in Ferguson or North Charleston, South Carolina. And so NOMA, we’re here to help spearhead some of those discussions, and where we’re not having a discussion we’re at least trying to introduce a diverse perspective and a diverse workforce to the professional market.
I&S: Do you find the A+D community is generally aware of racial issues and receptive to working with NOMA?
KH: I think everyone has to be aware of it. We’re all post-civil rights. Now, whether there is empathy or sympathy, that’s a different issue. Some firms are not interested in the diversity issue, but I am pleased to say—and proud to say—that there are some firms that are doing a good job in addressing diversity. And by addressing it, what I mean is it’s one thing to hire a minority architect and just place them on the staff; it’s another thing to place them in a position of responsibility and leadership.
As far as the majority community goes, as a whole, AIA is in support of the NOMA mission as evidenced by their agreement to enter into our third memorandum of understanding with them. I think sometimes there may be this perception that NOMA members have decided to separate themselves from the AIA, and that couldn’t be further from the truth. Most of us are members of both organizations.
I&S: What other resources and tools do you provide your membership? What goes on throughout the year?
KH: I tell my board all the time that NOMA is local. We’re a national organization, but the impacts are always felt locally. Our local chapters are the grassroots, the soldiers who are on the ground. And so through those chapters our biggest tool and our best tool is Project Pipeline, which is a national initiative that introduces architecture to students. The focus originally and historically has always been on minority students in underrepresented, underserved communities who have otherwise had no introduction to or experience with architecture, but thanks to our network of partners, we’ve actually be able to expand the offering to more than just minority students.
This year we’ve also established a Professional Leadership Development Committee, which is being chaired by William Stanley, the immediate past chancellor of the AIA College of Fellows. The focus is to create programming tools and resources to help our students, young interns, and recently registered architects to expand their leadership abilities and obtain whatever the next step is in their development. So obviously if you’re a first-year student you want to find some summer jobs, or if you’re a fourth-year undergrad you want to find a permanent job. Once you’ve gotten into the market your next step is getting through what we call the intern development program. Once you get through that you want to get through the exam; once you’re through the exam and you become licensed, then you start looking at, OK, I’m licensed. Now what?
We’re still trying to figure out what some of those programs look like as well, and I’ve had the opportunity to talk to a few firms who might be willing to partner with us.
I&S: I’ve heard some debate about whether Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) and Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE) certification puts a negative perception in people’s minds. Do you see the harm versus the good?
KH: This depends on who you’re encountering when you explain that you are MBE, DBE, or WBE [Women’s Business Enterprise]. All of these programs are meant to sort of level the playing field, if you will. Of course there are those who disagree that the field needs to be leveled; it’s already level. OK, that’s up for debate. But with the intent being to level the playing field, eventually one hopes that with every one of these plans, and every one of these clients, everyone has an equal shot. And then at some point we would all hope that it doesn’t matter if you’re MBE, DBE, or WBE, because you’re now being selected solely on your qualifications.
What’s harmful is when being classified as MBE, DBE, or WBE automatically means your work is inferior. That particular credit is not going to work if the predominant thought is that this classification is synonymous with incompetence, or anything else. And that’s the unfair part of the certification.
I&S: How can you change someone’s mind once they think that?
KH: The best way to change someone’s mind is to perform. Some people are going to be very stubborn about having their minds changed. It doesn’t matter how well you perform in some cases. Oh it was a fluke, or, They only did well because so and so was on their team. There’s a wide range of excuses for someone who’s intent on not giving a firm the credit they deserve. But for most people, I think, once some of those MBE, DBE, or WBE firms are given the opportunity to perform, and they perform well, then they’re viewed as a competent firm who just happens to be MBE, DBE, or WBE.
But at NOMA a lot of people just aren’t given an opportunity, and therefore they’re not able to change anyone’s mind by performance, because they’re not allowed to perform. I think many organizations would be able to change a lot of minds by way of getting the project.
Now, I do know of instances where MBEs, DBEs, and WBEs are judged harsher because their work product is not deemed to be perfect. But no one puts together a perfect work product. Imperfect people are putting the process together and putting documents together, which means there will be some degree of imperfection. And in a lot of instances that criticism or that judgment is used to justify why that group shouldn’t be given a second opportunity.
I&S: Are there specific metrics that you use to judge improvement in the industry?
KH: Architecture is a profession, and as with all professions and businesses the objective is to create revenue. So that could very easily be tracked if we had the resources to do so. I would like for firms, corporations, and organizations to be diverse because it’s the right thing to do, but I recognize that in the business community there has to be a compelling business argument. And I think we’re getting to a place now where more of us are seeing those business reasons for being diverse.
There’s a lot to be gained in having a diverse workforce. With a homogeneous team, we can almost predict what their solution is going to be. But if you bring together a group of people with multiple backgrounds and experiences you’d be amazed at some of the solutions that group is able to drive. Diversity brings out-of-the-box thinking, things that haven’t been tried before, or someone saying, “Hey, wait a minute. Are we sure we want to do this?” And sometimes it’s in those environments that some of the best ideas come about.
I&S: Do you see a generational shift?
KH: Each generation becomes a little more progressive than their parents’ generation. It’s a big assumption on my part, but I will say that for this current generation of say 18- or 20-year-old college students, for 40 percent of their life they know an African American to be president of the United States, and so there’s a higher level of acceptance of diversity amongst this current generation than there has been or is in my generation.
Within NOMA we have NOMAS, the National Organization of Minority Architecture Students. We have a lot more student chapters than we do professional chapters, which we’re actually quite excited about. The NOMA conference is actually a joint conference, so there’s a blending of students and professionals together. Anyone who comes to the conference will see the diversity is always great amongst the students. It is, hands down, one of the most diverse architectural experiences anyone will have.