Does landscape architecture have a racism problem?

It’s worse than that.

Consider this claim:

Design firms and design educators support a culture of white, patriarchal, colonialist supremacy.

Now ask yourself, what kind of evidence would support this claim?

Ian McHarg, and possibly a student — who’s their client? What input are they listening to? From the archives of the University of Pennsylvania.

Suppose we could find evidence that firms and educational programs create a culture that benefits white men. What if we could show that they support the status quo of wealth and territory (controlled by white men), suppress the aesthetic interpretations and values of other people who are not wealthy white men, and create economic hurdles for women and non-white people? If we could find this evidence, it would support the claim that both professionals and educators support white, patriarchal, colonialist supremacy. Even if they’re women, or are seen as / identify as members of ethnic minority groups — that’s what their actions would support.

I think the evidence is in the actions that practitioners and educators take. Actions such as:

(1) denying the fundamental needs of self-care and family life so extremely that women’s labor will always be underpaid and under-recognized, and women / people with health challenges are excluded from the role of “designer” as author or artist, while men move up to lead firms;

(2) universalizing white men’s experience by teaching almost exclusively about the design work and writing of white men, to the extent that their lives and work are presented as “the” history and “the” standard of the academic discipline and the profession;

(3) pretending that design ability is a characteristic a person is born with, instead of a learned skill;

(4) defining brash, self-centered, dominating behavior as “leadership” instead of recognizing the transformative value of modesty and respectful listening skills;

(5) maintaining or tolerating a culture of shaming by faculty and guest critics in academic studios that undermines the emotional / psychological resilience of students — resilience they will need to hear the anger of communities affected by systemic racism, without becoming paralyzed or withdrawing (btw, if you think systematic humiliation is good preparation for the “real world,” what’s your model of reality? The Roman coliseum shows of 100CE?);

(6) suppressing the ability of students and local community members to recognize and describe their own aesthetic experiences by endlessly privileging elitist norms for “beauty” and “good design;”

(7) acting on behalf of clients (public and private) who want to control the flow of capital, maintain our current social hierarchies (read: systemic racism and gender roles), and police their colonial territories — and then valorizing these acts of economic and spatial injustice as “placemaking.”

It’s going to take a big culture shift to change this. Even people who want to change will struggle to root out their biases and re-examine the lessons they once valued from their own experiences as students and designers. But what’s the alternative?

Take a deep breath and start re-thinking the cultural assumptions and behavior of this academic discipline, of this profession. Dismantle the old models. Start over, learning alternative practices from others outside of this medieval religious/secular bureaucracy we call the “academy,” and the apprenticeship models of both the atelier and corporate studio systems of design practice. Start with identifying one new way to subvert white, patriarchal, colonialist supremacy, and try it out.