Do schools ignore non-white architects?

[3CPO]

Do schools ignore non-white architects?
By Rory Olcayto

RIBA president Sunand Prasad has criticised schools of architecture for focusing on the work of white, western architects.

Speaking at this year’s Stephen Lawrence Memorial lecture at Portland Place last week, he argued that the curriculum was a barrier to ethnic minority participation in the profession and that a “little change” could improve diversity.

“In schools of architecture you get very, very little teaching about architecture and design from other parts of the world,” he said. “Mostly you study white architects and white architecture.”

Prasad added that when he was a student, he did not feel engaged by the curriculum, but said schools could change “tomorrow” if they wanted.

“It’s an easy win for schools of architecture. A little change to the curriculum, a little mix of culture and different cultural solutions will benefit everyone,” he said.

Prasad also claimed the government’s reliance on PFI and framework agreements was “militating against diversity” because black and ethnic minority-led practices tended to be the smaller firms who missed out.

Prasad’s comments follow Richard Rogers’ suggestion at last year’s Stephen Lawrence lecture that architects take a positive discrimination-like approach when hiring new staff.



Architecture schools too white in focus, says Prasad
Schools of architecture must rethink their focus on the work of white, western architects, RIBA president Sunand Prasad has claimed.

Speaking at this year’s Stephen Lawrence Memorial lecture at Portland Place last week, Indian-born Prasad argued that the British curriculum was a barrier to ethnic minority participation in the profession, and said a “little change” could improve diversity.

The comments follow comments last year by Richard Rogers calling on practices to adopt a positive discrimination type of approach when hiring staff (News September 22, 2006).

“In schools of architecture you get very, very little teaching about architecture and design from other parts of the world,” Prasad said. “Mostly you study white architects and white architecture.”

He added that when he was a student, he did not feel engaged by the curriculum, but said schools could change “tomorrow” if they wanted.

“It’s an easy win for schools of architecture. A little change to the curriculum, a little mix of culture and different cultural solutions will benefit everyone.”

Prasad also reiterated his view that class was a major barrier to participation, and claimed the government’s reliance on PFI and framework agreements was “militating against diversity” because black and ethnic minority-led practices tended to be the smaller firms who missed out.

Chris Nasah of the Society of Black Architects welcomed the comments but warned that the curriculum was “just one dimension” in addressing diversity.

“There are few staff in schools who have an ethnic minority background either,” he added.

But other observers questioned whether there was any link between the curriculum and the make-up of the profession.

“Teaching today… would be greatly enriched by a wider focus — but it’s not a barrier to participation,” said Yasmin Shariff, partner at Dennis Sharp Architects and lecturer at the University of Westminster. “What needs to happen is a recognition of the diverse influences that have contributed to British culture and architecture.”

Source: Building Design

[JVS]

We have the japanese architects. A Iraqi architect. A chinese architect...