This is the fourth entry in Architects Talking Ethics, an advice column that intends to host a discussion of the values that architects embody or should embody. It aims to answer real-world ethical questions posed by architects, designers, students, and professors.
We, as the three initial authors of this column, think the profession is way behind in how it addresses ethics. We think architects should explore our own ethics with the breadth and depth that other fields have done for a long time.
In our teaching, we’ve sensed an eagerness among students to talk about ethics. The “ethical turn” in our profession that has a lot to do with equity and environmental responsibility, yet the typical curriculum has, maybe, one lecture on ethics in the pro-practice course. The amount of time and attention we give to ethics in school as well as in the profession does not align with its importance. Maybe, with this column, we can encourage more interest.
What are the ethics of architects? What questions about ethics and architecture do you have? What ethical dilemmas do you face or have faced or anticipate facing?
Our fourth column addresses whether architects have an obligation to speak out against a colleague’s lie or misleading statement.
Send your questions to ethics@archpaper.com for consideration in future columns.
The AIA’s Code of Ethics and Professional Practice Rule 4.103 states: “Members speaking in their professional capacity shall not knowingly make false statements of material fact,” a rule that, as the AIA commentary says, “applies to statements in all professional contexts.” People, of course, can disagree about a material fact or interpret facts differently, but we might all agree that it is wrong to “knowingly” make false statements intending to mislead others. While lying in general is wrong, the filing of an ethics complaint against a colleague’s lie seems easier said than done.
One of us recently served as an expert witness in two court cases in support of community efforts to save an historic church from demolition by a private school and a historic library by the city. In both cases, the existing buildings required modest repairs: a tile roof needed some flashing replaced and a basement mechanical room had some water damage. And yet, because the owners of these concrete-framed, brick-clad buildings wanted them gone, their architects testified in court that the buildings were “structurally deficient,” “too costly to maintain,” and “inefficient to operate.”
Do architects have an obligation to speak out against a colleague’s lie? Rule 4.101 commentary says yes, because “often, only an architect can recognize that the behavior of another architect poses a serious question as to that other’s professional integrity.” And while some architects might rightfully worry about their liability in such situations—a professional’s lies can be more serious because of a workplace power differential, for example, and their overarching duty to protect both our clients’ and the public’s interest—there is thin support. The commentary continues that only “in most jurisdictions, a complaint that invokes professional standards is protected from a libel or slander action if the complaint was made in good faith.” The recommendation “if in doubt”? Seek counsel.
That architects will comply with the wishes of their clients and make unfair or misleading statements in a court case is not news. Nor is such behavior confined to the architectural profession. But in the case of the two buildings in question, the architects knew that some deficient flashing or some superficial water damage did not make those existing buildings structurally unsound, and yet they used their standing as professionals to try to convince judges and juries otherwise.
Professional testimony against those claims, arguing that both buildings were, in fact, structurally sound, made no difference in the case of the church, which the court allowed the school to demolish. And while the court has yet to make a decision in the case of the library, the judge seemed inclined to believe the architect’s misleading claims about that building’s structural soundness. Those two cases highlight the challenges professionals face in determining whether or not to file an ethics complaint against colleagues. While clearly misleading, did the claims about the buildings’ structural deficiencies constitute untruths? Don’t many old buildings have some degree of structural deficiency, even if just the result of changing code requirements or construction methods? At what point does a claim about an ethics violation become an argument over one interpretation of the word “deficiency” versus another?
One the most discouraging aspects of those two cases was not just the disingenuous claims of the architects, but also the lack of protest against the buildings’ demolition by other architects who were aware of the issues. They privately expressed sympathy for the communities trying to save the buildings, but did not speak up. Two architects produced pro bono schematic drawings showing how each building could be reused. But no one else would take a public stand or appear in court. When asked about this, one raised the issue of reciprocity: He would not want other architects to challenge his judgments in court about a building he was working on.
Canon V in the AIA’s code does urge members to “acknowledge the professional aspirations and contributions of their colleagues,” but how far should we take this acknowledgment if colleagues are making misleading or untrue assertions? We think that the architects had an obligation to respect the wishes of communities that, in both of these cases, were united against the buildings’ demolition. There is Ethical Standard 3.2 that discusses conflicts of interest, but these cases are just conflicts, and we see their avoidance is unethical. Upholding the interests of private clients over those of the public or our communities begins to undermine the very title of “professional” that architects are privileged to hold.
Send your questions to ethics@archpaper.com for consideration in future columns.
Victoria Beach was a faculty fellow at Harvard’s Center for Ethics and wrote the textbook for the first ethics class at the GSD. She has had her own architectural practice for nearly 30 years and has recently held elected office in California.
Peggy Deamer is professor emerita, Yale School of Architecture and a founding member of the Architecture Lobby. She has practiced architecture for 45 years and is the author Architecture and Labor.
Tom Fisher is a professor in the College of Design at the University of Minnesota and the director of the Minnesota Design Center. A former dean of the college, he was also an editor at Progressive Architecture magazine for 14 years.
The views of our writers do not necessarily reflect those of the staff or advisers of The Architect’s Newspaper.
