Student Survey

Shitty Architecture Men

Volume 3, Issue 00
April 26, 2018

Below are the answers to a survey sent out to the entire YSoA student body.

**What did you think of the town hall with Dean Berke and Emily Abruzzo about the Shitty Architecture Men List and systemic issues of sexual misconduct and bias in architecture?


A bit disappointing in that it felt more like an attempt to reassure the students that everything is “under control” but felt like the administration didn’t have any meaningful solutions or reforms to bring to the table.

The issue was never directly addressed, nor was a real action plan or solution offered.
Great to have the conversation though it left me feeling frustrated and deflated, all the burden and effort for change was passed onto the audience which fundamentally does not acknowledge the systematic discrimination and perpetuation of unequal treatment.

I thought that Dean Berke acted like she has less power than I feel she does. For example, she acted like she couldn’t propose a Dean of Inclusion to the Board of Deans and that it would be up to the student Senate to propose.

Though I appreciate the administration addressing student concerns. I believe allowing unsubstantiated accusations to drag our industry through the mud is a mistake. Our professional conduct should emerge from the schools internal culture and if students feel particularly hurt, they should speak up through one of the many existing channels. The integrity of our school and our program is not up for question and allowing people to grandstand in the context of filling silence during a town hall is inappropriate. -Michael Loya

Could not attend.

Sadly, I was in class and was not able to make it. What I heard was that it was no different than any other town hall where things are said and nothing is done.

Honestly I was impressed they did anything at all, considering we have a STUDENT on the list. But to be honest I’m not sure all the issues that should have been raised by the students were raised because essentially it’s not a big meeting discussion. Bias and misconduct ultimately are still very personal issues and can be hard to express in a large lecture hall setting. Furthermore, with misconduct, the worst kinds are the micro ones the ones that when taken out of context can appear petty and insignificant and those are even more difficult to talk about in a large mixed group.

I am grateful to Deborah and Emily for convening the meeting and the gesture of support that represented. I was upset, however, by their unwillingness to take seriously the issue of fighting the systemic problems that were brought up during the meeting. As Dean and faculty member they must be committed to institutionalizing the needed changes. I appreciated their candor but was disappointed by their apparent failure to understand their own power and ability to wield it toward positive, institutional change. Instead being the leader at the head of the lecture hall with ideas and energy to maintain the momentum of the conversation, our dean instead heard us out, disagreed with some people’s feelings, and then left us to do the work of change ourselves.

Disappointing number of faculty present.

Too defensive to be constructive.

I respect that the Dean acknowledged it and wanted to address the students about these issues.

Couldn’t make it because of a conflicting class… Was not given enough warning to alert the professor and excuse myself to attend.

It was really unsatisfying. I felt like I was being talked to by a politician.

I think it was good in that it finally publicly acknowledged this thing that had been going on for weeks, but it could have come sooner. I also appreciate that the male students stepped back (whether consciously or not) making it a place where predominantly female students were heard. I guess this was addressed a bit but I don’t think the fact that many Yale/Yale affiliated names, including students and professors, were on the list was addressed enough, and the Dean didn’t seem to indicate that they’d be investigating the allegations in this list themselves (if they’re able?).

I found it reassuring on principle, if unfortunately asymmetrical in the way the conversation evolved. Wrong room, wrong format. There should have been more faculty present.

Never really addressed concrete means to move forward, really was just an hour of saying “I’m here for you.” This no doubt is important, however, I think the larger topic was missed.

Wasn’t there. -Maddy Sembler

The town hall started off very promising as Dean Berke made her introduction. However, what should have been an opportunity for Dean Berke and Emily Abruzzo to simply listen, they both became very defensive  as discussion built up. It even went as far as Dean Berke cutting students off mid speech and disagreeing with statements that did not warrant Dean Berke’s personal opinion. This type of interaction made me uncomfortable to participate and so I remained silent much to my disappointment.

I think it was great we had one, and they genuinely wanted to listen to us, which is important. I do think, however, that the adage “we’re always here come talk to us, you can report anything” is total bs and lets the administration off the hook. The administration should be working to prevent harassment from happening, not solely focused on reporting, and we’re just not going to come to the Dean with a complaint. Hold workshops for students, make professors do training, set the TONE for how to treat people and make sure that professors and staff uphold base standards of conduct. Full stop.

I was happy they hosted it. I don’t think it replaces a student-run town hall, and I don’t think it was meant to, so students should have our own discussions also. But it means a lot that the administrators prioritize this enough to show up. -David Langdon

I was thankful that the meeting was called. I found its venue problematic: Hastings Hall is hierarchical space that isn’t conducive to what the conversation needed to be: a forum to share thoughts, strategies, and experiences regarding how the school should move forward. It is clear that the Dean and Emily have our interests at heart and want to indicate their willingness to improve the culture of the school. However, I was disappointed in the Dean’s resigned attitude that played down the amount of power she has in effecting change from the top down. It was very much about what students should do. We can and will do work to change this, but we need the support of the school to back us.

I’m glad a discussion was called.

I left the town hall a bit conflicted.  I wasn’t sure whether the moment called for a strong agenda regarding the overt and systematic sexism/misconduct that exists in architecture and at YSOA or if creating an opportunity for students to lead the conversation was preferable. I was disheartened by the administration’s deflection to actually instigate any initiatives. It felt that the the overall stance was “we understand, we’ll do everything we can” but then exclaim how they have no power nor money to enact any sort of change. I don’t think we have as much power as Dean Berke seems to think we have. The most resonant moment for me was the suggestion that Emily and Dean Berke are always a resource to talk to.  While that may be true for overt forms of sexual misconduct and bias, it is extremely unrealistic for the moments of implicit biases that undermine one’s capabilities, knowledge, experience, opinion, etc. I’m not even considering the availability component as both are practicing architects, commute from NYC, and have a plethora of other duties here. It’s important to be critical, but ultimately neither body can implement changes without the other. I acknowledge that is wonderful/powerful to have a dean who at least will be supportive of this energy.

Neither Dean Berke nor Emily Abruzzo seemed prepared to start this conversation. It took a student to actually begin discussing or questioning anything substantive, beyond generalities and platitudes about supporting students. If people with power or authority are going to begin these conversations, there should also be some effort on their behalf to make the discourse happen–beyond a general question asking people to reflect.

I thought it was unproductive. Instead of listening to students and hearing about issues in the YSoA community, I feel like the administration was defensive and tip-toed around topics. I also think that having it take place in Hastings with little administrative preparation prevented the conversation that needed to happen.

I think it was important to have the meeting, but I think some issues could have been addressed better. I think it is again clear we need a better communication system.

I thought they were a little unaware of some communication issues at this school. Deborah is trying to address these but I don’t think she’s taken strong enough steps yet.

Dean Berke was very defensive. I think she did not understand that the students were not attacking or blaming her for the climate at the school but for her lack of reactivity and pro-activeness. Generally Dean Berke seems very passive about the issue. She repeated that students could come to speak to her or certain professors about misconduct issues and refused to acknowledge that these solutions are completely insufficient. A proper support structure and systematic procedure needs to be implemented to allow mapping of the phenomenon and allow for actual sanctions to be taken against people who have repeatedly demonstrated misconduct behaviour.

I appreciated the effort. I also think that their invitation for students to come forward and speak to them was sweet, but I also think it’s indicative of how little they understand the power they have and how difficult it is to be the person who speaks up. Surry’s comment about how every interaction with a faculty member feels like a mini job interview was useful here (although he was dismissed on the grounds that this is not special to architecture–ok, but that doesn’t make it any less of a problem, see the scandal with a cardiology professor at the medical school a year or two ago). The same power that allows faculty to harass students unchecked is the power that silences students from raising complaints. Faculty may not think that this is a valid feeling, or one that reflects their perceptions of the issue, but this is how many people feel, and it will take repeated assurances from those in power that students are in fact welcome to come forward, and will not be penalized in any way for doing so.

How would you describe the school’s culture, particularly with regards to issues of sexual misconduct or bias?

A bit of a culture of silence. There totally exists situations where people experience situations of bias to various degrees, but we don’t hear about a lot of them except through rumor and word of mouth.

The school has become slightly less biased under Dean Berke.

While Yale may not be the most outwardly problematic architecture school, it still holds onto tradition and convention at its core. This includes praising the lone (male) architect who toils with a problem endlessly to find a solution. Architecture is collaborative and should have a level playing field, jargon and vernacular knowledge should not deem you a “good” architect.

Old school, conventional; not necessarily based on gender but rather a sense of ‘showmanship’ which promotes characteristics of machoism, egotism, expertism and a performative, extroverted personality.

The school doesn’t really acknowledge issues.

Architecture school is a stressful environment and most of the negative behavior I have seen has emerged from people who are spread a little too thin. I have not personally witnessed cultural sexual misconduct or bias but I’m sure others have.

I am not aware of overt sexual misconduct, but that is largely because it’s not spoken about enough. Sexual bias is extremely prevalent given the often predominantly male juries, the way women are interrupted during critiques, and the lack of critical discourse around women who have contributed to the field of architecture.

Honestly, from having worked at Bob’s office and the culture that is allowed to slide there, I can only imagine what the school must have been like. To think that men (like previous formal TAs) thought they had the right to touch women’s butts at parties because they were considered the “top dog” illustrates the atmosphere that was allowed to thrive at YSOA. That being said, I think Deborah is willing to hear out what we want and need and is willing to help change things and I think from the people she has invited to speak and culture she is cultivating at the school, I think we are moving in the right direction.

There is a strong bro culture that is complicit in a lot of problematic situations. Reviews are often dominated by loud men, and student voices are effectively banished. The power dynamic in desk crits conducted in the glaringly public environment of the studios, while perhaps a safeguard against especially visible/audible harassment, doesn’t seem altogether safe; this environment is not conducive to opening up to a professor/critic about delicate personal concerns. A general anti-intellectual attitude in the school means there are many long silences in seminars and discussions, so when such passive silences follow inappropriate remarks by professors it’s often unclear whether they are operating with impunity or if it’s just that no one is even listening. The caveat here being that, within all of this, strong informal support groups do spring up.

Like most things, the school only concerns itself with social issues from an “intellectual” standpoint.

From what I understand it is improving but it still has a long way to go.

I personally haven’t experienced any bias.

Overlooks many instances of sexual and glib commentary.

Good between students I think? Speaking from personal experience.

It seems to be pretty repressed/ignored. At least, on a school-wide level of consciousness. Not being female/female-identified I am sure I am not aware of the conversations that might happen in private. But what I notice is the much more subtle/quotidian culture, on the level of micro-aggressions or interpersonal/group conduct that comes together to construct/perpetuate/tacitly condone more serious incidents of misconduct, is definitely present in the school. A lack of awareness of patriarchal structures (at least, what exists seems, again, generalising at the school-wide level, to be superficial/corporate and hardly radical/deep) among male students, for example, and lack of sensitivity to what types of actions/interactions/dynamics occur in group work, seminar settings, group discussions, etc.


NEEDS WORK!!!! Sexuality is an important part of life that becomes suppressed because of the immense physical demands of architecture school and those frustrations come out in inappropriate ways at YSOA.

I think the culture here has visibly improved over the past nine years that I’ve been here, particularly with regards to our ability to talk about these issues collectively, but as with the rest of the world, it has a ways to go.

Just like the wide scope of transgressions on the list, this school reflects the full spectrum of sexual misconduct from subtle microaggressions to actual rape. We are not separate from the problem; we are mired in it. We have problems with sexism, classism, and misogyny at this school. Group dynamics, juried reviews, many classes are environments in which toxic male culture comes to the forefront. We have Title IX (flawed as it may be) in place to address cases of sexual harassment and misconduct. But these are problems at the tip of the iceberg. We need to acknowledge and address the rest of the iceberg, which are transgressions that happen every day in casual student-student or student-teacher interactions.

It seems that certain individuals in the faculty and student body are the problem, and not the school’s culture overall. I think in general there is a heightened awareness throughout our school of these issues and their impact, and I think keeping the conversation alive can only serve to continue improving the school’s culture. However, I am a male student, and recognize that my perspective might be limited.

Honestly, it feels like an old boys club sometimes.

It seems as though the school is aware of ongoing issues with sexual misconduct within the school, it does not seem to do anything about it. If it is, it is undoubtedly clandestine and slow.

I don’t see the school engaging with the issue. Most telling is that it took until now for the school to engage in any kind of dialogue about the issue, generally, or in relation to architecture. The issue was also completely absent from discussion with instructors in studios and seminars, both last fall and even this spring.

I believe that the school’s culture needs improvement. Because of the reality of these issues within the greater architecture field, issues of sexual misconduct and bias infiltrate the YSoA community as well. I wish the administration would take greater steps to combat these issues in the school–by bringing a different makeup of faculty members to the school and providing trained individuals to be direct resources for students dealing with instances of sexual misconduct or bias, I think the culture of the school would improve.

It seems there are people trying to deal with this. A lot of the faculty are old, white men who tend to carry bias but it seems like that is changing.

Currently the administration school remains blind to the issue. It is very little talked about, and its extent diminished when possible. The town hall came as a late reaction of a problem that has been present for years and highly talked about for months. Rather than a will to provide new solutions and raise higher standards of conduct it appeared as a tentative measure to settle and bury the growing discontent.

There are wider cultural reasons why students do not feel empowered to be honest about their experiences with misconduct and bias at the school. One is the lack of transparency and the competitiveness of the institution. A climate where, behind closed doors, a few special people are chosen for awards, three people from each studio get picked for retrospecta, people perceive Rome selections to be biased, and then well-connected and well-liked students appear to get the best job opportunities, to name a few examples, means that students are unlikely to do anything that they think will tarnish their reputation with the faculty. Another cultural problem is fatigue. It was sweet/disturbing when Dean Berke said that she hoped these three years would be the best of our lives so far. We may be grateful to be here, but we are exhausted, incredibly unhealthy, and many people experience problems with anxiety and depression. There is often simply not space for additional emotional strain of reporting. Because of this, I really think the burden cannot solely be on students to push cultural change.

How would you like to see the culture of YSoA change?

I think we should have more outreach programs for the students instead of a brief title ix presentation, and a dedicated member of the faculty whose only job is student health, well-being, student advocacy, counseling (career, class, otherwise) and can act as a neutral third party instead of issues always being brought directly to the Dean. The staff and faculty that deal with the complaints and concerns now only do so as a secondary part of an already demanding job, which is unfair to both them and the students.

More female voices.

The culture needs to shift from individualistic to collective. The elements are there, but we need our professors and critics to encourage open dialogue. They can begin by speaking less and listening more. Why are people so calculated and cryptic here?

To be more real and more grounded (less bullshit). Let’s start walking the walk!

Making these issues more apart of general conversation

People need more connection with the outside world and a more positive outlook on their lives.  YSOA students are some of the most brilliant thinkers I have met and should apply themselves in as many ways as possible and see what sticks!

I would like to see the administration and professors first identify that there are issues at the School (instead of the students being the only active voice on the matter) and make public items that they will take action on. I would like to see a structure put in place by which we can hold the administration accountable. Also, I would like to see a non-partisan staff member in the school that addresses issues of diversity and inclusion. Current administrative members are not neutral and this deters frank conversations.

People should be less willing to look the other way. This is probably a result of how cliquey people can be.

I think all faculty who offer unpaid “internships” for GRADUATE STUDENTS should be penalised! I’m looking at you Eisenman, MFG and Joel Sanders!! How dare you?! How on earth can you parade around telling us to value ourselves and our education and place in this profession when YOU are the ones advocating for that sort of devaluation! SHAME! And let’s be honest, you twats do it more often to women than you do it to your WASP students.

I want an administration that actively seeks student input on decisions that affect students, and does so in a regular, formalized, and publicized manner. I want students to spend more time engaging with one another (inside and outside of studio courses) about the real issues we face as students, architects, residents of New Haven, people… I want students to have time to do this.

Administration actually takes the initiative to create a lasting communication channel with students, rather than the students making all the effort.

Ideally it would be a place where gender and race stereotypes are not perpetuated or mocked.
Yes we need more diversity and representation in the facultywomen but also women of color.

For people to call out these comments, regardless of the ego or name who said them.

That we talk about these issues more, and that it becomes part of the culture of the school to be aware of not only the issues around student/professor/professional sexual misconduct/bias, but that everyday interactions/manifestations of toxic masculinity, etc. are in the general consciousness.


TEACH CONSENT! TEACH BOUNDARIES!! MAKE SEX A POSITIVE ASPECT OF THE COMMUNITY! IT HAPPENS! DON’T BE SHY ABOUT IT! MAKE IT A FUN PART OF THE SCHOOL’S DIALOGUE! NOT SHAMEFUL! Does anyone at that school even know what consent truly is? Consent is a verbal contract about what is to go down between two people physically before engaging in any sexual behavior. It is “I’m comfortable with abc but not xyz.” No touching should be allowed without people discussing with words what they are comfortable with first. Is it hands only? Oral? Penetration? This stuff should be agreed upon FIRST! BEFORE ANY TOUCHING! ESPECIALLY WHEN ALCOHOL IS INVOLVED!!! If the verbal boundaries are broken, then you KNOW you have sexual misconduct on your hands. I truly think that all the shame around misconduct, while necessary in some ways, could potentially lead to an even more confusing culture around sexuality at YSOA. We know that teaching abstinence doesn’t prevent teens from fucking. So don’t think a simple “yes” or “no” culture will prevent sexual misconduct. What YSOA and academic communities alike need to teach is the culture and vocabulary of SEX POSITIVITY!!!! I have some ideas if you’d like to talk more.

I would like to see a basic understanding of human decency permeate through everything and everyone at the YSoA. In this case, rape and a lewd comment, although very different, are exactly the same as they both cross the same line–human decency line. Emphasis needs to be placed on understanding and defining that “line” and not on whether or not someone’s sexist comment warrants the same criticism as someone who has committed sexual abuse. That type of conversation detracts from the baby steps that need to be made by every single person in order to change a culture that continues to limit opportunities for women and people of color and continues to favor white men. Calling for an evolution towards a culture that is good, with people who are more self-critical, determined to change, sensitive, and compassionate towards others!
The entire body of the school needs to be cognizant of the wide scope of sexual misconduct and bias and how it manifests. Everyone should be encouraged to be self aware, and identify their own systemically entrenched behaviors. Everyone should try to scrutinize the status quo to see how their behaviors have been influenced by patriarchal culture – how they benefit from it or how they are oppressed by it, and work to challenge those behaviors.
The administration needs to take a firm public verbal stance on what behaviors they will not stand for, reiterating this stance to students and professors alike so it becomes ingrained. This statement needs to be verbalized and woven into the school’s culture; it needs to be excavated from wherever it lies cryptically embedded in the school Bulletin. No more tolerance for misdemeanors, big or small. Such behavior needs to vigilantly be called out by everyone. People learn from being called out; they are less likely to repeat their mistakes once they’ve been made aware of them. (Remember that doing the challenging work of educating someone on what they did wrong ultimately is worth it in long run.)
We should enthusiastically support conversations about how to improve rather than having people doubt whether or not a problem is “worthy” or “serious enough” to discuss. There are a lot of old systems and people in this school who perpetuate this behavior, and their actions are influential and set a bad example for everyone else. If we (students, faculty, and administration) start to be explicit in our stance that such behavior will not be tolerated and has consequences, we set an example for future generations, and it becomes very quickly clear that bad behavior is not welcome in this school.
Finally, I would like to see an increased diversity among our student body, faculty, and jurors. Their presence has an effect on the mood/tone of the school; it will permeate into the school’s culture and drown out the old guard system of bias, misogyny, racism, and classism, over time.

I hope that we can have an environment where everyone can feel free to develop their talents and learn from one another. I think, in large part, this culture already exists, but it’s clear that more work still needs to be done.

YSoA should have open discussions, such as those that have been happening recently. While platforms such as Equality in Design exist, talks with faculty need to occur more. There is no way to resolve issues of sexual misconduct or bias if we are not even able to acknowledge it in the first place.

I’d like faculty to undergo training about how to prevent, discuss, and talk about implicit and explicit bias, as it relates to gender, race, class, identity, and beyond.

I would like to see clearer channels of communication be available within the school.

I think there really needs to be a system in place to field concerns and deal with the rampant mental health problems that this school CAUSES. This is not Marilyn’s job and it’s ridiculous to force it on her.

I think it is urgent for the school to define high standards of conduct for the administration, the faculty and the students. Workshop around the topic of sexual misconduct should be made compulsory for both the faculty and the students and regular discussions on the topic should be organised between all three. Administrative decisions on this question and in general, should be made more transparent and involve student representatives so that the administration can be held accountable. At the moment, the feedback provided by students can be easily disregarded and classified as irrelevant or isolated as some complaints about sexual misconduct have clearly been in the past. The people who handle complaints or feedback should have no interest in covering up alleged misconduct, they should be an independent body or a body that equally represents the administration, the faculty and the students. At the moment it is a monarchy.

In the meeting, I felt like Dean Berke felt the need to answer for architecture and to defend its current state. Firstly, no one expects her to have all the answers. I mostly wanted her to express solidarity, be honest about her personal experiences with bias and harassment, and to have an excited attitude about how her role positions her to make cultural changes! She knows what sexism is! Why does she now feel like she has to protect people like Eisenman and Garvin?! Get those people out of here!! Why does this all have to be so solemn?! Get new amazing people with perspectives that are rarely heard in our field! Let’s rethink this horribly unhealthy and insane work culture! It could be fun!

What do you think of the Shitty Architecture Men list?

Seems like a combination of legitimate grievances and some petty complaints, but generally is an outgrowth of an outmoded culture that silences and buries complaints to avoid change and protect those in power. I think if we had a better response and system in place to deal with these issues we wouldn’t need to make such a list.

It exposes our industry’s harmful culture and those who allegedly perpetrate it, but in a totally anonymous and therefore problematic way.

It’s about time someone documented this.

Clearly demonstrates the need for a platform and change!

It reinforced many rumors and myths but also brought along surprising new information. Many incidents were implicit but so many were explicit discrimination and violations of what most would consider important and fundamental to any human.”

It is not necessarily a valid source for any conclusions.

Not surprised by anything.

Libel. I absolutely believe that some of the men on the list behaved inappropriately, maybe in the ways described. However, as it stands, an online sheet circulated through dozens of offices and school with free editing can not be taken as truth.

It is rather Yale-centric and the fact that the administration took so long to address the matter is concerning. I think that Dean Berke could have taken advantage of the list as a way to have a proactive conversation: all issues in this School are treated reactively instead of proactively, which I see as an issue.

It is good for the profession as a whole. It loses credibility when it turns into a gossip blog, which I feel later entries were.

Sure it’s bad for neutralising “he hates on women” with “he touched me” but I appreciate that it’s an open anonymous forum in which we all have the ability to stake our claims.

A very flawed, absolutely necessary document for a certain cultural shift that should occur in architecture.

Scandalous but also unsurprising.

I was very hopeful about the idea of getting this information out there but I think it was mostly received as “a witch hunt” which is a shame.

It is very believable and not shocking. What is surprising is that it didn’t come out in the open earlier. While most of the allegations appear to be true, some people seemed to treat it like a gossip column. That takes away the credibility and gravity of the issue.

A rude awakening to reality…

I think it’s a good thing to have happened in the sense of getting the architectural field to confront the #MeToo movement. I’m less sure about the specific way in which it was compiled/organised (like, as a spreadsheet for example), and the way in which a VERY wide range of behaviours were lumped into the same spreadsheet was questionable. For example, some allegations/stories were of sexual harassment, and others were just of ‘not being a likeable person’ (which didn’t come with allegations of being verbally problematic), to one box I remember noting that a certain architect had ‘famously gone to see prostitutes’, which does not imply sexual behaviour between non-consenting adults and is arguable whether or not this is reprehensible behaviour.

Again, useful on principle, in that it exposes aspects of the culture that have been allowed to fester for far too long. But it also seemed full of petty sniping and suffered from a general lack of accountability on the part of many contributors.

Needs separation between sexual assault accusations and general conduct accusations. Reduces importance of assault reporting.

Could enable vindictive students to anonymously punish their professors and coworkers.

I’ve seen truth on the SAM list.

Although I may feel uncomfortable with the way some of the misconducts were described on the list, I think the importance of the list’s existence trumps those little trivialities. The list is an important part of the movement, responsible for many amazing ripple effects and, simply put, wakes people up.

I think it’s a very complicated “thing”, and any discussion of it needs to recognize that. On the one hand it’s incredible that people have the opportunity to voice experiences that are pretty much impossible to bring to light without the protection of anonymity. On the other hand, an anonymous, crowd-sourced list just can’t be treated as fact. I also think it’s really complicated, and potentially unfair, to put serial sexual harassers on the same list as people who have “condoned sexism”–the whole architectural community has condoned sexism! That being said, I think the SAM list taken as a whole is incredibly powerful–the systemic misogyny and mistreatment of women in this discipline is both rampant and deeply ingrained in our culture, and I think it might take something as dramatic as this list to make change. If this list pokes little holes in the shiny reputations of many of the men in the profession, and their egos and status sink a little bit, maybe the rest of us will finally get our chance to RISE.

I think it is the understandable, and maybe even predictable, product of a shitty world in which the powerful don’t listen unless you raise the stakes. I don’t think anonymity is always the right way to go about leveling accusations (men have clearly shown us that some people need to have accountability in order to do the right thing), but I understand the impulse to just light a fire until everyone gets the point. Moving forward, I think advocates need to decide if it’s worth risking a) due process and b) the reputations of innocent people to achieve structural change, because that’s what seems to be on the line with this type of anonymous, crowd-sourced list. In short, I get it, but it’s a cluster bomb and it’s not an ideal solution.

Highly indicative of a widespread, systemic problem. Its anonymous format, exhaustive content, and wide scope of behaviors all point to this. Furthermore, many people found the content of the list shocking. I personally didn’t and find almost all of it believable. But the fact that the list exists in its anonymous, open-source, ad-hoc format is extremely telling of the fact that the reporting mechanisms or support systems within schools and workplaces are inadequate. If the only way these experiences could come out was through an anonymous list, it demands action and radical change in the culture of our profession so that people can feel safe to talk about these issues openly and without consequence.

I applaud it as a forum where women can tell stories that have previously been difficult to tell, but I think the title “shitty architecture men” is a little crass. Men perpetrate a lot of sexual misconduct, and this has created a condition where it’s difficult for women to respond and seek justice; but I think it’s worth remembering that cultivating a healthy academic culture is everyone’s responsibility, and no single group should be generalized as being victims or being to blame. Again, this is my opinion as a male student and I’m aware that there are legitimate and as of yet not fully resolved reasons for the existence of this list.

It was necessary.  It was so effective in disseminating cautions/warnings and finally acknowledging a huge systemic problem in architecture. I understand its limitations of credibility being crowd-sourced and anonymous, but I don’t see the list as a tool intended to legally implicate someone. It equips women with information to avoid or prepare for potential toxic environments.  It also reveals to women in the architecture community ‘you are not alone’. Whether that leads to reporting particular misconduct, initiating dialogues, implementing changes, I don’t know… but it lit a fire and we’re talking about it.

Although somewhat petty, the SAM list successfully brought attention to the #metoo movement in architecture, which, for whatever reason, is always late to everything.

I have not seen the list. But I agree that it gives power to voices that often will not be heard, and it also allows people to guard themselves from potentially harmful situations. I have mixed feeling about it being anonymous.

I found the list both surprising and unsurprising. I found it pretty difficult to see YSoA names on there, and am still struggling to accept that these people are at our school. I also think the list has flaws and in some ways should be taken with a grain of salt — however, as a woman in architecture, I think the list was important to see and expose some of the huge and unacceptable issues that happen in our field every day.

Does the conflation of pedagogical critique and sex crimes delegitimize the victims of severe violence? Do anonymous rumors naively perpetuate false information and preclude action against concrete patriarchal forces such as nepotism?

I think overall it was a good step to highlight problems within the industry. It was not the perfect system with a lack of clear hierarchy of sexual assault vs. sexual harassment, but that still should not allow for it to be discredited.

It’s certainly the wrong outlet but it identifies a real problem.

I think there were some issues with the list as there was a certain flattening of the allegations. Sexual harassment and sexual misconduct sometimes rub shoulder with critics on bad teaching which is quite different. But generally the list was really useful and allow for a mapping of the phenomenon. Personally I was quite shocked to see that someone that had harassed me was on the list and was reported to have harassed several other women. In a way I felt validated. I felt entitled to have felt fear and disgust when the incident happen. On the other side, I am mad that no sanction has been taken against that man and that he is still free to harass other women after me and certainly will. I think this list is useful to identify recidivist predator behaviour. I think such a record should exist within the school so that these recidivist males can be identified and sanctions can be taken against them. At the moment any report of sexual misconduct remains a very isolating moment for the victim where she risks being met with disbelief and a diminishing attitude. Knowing that you are part of a group of other women having endure the same thing is saddening but also validating.

How would you like the administration and faculty to respond to the SAM list and systemic issues of sexual misconduct and bias in architecture?

As I said before, a dedicated member of the faculty whose only job is student health, well being, student advocate, counseling (career, class, otherwise) and can act as a neutral third party instead of issues always being brought directly to the dean. The staff and faculty that deal with the complaints and concerns now only do so as a secondary part of an already demanding job, which is unfair to both them and the students.

The administration should reconsider affiliations with anyone accused of sexual misconduct, addressing these accusations on a case-by-case basis.

Zero tolerance rule when it comes to sexual misconduct within the university; embrace diversity, inclusion, and a positive attitude – no ego.

DO something!
We need more support, better access to information but it also needs to directly address the many YSOA men on the list! Stop shrugging off the blame.

Vetting firms and professors. Not waiting until something becomes and issue or a lawsuit to address.

Teach professionalism in the workplace as part of the program. Don’t assemble reactionary committees and groups, but instead make sure that every student, regardless of current news, is expected to uphold a high level of professionalism as a graduate of YSOA.

See above.

Take it seriously. Yale shows up too many times on the SAM list.

I would rather they didn’t.

I want the administration to mandate that all faculty explicitly acknowledge at the beginning of a course that sexual misconduct will not be tolerated. I want the administration to keep up the difficult work of improving the accessibility of communication channels for students to come forward when they are in uncomfortable situations. I don’t know that the SAM list points to any actions by the administration.

I think a town hall is the perfect response but I think more faculty should be there and I think that it needs to not be accusatory from the students but also not defensive from the faculty standpoint.

The school should acknowledge the issues associated with YSOA that were revealed in the list. Additionally YSOA should have a group that can support students even after they graduate, a strong community that stands by former students and helps them navigate these issues. A community that we can fall back on even if it is 10-20 years later.

Acknowledge it and fire those who are on it…


A public statement (to the world) acknowledging the existence of many allegations, that Yale is implicated in this (both through allegations made with Yale-affiliated persons and because it is a prominent institution within the discipline), and what it is going to do in response would be a start. Providing more resources and support to students who have experienced sexual misconduct beyond putting the onus on victims to ‘report it yourself’ is also necessary. It didn’t seem from the discussion in Hastings Hall that the administration is ready to commit real time and resources to changing the culture of the school (and if they don’t even know what’s going on in the student body then they need to start there first. Dean Berke’s comment that they didn’t know group dynamics in BP are often problematic was surprising and they should not be ignorant about these issues).

Stop tolerating shitty men. Stop unfair hiring and compensation practices in their own offices. Suck it up and respect the fair labor standards act.

Please don’t write it off. Voices are trying to be heard.

To acknowledge the problem by demanding written statements from those accused. These statements should not be used to defend themselves, but a highly self-critical examination of their nebulous past with a promise to change, highlighting the steps they are or planning to take to do better. If the admin feel unable to address the issue with the people on the list, I would like the admin to acknowledge this feeling of powerlessness. Maybe they can release a statement examining why they feel powerless to make changes? Who are all the characters involved that prevent them from being more direct? Who is not afraid? Who is everyone kowtowing to? Etc.

I think this should be treated as an opportunity to improve the culture of YSOA, to use it as a teaching moment to “call in” our community rather than continue to call people out. There is so so much more that could be done–the orientation I had before school started was a joke. Building up class relationships then, before classes start, would improve a lot of people’s experience during first year. Use orientation as a time to set expectations of how we treat each other here, and get a professional to run exercises in building community and working well and respectfully together. All I remember from my orientation is Peggy Deamer, then Dean of Students, telling us that (paraphrase): “you’re not all going to make it. Admissions is a crap shoot we can’t tell who’s good, and some of you will get kicked out so we can uphold our reputation.” This is, I think, a related and broader issue of power and culture at YSOA, but damn, what a welcome to architecture school.

With honesty and candor. (Note: this is a leading question)

I said this above. “The administration needs to take a firm public verbal stance on what behaviors they will not stand for, reiterating to students and professors alike so it becomes ingrained. This statement needs to be verbalized and woven into the school’s culture; it needs to be excavated from wherever it lies cryptically embedded in the school Bulletin. No more tolerance for misdemeanors, big or small. Such behavior needs to vigilantly be called out by everyone.”
Faculty should make themselves available as a resource at the start of each semester if students wish to talk to them.
The administration MUST hire a third party person to deal with diversity and inclusion measures; NOT just a title IX coordinator. Many of the issues under this broad umbrella term of sexual misconduct and bias fall outside of the scope of Title IX, and are as such going unreported and unresolved.

I think that by bringing this discussion to the forefront of our school’s many ongoing conversations, part of the list’s job has already been done.

There needs to be a conversation about discrimination and bias with students and faculty early on. Implicit discrimination when isolated seems insignificant but when aggregated they color how students and faculty see you and can undermine one’s agency and capabilities.
I am in support of the idea of having a dean of inclusion or a dedicated person, free of Yale Architecture bias, whose sole responsibility is to deal with issues of inclusion. The person could provide more resources, offer support and ideas for initiatives, and eliminate any confusion as to who to contact with issues of misconduct and bias.

I think these are two different things. The list has promoted us to talk about the larger systemic issues, and here we see part of its value. As for addressing the systemic issues, I think there needs to be a mechanism of reporting that goes beyond Title IX. I also think the school needs to consider new ways of reporting and discussing these things. A single administrator, as wonderful as Marilyn is, cannot be the go-to counselor for every single person in our program. We need a new system.

I would like the administration to take the list and issues of sexual misconduct and bias very seriously. I feel like the reason the Town Hall meeting happened was because of students — if we weren’t proactive and asking questions, I feel like these conversation wouldn’t happen. This is frustrating given the fact that these people are leading us and guiding us into the professional field and have probably experienced issues of sexual misconduct and bias throughout their own educational experiences and career. I wish the faculty and administration were just as fired up about these issues as the students are, because to some extent, we need to work with them in order to create steps of change within the school culture.

I think we need to hire an individual who is in charge of student affairs, but does not teach. They should have a background dealing with counseling and advising on personal issues. It would be good to have a third party person to advise on issues that may come up between students and faculty or within the student body etc.

I would like them to set up better channels to field these complaints. They shouldn’t have to just be expressed online.

I think the faculty and students mentioned on that list that are at the school should be investigated and sanctions should be taken if the allegations are verified. A discussion between all the faculty and not only the few that think this is an important issue and the students should be organised to discuss how to move forward and bring the standard of conduct at the school to a much higher level.

I would really like to see the administration and faculty look at the SAM list with the nuance it deserves. Dean Berke and Emily’s “disappointment” in the list was frustrating. Dismissal on the grounds of imperfect means and accuracy is a stereotypical tactic of those in power to delegitimize those with less. It’s hilariously predictable and from the same playbook as Richard Meier’s “I apologize to anyone who was offended by my behavior.” These are the kinds of things people say who are not reading the news. The list’s imperfections are a mirror reflection of the imperfections of “official channels.” The need for anonymity must be taken seriously. We live in a world where people who come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct are shamed, scrutinized, and driven from their fields. Only very recently has this started to change, but even when people are taken seriously, the emotional labor required to report publicly is enormous and people’s very intimate personal lives are made public.

I would like to see commitment to an investigation of all the claims on the list as well as public accountability. I would like to know why previous instances of sexual misconduct were not already public knowledge. I would like to see the school include a code of conduct in the contract clause for visiting professors. I would like to see the school consider encouraging certain faculty to retire.

How do you think the student body could respond to the SAM list and issues of sexual misconduct and bias in architecture?

We could have our own peer-to-peer system, however we are just trying to get through the day half the time and sometimes our peers don’t have time to do counseling, so I don’t think it should be on us entirely. We should do more intervention training though and have a better culture of peer support.

Students should hold each other accountable when instances of bias arise. With regards to the SAM list, students should vocalize opposition to anyone teaching at the school that has unresolved cases of sexual misconduct .

People don’t realize how critical the small things are- be aware of own interpersonal relations, communication styles, and body language. Be less critical of one another, do not associate one’s work as indicative of one’s personality, make eye contact…etc!

Sadly we must take things into our own hands if we care and want something to change. Conversations are a place to start but we need to channel the energy and momentum into action that will persist and ensure we do not continue as is/has been.
“If you do not actively fight the current way, you are perpetuating an unbalanced system.”

Demand more input and transparency on incoming faculty

Work for integrity and rigor when addressing and resolving issues of sexual misconduct. People should be held accountable with no uncertainty. It’s a deeply personal offense and should not be resolved in the court of student opinion.

I think conversations around sexual misconduct and bias should be led by students, as the administration has let us down in that regard. That being said, however, the administration needs to attend and listen without defaulting to being on the defense.

do not work for or with these people regardless of how reputable the name is.

An awareness of this issue should be addressed. Please administer a background check or some sort of interview system with incoming students. No one deserved to be discriminated against, especially when it’s between peers and we live in this concrete bunker 24/7.

LET IT BE KNOWN! We are all in this together! If you have a problem with the professors here SAY SOMETHING! Don’t let what happened to the title 9 student last year happen to you, which is to wait too long to do something or say something so that people can no longer help you!! If you have felt uncomfortable, it’s more than likely someone else at the school has too!

Read the list, completely and critically. Take that conversation out of google docs and into the studio and classroom. Never hesitate to call out a professor for inappropriate behavior or to help/defend a classmate. This goes especially for white/cis/male students.

I think it is the student’s responsibility to bring awareness to the issue. The only way to break bad habits to call attention to them. Perhaps the students should draft an ethical code or a code of conduct and ask that the student body and the faculty all to sign it?

acknowledge it…


Sort of wrote this in the ‘How do think the conversation should continue?’ question.

Look at the facts listed over the adjectives used. If someone has been to court twice and is a unique category on the list…..


Starting the conversation with incoming students as soon as possible. Emphasizing standards of human decency. Promising to do better. Acknowledging when and how we fail to uphold our standards. Establishing mandatory working groups that keep everyone informed.

I think we can and should use it as an opportunity to have some very important discussions about strategies for achieving change.

Students should be encouraged to talk about this openly. Small student led fora are a good place for this. If you see a friend or classmate being abused, let them know you are there for them. Be a resource. If you see bias, abuse, etc, stand up for your peers. Condemn bad behavior. Be relentlessly self-critical. Discourage behaviors that are symptomatic of oppressive behavior, sexism, racism, or classism (something as simple as talking over another person is one such example of a symptom.)

Act with heightened awareness of our own actions and try to engage each other in dialogue about what it is that creates a constructive, positive environment for everyone at our school. I think it’s on us to create a culture of positive norms that we foster through discussion and frank engagement with one another, we should enable each other to speak and be attentive listeners. I don’t think the solution to these problems can come completely from the top down; we need to evolve the culture and support the idea that sexual misconduct, from students or faculty alike, is not acceptable.

We need to work together. Women can’t and don’t want to do it alone. Although we’re in a curated environment. We’re the next generation of employers, educators, etc. so it’s important to instill respect and human decency now.

By having productive conversations about these issues and making plans to change our school culture. Everything EID has been working on in the last few weeks is very exciting, and can hopefully begin to change the culture of YSoA — especially starting with the next class of M.Arch students. Hopefully by having students plan events and discussion around these issues will show the faculty and administration why these conversations need to happen.

I think having more smaller discussions is a good way to address these issues. I think it is good to have conversations with other years to either help advice (such as on BP) and to bounce ideas off. I think also though conversations just kept within years can be good too since it may be more comfortable for people to talk amongst people they know better.

Hmm. Just don’t support machismo and the culture that creates this.

I think the student body should institute a stronger and more organised structure with student delegates who’s responsibility and role is clearly established so they can be involved and engaged in administrative meetings, discussions and decisions in a much more effective way than what is currently the case. There is no force pushing the administration to take any decisions or offer proactively solutions to the issue of sexual misconduct if it cannot be held accountable by any other body.

Do you feel comfortable talking to members of the faculty and staff about your experiences with sexual misconduct or bias?

No: 47.2%

Yes: 22.2%


Sometimes. I mean after the fact it’s easier, but some of the biggest perpetrators have been at this school the longest and have the highest positions.

Depends on the person and issue but generally not.

I would feel comfortable talking to faculty about an issue that I think requires disciplinary or legal action. For other issues I would prefer an electronic system like Callisto.

Yes, but Joel Sanders is  ridiculous person to have has the first point of contact.

Depends on the faculty member

varies widely

Maybe only someone like Marilyn Weiss, if it ever happened to me.

Depends on the faculty member.

Now that I’m graduated and have distance/healed from my own experience. I feel very comfortable talking about my experience now without shame and want to be of service in any way I can to help change YSOA culture around sexuality.

I’ve never really had to consider it

If no, please explain. What do you think is the best mechanism for reporting?

We lack a neutral third party that isn’t the Dean or some other incredibly busy person. We need a faculty member dedicated to students as their only job.

Through a fellow student first.

Need advising staff, someone to go to outside of the faculty.

An accessible system for providing general feedback that can include sexual misconduct but also sense of exclusion and discrimination among other matters.

I would prefer to address the issue as it arises to the person’s face, but that is often too uncomfortable. I wish there were a system to do that.

Good question! See recent Yale rape trial at New Haven courthouse.

automated system or app

A gender parity mission of some sort that can guide and advise students who experience sexual misconduct over and above title XI. Someone who can guide us about the legalities involved if we file a formal complaint. The fear of being threatened , intimidated or humiliation often increases after filing a complaint as the more often than not these cases are closed because of ‘lack of evidence’.

not having the people who say these comments in the faculty positions responsible of tied to fielding these issues


University Therapist

Health Center

This is probably not the best way to collect reports in real time, but I think there should be a question in our end of the semester evaluations that specifically addresses experiences with sexual misconduct and bias. The answer to this question should remain anonymous and can only be read by the Dean or, potentially, a new admin member, whose job it is to address these kinds of issues.

A student is just not going to go to the dean with a complaint of sexual misconduct, no matter how welcoming or encouraging they are. We want to be recognized for our achievements, not first known by the dean because of a bad experience someone else forced upon us. I think having a designated person to go to, with zero connections to academic experience in the school, would be a good start.

If I had a Title IX related problem, I would feel comfortable speaking to Marilyn Weiss. However, until faculty and staff make it clear that they are willing to discuss anything related to this issue with me, I don’t feel comfortable going to someone within the school. I would rather keep my professional relationships professional. Hence the need for a third-party individual.

I think the best mechanism is to hire a permanent third party person who has training with these issues.

There are apps that do this now but I think a designated person is still the best.

The faculty and the administration have an interest in covering up any misconduct report to preserve the reputation to the school. For now neither the faculty or the administration has taken a clear stand on the question of sexual misconduct. On the question of sexual harassment, one is either part of the solution or part of the problem. If one does not actively denounce the sexual misconduct of entitled men around them, then one participate in the societal acceptance of such attitude. I think the reporting should be systematic (there should be a clearly defined procedure of emailing, texting or phoning someone), and the person in charge should be trained professionally to handle such issues and independent from the school so that no individual interest can interfere.

Do you have a personal experience with harassment, assault, or discrimination that you’d like to share?

Not that I’d like to share.

No (4)

Not directly to me in a one on one, but there was a faculty member who gave an unprompted rant on why diversity and inclusion politics have no place in architectural education, which was super uncomfortable.

Minor incidents at YSOA but more serious breaches in the past when a work colleague touched me inappropriately at the office Christmas Party.

A symposium guest from another institution was hitting on me in a way that made me feel uncomfortable.

Too many to count. I was told that because I went to school in the Middle East or “the middle of nowhere” I was not good enough in comparison to my Ivy league classmates. I was told that I come from a culture of peasants and slavery, “nothing good comes out of the Middle East anyways.”

Eisenman caught me in the elevator and told me I looked better with my hair up than with my hair down like in my school photo … naturally he prefaced the little antidote with “not to sound harassy or anything…”
Mansplaining.. All. The. Time! No thanks I actually aced the structures homework so I DON’T need you to explain to me.. as I am teaching it to fellow classmates.

tl;dr Being told by Professor Moon, “don’t sleep if you need to. I don’t care,” in regard to finishing a punitive assignment for missing three structures classes last spring. Then being told by Marilyn Weiss that I should apologize to Professor Moon.

Thankfully no

I had experienced harassment in my undergraduate institute when I was a TA for a senior professor. I filed a formal complaint and then it turned out this issue was faced by multiple students for years but nobody spoke of it openly.



I have a few stories regarding sexist comments towards me from a faculty member. As he is still part of the faculty and we continue to work together, it feels too compromising to write about it here in the current climate. My hesitation to write it here clearly illustrates how hard it is to talk openly about these issues. What really bothers me is the everyday stuff that seems petty but accumulates. Routine microaggressions from well-intentioned but clueless male peers.  Unwanted comments about my appearance, people not respecting my personal space, people interrupting me or talking over me, people only talking to the men when I’m in a group, people assuming I can’t do basic tasks. (i.e. woodshop. I know how to use the damn table saw, you don’t need testosterone to operate one.)

Yes. Those who proclaim to be the identity-politics-police are often the same ones who make harassing comments and gestures about the physical appearance of others.

I was harassed by another student at a school party. Happily one of my male friend was around and also noticed the predator behaviour of that student. My friend stayed around me all the evening and made sure that student would not approach me again. Since that day I have been carefully avoiding that student.

A faculty member came with students to Rudy’s one night, got a bit drunk, and decided to also join us to GPSCY. I found myself in the awkward position of sort of chaperoning him after he asked if he could come. Once we got there, I felt uncomfortable about how he was following me around GPSCY so I pretended to go to the bathroom and left. He convinced my friend to call me, took the phone from her and asked where I was and if they could come over. I said no. I avoid this person now.

What do I expect of the leaders in my community who have been implicated by the SAM list? Whether or not the allegations are true, interactions are affected by their presence on the list.

I think we should have some kind of shift in how we address complaints going forward. if allegations are criminal in nature, such as assault, or flagrant violations of policy, such as using sex as a means of passing classes / getting jobs, etc. there should be a real investigation. If the complaints are more minor as general bias, inappropriate comments, etc. that form a pattern or are corroborated in some manner or at all I guess, there should be a warning / reprimand, and disciplinary action of some sort if additional complaints accrue.

I expect anyone implicated by the SAM list to address it, and explain themselves.

They should be held responsible for their action, not sure how.

The claims need to be verified but as classmates and colleagues we also have rights to access some of that information.

Acknowledgement, apology, commitment to change

I think that blatant offenders should step down and/or be fired. I think all offenders should address that they’re on the list and use that as a way to take a step back and question if how they operate in the world is acceptable. They also may be doing things subconsciously, in which case it could be used as a learning tool.

We need to stop protecting these people. However, we should not tarnish their reputation without taking a moment to think about our position first.  

I hope they know they are on a list and are shaking in their boots. We all know what you have done.

Contrition at the least

I expect them to at the very least not pretend like it doesn’t exist.


Those that are just listed for their shitty behaviour should be made aware of the large population that thinks them this way. If they are willing to hear it, they will change. If they think they the accusations are false or they are “better than that” in some way, they will cease to be relevant soon enough. Social acceptance will weed them out.

I have a lot of thoughts about this, but that’s a leading question and bad journalism. And reporting everything with integrity is really important right now.

I want contrition at the very least. If they’re sorry, hopefully they won’t do it again. And they will work actively to create a more inclusive culture moving forward as their form of apology and righting their past wrongs.

I wish they would modify their behavior, but I see it as unlikely. However there were one or two people on there that I was surprised to see, who I don’t consider as regularly creating a toxic culture, and I wonder what is expected of them.

I feel like many of the names on the list who are leaders in our school may not have seen it (especially older generations). Even still, I think it is important that they acknowledge why they are on the list, take the steps necessary to apologize to whomever was affected by the interaction, and then make real changes in how they speak to people/interact with people, etc. Many of the people on the list show patterns in their behavior that clearly need to change—even if this behavior is a pattern, it is not okay to continue treating people in such a way that results in their name being on the SAM list.

Discuss the issues! Since some on-the-list have done much to dismantle patriarchal structures and some off-the-list have abused power the most, the list seems primarily incendiary. Perhaps the list’s only value is to stoke passion for these issues right now. Yet the conversation remains muffled and one-sided. Do students feel comfortable talking about misconduct or bias? If not, why? Is YSoA teaching openness, equity, fear, or spite?

I think if I were them I would try to address it.

Do you feel that Title IX is an adequate system to address issues of sexual misconduct at the school?

No (7)

Yes (2)


I mean…for major offenses, but full blown criminal activity or lawyering up is a lot of effort for people still in a stressful program here at school. The administration needs a better system in place for minor offenses or more general discomfort that allows reconciliation without going to 11 instantly.

No! Title IX is for extreme cases of breach. It should not have to advance to the most extreme states to be handled and acted upon. We need to be more proactive, preemptive and supportive.

I’m not sure.

Of course not! It tackles the serious issues of rape and physical assault but doesn’t come close to dealing with the everyday aggressions women and POC have to deal with every single day! […]

in theory yes, in practice no.

We need another mechanism over and above Title IX.

Yes, but too much of a delayed process.

It’s reactionary not preemptive

hahaha lol lmao nope

No. It systematically fails victims of assault, harassment, and misconduct.

It seems not.

No. There needs to be a secondary group that addresses biases deemed less severe by policy, but are equally important.

As a male and someone who’s never been a victim of sexual misconduct, I feel that I can’t fully speak to this. But as someone mentioned at the meeting, it does seem like Title IX feels like something of a last resort, and there should be a more accessible first recourse that people can access.

It seems like not, based on the list but I don’t have any personal experience to support this.

How do think the conversation should continue?

We need a student meeting without the faculty that is a space where people can share opinions (and experiences if they are comfortable) or have those experiences shared anonymously (if they are comfortable) to allow other students who haven’t experienced this issue as directly to become aware of the goings on and come up with solutions that we would be satisfied with instead of ones that are a minimum to protect the school’s liability

Student town halls are always helpful.

Through workshops, discussions, and continuing education for students and faculty.

Small group working sessions among students, Training and educational workshops for faculty and students. Working session with faculty. Feedback system. Mentorship/guidance.

Working groups, implementation of Callisto, firm and professor vetting

Through structured discussions led by qualified professionals.

A series of Town Hall’s with the administration where the administration listens instead of speaks and vows to take action.

Keep the conversation alive.

With gusto! (sorry this survey is too long)

Students have come up with a list of tactics, some of which involve the administration. The administration should make a public statement addressing their cooperation on these issues, timelines, etc. They should do it quickly and openly, rather than letting it fade into another opaque system of working groups and private meetings.

The student body needs to continue to demand respect from each other and from the faculty. This can be done through focus groups but more so just needs to become a daily conversation and awareness checks.

Yes absolutely.

it shouldn’t… it should be assumed that we attend an institution that does not hire, teach, or tolerate people who would even be called into question for sexual misconduct.


I will follow/support the lead of female students on how to continue. Additionally, I went to a workshop just today focused on discussing male allyship skills, targeting cis men. If that is something people/male students would be interested in doing I’m down to help think about what that looks like/facilitate that happening. Part of what was missing in the town hall discussion was what men have to do in order to be a part of this process. It should not be left entirely up to female students to expend physical/emotional labor to get the school to do something or confront its problems. Men can begin by addressing themselves on this issue.


Hopefully and patiently. It is important for us to remind ourselves that systematic issues do not change overnight, but to emphasize that no system is permanent. If we can acknowledge the ability we have to change our personal biases and bad habits that fuel a culture of discrimination, and work hard to make these personal corrections, culture will follow suit.

More town halls, more student writing, more student conversations, less timidity among the student body in talking about difficult issues. I want to stress that the administration needs take responsibility and accept that radical cultural restructuring needs to take place so that we can be a school whose culture we all take pride in.

I’m not 100% sure.

Through students. I would love to find faculty members who are just as passionate about addressing these issues and changing the YSoA culture as we are. Hopefully, the administration (and the Dean specifically) will realize that these conversations are not an attack on the school, but rather a productive step in moving forward and improving our community. I think that is something everyone can get behind.

The lurid accusations of ongoing injustice prove that we are not resolving the inequities in architecture fast enough. But knee-jerk reactions can make the problem worse. Is the nepotistic hiring of unqualified teachers a form of progress or a patriarchal regression? Perhaps it’s time for a transparent meritocratic hiring process.

As I mentioned, I think a range of talks between all classes and smaller groups broken up within the classes.

Probably another meeting, not necessarily mediated by Deborah (but definitely including her).

Anything else?

Let’s do this!

Thank you guys for organizing!

Although we must condemn any sexual misconduct and work towards a better community environment, and although we must acknowledge the importance of equality and a sense of belonging for everyone, I observe that these recent events have created some kind of “division” between genders and a sense of immaturity in being oversensitive. Let’s be careful not to forget there are good men out there too and recognize sexism can go BOTH ways.

All professors who do not pay interns should be required to start paying interns or should be fired.

Dear Men,
We understand you are a feminist and that you respect women and don’t mean to offend or hurt us, BUT you do and sometimes you don’t realize you are doing it. We may appear to snap and shout but let me let you in on a secret. We as women have to deal with little mini dismissals every day and not only do we have to pick ourselves back up after everyone of these interactions, we also have to play the internal game of “do I say something?” Now, if we decide yes I do have enough energy to say something, it goes to my next favorite game, “how do I tell him?” Then women have the delightful choice of either politely and thoroughly explaining why we didn’t like that touch on our backs or those funny but kinda sorta undermining jokes, or the red hot shouty short-but-sweet last straw gut reaction. Now, neither are pleasant for you, but understand that these reactions are not pleasant for us either. Hand holding wasn’t in any manual I have read on how to be a woman. Please understand that it’s not really just about you and our little interaction with you. Often by that point it’s become one of hundreds of interactions that have piled up to the point where we are exhausted and hurt and sad and just need an outlet. So pardon the patronising talk or the shouty jerk reaction. Just know it’s not personal but also, clean up your act … stop stroking my back!

bless its almost finals x _ x

Thanks for sending this out paprika:)

I really appreciate you all taking this on. No idea how it should be approached.

I’m not sure about having my name printed but including my name here regarding the last question^ if the organisers of this survey know that this might be something worth happening/that people might be interested in organising–Martin Man

Just a plea to exercise journalistic integrity in how Paprika! asks questions and how it selects responses for publishing.

There are certain faculty members and administrators who are known for their inappropriate remarks. Many say that it’s too difficult for them to change, or that they are too old to change, or that they are too valuable for the school so we need to let it slide. I don’t think that’s an excuse for not addressing microaggressions. If a faculty member is teaching advanced, graduate level content, then they must also be able to learn to be respectful, empathetic constituents in our community.

We need a counselor of some sort!!!


Fold Viewer

Volume 3, Issue 00
April 26, 2018