NOMA Report 2006

Report on the 2006 NOMA Conference November 28, 2006

Four GSD MArch students attended the annual conference of NOMA, the National Organization of Minority Architects, held in San Franscisco October 12-14, 2006: Chris Coates, Sidi Gomes, Dk Osseo-Asare, and Temple Simpson. We shared several objectives going into the weekend: to learn more about the organization; to begin the process of making the GSD more visible/accessible within the minority architect(ure) community; and to develop a strategy for the future GSD role within NOMA. The conference was divided into two “tracks,� one geared more toward students at an undergraduate level, and the other toward professionals. As graduate students we found ourselves somewhere in-between, as the structuring of the conference is not (yet) designed to fully accommodate graduate-level participants.

Collectively, we attended a wide spectrum of conference activities, including scheduled workshops and seminars, keynote speeches, the student design competition, NOMAS board meetings, the exhibitors fair, networking sessions and social events, as well as informal conversations with students about graduate schools and the GSD specifically.

We also put GSD materials (Studioworks, course catalogs, etc.) on display in the conference lobby; this is how we obtained most of the contact information of individuals requesting more information on the School.

Below we have listed observations about the conference and the organization in general, followed by a summary of our suggestions for future GSD participation with NOMA. Observations: NOMA was founded by twelve African-American architects at the 1971 AIA convention.

The term "minority" was used, instead of "black," because of funding restrictions (federal, etc.) on ethnically exclusive organizations. Although the original mission centered essentially on African-Americans, because young members of NOMA today are taking the name at face value you can increasingly find Asian-American and Hispanic representation at the annual conference.

NOMA is the professional organization, and NOMAS is the body of student chapters.

Currently, NOMAS consists primarily of undergraduates. All but 7 of the roughly 100 students who attended the conference were students at the undergraduate level.

1

The Northeast was underrepresented at the conference. Most of the participants were from schools in the South, such as Tuskegee, Ball State, NC State, and schools in the Mid-Atlantic region, such as Howard University.

In general, students who attend the annual conference are leaders within the NOMAS chapters at their respective schools. Certain schools, for example University of Las Vegas, Ball State and Howard, seem to bring large groups of students each year (10 or more), in part because of the student design competition.

NOMAS is at present a decentralized and semi-autonomous body, operating under NOMA as parent organization. Two NOMAS execs sit for two-year terms on the NOMA board, together with regional student representatives. The over-arching mission of NOMAS is not clearly defined as distinct from that of NOMA, other than the broad objective of the NOMAS board serving to support the goals and activities of individual chapters. Consequently, NOMAS chapters are for the most part self-regulating; they exist as student chapters, as opposed to professional chapters, but set their own policy and agenda independently. There seemed to be some frustration on the part of chapter representatives during the NOMAS meetings about a perceived lack of direction. While the NOMAS board argued that individual chapters were free to write their own mission statements, catered to the issues most pertinent to their particular school, some student representatives countered that more regional cooperation depended on a coherent, consistent and shared framework for NOMAS nationally.

Recommendations: Ideally, Harvard should play a key role in formulating a vision for NOMAS at a graduate level, establishing a GSD chapter in order to drive new growth throughout graduate schools nation-wide. However, we are all aware of the time constraints given demands of GSD curriculum and culture; at the same time, there is a history within the University, whether good or bad, of distancing student groups from national organizations. In light of this, we suggest a strategic plan for GSD involvement with NOMA and NOMAS other than direct affiliation (i.e. minus a NOMAS chapter at GSD).

The critical advantage of NOMA is that it offers an existing organizational structure with the mandate of promoting a network of minority architecture students and professionals.

It is in the best interests of the GSD to work with NOMA to both expand the School's recruiting platform, and to further integrate the work and agenda of underrepresented communities with that of the profession at large. Sustained GSD student participation at the annual NOMA conference is the most efficient means toward such a relationship.

Continued student involvement in the on-going process of defining and reassessing GSD policy toward minority recruitment is a top priority. Any effort to build connections within the context of NOMA should work in concert with the larger, long-term project of improving diversity of the GSD student body.

2

If we take as an ultimate goal the increased number of strong and qualified underrepresented minority applicants to the GSD, student involvement in NOMA and the annual conference should focus on the broader goals of both explaining the GSD specifically, and fostering greater participation in NOMA generally, at the graduate level.

Harvard’s role in future NOMA conferences should be three-fold: 1::

Re-presenting the GSD

We maintain that the mere presence of GSD students at the NOMA conference is hugely important and positive. The lack of overlap between the GSD and African-American architects in particular, many of whom graduate from the schools most active in NOMA, derives in part from lack of dialogue. Many of the students we spoke with said they thought of Harvard more as an institutional juggernaut than as a place where they could potentially find a place. Attendance of GSD students at the conference demonstrates a level of engagement that is the first step toward a more accessible and inclusive image of the Harvard Design School.

Recommend that the GSD fund at least 1-2 current minority MArch students to attend the annual NOMA conference each year, as representatives of the School 2::

Interfacing NOMA/S

A key institutional challenge within NOMA today is improving the interface between NOMA, the professional body, and NOMAS, its student counterpart. As graduate students, we are uniquely positioned to act as liaisons between these two components of the organization; as such, we can contribute significantly to strengthening the minority base within architecture, a crucial aspect of improving diversity within the profession.

Encourage GSD representatives to the NOMA conference to participate in the student design competition, using the forum as a springboard for constructive dialogue between students and professionals 3::

Leading Graduate Schools of Architecture

While many within the profession of architecture recognize the severity of the existing lack of diversity, top-tier schools of architecture are yet to develop a commensurate plan for improving underrepresented student enrollment. Relevant precedents can be found in Cambridge: MIT's bold initiative over recent decades to increase rates of black and Hispanic students spearheaded change within the engineering disciplines; similar efforts at Harvard Law School helped reorient law practices nationally. Strong support of GSD student involvement at annual NOMA conferences and beyond is consistent with expanding the global leadership of the School into that of transforming diversity within the profession of architecture, beginning at the graduate level.

Sponsor GSD students to lead a workshop, possibly annually, on "applying to graduate school"; this session could become the basis for increased cooperation between graduate students and undergraduates toward increased graduate representation

3