Photo by Paul Warchol.

As schools of architecture around the country continue to focus on how they can make architecture more diverse and equitable, Princeton University School of Architecture Dean Mónica Ponce de León is on a mission to rethink the nature of architectural licensure as it exists in the United States.

Following the dean's recent statement in support of radically rethinking licensure, Archinect recently connected with Ponce de León to discuss the significant barriers to access created by licensure as currently designed, her efforts to bring diversity to the faculty and student populations at Princeton School of Architecture, and how licensure might change moving forward.

In a statement responding to the most recent set of Black Lives Matter protests, you wrote that “the system of licensure that has defined the architecture profession needs to be eliminated or radically transformed.” Do you support efforts to include professional licensure as a part of receiving an M.Arch education or do you envision a more fundamental transformation? Should licensing be gotten rid of entirely?

We need to be honest. The profession is predominantly white and male. Only 2% of all architects are Black American. In 2008, that number was 1.5%. Let’s do the math, at that rate it will take 240 years for the profession to look like the rest of America. I, for one, cannot wait that long. If you focus on Black women, the picture is more dire. Black women comprise just under 0.3% of all architects. In 2008, that number was 0.2%. This is unacceptable.

I point to 2008 because back then, many of us thought everything was about to change. The prior year, Marshall Purnell had become the first Black American AIA president. MIT and Harvard both did conferences on race and architecture. The AIA did its first Diversity Plenary session. But as it turns out, 12 years later, little has changed.

Only 2% of all architects are Black American. In 2008, that number was 1.5%. Let’s do the math, at that rate it will take 240 years for the profession to look like the rest of America. I, for one, cannot wait that long.

I think it has been clear for a long time that we need radical change at all levels: who gets to study architecture, who gets to teach it, and who gets to practice it. Licensure determines who practices architecture.

I know that this is a sensitive subject. I am a licensed architect. I belong to that rare 1% of licensed architects who are Latinx. I am first to go to college in my family and my family was very proud of me when I became licensed. I worked hard to get my license and licensure has been empowering for me. Many think of licensure as the great equalizer. An example I hear often is that after graduation, Norma Merrick Sklarek applied to 19 firms and, facing discrimination, she got rejected by all of them. She ended up working for the City of New York department of Public Works for four years, took the exam, and passed it on the first try, becoming the first Black woman architect licensed in the state of New York. It was only then, that SOM hired her. That was 1955.

Today, we need to confront the reality that the face of the profession has hardly changed. It is predominately white, and predominantly male.

Licensure is empowering; but who does it empower? The numbers speak for themselves.

It is evident that we need a fundamental transformation.

Licensure is empowering; but who does it empower? The numbers speak for themselves.

What would an ideal transformation of the licensure system look like from your perspective? How do you envision instituting such a change both at Princeton and within the larger legal and regulatory frameworks of architectural production?

I believe that we need to eliminate practical training from the process of licensure. Practical training is an exclusionary tactic that serves nothing but to maintain the power structures within the discipline. Architecture should be more like the legal profession. After graduating from an accredited program, our students should take the ARE exam, and become licensed.

We are one of the few professions that requires both examination and experience. Think about this, in order to be a licensed architect: You need to graduate from an NAAB accredited institution. The process of NAAB accreditation is rigorous and thorough, and a whole industry revolves around it. You then need to have “practical training” working for a licensed architect. If everything goes well, that takes about three years. You also need to pass the six divisions of the ARE exam. You need to meet the additional requirements of your jurisdiction; and then, you can earn an NCARB certificate so that you can practice across borders.

Architecture should be more like the legal profession. After graduating from an accredited program, our students should take the ARE exam, and become licensed.

Do we really need so many checks and balances? Who does this benefit?

All of this seems particularly excessive when we take into account how highly regulated the process of building is. Consider this: Architects are required to work with licensed engineers in various specialties. Building codes control every aspect of a building. Construction documents go through an extensive review for permit, and regular site inspections ensure the building is constructed according to codes and regulations.