It was exactly a year ago that Price Tags published an article about all male panels and why diversity matters. That post was regarding a shameful display at the 2017 Canadian Urbanism Conference where three well-known caucasian older planning males participated in an all male panel. CanU organizers “breathlessly labelled the session a conference “favourite”, with tweets from the three male manel saying how great they were together.
Kudos to former City Planner and now Toronto Mayoral candidate Jennifer Keesmaat who was the only person who called it out for what it was, noting the lack of diversity “shameful” and a display of “professional incompetence”. Lesson learned, and the Council of Canadian Urbanism promised to work harder on diversity.
Fast forward one year and we’ve pretty much experienced the same situation with the Urbanarium’s event bringing together planners from Vancouver, Seattle, Portland and San Francisco on September 20. The Urbanarium says a smart city requires an engaged and informed citizenry, and that is what they are doing. So it was a surprise when the Urbanarium’s line up went one better than the faux pas of Canadian Urbanism by having not three, but FOUR males all of a certain vintage and background sharing the stage to spill on-seriously-diversity, affordability and equity in cities.
Stephen Lewis the former U.N. ambassador famously refused to sit on all male panels, and insisted that the way to advance diversity and equity was to ensure that conference panels champion women and diverse voices.It is not enough for panel organizers to say that these were the people in the positions, and that they were male. There are lots of women in those cities at that comparable level too,and they should have been included. And Stephen Lewis pointed out that it is also the panelist’s responsibility to ensure that they are not on all male panels, and if they are, to insist on diversity. That is, after all, what city planning and engagement is all about. The fact that these four gentlemen would still agree to sit on a stage together on an all dude panel also speaks to a disappointing tone of sensitivity for the inclusion of professional women, let alone diversity.
This should not even be a point of discussion for any event in architecture, design or planning. There are more than fifty per cent women graduating from planning schools, but we are not seeing those voices promoted at planning events. As one of my very well-known European planning colleagues noted, most of the time men in the profession do the talking while women do the doing. But we need to change that. Our cities are talked about by men and largely designed by men, and that is not representative of who we actually are in the city. The only way to make that change is to recognize the importance of inclusion of women’s voices at every level of planning and at every level of discussion.
It is not good enough to say that we will do a better job. We need to ensure that there is balance and parity now. As author Jay Pitter states: “Effective diversity isn’t just about representation but about ensuring various perspectives have the power they need. This needs to be a basic standard.”
It’s not about doing better. It’s about doing the right thing for the future of planning and our communities. That means including women at every event and every panel.
Is this really the correct target? Urbanarium was able to land the heads of planning for Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco for this event (yes, one is a deputy but I’m sure you wouldn’t have approved of his boss’ attendance either). Now I understand that you’re attempting to make a larger point, the event you’re reacting to was called “Planning West Coast Cities”. Who should have been added to this panel, and/or who should have been replaced?
deleted as per editorial policy
Is the purpose of these panels to present a photo-ready human smorgasbord, or to present ideas from prominent experts who have achieved a degree of success in their field over years of experience?
What is the percentage of women who are highly-ranked professionals with decades of experience in a historically male-dominated profession?
The answers to those two questions might determine whether you think it is “shameful” to have four men speak to an audience.
Indeed many biological differences are overlooked. Only women can have babies, not men.
As such, on average, assuming a similar level of education, it is normal that fewer women chose to advance into higher ranked positions in both private firms or public institutions, even if the university graduates are roughly 50/50.
If an average male planner / architect / engineer at age 35 to 38 has 10 to 13 years work experience vs an “average” female co-worker who has 1-2 babies and takes 1-2 years off then that same female individual, all things being the same, has only 8-11 year work experience and as such, on average, has a somewhat lower salary (10-15%?) and a somewhat less advanced career.
Many women also chose to not work full time in the 40s as they realize that teenage kids at home need someone home, or chose not to engage in the often unhealthy 50+ work weeks that more male than females tend to dwell on.
These realities are often overlooked in the gender / equality / all white male panel discussions.
Happy to see more women on these panels, of course, but on average they are not as experienced. You prefer a person to be chose based on gender in a field of similar experts ? Isn’t that the very opposite of equality ?
I agree that this definitely needs to change – I enjoyed the event as there was great content and it was terrific to see these cities come together for such needed discussions – but such a narrow demographic on stage. And a similar moderator? And they had the panelists also act as respondents? And then went to Q/A from people standing at mics? Could have been much more innovatively designed, and could have had much more diverse voices. Why didn’t they use a respondent panel made of diverse voices and perspectives? Why didn’t they use Pigeonhole for crowdsourcing the best questions? Why did they regress on this from first session which focused on diversity and parks strategy and equity and had diverse voices? Yes let’s do better!
Personally, I’m not interested in making either these gentlemen, their respective cities nor the Urbanarium feel like dog poop. More dialogue and learning from each other is a good thing. To that end, I’d like to see more reporting on the actual content of what was actually said.
Further, the COV has a strong tradition of women in senior positions, both in the manager’s office and planning & development. Many are still there in the latter, for sure. Gil is notably equitable in promoting and nurturing qualified people, as I witnessed first hand. Nothing to be ashamed of locally.
Last, the COV just may elect our first-ever woman Mayor. I’m considering voting for Shauna and I urge others to look closely at her platform, too.
Sandy, I’m glad you wrote this. Many have been saying it privately, and it is good to bring out into the open.
The goal is to have the best possible panel. The way to get that panel is, for any all-male panel, to write a short “look at what they missed” account.
Who’s going to be the keeper of this project? I have some experiences to tell her about.
I think this panel speaks more to a broader regional issue, and less so on the Urbanarium (although surely SOMEONE must have felt a pang of angst as this was being organized). The fact is, the entire PNW region’s metropolitan planning is being led by white males, at least as figureheads, who may be very qualified for their jobs but they certainly do not represent the region’s diversity. Sure, one layer down in the ranks there might be lots of diversity, but that diversity wasn’t given the stage as a platform.
Vancouver’s planning policies have worked out very well for people who look like these men.
Hypocritical comments on here from a person who once made a joke about “one gender being better than the other” (men > women) at a client meeting and that the company was starting to have too many women and he didn’t like it.
Talking the talk is not the same as walking the walk. Creating safe spaces in in the planning industry starts at the office.
Yes, the event was focused on planning stories from the Pacific West Coast.
But, something in Sandy James’ article is very useful as a critical / epistemological tool – that is the question, “What would Planning miss by being Post-Gender and Post-Race?”