Thank you Paul Oles for sustaining our focus on the morality of the situation. Your new comments provide an interesting follow-up on the Bloomberg article shared by Traci Sooter the day before. There appears to be two opposing effects and outcomes. On one hand, fame and strong brand will protect perpetrators and their membership in the organization in order to maintain clients' marketing initiatives - thus, the organization's policy is self-serving and the organization becomes complicit in violations by its members. On the other hand, the message to victims is: Nothing will be done to expel predators from the organization, so speak up at your own risk - which in the long run may affect the number of members who would want to join or remain in the organization. To those offenders who have yet to be exposed, the message is: Not to worry - if there is no precedent to be set with Richard Meier, then everyone gets a free pass.
Always use our profession to do good for our planet and humanity
Advance access for all to adequate shelter and quality of life.
Pass on to the next generation our responsibility to do good for the world.
The above is intended as a starting point, to be further developed and refined. I share it with the hope that we will begin a dialog as soon as possible about what our profession can be and what we stand for.
I believe this may help to provide architects with a "moral compass" for the future.
Your comments would be appreciated.
Thank you, Edmond and Tom, for your proposals. An identical clause to the Termination of Honorary Fellows clause added to the By-Laws for all Fellows seems to be a relatively simple one-sentence section to amend the By-Laws and quickly agreed upon. After all, why should one segment of Fellows be treated unequally than another? Then it would be whether or not the Board - as Hubert inferred - has the vertebrate to uphold the AIA Code of Ethics.