The Committee on Architecture for Education (CAE) is a large and active group of architects and allied professionals concerned with the quality and design of all types of educational, cultural, and recreational facilities.
I've watched this space for a week now thinking that someone much more qualified would respond to Doug's post. It's been awfully quiet, so I'll venture into the void.
You speak of architecture as an outgrowth of American societal values, and I totally agree, it is. It is time for us to come to terms with what that really means in a society that has not valued people of color. Architects and planners have been the face (and hand) of all sorts of racists policies and initiatives, from the obliteration of Black communities in the name of "urban renewal" to the gentrification and redevelopment of Black neighborhoods to the proponents of CPTED and defensible space. Bryan Lee says it so much better than I in his recent article "How to Design Justice Into America's Cities".
While we architects are a service for hire, we are also morally bound to advocate for the benefit of the communities in which we practice-all of the communities in which we practice (see the AIA Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct ES1.5: "Members should employ their professional knowledge and skill to design buildings and spaces that will enhance and facilitate human dignity and the health, safety, and welfare of the individual and the public"). In the case of the police station in the article, it's the architect that decided how that building meets the street. Do I believe the architects had blatantly racist intents when they sketched it out? No, of course not. But if they're receiving feedback that people of color feel alienated by the design, and that it's reinforcing the negative perception of the NYPD, then that's a problem-a design problem, not an architect trying to fix society. It is one that we have the skills and power to solve. Our role is to help our clients make good decisions, and sometimes that means having hard conversations like this one. In terms of Brutalism, I appreciate a good Brutalist design aesthetically, but you can't design in that style today without bringing the baggage of how that style was used in the 70's in the US and how it was received, particularly by communities of color. You wouldn't design a Jewish center in a neoclassical style with eagles and swastikas. Architectural is always political, it always has layer of meaning. As a white woman I don't pretend to speak for communities of color, but I can say it's our job to shut up and listen to what they're trying to tell us and then respond in meaningful ways.
Next, I think there's significant evidence that your statement that our "profession could not be more inclusionary and open to people of diverse thought, education, background, understanding, worldview and culture, regardless of their outward appearance or sex" is not correct. Membership in the AIA is 91% white and 82% male, and I would venture that the leadership at most firms is even more white and male on the whole. You wrote, "it's hard to include people who aren't asking to get in." Maybe the real question is, knowing that "diversity enhances the collaborative/creative process, and the results are better" why aren't we asking more people to come join us? Why aren't we actively removing those barriers (see Equity by Design) that have made architecture the overwhelmingly white male profession that it is?
Finally, I'd encourage you to take another look as some of the references you cite. America's institutions are white. If you look at the leadership of any industry, ours included, you'll see that white faces vastly outnumber those of color, and the society resulting from those institutions maintains the racial and socio-economic imbalances. Now is precisely the time to start tearing down systems to make them more inclusive.