NAAB’s Proposed Accreditation Changes Face Opposition from AIANY and NYCOBA-NOMA

**The Pushback Against NAAB’s 2020 Accreditation Revisions: Shaping the Future of Architectural Education**

The architecture and design community is abuzz with discussions surrounding the recent revisions to the *National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB)* 2020 Conditions for Accreditation. These changes have sparked significant debate. Groups like the *American Institute of Architects New York (AIANY)* and *NOMA’s New York Chapter (nycoba|NOMA)* have voiced concern about certain key aspects.

At the heart of the matter lies a question of balance. How can the architecture profession adapt its educational standards while preserving its crucial commitment to equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI)?

Understanding the NAAB 2020 Conditions for Accreditation

The NAAB serves as the foremost accrediting body for architecture programs in the United States, ensuring academic institutions meet the necessary standards to prepare students for licensure. In 2020, the board introduced a sweeping update to their *Conditions for Accreditation*, aiming to streamline requirements while focusing more explicitly on student learning outcomes.

What Changed in 2020?

The most striking changes in the 2020 Conditions include the reduction of exhaustive, checklist-style criteria and a shift toward competency-based outcomes. By focusing on outcomes, the NAAB intends to grant institutions greater flexibility in shaping their curricula.

However, this streamlined approach has drawn scrutiny, particularly from organizations concerned that critical topics like EDI could be inadvertently marginalized.

• The *“Student Learning Criteria”* replaced prescriptive content requirements, emphasizing what students must learn rather than specifying how programs deliver it.
• Fewer conditions are required, but they demand more robust evidence of competency.
• The concept of flexibility has become a cornerstone of NAAB’s framework, offering educators broader latitude in shaping coursework.

Although designed to encourage innovation and adaptability within architecture programs, these changes raise significant questions about how institutions will address long-standing issues within architectural education—especially with respect to inclusion and equity.

Key Concerns Raised by AIANY and nycoba|NOMA

Among those who have responded critically to the NAAB’s revised framework are groups like the *American Institute of Architects New York (AIANY)* and the *New York Chapter of NOMA (nycoba|NOMA)*. Both organizations have highlighted potential risks to diversity and inclusion under the new accreditation guidelines, which they argue may lack the necessary specificity to hold programs accountable in these areas.

Dilution of EDI Initiatives

The AIANY and nycoba|NOMA have voiced concerns that the updated accreditation conditions could lead to an erosion of the progress made in infusing equity, diversity, and inclusion into architectural education and practice. The loosening of prescriptive guidelines may allow institutions to sideline or minimize EDI commitments in the interest of meeting broader competencies.

The question is particularly pertinent given architecture’s long-standing diversity challenges: the profession remains disproportionately white and male, with barriers to entry and retention still disproportionately affecting underrepresented groups. By removing explicit obligations around EDI, the NAAB risks undoing hard-won progress.

Unintended Consequences of Flexibility

While flexibility in academic curricula offers some potential advantages, it also carries risks. Without clear, measurable frameworks tied to inclusivity and diversity, colleges and universities may interpret the flexibility as a reason to de-prioritize or bypass EDI initiatives altogether.

• Lack of accountability: Programs may omit explicit anti-racism or gender equity training unless explicitly required under accreditation criteria.
• Uneven application: Schools with strong existing commitments to EDI may thrive, but others might regress or ignore specific efforts to address systemic inequity.
• Competency challenges: Some institutions may struggle to prove student competency in areas of cultural sensitivity or historical inequities when less detailed evaluation frameworks are applied.

The Broader Implications for the Architectural Profession

The NAAB’s revisions are not just about academic accreditation; they also directly impact the future of the architectural workforce. By influencing how students are prepared for licensure and practice, the NAAB plays a vital role in shaping the skills and values of the profession as a whole. This makes debates around equity and inclusion even more consequential.

Bridging the Gap Between Academia and Practice

Both academia and the professional world have recognized the urgency of addressing exclusionary practices within architecture. However, when structures like accreditation frameworks fail to enforce these cultural shifts, the burden often falls on individual firms or practitioners to fill the gaps—an inefficient and inconsistent outcome.

By having clearer EDI-focused standards in education, architectural graduates would enter the workforce better equipped to embrace inclusive practices. The concerns raised highlight a broader challenge: ensuring systemic change within architecture requires consistency across education, licensure, and practice.

The Power of Advocacy in Shaping Standards

The pushback from AIANY and nycoba|NOMA demonstrates the importance of advocacy in guiding the architectural industry forward. These organizations are pushing for enhanced accountability measures within the accreditation framework to ensure no student graduates without a firm grasp of these critical issues.

Advocacy also helps amplify voices from underrepresented groups—something the architectural profession desperately needs as it works to build a more inclusive future. With strong leadership and collaboration between advocacy groups, industry leaders, and schools, the NAAB may yet revise its framework to reflect the shared values of the profession as a whole.

Looking Ahead: Fostering Equity Through Education

The debate around the NAAB 2020 Conditions is far from over, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Accreditation bodies must remain flexible to accommodate nuanced educational needs. They must also remain firm in their commitment to tackling systemic inequities within the profession.

Moving forward, institutions, professionals, and advocacy groups must continue to address these concerns proactively.

Whether by proposing actionable amendments, demanding public accountability, or fostering dialogue between stakeholders, opportunities exist to refine the accreditation process for the better.

For more detailed insights into this ongoing discussion and how organizations are responding, visit *this resource*.

*As educators, architects, and professionals, we share a responsibility: to shape an architectural education system that uplifts everyone, while ensuring future generations inherit a profession committed to excellence and inclusivity.*

Together, we can achieve that vision.