“How far apart should those ceiling shackles be? What dimensions did you want for that waterboard? And of course, I think it all looks best in black.”
The relationship between architecture and ethics has always been a turbulent one, and debates over the moral responsibilities of our profession have reached fever pitch in recent times. Daniel Libeskind spoke out against architects “building gleaming towers for despots” in 2008, while Zaha Hadid was rounded upon in certain quarters for her stance — or lack thereof — on worker’s conditions at construction sites in Qatar earlier this year.
If those stories proved provocative, the author of that opening quote, architect Rafael Sperry, took things to whole new level of controversy with his combative piece on architects and torture, published by CNN last month. Sperry railed against the decision of the American Institute of Architects not to add specific clauses to its code of ethics that would prohibit the design of torture chambers in U.S. prisons and around the world.
For comparison, he cites the code of the American Medical Association, which states that physicians will not provide “any premises, instruments, substances, or knowledge to facilitate the practice of torture.” Failing to integrate this kind of language within a moral code for architects, Sperry argues, is “shocking, shameful and deeply troubling.”
Via The Center On National Security
This subject is complex in the extreme, a proverbial minefield when it comes to the decision-making process of individual professionals. Take the infamous detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, for instance: Should the architects involved in its design have refused the commission? Sperry would no doubt argue that they should have, but in reality, things are far from this clear-cut.
The International Committee of the Red Cross inspected the camp in June 2004, and a leaked report later that year accused the U.S. military of using “humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes and use of forced positions” that are “tantamount to torture.” On the other hand, the U.S. government sharply rejected its charges, with a White House official declaring that “the United States operates a safe, humane and professional detention operation at Guantanamo that is providing valuable information in the war on terrorism.” Who is to be believed?
Terre Haute Correctional Facility, Indiana. Via Cryptome
The design of the facility was based on the Lenawee County jail in Michigan, and another in Terre Haute, Indiana. Do the activities recorded by the Red Cross make the architects of these structures somehow guilty of collusion? Sperry raises a concern of his own when considering this possibility, stating that “architects cannot be held responsible for unintended uses of the spaces they design.” Indeed, there is surely no way that the architects of a high security camp can be certain of every action that will take place within its walls. Sperry’s demand for the AIA to enact a blanket prohibition therefore appears highly problematic.
Furthermore, Sperry extends his dissent to solitary confinement cells within “Supermax” prisons, lamenting the work of architects specifying remote-controlled doors, individualized cellular “recreation yards,” and solid cell fronts with special pass-through slots. He argues that the psychological effect of such environments also amounts to torture. But are spaces such as these actually illegal?
Via Business Insider
Once again, views diverge radically: The U.S. government insists that “there is no systematic use of solitary confinement”, and that these spaces are only utilized as a measure to protect the general prison population for the most dangerous and violent inmates. These assertions came in response to Amnesty International’s report earlier in 2014, declaring that prolonged solitary confinement amounts to cruel, inhumane treatment that induces symptoms such as depression, insomnia, hypertension, extreme paranoia, and psychosis.
Sperry is undoubtedly justified in sounding the alarm over such conditions, still prevalent in a country that positions itself as a flag-bearer for human rights globally. However, he is surely misguided in asserting that the AIA is really in a position to ban architects from participating in the design of these environments. It would be impossible for them to be able to effectively govern such a prohibition, given the continuing debate on the legal definition of torture, and the lack of clarity over the programmatic nature of each structure being commissioned.
Thomson Correctional Center, Illinois. Via Huffington Post
The question is, where should we draw the line when it comes to ethical dilemmas such as this? The AIA has clearly decided that the issue is so politically and morally sensitive that it should be left to each practicing individual to decide. Sperry, on the other hand, argues that as a professional body, the Institute has a responsibility to uphold a set of ethical standards — including specifics in relation to architecture where “enhanced interrogation techniques” or solitary confinement is programmed.
It is unfortunate that Sperry’s campaign suffers from mission overreach. Lumping the architecture of “Supermax” prisons together with that of detention camps such as Guantanamo weakens his argument: This broad brush approach, combined with the hyperbolic language used throughout his article, will inevitably lead some to dismiss Sperry’s words as left-wing hysteria.
However, it also brings a crucial subject to the spotlight. Provocation of others in the industry, sparking discussion and the airing of views on both sides, is something that I, for one, applaud. Ethics in architecture: where do you stand?
Yours politically,
The Angry Architect