Is Richard Gage breaching the AIA Code of Ethics & Bylaws?

[ozeco41]

Carlitos and Ozeco have excellent, compelling points....

Thankyou.

...And I believe free speech deserves enormous respect while the content of individuals exercising their right of free speech can be reprehensible. If you asked me if neo-Nazis should be allowed to deny the Holocaust I would throw up and say yes. I would add that doctors who practice psychic healing and coffee enemas instead of delivering medically sound cancer treatments deserve to have their licenses revoked....

The issue is not Gage's freedom to say what he wants BUT whether he is restricted by obligation to comply with the ethical code which flows from his own personal choice, voluntarily taken, to subscribe to membership of the AIA. So that analogy is not valid. For the analogy to hold it would require that there be a professional association of "neo-nazis" with a Code of Ethics which prohibits members from denying the holocaust. AFAIK there is no such body.

...I've made my arguments in favor of letting Gage say whatever he wants and have it be very easy for anyone to google their way to a slew of rebuttals of all kinds. I think in the long run this is what will work: someone hears his lecture, says OMG, looks it up on google and sees tons of YouTubes and debunker sites and thinks, well I think I'll direct my political energies elsewhere. But if someone manages to have his AIA membership stripped away, that will not stop him from lecturing. All it will accomplish will be to make him look like a martyr. The narrative will be, I stood up for the Truth and I got oppressed and censored. And because people don't go to Gage's lectures for advice on architecture,...

All points understood as your opinion - most of them I agree with.

... I don't see that AIA has cause to dump his membership anyway.

That is my reading of the code as linked/quoted here - it is quite soft. That was why I posted the IE(Aust) version in my previous post - it is more explicit. In R Gage's case even if there was cause for AIA disciplinary action the first step would likely be a caution or lesser reprimand.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If you asked me if neo-Nazis should be allowed to deny the Holocaust I would throw up and say yes.

That's sig-worthy material.

Dave

 

[Scott Sommers]

If you asked me if neo-Nazis should be allowed to deny the Holocaust I would throw up and say yes.

Once again, this is great but not relevant to our point. Should a public school teacher be allowed to teach Holocaust denial or creation science in their classroom? Even as an alternative? It's clear what teachers, parents, and governments think about this. To advocate that teachers in a public school should be able to teach anything they want is anarchy. And it appears to me you are consistently advocating anarchy as a philosophy for regulating professional conduct.

 

[ozeco41]

Once again, this is great but not relevant to our point. Should a public school teacher be allowed to teach Holocaust denial or creation science in their classroom? Even as an alternative? It's clear what teachers, parents, and governments think about this. To advocate that teachers in a public school should be able to teach anything they want is anarchy. And it appears to me you are consistently advocating anarchy as a philosophy for regulating professional conduct.

I think I was more tactful in saying the same thing...

Then my version may have been too subtle.

The big distinction is between the private right to free speech versus EITHER the obligation accepted by a professional under a code of ethics OR the constraints imposed by a contract of employment.

 

[Orphia Nay]

A great discussion going on here.

Lots of good points being made on both sides of the debate.

Here's one for the mix: I think it's overdramatising to say that Gage would be a martyr if he lost his AIA membership.

He's still registered as an architect in California, right?

 

[Scott Sommers]

A great discussion going on here.

Lots of good points being made on both sides of the debate.

Here's one for the mix: I think it's overdramatising to say that Gage would be a martyr if he lost his AIA membership.

He's still registered as an architect in California, right?

A martyr? A martyr for whom? Truthers barley even know who he is. I guess AJ could put Gage on his show and have him talk about his persecution. AJ's gang is pretty big and is composed of all kinds of people. Who knows

My experience with We Are Change is that once they loose the figurehead, they fall apart. 9/11 conspiracy is built up of little one-man kingdoms. It's a collection of disorganized, disturbed, easily confused people being lead around by the one with the most grandiose delusion. Knock out the strongman and they start eating each other. Making someone a martyr takes a sense of identity that 9/11 conspiracy simply does not have.

 

[carlitos]

Thanks chrismohr for the civil points (and the compliment).

Might we be seeing a devolution of 9/11 Truth into just a general sense of incredulity due to myriad root causes? This could be akin to the current crop of Holocaust deniers that post on the JREF - they don't even know the denialists' own material. Scott's "We are Change" truthers know nothing of nanutermites or Gage; they haven't read Faurisson; they don't cite Shyam Sunder... Maybe they just saw "Zeitgeist" or a youtube, and they don't think much about any organized movement.

All that said, Gage is perpetrating a fraud to the tune of ~$300k per year at least partially by including "AIA" every time his name appears in print. I think that's unethical.

 

[JayUtah]

If you asked me if neo-Nazis should be allowed to deny the Holocaust I would throw up and say yes.

I agree. Not with Holocaust denial, of course, but with the right for someone who espouses those beliefs to be able to publish them. The motivation behind the legal protection of free speech is the notion that the speech most likely in need of protection is that which others will find offensive or distasteful. There's no need to protect inoffensive speech.

The issue for me is not the message, but with the association of that message with a broader group that has demonstrated (collectively, and by the consensus of individual members) aversion to the speech. The association is implied only to lend credence to Gage's claims. That transcends free speech.

I've made my arguments in favor of letting Gage say whatever he wants and have it be very easy for anyone to google their way to a slew of rebuttals of all kinds.

That's generally the favorite approach: the best cure for bad speech is more speech. As long as we're talking about your right to say what you want to say, I don't disagree.

But if someone manages to have his AIA membership stripped away, that will not stop him from lecturing.

In my mind the goal isn't to stop him from lecturing. It's to stop him from borrowing the undeserved credibility of his fellow architects who don't agree with the message.

The narrative will be, I stood up for the Truth and I got oppressed and censored.

But that's his narrative now, isn't it? So are we risking much?

And because people don't go to Gage's lectures for advice on architecture, I don't see that AIA has cause to dump his membership anyway.

Here I disagree. People go to Gage's lectures because he's an architect and therefore presumed to know something about why buildings might fall down. (I'm an engineer, and I disagree with that presumption, but it's operating in Gage's audience and therefore relevant.) His profession is what he says differentiates him from other claimants and makes him more credible. His whole premise is the assertion that professionally trained people have reason to believe in a 9/11 conspiracy, that it's not universally the domain of uninformed crackpots. Toward that end he is borrowing the credibility of AIA members, few if any of which agree with him, in order to make his speech seem more credible. That is dishonest, and unfair to other AIA members.

I'm a member of the ACM (computer science). If one of my colleagues argued against the validity of finite-element methods in structural analysis, and placed ACM after his name when advertising his personal, for-profit lectures, then I would take issue. I would object to the use of the professional organization's reputation to support something that is provably, patently untrue. I don't abridge his right to say what he wants, but I abridge his intention to use my reputation to improve the credibility of his message.

I'm a member of the ASME (engineering). I would take issue if one of my colleagues, flying the Society's flag, made engineering claims that were patently against known principles. Again, it's not the message; it's the use of my name to sell it above and beyond its merits.

I'm a member of AIAA (aerospace). If one of my colleagues used the Institute's reputation to argue that the aircraft on 9/11 were doctored somehow, without proper evidence, I would naturally object. Not to the message, but to his co-option of my reputation as an Institute member to suggest that there is more to his story than speculation.

In each of these cases a listener might reasonably presume that the organizations represented in the speaker's list of credentials have some bearing on and endorsement of the speaker's claims. This is why credentials are offered and why the audience respects them. The listener might easily presume that some other AIA member might reach substantially the same conclusions as Gage, and therefore there might be something to them.

The right to free speech does not extend to the right to speak for others who have not elected you their spokesman. We band together as professionals for our mutual edification, education, and protection. We adopt codes of conduct and ethics to assure the public that those initials after our names mean something. We don't force all professionals to follow them, because membership in our organizations is voluntary. But if one seeks membership, the conditions of good standing require him to respect the desire of the organization to achieve and maintain a good reputation which then applies collectively. Necessarily when one member's actions clearly undermine that endeavor, we cut him off. Not to enjoin the action, but merely to sever the consequences of that action from the ongoing reputation of the group.

 

[MarkLindeman]

Here I disagree. People go to Gage's lectures because he's an architect and therefore presumed to know something about why buildings might fall down. (I'm an engineer, and I disagree with that presumption, but it's operating in Gage's audience and therefore relevant.) His profession is what he says differentiates him from other claimants and makes him more credible. His whole premise is the assertion that professionally trained people have reason to believe in a 9/11 conspiracy, that it's not universally the domain of uninformed crackpots. Toward that end he is borrowing the credibility of AIA members, few if any of which agree with him, in order to make his speech seem more credible. That is dishonest, and unfair to other AIA members....

The right to free speech does not extend to the right to speak for others who have not elected you their spokesman. We band together as professionals for our mutual edification, education, and protection. We adopt codes of conduct and ethics to assure the public that those initials after our names mean something. We don't force all professionals to follow them, because membership in our organizations is voluntary. But if one seeks membership, the conditions of good standing require him to respect the desire of the organization to achieve and maintain a good reputation which then applies collectively. Necessarily when one member's actions clearly undermine that endeavor, we cut him off. Not to enjoin the action, but merely to sever the consequences of that action from the ongoing reputation of the group.

I think this is all well argued (not just the part I quoted), although the conclusion may be too sweeping -- at least in this context. It's up to AIA and other professional associations to decide how stringently to enforce their codes in an attempt to protect their reputations and/or the public. In this case, I honestly don't think it is necessary, but I wouldn't presume to substitute my judgment for AIA members'. At any rate, I agree that this is by no means a free speech issue.

 

[R.Mackey]

I'm a member of AIAA (aerospace). If one of my colleagues used the Institute's reputation to argue that the aircraft on 9/11 were doctored somehow, without proper evidence, I would naturally object. Not to the message, but to his co-option of my reputation as an Institute member to suggest that there is more to his story than speculation.

It may help the discussion to note that the above has actually happened. You may recall Truther and AE911T member Dwain Deets, also a JREF member, who is frequently described in Truther communications calling attention to his status as an "AIAA Associate Fellow." He is one, of course, so there's no problem here. Even though his commentary (it gets thick starting at about post #235, and one of my summary points in the discussion is here) is quite inexplicable, even dismaying, coming from an aviation professional.

However, above and beyond this, Mr. Deets also published his bizarre beliefs about September 11th in the "Aerospace America" forum run by the AIAA. That posting no longer exists, though a facsimilie is archived at 911Blogger.

The reason it's no longer there is because I contacted the editor of Aerospace America and brought this to her attention. I have no problem with Mr. Deets referring to himself as an AIAA member, but I see no reason why the AIAA should allow him to post conspiracy-mongering nonsense on the Association's websites.

The editor actually resisted this. She wrote a rather hostile response, countering with the theory that Mr. Deets is a member, and he has his own First Amendment rights, thus while she may not agree with his posting, he has every right to post there.

I then reminded the editor that the First Amendment does not apply here -- while Mr. Deets indeed has the right of free speech, under no circumstances is anyone required to facilitate this speech on his behalf. The AIAA doesn't owe him space to write whatever madness pops into his head, any more than I owe him the favor of posting a sign on my front lawn.

Furthermore, as I noted, the Aerospace America forum lacks the standard disclaimer that posts are opinions of their posters only and do not reflect the positions of the AIAA. A rational reader might therefore reasonably conclude that AIAA did indeed support this viewpoint.

Minutes later, the post was taken down without further comment from the editor. I have not heard from her since.

---

With respect to Mr. Gage, I think he is being careful not to cross the line. He is a member of AIA, and unless they decide to throw him out for whatever reason he can certainly represent himself as such. Those in the know will not be impressed, of course, any more than I'm impressed with Mr. Deets in the AIAA. Mr. Gage was asked to remove the AIA logos from his presentations, which is also appropriate. Mr. Gage appears at AIA conferences once in a while, but he lurks in the vendor areas, between the beef jerky guy and a foundation-jacking concern perhaps, and so long as he pays his bill he has that right as well.

On the other hand, should Mr. Gage start claiming the AIA has reviewed and supports his work, were I an AIA member, I would ask the AIA to correct this problem -- and if they did not, I would work to replace their board members with more sane individuals. But this hasn't happened.

Why bother with Gage? He's helping our side, whether he knows it or not.

 

[chrismohr]

Ryan's very clear exposition is in exact alignment with what I've said. He said it better. Gage is parading his AIA title, but AIA is not letting him use their logo on his website. He doesn't post or publish in their house organs or blogs. He does not assert that his theories are sanctioned officially by AIA. Leaving the issue alone is not anarchy, it's just asserting that he really hasn't crossed the line where I would complain. Ryan DID complain about Dwain Deets and what he did (see the post above), and if I were Ryan I would have considered doing the same thing.

 

[chrismohr]

One more thought re Ryan Mackey's missive: in the case of Deets's posting on an AIAA forum, I would be much more inclined to ask the editors to put a standard disclaimer that opinions expressed here are those of the individuals and do not represent AIAA blah blah blah. As an editor interested in the free flow of ideas, I would take that approach wherever possible. However, I would also reserve the right to pull the whole thing down if it turned into a major derail/insultfest! That's what it MEANS to be an editor. As in "edit."

 

[Scott Sommers]

Ryan's post is interesting in that it shows even rocket scientists feel professional offense by the use of their professional identification by those who advocate gibberish. There is a significant difference between rocket scientists and doctors. If I call myself "Scott Sommers, rocket expert", this may be a lie, but there's nothing you can do about it except point out every time that I'm lying. If I call myself "Scott Sommers, architect", that's a different story. Gage wants the protection and status of being an architect but not the responsibility of promoting the body of knowledge that architects are bound to as a part of being able to use the title. I am not certain of the consequences, but my guess is that I can end up in jail with a criminal record for impersonating an architect.

My posts have always been advice for those who wish to pursue action against Gage and critique of the post that he is somehow defended by believe the existence of Freedom of Speech. Personally, I do not care how 'nice' he is a person and have repeated said I would trust him to babysit my daughter. I find his actions repulsive and that he seemingly does this because of a Christian belief is so offensive, I think something bad should happen to him. However, as Ryan has pointed out, he is his own worst enemy and is fundamentally "...helping our side, whether he knows it or not."

 

[Newtons Bit]

Architects are never engineers unless they are separately certified as such. And in fact, structural engineering requires a separate exam and license over and above professional engineering.

That depends on the State. Most states don't even have an SE license. Others, like mine, give an SE license, but it is not currently required for anything.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I am not certain of the consequences, but my guess is that I can end up in jail with a criminal record for impersonating an architect.

It may differ from State to State, but here it's perfectly legal to impersonate an architect for the purpose of "picking up chicks", as it were. It is only illegal to impersonate an architect if one is doing so for the purpose of gaining a financial reward or in a way that would place the public at risk, such as giving someone free professional advice when one is not a professional.

 

[Scott Sommers]

it's perfectly legal to impersonate an architect for the purpose of "picking up chicks"

Maybe this is the mind of a 50-year-old married guy speaking here, but I would have never thought of this. Could it work?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Maybe this is the mind of a 50-year-old married guy speaking here, but I would have never thought of this. Could it work?

I have no idea. But it was a gag in an episode of "How I Met Your Mother" and appeared to work in the show. Your results may vary.

 

[swright777]

I have no idea. But it was a gag in an episode of "How I Met Your Mother" and appeared to work in the show. Your results may vary.

George from "Seinfeld" tried this several times. Unsuccessfully, of course.

 

[Architect]

I agree with those who suggest that he's running a very fine line.

Let me therefore pose an interesting challenge.

I say that Mr. Gage's grasp of the architectural and technical issues around the collapse of WTC1 and 2 is incompetent; he has failed to present the material in a professional manner and falls far short of the standards we would expect of an architect.

If this were untrue, then Mr. Gage could report me to the RIBA for unprofessional conduct, and possible the ARB too (they have a slightly different, consumer-protection locus).

However, in my hearing I would be able to lead evidence that substantiates my claim. I am therefore willing to wager that Mr. Gage will not make a formal complaint, on the basis that the resulting egg on face and publicity will rather dent whatever reputation he believes he has.

Go ahead Gage, make my day. Make a complaint.

 

[JayUtah]

That depends on the State.

Indeed; it's hard to write one sentence that works for all. The point I was making earlier is that if one assumes that an architect is also automatically a highly skilled structural engineer, one may indeed err greatly. Architecture does not inevitably encompass that science. Frank Gehry, for example, works almost strictly in the artistic realm and relies upon an army of civil and structural engineers, using the CATIA integrated engineering software packages, to realize his designs. Other more pedestrian architects can rely upon formulaic structural systems such as the standard steel bays and avoid knowing intimately how structural systems work.

An architect may also understand structural systems well enough to speak authoritatively as a forensic structural engineer, but it doesn't arise naturally out of the typical credentials. I live in a state where structural engineering requires a separate license, and one's PE license or architect's license does not satisfy that.