Modern and Post-modern Women in Landscape Architecture and the Barriers they have/had to overcome.

June 2007

Modern and Post-modern Women in Landscape Architecture and the Barriers they have/had to overcome.

A Senior Project/Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Landscape Architecture Program at the University of California, Davis in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Bachelors of Science of Landscape Architecture.

Accepted and Approved by:

Faculty Committee Member, Heath Schenker

Faculty Committee Member, Elizabeth Boults

Committee Member, Cathy Sim

Committee Member, Gloria Bakerian

Faculty Senior Project Advisor, Mark Francis

By Julia Riggins June 2007 Abstract

The profession of landscape architecture is expected to experience expanded growth in the future while at the same time student enrollment in landscape architecture programs is thought to be declining. This dilemma could lead to a decline in services and growth due to a lack of qualified landscape architects available to meet demands. This study’s research objectives include providing baseline information regarding current and past female landscape architecture barriers and to describe influential factors and reasons associated with these obstacles. This study will present and describe the findings from the research analysis and outline suggestions for students, landscape architecture programs, and the landscape architecture profession. This study is important and timely because it provides needed baseline information about landscape architecture women that can be used by landscape architecture departments and professionals in their strategies to increase female involvement.

“I feel there is something unexplored about women that only a woman can explore.” ‐Georgia O’Keefe

Biographical Sketch

“We must be the change we want to see in the world.” ‐ Mahatma Gandhi

Julia Riggins was born in Lübeck, Germany in 1981. She always enjoyed plants and gardening since she was a young girl. Her early education was taught in the European school‐system until she moved to America in September of 1996. She graduated from Novato High School, (Novato, Ca), in June 2000 after getting married that April. The following year she started her higher education at Solano Community College with a few selected classes at Napa Valley College and College of Marin. In

March 2003, she gave birth to her daughter Angelina Rose. She transferred to the University of California, Davis in September 2004 after she was accepted into the landscape architecture program. She is an active ASLA Student Chapter member and has participated in notable activities such as LaBash 2007 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and is involved with the ASLA Northern Chapter. She is planning to be a leader in positioning landscape architecture as the critical environmental planning and design profession of the future ‐ a profession that can solve pressing environmental problems, protect natural and cultural heritage, and create a better world for the future. She wants to assure that landscape architects are on equal footing (licensure, job classifications, pay, etc.) with other professions. In addition, she wants to encourage bright young minds to seek to become landscape architects and to create yet‐unimagined landscapes to meet future needs. Finally, she plans to promote a profession whose diversity more closely reflects the public who use the landscapes we create.

ii Dedication I dedicate this research to all the women on this planet. Thanks to all of those who laid the steppingstone for my generation—may we not fail to pass it on to our children. May this research provide the knowledge and strength to women who face barriers in their profession and life. Lisa M. Severino, teacher of Women's Studies at Wittenberg University in Springfield, Ohio published ‘WHAT IS FEMINISM?’ I believe feminism is HOPE. It is a belief that we can change. It is a dream of equality, of love, of community. Feminism is a respect – a respect of women, a respect of humanity, a respect of life. Feminism is the life force of the universe – the blue print for procreation. Feminism is a culture – a renewed society. A united society. Feminism is healthy. Feminism is breaking the silence and stopping the violence. Feminism is a reality. It is our past, our present, and our future. Feminism is Earth. It is abstract and concrete all at once. Feminism is beautiful, yet not limited to any standards of beauty. Feminism is self-awareness, self-confidence, self-respect, and self-protection. Feminism is about the self. Feminism is responsibility. Feminism is consciousness, yet must be taught to the unconscious. Feminism is the mind, the body, the soul. Feminism is POWER. Feminism has no sense of color. Feminism has no gender. Feminism has no age.

Feminism is hope…

Frida Kahlo, Roots

"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men and women are created equal." ‐Declaration of Sentiments, Seneca Falls Convention

iii Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all the people that provided direction, support, and encouragement throughout this process and its related procedures. In particular, I would like to express my true gratitude to the following people: My family for providing support and encouragement in my choice to become a landscape architect:

My dad, for giving me all the technical support and more.

My mom for being by my side during late nights.

iv My husband for trying to understand and support me.

And my beautiful daughter who made me strong and gave me the courage to finish with college. Because she is in my life I considered the topic for this research.

v

In addition, personal expressions of gratitude go to my sister and best friend Gloria for all her emotional, skilled and educational help as well as her thought‐provoking, encouraging input.

Although this thesis is primarily the work of one individual, it would have not been possible without the guidance and support of the members of my committee, Heath Schenker, Elizabeth Boults, Catherine Sim, and Gloria Bakerian. Many thanks for your timely reviews and helpful comments.

It would be impossible to consider this thesis complete without thanking Catherine Sim for her expertise in English grammar and punctuation.

Professor Heath Schenker for providing excellent guidance, advice, and mentorship.

Elizabeth Boults for taking extra time to go over things with me.

Mark Francis for his patience, information, and help.

To all the professors and students of the UC Davis Landscape Architecture Program that helped and supported me in this study.

vi Finally, I must thank a particular colleague who has been instrumental in the completion of this thesis and the landscape architecture program.

For support at all levels, I would fail if I did not acknowledge the help of a great friend, Veronica Breien.

THANK YOU!

vii Table of Contents

Title Page

Abstract

Bibliographical Sketch ii

Dedication iii

Acknowledgements iv‐vii

Table of Contents viii‐x

List of Illustrations, Photographs, Tables xi‐xii

Preface (Importance or Significance of Study) xiii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Problem Statement 1 Objectives 3

Chapter 2: What is landscape architecture? 4 The Roots of the Landscape Architecture Profession 4

Chapter 3: What are landscape architects? What do they do? 11 Different Practices in the Profession 13 Timeline of landscape architecture 17

viii Chapter 4: Women’s history in landscape architecture 21 The Culture of Horticulture and Gardening 21

Chapter 5: Women in the field of landscape architecture & some biographies 27 UC Davis Landscape Architecture women faculty 27 Other great Landscape Architecture women 31

Chapter 6: Personal barriers 50

Chapter 7: Cultural barriers 58 Women of different ethnicities 63 Profiles of UC First‐Time Freshman Applicants, Admits and Enrollments: Information Source and Data Definitions 74 Campus Trends 1995‐2002: Davis 76

Chapter 8: Educational barriers 79 Tenure 88 Chapter 9: Economical barriers 96

Chapter 10: Political barriers 105

Chapter 11: Resources 110

ix Chapter 12: Conclusion 118 What must be done: A Blueprint for Action 121

Bibliography 123 Web‐site Resources 129

Appendixes 131 A: Accredited Undergrad. Programs in Landscape Architecture 131

x List of Illustrations, Photographs, Tables

TABLE 1 Population, Income, Education, and UC Eligibility by Ethnicity 70 TABLE 2 Underrepresented Minorities as a percentage of new UC Ca Resident Freshmen and CA Public High School Graduates 1980, 1985, 1990 and 1995 71 TABLE 3 Measures of Access for Admitted students at the Six Selective Campuses from 2001-2003 75 TABLE 4 Number of Applications, Admits and Enrollment For ELC and Non-ELC California Residents by campus and Ethnicity 78 TABLE 5 Employment comparison compared to education levels 82 TABLE 6 University of California and Public Salary Comparison Institutions – Student Fee 85 TABLE 7 Percentage of Women in Faculty Positions, by Sector, 2005-06 89 TABLE 8 UC Tenure vs. Non-Tenure University-wide and at UC Davis 93 TABLE 9 Gender Perspectives 97 TABLE 10 Women’s average Salary as a Percentage of Men’s 104

ILLUSTRATIONS

Capability Brown’s proposal plan for Petworth, 1752, West Sussex Record Office, PHA 5177 (photo: Beaver Photography; reproduced by permission of Lord Egremont) 5 Humphry Repton’s watercolor view of the Rosarium and fountain at Ashridge, Hertfordshire, from Fragments on the Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening (London,1816) 6 Frederick Law Olmsted (1822–1903) 7 New forms of designed landscapes 7 Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. 9 Park (Tree-lined path) 9 Landscape (Terrain) 10 Bench in landscaped location 12 Timetable (Sources noted by text) 17-20 Detail from William Woollett’s engraving of Carlton House Gardens, 1760, showing the exhedral flower garden with gardeners at work in the foreground (photo: courtesy of John Harris) 22 Women working in the garden. 25

xi

Jennifer Chandler 27 Patsy Owens 28 Heath Schenker 28 Getrude Jekyll (portrait) 31 Getrude Jekyll (picture) 31 Beatrix Jones Ferrand (portrait) 32 Perennial Garden by Beatrix Jones Ferrand 32 Beatrix Jones Ferrand (posing) 33 Elizabeth Lord and Edith Schryver 34 Marian Cruger Coffin 35 Original Landscape Plan, Marian Cruger Coffin 35 Clermont Huger Lee (portrait) 36 Garden Design by Clermont Huger Lee 36 Carol R. Johnson (portrait) 38 Cheryl Love 42 Topher Delaney 45 Andrea Cochran 46 Mother with Child 50 Hand in hand 53 “Ethnicity flag” 63 Ethnicity & Culture 64 Underrepresented Minority Applicants, Admissions and freshmen Enrollment 72 Ethnicity – All Students 73 Total Enrollment vs. Male Enrollment vs. Female Enrollment 80 Grad Hat 83 Graduation Students in Maroon 95 Money Stack 98 Woman wrapped in money 100 Ocean-front Landscape 123

xii Preface (Importance or Significance of Study)

It is not an easy task going to college while being a mother. In addition, being a woman, I’m interested in recognizing my female colleagues and the barriers they had or still have to overcome. I want to make women and men aware of the ‘Barriers for Women in the Profession’ and to promote the status of women in the State of California. I think that a system needs to be set up for monitoring grievance information by gender and to coordinate these activities. This also should enhance the interface with schools to assist the administration, faculty, and students with gender issues and to promote a speaker’s bureau on the issues. I want to complete and conduct a survey relating to the status and/or experience of women in landscape architecture companies. Next, I plan on examining the results. With the findings I want to encourage and assist women to seek appointment to the offices in local and statewide professional organizations. Finally, Landscape architecture as a practice just stepped up into a favorable profession. I want to eliminate gaps in wages and improve the representation of women in the field.

xiii Chapter 1 Introduction Problem Statement

Women have encountered many struggles as they have tried to succeed in a

workplace that fails to acknowledge society’s demands on their time as wives,

mothers, and daughters of aging parents. ‘Women landscape architects, like many

women artists, were frequently initiated into their careers through the intervention

of male relatives. Elizabeth Bullard of Bridgeport, Connecticut, learned her art while

assisting her father. Financial circumstances forced her to carry on her father’s work

after his death. But unlike women painters or writers who could quietly conduct

their work in the secluded space of a studio, the intrinsic nature of architecture and

landscape architecture demands public exposure both in the working process and in

the final product. The woman’s work was exposed to a greater scrutiny (Doumato

1988).’

‘The early 20th century saw the rise of women in the profession. Landscape architect Beatrix Farrand, best known for designing the Dumbarton Oaks gardens in

Washington, D.C., was one of the founders of the American Society of Landscape

Architects. Ellen Biddle Shipman was a champion of women landscape architects

and was known for her grand estate designs and lavish gardens. Florence Yoch

designed early film sets, including the landscape around Tara for ‘Gone with the

1 Wind’. Today, women constitute more than a quarter of the profession of landscape

architecture (http://www.laprofession.org).’

The primary motivation for assembling this information is to encourage

research on the history of women in landscape architecture. The intention is not to

assert in any way women’s superiority to their male colleagues. Rather, this paper is

conceived from the positive standpoint that women have made a vital contribution

to the field and that their efforts are worthy of recognition. Most architects and

landscape architects agree that ‘whether men or women designers’, they use skills

and knowledge important to the project. While women have made great strides, they still face challenges in their everyday work environment. One of the biggest challenges women face is achieving equal opportunities and overcoming roadblocks such as the “boys club” or the glass ceiling in terms of salaries and promotions.

Additionally, women are often faced with exclusion from informal business networks and suffer from gender‐based stereotypes and a lack of role models.

Despite these issues, women are climbing their way to the top of the landscape architecture profession one step at a time.

The number of women in the field of landscape architecture has grown immensely over the last few decades. They have become more active in

organizations such as American Society Landscape Architecture (ASLA), featured in

magazines and television shows, and have received great awards for their designs.

Female students have increasingly more women faculty role models and women

2 classmates. Advancements in the academic field have allowed female students to get

a strong start in their education and their work place by allowing them to adopt a

life style without interruptions. Day care is used on a frequent basis. In addition, the

view of the woman today has changed ‐ she’s no longer just a caretaker; men are

involve in child rearing.

Objectives

The goal of this research is to identify barriers that affect the career decisions of women in the field of landscape architecture. This study explores the differences

and barriers among women working in landscape architecture full‐time, part‐time, as students or faculty, and also women educated in landscape architecture but not practicing in the discipline.

To this day, women face barriers in their development as landscape architects as well as in many other fields. Surveys show a lower income for women compared to men. Some women have experienced some form of discrimination in the work

place and others felt left out of the chance for advancement and responsibilities that

promote management skill.

Career compromises, such as commitment to marriage or child‐raising, often

affect a woman’s situation. Their family obligations therefore affect their choice of job location, work schedule, and types of work. Some decide to limit their practice to

a part‐time schedule, continue after a break, or not practice at all. As a result, many women have found a balance between home life and work life.

3 Chapter 2 What is landscape architecture?

In the course of its relatively young history, this nation has changed the face of a vast continent. Far too much development has created a formless and grotesque travesty that has changed forever the splendors of much of the pre‐settlement landscape. Yet an ethic for shaping our land has also emerged, and we can claim a remarkable array of outdoor spaces that enrich the human spirit and add immeasurably to our quality of life. This ethic has become an integral part of our countryʹs landscape architectural heritage. William H. Tishler, FASLA

The Roots of the Landscape Architecture Profession

Landscape architecture, as it is known today, finds its origin in the early

treatment of outdoor space by successive ancient cultures, from Persia and Egypt through Greece and Rome. During the Middle Ages, interest in outdoor spaces had begun to diminish. However, a revival during the Renaissance Period produced

splendid results in Italy and gave rise to ornate villas, gardens, and great outdoor

piazzas (http://www.landscapearchitects.org).

These patterns greatly influenced the chateaux and urban gardens of seventeenth‐century France, where landscape architecture and design reached new heights of elegance and formality. The designers became well‐known. Among the

most famous of the early forerunners of todayʹs landscape architects was André le

Nôtre, who designed the gardens at Versailles and Vaux‐le‐Vicomte

(http://www.landscapearchitects.org).

During the eighteenth century, most English “landscape gardeners” rejected

the geometric emphasis of the French, preferring an imitation of the forms of nature.

4 Among them was Lancelot ʺCapabilityʺ Brown, who remodeled the grounds of

Blenheim Palace (http://www.landscapearchitects.org).

Capability Brown’s proposal plan for Petworth, 1752, West Sussex Record Office, PHA 5177 (photo: Beaver Photography; reproduced by permission of Lord Egremont)

Sir Humphrey Repton was an exception to this type of gardening. He

reintroduced formal structure into landscape design with the creation of the first great public parks: Victoria Park in London (1845) and Birkenhead Park in Liverpool

(1847). These two parks were one important step that would greatly influence the

development of landscape architecture in the United States as well as in Canada

(http://www.landscapearchitects.org).

5

Humphry Repton’s watercolor view of the Rosarium and fountain at Ashridge, Hertfordshire, from Fragments on the Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening (London,1816)

The beginning of the twentieth century brought exciting new challenges and opportunities to what was still an emerging profession. Two major achievements launched the profession into this era. In 1899 the American Society of Landscape

Architects (ASLA) was founded. The following year formal instruction began at

Harvard.

Inspired by new ideals and growing social concerns, early landscape

designers combined agricultural methods, civil engineering techniques and artistic

principles to shape the surrounding terrains. Their work reflected a mission for

beauty and function combined with responsible design

(http://library.nevada.edu/arch).

6

Frederick Law Olmsted has become the acknowledged father of American

Frederick Law Olmsted (1822–1903) was the founder of American landscape architecture. landscape architecture and it was his vision that established the lofty ideals that will forever guide the professionʹs underlying philosophy.

Olmstedʹs friend H. W. S. Cleveland was one of the earliest advocates for conserving large interconnected systems of open space and landscape amenities.

These two landscape architects and numerous others created a more established

profession with new forms of designed landscapes emerging on the American scene

(http://www.asla.org).

7 By the 1920s, architecture and landscape architecture diverged from urban planning as a separate profession with its own degree programs and organizations.

Landscape architecture continued to remain a major force in urban planning and urban design (http://www.landscapearchitects.org).

During and after the Depression, the landscape architecture profession broadened the profession with opportunities to design national and state parks, towns, parkways and new urban park systems. The American landscape architecture returned to its roots in public projects—a trend which has continued throughout the mid‐twentieth century to today

(http://www.landscapearchitects.org).

During the twentieth century, planning entire communities became an important practice area and the concept of historic preservation grew beyond the confines of architecture to include the landscape itself, becoming an important field of study for landscape architects. Recent specialties include the restoration of disturbed sites to their earlier natural character, and reclaiming quarries, strip‐ mined areas, and landfills for productive purposes. One of the most noteworthy advancements of landscape architecture in recent times has occurred in large‐scale landscape planning (http://library.nevada.edu/arch).

8 Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. is credited with the

language in the National Park Service Act. The act was

established ʺto conserve the scenery and the natural

and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to

provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner

and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations (http://www.rpts.tamu.edu).ʺ

The concept of master planning arose from the influence of landscape architects, and the National Park Service today is one of the most significant embodiments of landscape architectural principles in the federal establishment

(http://www.rpts.tamu.edu).

9 Today, the field of landscape architecture has matured and is expanding into

new and exciting horizons with many following the calling of the profession of

landscape architecture. According to the ASLA, in 1996, 54 colleges and universities

offered 70 undergraduate and graduate programs in landscape architecture that

were accredited by the Landscape Architecture Accreditation Board of the American

Society of Landscape Architects, forming an education system in this field unparalleled anywhere in the world. Innovative research is beginning to provide important new knowledge for the practitioner (asla.org). According to the American Society of

Landscape Architects (ASLA), there are approximately 4500 undergraduate students enrolled in the 46 accredited programs combined (asla.org). A list of these accredited

schools can be found in Appendix A.

In 1996, 45 states of the U.S. required landscape architects to be licensed or registered which is based on the Landscape Architect Registration Examination

(L.A.R.E.). The Examination is sponsored by the Council of Landscape Architectural

Registration Boards and takes about three days. Currently, 18 States require a State examination in addition to the L.A.R.E. to satisfy registration requirements. Usually,

depending on the state, a degree from an accredited school and one to four years of work experience is required to be allowed for admission to the exam (asla.org).

10 Chapter 3 What are landscape architects? What do they do?

Landscape architecture is the art and science of arranging land, structure, and plant materials to achieve safe, efficient, and pleasant space for human activity.

Landscape architects, along with horticulturists, planners, and engineers, design public parks and playgrounds, residential areas, urban centers, streetscapes, golf

courses, therapeutic gardens, parkways, industrial and commercial areas, zoos,

campuses, access to natural areas, and transportation corridors across the United

States. They develop storm‐water management plans, historical and cultural

resource surveys, security design strategies, and community visioning programs.

They work in firms large and small, for public agencies at the local, regional, state

and national level, and with non‐profits and in non‐traditional fields. They are designers, teachers, facilitators, authors, editors, managers, sales people, marketers,

artists. They work at many scales, from the small site (SW 12th Avenue Green Street

project, Portland, OR) to the largest watershed or conservation area (the 77‐million‐

acre Nowitna National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska) (http://www.planetizen.com).

11

At every scale, landscape architects consider the spirit of the site (genius loci) and what it can tell the observer. They regard its context in relation to what surrounds it, is over, under and through it. The designers estimate the potential impacts of use, and the consequences of a particular action. They collaborate as they

engage geologists, ecologists, hydrologists, architects, engineers, economists, soil

scientists, planners, archaeologists, and professionals from many fields. Landscape architects speak many languages. Their ability to understand and combine many

disciplines make landscape architects particularly well suited to design and development teams. This explains in part why landscape architecture is the fastest growing of all the design professions, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics

(http://www.planetizen.com).

12 Different Practices in the Profession

Landscape architecture in the 1990s cannot be described in a few simple

terms. The scope of the profession is too broad and the projects too varied. A variety

of often interconnected specializations exists within the profession, including the

following:

Landscape Design is considered the historical core of the profession. It is

concerned with detailed outdoor space design. This includes residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and public spaces. Designs involve the preparation of detailed construction plans and documents, the selection of construction and plant materials, infrastructure such as irrigation, the treatment of a site as art and the balance of hard and soft surfaces in outdoor and indoor spaces

(American Society of Landscape Architect: Pennsylvania/Delaware Chapter).

Site Planning focuses on the physical design and arrangement of built and natural elements of a land parcel. A project can involve designing the land for a single house, an office park or shopping center, or a complete residential

community, which all involve the orderly, efficient, aesthetic and ecologically

sensitive integration of man‐made objects with a siteʹs natural features including

topography, vegetation, drainage, water, wildlife and climate. Sensitive design

minimizes both environmental impacts and project costs, and adds value to a site

(American Society of Landscape Architect: Pennsylvania/Delaware Chapter).

13 Urban/Town Planning deals with designing and planning cities and towns. It

uses zoning techniques and regulations, master plans, conceptual plans, land‐use

studies and other methods to set the layout and organization of urban areas. This

field also involves ʺurban designʺ, which develops open, public spaces, such as

plazas and streetscapes (American Society of Landscape Architect:

Pennsylvania/Delaware Chapter).

Regional Landscape Planning merges landscape architecture with environmental planning. It has emerged as a major area of practice for many landscape architects with the rise of the publicʹs environmental awareness in the

past thirty years. In this field, landscape architects deal with the full spectrum of

planning and managing land and water, including natural resource surveys,

preparation of environmental impact statements, visual analysis, landscape

renovation and coastal zone management (asla.org‐American Society of Landscape

Architect: Pennsylvania/Delaware Chapter).

Park and Recreation Planning involves landscape architects who create or

redesigning parks and recreational areas in cities, suburban and rural areas, as well

as developing plans for huge natural areas as part of national park, forest, and

wildlife refuge systems (American Society of Landscape Architect:

Pennsylvania/Delaware Chapter).

Land Development Planning provides a bridge between policy planning and

individual development projects. It can be on large‐scale, multi‐acre parcels of

14 undeveloped land and smaller scale sites in urban, rural and historic areas.

Landscape architecture requires knowledge of real estate economics and

development regulation processes, as well as an understanding of the physical

constraints of developing and working with the land. The challenge is to integrate

economic factors with good design to create quality environments. Due to this

blending of expertise, landscape architects are often selected to head multi‐

disciplinary design teams (American Society of Landscape Architect:

Pennsylvania/Delaware Chapter).

Ecological Planning and Design is concerned with interpretation, analysis, and

formulation of design policies, guidelines and plans to ensure the quality of the

environment. It studies the interaction between people and the natural environment.

It specializes, but is not limited to, analytical evaluations of the land and focuses on the suitability of a site for development. It requires specific knowledge of

environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act,

Federal wetlands regulations, etc. This specialization also covers highway design

and planning (American Society of Landscape Architect: Pennsylvania/Delaware

Chapter).

Historic Preservation and Reclamation may involve preservation or maintenance

of a site in relatively static condition, conservation of a site as part of a larger area of

historic importance, restoration of a site to a given date or quality, and renovation of

a site for ongoing or new use of sites such as parks, gardens, grounds, waterfronts,

15 and wetlands. It involves increasing numbers of landscape architects as growing populations lead to additional development. Landscape architects often participate from the research through the actual restoration stage (American Society of

Landscape Architect: Pennsylvania/Delaware Chapter).

Social and Behavioral Aspects of Landscape Design requires advanced training in social sciences, such as behavioral psychology, sociology, anthropology and economics because it focuses on the human dimension of design. Work includes designing for the special needs of the elderly or the disabled. Areas of study include design evaluation of existing environments, environmental perceptions, and effects of environments on people (American Society of Landscape Architect:

Pennsylvania/Delaware Chapter).

It has been said that the profession has reached the point where it now has the ability to invent its own future.

William H. Tishler, FASLA

16 A Timeline of Landscape Architecture

1771 Jefferson records his early thoughts on landscape design in a memorandum book, spurred by his ideas on improving Monticello. 1863 The title "landscape architect" is first used in New York City by Central Park designers Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux. ( Photos by Bruce Davidson/Magnum) 1858-91 Between the design of Central Park and his retirement, Frederick Law Olmsted became the acknowledged father of American landscape architecture. It was his vision that established the lofty ideals that will forever guide the profession's underlying philosophy. (Photos courtesy Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site) 1868-70 FLO planned community of Riverside, Illinois, is an early model of community preserving riverfront for public space. 1872-95 H. W. S. Cleveland becomes an early advocate for conserving large interconnected systems of open space and develops Minneapolis' metropolitan park system. 1850- New forms of designed landscapes emerge: 1900 the urban parks, cemeteries, amusement parks, camps, clubs, golf courses, resorts, spas and zoos, and larger housing environments. (Photo by Alan Ward)

1899 The American Society of Landscape Architects is founded.

1900 Formal instruction in landscape architecture begins at Harvard, the nation's most prestigious university.

17 1905 U.S.D.A. Forest Service established.

1909 The Blue Ridge Highway gives birth to the idea of the parkway. (Blue Ridge Parkway photo 11/99 62 Parkway plan)

1916 The National Park Service is formally established. Landscape architects institute the concept of master planning.

1930s Planning entire communities emerges as practice area. Drawings courtesy Arnold Alanen; photo by Kenneth Helphand

1933 New Deal programs open new horizons for landscape architects in the public sector.

1921-42 A vast system of state parks and forests is founded, remaining unparalleled anywhere in the world. (Photo by Kenneth Helphand)

18 1960 Large-scale landscape planning gains in application.

1963 Institutional and corporate landscapes are epitomized by Deere and Company Headquarters in Moline, Illinois, and PepsiCo in Purchase, New York. (Photo by Alan Ward)

1964-65 The new towns of Irvine, California; Reston, Virginia; and Columbia, Maryland offer alternatives to typical subdivision development. (Photo by Walter Calahan)

1969 Ian McHarg's Design with Nature is published, establishing principles of landscape planning.

1970 The restoration of disturbed sites to their earlier natural character, and reclaiming quarries, strip-mined areas, and landfills for productive purposes becomes a focus of the profession. (Photos by Jennifer Bates)

19

1974 Forest Service landscape architects develop a visual resource management process that is applied to 190 million acres of public land. (USFS visual analysis) 1976 The concept of historic preservation grows beyond the confines of architecture to include the landscape itself, becoming an important area of practice for landscape architects.

~1985 Advanced geographic information systems emerge as an important tool, with ecological values and new technology applied to large- scale land planning.

1997 An estimated 30,000 landscape architects practice in the U.S. alone. More than 70 programs in landscape architecture exist at 53 American colleges and universities, forming an education system in this field unparalleled anywhere in the world. (Photo courtesy EDAW ) Source: library.nevada.edu/arch

20 Chapter 4 Women’s history in landscape architecture

The Culture of Horticulture and Gardening

The arrangement in the garden has to be one of the most satisfying and

pleasurable of all aspects of gardening. It is in this area, that the gardener is able to

find real expression, working with plants to create a living picture which will not only be aesthetically pleasing to others but which will be a fulfillment of a very

personal, and often frustrating, striving. For unlike the painter who controls the colors of the palette, the gardener must forever be subject to the variables of the weather, the caprice of the seasons and the complexity of the plants themselves. But

it is in these very challenges that the thrill and excitement of gardening are found.

Gardeners, like artists, have always had an interest in using color in garden settings. Gardeners like Gertrude Jekyll made her own innovative ideas on the use

of color public in books like ‘Color in the Flower Garden’ as well as articles such as

‘Color Effects in the Late Summer Border’, have much influenced the way people

think about gardening matters.

Similarly the gardens at Sissinghurst Castle in Kent, England created by Vita

Sackville‐West in the post‐war years, with its garden‐rooms is something which has

become firmly rooted in the gardening history.

Most historians today did not explain the complex social, economic, and

political factors that have shaped gardens in the past. They have focused on work by

21 upper‐class white men and minimized or even ignored work by other class‐ structures, cultures, or women who have practiced garden designs. It is important to understand gardens from the point of view of women which then expand into

landscape architecture (Howe 1961 & Shteir 1996).

The use of the term “Ladies garden” in English Gardens might imply that

women had some kind of say in gardens, but the terms did not necessarily refer to a

female hand in design.

Detail from William Woollett’s engraving of Carlton House Gardens, 1760, showing the exhedral flower garden with gardeners at work in the foreground (photo: courtesy of John Harris)

On occasion, of course, and especially with husbands deceased, the lady of

the household exercised considerable power in plant collecting or flower gardening.

Inevitably, however, it was a particular group of men, rather than women, who

made decisive innovations in flower garden design. The opportunity for women’s

action was still restricted. Nevertheless, it is clear from the example of the Lennox

sisters, Emily and Louisa, and from a case study of Theresa and Anne Robinson of 22 Saltram House in Devon that there were differentiated roles for women, working

with their husbands or entirely alone, in the management of an estate (Knox 1998–

1999).

Emily Lennox’s involvement in the improvements at Carton, London is

described: “While the Duke was the original designer of the park, its final shape

owed a good deal to Emily’s whims and her famous lack of patience. Moreover,

when in 1755 Arthur Devis painted the couple seated outdoors surveying their domain, it was Emily and not her husband who was holding the plan of the grounds” (Tillyard 1995).

Before the early nineteenth century, the private sphere was the woman’s

domain. During the Regency period, middle‐class gardens became part of the newly

defined private sphere. During this time, middleclass women sought self‐definition

in the private sphere where gardens offered opportunity for self‐improvement.

Women discovered gardening as a creative outlet and participated actively in newly forming horticultural societies (Schenker 2002).

In the early nineteenth century, women were major participants in the development and distribution of botanical and horticultural knowledge. Between

1790 and 1830, female writers produced a large number of books on botany and horticulture, contributing to an influential print culture in which women

participated actively as both writers and readers (Schenker 2002).

23 Botany became increasingly more male‐dominated, resulting in women

spilling into the more open subject of horticulture. Gardens gave women access to

this body of knowledge. The English garden became an extension of the private

sphere, a sheltered space for women and children. Horticultural and gardening

knowledge became important to daughters, who would assume responsibility in a

domestic sphere that included gardens. For example, Jane Loudon, author of several books on gardening, for example, contributed to the transformation of the English garden into a place where women, particularly middle‐class women, could exert increasing power and influence (Schenker 2002).

Gardening was an ʺappropriateʺ hobby for women of the elite classes and an

expected activity for middle‐class women, so the profession of landscape architecture was a seemingly acceptable role for a woman.

At first, gardening was a hobby considered ʺsuitableʺ for women to be involved with. Women are more ʺlikeʺ nature and the connection to gardening was a

natural one. In this way, the stereotypes of what were ʺacceptableʺ women’s

activities actually ʺworkedʺ for women in getting them into certain professions in

society. Beatrix Farrand stands as the first woman to become a professional

landscape architect thereby paving the way for other women to enter the profession

as well (http://xroads.virginia.edu).

In 1869, Catherine Beecherʹs book The American Womanʹs Home outlined

middle‐class ʺgardeningʺ values for American women. Beecher provided specific

24 information that the middle‐class wife should be able to not only use a spade but also able to graft trees (http://xroads.virginia.edu).

Women working in the garden Source: (http://xroads.virginia.edu)

Thomas Allen wrote in 1846: ʺWhen I see the humblest dwelling, adorned by a yard of shrubbery and flowers, however small, laid out and preserved in order and neatness, I consider it an evidence of better things unseen, the of a gentle heart and a home of peace.ʺ From suburban home lot to the country seat, women have designed, cultivated and reshaped the American scene, moving from the ʺharbinger of a gentle heartʺ to women of power and influence (www.walpole.com).

Before there were established schools of architecture for women, these women worked under mentors. Beatrix Farrand learned from Charles Sprague

Sargent, Ellen Biddle Shipman worked under the architect Charles Platt. Others like

Marian Coffin had favorable social connections (http://xroads.virginia.edu).

In the early 1900s, three schools of landscape architecture for women started up. The Cambridge School, the Lowthorpe School, and the Pennsylvania School of

Horticulture opened as a response to the demand by women for proper training. 25 The Cambridge School was founded in 1915 by Henry Atherton Frost in Cambridge,

Massachusetts. Mrs. Edward Gilchrist Low started the Lowthorpe School In Groton,

Massachusetts in 1901, and in 1910, Jane Haines began the Pennsylvania School of

Horticulture for Women in Ambler, Pennsylvania (http://xroads.virginia.edu).

Most historians today did not explain the complex social, economic, and political factors that have shaped gardens in the past. They have focused on work by upper‐class white men and minimized or even ignored work by other class‐ structures, cultures, or women who have practiced garden designs. It is important to understand gardens from the point of view of women which then expand into landscape architecture (Howe 1961 & Shteir 1996).

26 Chapter 5 Women in the field of Landscape Architecture and some Biographies

UC Davis Landscape Architecture women faculty

Elizabeth Boults has a Masters in Landscape Architecture. She specializes in the

creation of small‐scale artful environments. She has an extensive background in

teaching, research, and theory. She and her husband, Chip Sullivan, own Studio B.

Jennifer Chandler is Jack Chandler’s daughter. Jack Chandler has a BA in

Landscape Architecture.

His talents extend to sculpture. Like her father, she is a native Californian, raised in

the Napa Valley. She received her B.A. History‐Literature in 1984 from Reed

College, Portland in Oregon and her Masters degree in Landscape Architecture from

Cornell University, Ithaca, New York in1991. After working on the East Coast for

three years, she returned to California and worked for Jack Chandler & Associates.

In 1997, she formed her own company, Jennifer Chandler, Landscape Architect, in

Napa. Jennifer has a particular interest in community projects which allow local 27 residents access to the larger landscape via parks and trails ‐ projects for which she

frequently volunteers her time and effort. She is an avid cyclist, hiker and photographer, with a deep appreciation of the natural world.

Patsy Eubanks Owens is Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture, U.C. Davis.

Professor Owensʹs research focuses on the environmental needs and preferences of teenagers. She has conducted studies of teensʹ valued places in California, West

Virginia, and Australia; conducted a three‐site case study of community skateboard parks; and participated in a multi‐disciplinary/multi‐state study on resilience to violence among at‐risk youth.

Heath Schenker is chair of the Landscape Architecture

Program, Department of Environmental Design, at the

University of California, Davis, where she has been a

member of the faculty since 1990. Her research bridges the

disciplines of landscape architecture and art history,

28 investigating the processes by which concepts of landscape are culturally and

socially constructed‐particularly how landscape representations have historically

worked as agents of cultural power. As a landscape historian, Mrs. Schenker has

long been interested in the history of public parks in the 19th century; she is now working on a book‐length study of the large, naturalistic parks that appeared in

cities around the world in the 19th century. As a landscape architect, she also has explored concepts of landscape in a variety of design projects, including gallery installations and exhibitions, performance art and works on paper. She teaches

courses in landscape history and landscape design. Mrs. Schenker received her

Master of Art History from the University of California, Davis, and her Bachelor of

Landscape Architecture from the Rhode Island School of Design

(http://www.design.iastate.edu/2005programreview.php).

Catherine Wei attended the master’s program of landscape architecture at Harvard

University’s Graduate School of Design. Wei earned her undergraduate degree in

landscape architecture at the College of Landscape Architecture at Beijing Forestry

University. Wei hopes to combine the knowledge she is obtaining from Harvard with her background in traditional Chinese landscape design. She wants to study

the influence between the Occidental and Oriental landscape design and introduce

Chinese garden design methods to the American landscape profession. Wei is a

29 member of ASLA and the Landscape Architecture Organization of Beijing Forestry

University.

Jocelyn Zanzot graduated from UO in 2003 with a Masters in Landscape

Architecture. While in school she co‐directed the Solar Information Center and the

EDC and managed the Solar Powered EMU project. Her interest in low impact and

regenerative living stretches back many years and she maintains a respect for nature

and hope for future generations at the core of her projects. She continues to practice

regenerative design in Davis, California

30 Other great Landscape Architecture women

Gertrude Jekyll (1843‐1932)

ʺThe love of gardening is a seed, once sown never diesʺ...GJ

Gertrude Jekyll was a horticulturalist and garden designer

born in England. She is a garden legend.

She is most remembered for her bold and colorful English

garden border. Her free form planting created quite a display.

In her youth she was trained as an artist and thought of her garden as a palette. She referred to her own garden at Munstead Woods as garden pictures to be created,

and her plant shapes as brush strokes. Such were her methods by

clumping large plant material together.

As a great designer she created over 350 gardens in England and

abroad.

One of her most important gardens in the United States was the

Glebe House in Woodbury, Connecticut. It is the birthplace of the Episcopal Church

and was used as a private house for 150 years. The house has been saved and the

garden was restored in 1995‐1996.

Books written by Ms. Jekyll are: ʺWood and Gardenʺ, ʺOld West Surryʺ and ʺColour in the Flower Gardenʺ.

Information found at (http://www.emilycompost.com/gertrude_jekyll.htm)

31 Beatrix Jones Farrand’s (1872 –

1957) planting plan for Hill‐Stead’s Sunken Garden dates from around 1920. In the

early 1940s, during wartime shortages, the garden was seeded over. In the 1980s, volunteers from the Connecticut Valley Garden Club and the Garden Club of

Hartford, Connecticut, undertook reclamation of the one‐acre plot. Farrand chose

the colors of the plants to complement the palette of the French Impressionist

paintings in the Pope Riddle house. Most of the 90 varieties of flowers and plants are

perennials.

32 Farrand was one of the finest female landscape designers of her generation. She

trained at Harvard University’s Arnold Arboretum and was one of 10 charter

members of the American Society of Landscape Architects. She designed aspects of

the Yale and Princeton University campuses and left her mark on many private

estates throughout the Northeast. She is perhaps best known for the grounds at

Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, D.C., and the Peggy Rockefeller Rose Garden at

The New York Botanical Garden.

Information found at (http://www.hillstead.org/gardens/beatrix.html)

Elizabeth Lord’s (1887‐1976) mother founded the Salem Garden Club. Edith ʺNinaʺ

Schryver (1901‐1984) spent five years in the office of well‐known New York

landscape architect Ellen Shipman prior to forming a 40‐year partnership with

Elizabeth Lord. Both women graduated from the Lowthorpe School of Landscape

Architecture for Women in Massachusetts. They met on a European tour of famous gardens in 1927. During their 40‐year partnership, they designed and supervised 33 work in Salem and Portland, Oregon and Seattle and Tacoma, Washington. Lord

and Schryver were commissioned in 1929 to design Deepwoodʹs two and one‐half

acres of English style gardens. The two pioneered landscape architecture in the

Northwest as the regionʹs first professionally trained women landscape architects.

Though the volume of work was relatively small (about 250 gardens with 25 of them in Salem), the quality of their work was consistently high and earned them regional and national recognition. Their original drawings and records are archived at the

University of Oregon (Eugene), Knight Library, Special Collections.

Information received from (http://www.oregonlink.com).

34 Marian Cruger Coffin (1876–1957) was born in Scarborough, N.Y.

and was educated at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. At a

time when men dominated the field of landscape architecture, Miss

Coffin served as the University’s landscape architect from 1918–52

and played a significant role in the union of Delaware College and the Women’s

College, now UD.

Miss Coffin was responsible for designing and planting the landscaping on both campuses. The plan for Delaware College called for two ordered rows of elm and oak trees, along a Green, emphasizing the order and austerity of the Men’s Campus.

Her plan for the Women’s College called for flowering trees and shrubs, to soften the architecture and create a “romantic” atmosphere.

Miss Coffin designed a central “recreation area” consisting of a Magnolia Circle and

paths that bordered an oval‐shaped Green. This area was intended to create a transitional space between the two campuses, where men and women could meet and relax without leaving the University grounds.

Information received from (http://www.udel.edu).

Original Landscape Plan, Marian Cruger Coffin, Landscape Architect, 1918 Courtesy of University Archives 35

Clermont ʺMontyʺ Huger Lee (1914‐2006)

One of the earliest women active in the field of landscape architecture in Georgia,

Clermont “Monty” Huger Lee was known as the foremost expert in re‐creating historic landscapes in mid‐20th century Savannah. Her work was meticulously researched, with a particular focus on formal English and

American gardens of the antebellum period. Lee was also responsible for working

to found the Georgia State Board of Landscape Architects, a statewide licensing

board for professional landscape architects. Clermont Lee was the first female landscape architect registered in Georgia.

Lee got her start working for the U.S. Housing Authority, (later the Federal

Housing Authority), who employed architects that could select their own landscape architects. She became an assistant to

Talmadge “Bummy” Baumgardner, a landscape architect associated with the Sea

Island Company, during the war years after his male assistant was drafted into military service. While working there, she planned

landscape designs and supervised planting

36 operations for many federal housing projects in Savannah and Brunswick.

Her interest in historic gardens began in the 1940s, when she drew plans for a

small garden at Hofwyl‐Broadfield Plantation, in Brunswick, Georgia based on ca.

1910 photographs. In 1944, she made measured drawings of ten Victorian gardens in

Savannah for Laura Bell and the Georgia Historical Society. She later researched antebellum plantings to develop a planting plan for the formal garden of the

Andrew Low home newly purchased by the Georgia Chapter of the Colonial Dames of America. She researched antebellum plantings, and also used the Garden Club of

Georgia’s 1933 book Garden History of Georgia, 1733‐1933, as references to install as

authentic a garden as possible. Both front and rear plans are in the Colonial Dames’

library for future reference. In 1949 Lee left the Sea Island Company to set up her

own practice, thereby becoming the first female professional landscape architect in

private practice in Savannah.

In the early 1950s, Lee began her long and continuing involvement in historic

landscapes. Despite the simplified Colonial Revival viewpoint of historic gardening

that was in favor at the time, Lee did extensive research to provide an accurate reproduction of a 150‐year‐old landscape for the Owens‐Thomas House on

Oglethorpe Square in Savannah.

In addition to becoming one of the few women in landscape architecture in

Georgia, Clermont Lee also worked for recognition of her profession. The

professional organization, American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), began

37 in 1899 with only one woman among its founding members, New York’s Beatrix

Farrand. Clermont Lee joined the ASLA in 1950, and later worked in conjunction

with Hubert Bond Owens, head of the Department of Landscape Architecture at the

University of Georgia, to establish the Georgia State Board of Landscape Architects.

The first four landscape architects to be registered included both Owens as the first

and Clermont Lee, the first woman, as the fourth. Interestingly, the next 125

registrants were male civil engineers, alarmed that certified landscape architects

might take their commissions. Lee served on the Georgia board for three years.

Clermont Lee and other early landscape architects achieved remarkable success given the obstacles they had to face. For many years the members of ASLA were not allowed to advertise, creating a professional handicap. Lee, ever the crusader, not only made history for women in the landscape architecture profession, but also had a lasting impact on the quality of Savannah’s historically designed

landscape environment. Clermont Lee died in Savannah on June 14, 2006.

Information received from (http://www.tclf.org by Ced Dolder)

Carol R. Johnson (b. 1929), landscape architect, educator

Carol R. Johnson graduated in 1951 with a Bachelor of

Arts in English. Following Wellesley, she worked in a

commercial nursery in Bedford, Massachusetts. While

there, she met John Frey, Pat Manhart, and Eric Desty, students who were studying

38 landscape architecture at Harvard. With their encouragement, she decided to pursue

a career in landscape architecture, a field she knew little about.

While at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design, Johnson attributed her

personal growth to professors Serge Chermeyoff, Hideo Sasaki, Norman Newton,

and Walt Chambers. From these mentors she gained confidence and an

understanding of design. In particular, her studies under Sigfried Gideon, the

author of Space, Time, and Architecture, would be a great influence on her attitudes

toward urban design. Also during this time, Johnson became familiar with collaborative design processes and environmentally sensitive landscape design – two concepts that formed the foundation of her design approach and ethic. She

earned her degree from Harvard in 1957.

In September 1958, she was one of the first landscape architects to be hired by

The Architects Collaborative (TAC), the renowned architectural practice founded by

Walter Gropius in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Despite the prestige of her position,

and with the encouragement of colleagues, she left TAC after only one year to start

her own practice, taking advantage of projects offered to her through her Wellesley

and Harvard contacts.

When she founded her firm in 1959, there were few women landscape

architects, working on urban design and planning issues, and there were few male

landscape architects who would choose to work for a talented woman landscape

architect, when they had opportunities to work for talented men. As a result,

39 Johnson’s earliest employees included artists and sculptors who, under her tutelage,

learned the art and craft of landscape architecture. Very soon, Johnson had

opportunities that were unusual for a woman, such as her first foreign project, the

landscape associated with the U.S. Pavilion at Montreal’s Expo ’67, where she

collaborated with Buckminister Fuller and Cambridge Seven Associates.

With her reputation established, opportunities for Johnson in the 1970s and

1980s increased. In addition to serving on many planning committees, during

President Carter’s administration, she served on the Treasury Department’s

Commission on Small Business, and in the 1980s on the Department’s Committee on

Development Options.

She taught in the Planning Department at Harvard’s Graduate School of

Design from 1966 to 1973 and in 1984. Johnson taught and lectured at several architecture schools in Taiwan.

Work in the office during the 1980s and 1990s included many of Johnson’s most important built works. Among them are the Old Harbor Park, where she

created a waterfront linear park between South Boston and the Kennedy Library in

1990; the John F. Kennedy Memorial Park, which unites the Charles River

Reservation with nearby Harvard Square in Cambridge, Massachusetts, completed

in 1987; and the Lechmere Canal Park in East Cambridge, the first phase of which

was completed in 1983. In all of these projects, Johnson’s signature design style of

establishing harmony with the setting and surrounds, respecting the site’s natural

40 and cultural history, offering respite to users, and providing elements of delight and

surprise can be seen.

Marshall Park in Washington, D.C. was completed in 1983. This original

conceptual design was integrated into the overall streetscape design for the Avenue

itself and the access to the District Court on one side and the Canadian Chancellery

on the other. Johnson’s new design provides a stronger memorial to John Marshall,

recalling his long tenure in the Supreme Court and its impact on the Federal

Government as we know it today.

Johnson became a Fellow of the American Society of Landscape Architects in

1982, and in 1998 she was the first American woman to receive the ASLA Gold

Medal. She is also a Member of the Boston Society of Landscape Architects, an

Honorary Member of the Boston Society of Architects, a Trustee for the Hubbard

Educational Trust and Chairman of the Board of Designators for the George B.

Henderson Foundation. For ten years, she was a City of Boston Civic Design

Commissioner. She holds honorary degrees from Wentworth Institute of

Technology and Gettysburg College.

Beyond the positive impact of her work on the public, Johnson’s contribution

can be measured by the influence which she has had on new generations of

landscape architects. She is recognized as a role model, especially for young women

entering a profession. Information received from (http://www.tclf.org, 2006).

41

Cheryl Love began to discover her joy for sketching during her growing up years. Her parents and grandparents gave her ‘Learn to Draw’ books on everything from animals to people to landscapes and it inspired her to sketch in her free time. A love for the outdoors contributed to her later enjoyment of landscape architecture. According to Love, “landscape

architects often visit sites to inventory the natural site features, which become the

basis for developing a design that is more sensitive and responsive to the land.ʺ

Love began her college years as a horticulture major at Pennsylvania State

University. But a quirk of fate changed that. She soon switched gears ‐ as many college students do ‐ when she had to fulfill a humanities credit and selected a course that focused on the history of landscape architecture. The past enjoyments she experienced from sketching and drawing as a child as well as long walks in

nature in her native town of Warren would take her to what she was meant to do.

ʺAs we learned all the various aspects of landscape architecture and how the

many design styles evolved and changed the designed landscape over time, I

became increasingly interested in landscape architecture,ʺ said Love. ʺAs a result of that course, I changed my major to landscape architecture and loved every aspect of the program at Penn State.ʺ

42 In her current position as studio director of ELA Group, Inc. in Lititz, Love is involved with the design, project coordination, and project management related to

the development of collegiate institutions such as the new parking facility at

Lancaster Theological Seminary and the site layout for an addition to Kline Hall

Science Building at Messiah College in Grantham. She has also utilized her landscape architecture expertise in the commercial/industrial, recreational, residential and institutional arenas.

In the 20 years since her college graduation, Love feels that more women are becoming landscape architects and getting active in the work that involves coordination with other architects, school districts, municipalities, regulatory

agencies, and contractors.

ʺI believe the public in general is becoming more aware of the roles of

landscape architects,ʺ said Love. ʺAs this general awareness of our profession increases, women find landscape architecture appealing for the variety of work that this field provides. I see increasing potential for women to demonstrate their

abilities to organize, prioritize, and fit together all the various tasks that are required to receive approvals on projects.ʺ

Love admitted that her greatest challenge is juggling a busy career with raising a family. Many times, Love has to attend nighttime municipal meetings in

order to secure approvals from zoning or planning boards or the board of supervisors and that has meant coming up with a ʺplan.ʺ

43 ʺWith my husband, John, also being a landscape architect, there were several

times when our children were younger that they would go to those evening

meetings with us,ʺ Love explained. ʺThey have continued to show interest in our

profession by coming to work with us on career shadow days.ʺ

Love feels that women shouldnʹt hesitate to consider architecture as a career

and said that a successful project with few change orders and few, if any, additional

costs are sometimes a matter of good communication.

Information found at (http://www.businesswomanpa.com/2005_march.asp).

Patricia S. Loheed, ASLA, is principal of Pat Loheed Landscape Architect and also

the first program director for a start‐up BLA program at the Boston Architectural

College (BAC). The program, an open admissions degree‐granting evening program,

will offer the opportunity for students to study and work concurrently. BAC has already recruited its first class, and upon the class’s graduation ASLA’s Landscape

Architecture Accreditation Board (LAAB) will consider the program for

accreditation. In addition to her work to establish the program, Loheed presented a

paper at the September 2005 CELA meetings on BAC’s educational model. She

credits BAC President Ted Landsmark, Associate AIA and current president of the

Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, with “creative leadership that is agile and inspires program management and support staff.”

Information found at (www.asla.org/land/2006/0710/ppm.html).

44 Topher Delaney is a San Francisco‐based

artist and landscape designer. Her real name is Christopher Delaney but she is known in the profession as Topher.

Diagnosed with breast cancer in the mid‐

Topher with her cat-ate-the-canary grin, 80ʹs (ʺone on, one off!ʺ), Delaney turned her mugging for the camera.

prodigious energies to creating healing gardens at hospitals (realizing at the time she could have used one herself). ʺAll the gardens center around reflection and the

passage of time,ʺ she says. ʺPeople hang on to see the cherry tree blossoms. The

gardens canʹt be static, they must change Ten Landscapes: A Talk with Topher

Delaney.ʺ Here are some thoughtful comments from Topher Delaney: ʺI look at my work as a spiritual practice. I view it as somewhat of a calling. I try to acknowledge

my conflicts as I work.ʺ ʺO.K., Iʹll say it: Iʹm a control freak! And thatʹs why I do this.

Gardens are humbling; I can have no control. And (knowing) that I have no control over anything... actually, thatʹs whatʹs kept me alive.ʺ (Ten Landscapes: A Talk with

Topher Delaney interview by Ketzel Levine at npr.org)

45 Andrea Cochran has been practicing

landscape architecture in the San

Francisco Bay area for over twenty

years. After graduating from Harvard

Universityʹs Graduate School of

Design, Ms. Cochran entered the

offices of the architect, Jose Luis Sert.

This experience was pivotal in

informing her approach to landscape design which integrates and mediates the

overlapping boundaries between architecture and landscape.

Ms. Cochran established her office in 1998 after working in collaborative

partnerships for over 10 years. The firmʹs projects range from private residential

gardens to corporate headquarters, institutional and educational campuses,

commercial facilities, urban housing, wineries, hotels and an art museum sculpture

garden.

The work of Andrea Cochran Landscape Architecture translates the narrative of the client into the built landscape. Relationships between architecture and landscape,

client and designer, project site and larger environment inform each aspect of the

firm’s designs. The work of site‐specific artists is another influence in the design

process, inspiring new perspectives. The firm intentionally has an eclectic variety of projects to create a cross pollenization of ideas between residential gardens and

46 commercial and institutional projects. As a result, they have gained a national

reputation as an innovative design studio.

Ms. Cochran was recently featured in the January 2005 issue of House & Garden

magazine as one of the 40 Tastemakers for 2005. Her design work has garnered

numerous awards and has been widely published and recognized internationally in

such publications as House & Garden, Dwell, Landscape Architecture, Architectural

Record, Design Quarterly, Harper’s Bazaar, and Metropolitan Home.

Ms. Cochran is a leader in her local design community. She currently serves as a

Commissioner in Civic Design on the San Francisco Arts Commission and on the executive board for the Architecture and Design Forum at SFMOMA. Past contributions include serving on the SFMOMA Architecture and Design Accessions

Committee and the U.C. Berkeley Extension Advisory Committee for Landscape

Architecture Curriculum.

Information found at (california‐architects.com).

Beverly Willis counts among the few pioneering women architects practicing in the

United States during the mid‐twentieth century. She forged a distinguished career

spanning the areas of architectural design, research, and leadership.

In 1966, Willis opened her own architectural firm in San Francisco and built it into a

35‐person firm that often competed successfully with the nation’s largest firms.

Among the award‐winning projects of the 700 total in her portfolio are the Union

47 Street Stores (1965), the Margaret Hayward Park Building (1978), and the San

Francisco Ballet Building (1983). Already in the 1970s, Willis was developing

cutting‐edge computer applications for planning large‐scale, multi‐family housing,

which culminated in the design and construction of the Aliamanu Valley

Community for 11,500 residents.

For Willis, a career in architecture has involved more than design. It has meant

assuming leadership positions within the profession as well as for civic and

international causes. In 1980, Willis served as the first woman President of the

California Council of the AIA. She also chaired the Federal Construction Council of the National Academy of Science, and was one of two architects to represent the U.S. at Habitat 1 in Vancouver, Canada. Willis was one of a handful of U.S. women leaders selected to participate in Women for International Understanding, a delegation sent as emissaries during the 1970s on informational trips to Asia, Eastern

Europe, and the Middle East. Among the distinctions bestowed upon Willis for her

contributions to both the civic and architectural spheres are San Francisco’s Phoebe

Hearst Gold Medal Award, and an Honorary Doctorate degree from Mt. Holyoke

College.

One of the instrumental forces that founded the National Building Museum in

Washington, DC, Willis has served continuously as a founding Trustee on the Board

of Trustees. In 1994, Willis established the Architecture Research Institute, Inc. a think‐tank for architectural and urban issues based in New York City, from which

48 she wrote Invisible Images: The Silent Language of Architecture (1997), and co‐founded

Rebuild Downtown Our Town (R.DOT), a leading civic voice and design advocate in the post‐9/11 rebuilding of Lower Manhattan.

Ms. Willis and the Board of Trustees established the Beverly Willis Architecture

Foundation (BWAF) in 2002.

Information found at (http://www.beverlywillisarchitecturefoundation.org)

49 Chapter 6 Personal barriers

It was more by coincidence that women entered the workforce, especially in

such drastic numbers. During World War II, women were introduced to the paid

labor force. They entered men’s jobs, proving that women are quite capable in

accomplishing tasks other than daily housework. This often forced women to find

alternative care for their children. By 1944, three‐quarters of children of women war

workers were found in private childcare (Roberts 1991).

In the twenty‐first century, both women and men spend substantial amounts

of time on paid work. However, women in Canada, for example, perform 62.6

percent of all unpaid work on top of their shares of paid work

(http://waysandmeans.house.gov). Even though womenʹs incomes are considerably smaller than menʹs, their work weeks are actually longer and their work effort more fragmented, because of their heavier responsibilities for unpaid work.

50 This means that women spend their lives juggling the complex demands of both

unpaid and paid work. Because women have to work longer hours to earn the

incomes they do receive, they often have to sacrifice so‐called leisure time to meet all their obligations for unpaid work.

In August 2003, the Catalyst published a series of research articles entitled

Viewpoints. As an independent, nonprofit membership organization, Catalyst uses a

solution‐oriented method that has earned the trust of business leaders around the

world. The organization runs research on all aspects of women’s career

development. Catalyst is consistently ranked number one among U.S. nonprofits on

women’s issues by The American Institute of Philanthropy. Catalyst has offices in

New York, San Jose, and Toronto and is the leading research and advisory

organization working to advance women in business. It offers strategic and internet‐

based consulting services on a worldwide basis to help companies and firms

advance women and build inclusive work environments. In addition, the

corporation honors exemplary business initiatives that support women’s leadership

with the annual Catalyst Award. Among Catalyst’s published Viewpoints, the article

“Workplace Flexibility Is Still a Women’s Advancement Issue” clarifies that during

the last ten years, employers expanded their views of flexible work programs to

serve people of all ages, gender, parents and those who are not, instead of serving only women with young children. In fact, the common terminology has changed from “work and family” to “work/life (Catalyst 2003).”

51 This expanded view of flexible work programs has been a positive step toward creating more wide‐ranging work environments. Catalyst believes change has occurred for two reasons. First, the concerns of women were addressed, which was an important strategy for moving these programs and policies forward. Second,

the growing numbers of dual‐career couples in which men take on greater family responsibilities, and the rising issues around elder care have increased the need to

expand the traditional thinking about work/life issues. As a result, flexible work

policies are now more common and more inclusive (Catalyst 2003).

Women continue to shoulder the majority of household and child care

responsibilities, referred to as the “Second Shift (Hochschild 1990)”. Because the

married women with children are more likely than men to have a full‐time working

spouse, they are less likely to have someone handling the household and child care

responsibilities (Catalyst 2003).

In a Catalyst study, those who have continued their reduced schedules explain that their husbands’ schedules provide little flexibility and that the child care demands fall to them. The following quote illustrates one woman’s frustration:

“I cannot count on my husband for anything. If he says, ‘I can come home and be there for the kids,’ he can’t. And that’s just the way he is. He’s a good father and he

rarely works on weekends. But during the week, even when he’s here, he’s not here

(Catalyst 2003).”

52 Many women think the flexible arrangement has been wonderful for them because as their family has evolved, they’ve evolved, and the company has been willing to evolve with them. These women accept the trade‐offs in trying to balance careers, family, and community involvement and are satisfied with the choices they

have made overall. They credit flexibility with allowing them to slow down yet remain in the professional world for a period of time when family demands are high.

Others believe that if they sign up to work on a flexible schedule they are seen as less committed or less professional even if they show a strong commitment.

In addition, there is a distinction between full‐time and part‐time workers, the part‐timers receiving fewer types of benefits. Even when part‐time workers do have access to benefits they receive smaller amounts of benefits. Social security programs, such as unemployment insurance coverage, retirement benefits, health insurance coverage, vacation pay and worker compensation coverage, are provided through legislation. In addition, supplementary coverage of some kinds of

53 employment benefit plans cover health care and hospitalization, dental and eye, disability, enhanced pension rights, child care or tuition benefits, and even the purchase of a home or stock option; financing, travel allowances, compassionate leave and early retirement are all based on company agreement. While rigid distinctions between part‐time and full‐time employment are now being replaced in some contexts with more flexible methods of determining eligibility for benefits, part‐time workers have always had the smallest benefits entitlements (Townson

2000).

The Office of Strategic Communications declared in February 2003 that policies and practices to accommodate childbearing, childrearing and other family needs are being strengthened. The UC system has the most generous work/life policies of any of its comparison institutions. Faculty members expressed concerns that some may be unable to fully benefit from these policies, which are therefore being clarified so that every eligible faculty member will be ensured automatic childbearing leave. In addition, campuses are centralizing family leave funding so that individual departments are not disadvantaged by faculty who take leave (Office of Strategic Communications 2003, Feb.).

To ensure the policies can be put into action properly, the faculties are being surveyed to better evaluate UC’s work/life policies and promote a greater understanding of these issues at the departmental level. In addition, campus childcare centers have remained a high priority in the previous two state budgets, in

54 order to further provide family‐friendly policies and incentives, as women

academics may be differentially affected by these policies (Office of Strategic

Communications 2003, Feb.).

On May 14th, 2007, Associate President Linda Williams, Presidential Staff

Fellow Amy Levine, and Interim Director of Faculty Equity Programs Sharon

Washington, from the UC Office of the President, started to visit all the UC

campuses and labs to solicit ideas and collect information on innovative local programs that address the challenges faced by women at UC. This project is part of a system‐wide Creating Change Initiative geared toward UC women which develops a strategic platform focused on addressing the advancement of women in the

University of California. The Forums are divided by faculty, students and staff

input. The purpose of the visit is to gather information on current practices

regarding institutional support of UCʹs women, determine which practices can be

replicated and assess whether a system‐wide approach to these issues would be

useful. The first Forum was held at UC Davis. Questions for students covered their

thoughts on what women students need to be successful at UC! What does it take to

thrive at UC? What are some best practices already in place? What more is needed

(UC Office of the President 2007)?

While attending the session, it was obvious that the issue of pregnancy and

health leave, childcare issues, lack of resources due to funding were serious, heartfelt issues (UC Office of the President 2007).

55 The National Womenʹs Law Center, which has operated since 1972, was

instrumental in passing laws to prohibit pregnancy discrimination in employment

and to provide compensation for victims of sexual harassment. The Center

improved state and federal tax laws to help millions of families pay for child and

dependent care and secured new federal remedies for women seeking child support.

Women’s role in the workforce is heightened even more by the 2004 study that Catalyst did and published as “The Bottom Line: Connecting Corporate

Performance and Gender Diversity”. It surveyed Return on Equity (ROE) and Total

Return to Shareholders (TRS) of different companies with regard to gender diversity. It hypothesized that businesses that employ, retain, and advance women will benefit for a number of reasons. First, the increasingly educated and skilled part of the diverse talent group can help employers if they focus on diversity. Women currently earn more than 57.3% of all bachelor’s and 58.5% of all master’s degrees in the United States. In addition, they receive nearly 44.9% of doctorates and 47.3% of law degrees (US Department 2002). Also, women currently comprise about 46.5% of the U.S. paid labor force (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2003). According to Catalyst’s

censuses of women corporate officers and top earners, women’s representation within the Fortune 500 senior ranks increased from 10.0% in 1996 to 15.7% in 2002

(Catalyst 1996‐2000).

At the same time, women also make and influence purchasing decisions. In

2001, women earned almost $2.3 trillion in the U.S., an indication of their growing

56 economic power (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2002). As a result, companies which use

their female talents and inputs produce products which appeal to a wider range of customers. Finally, research on group behavior demonstrates that diverse groups, when properly managed, make more innovative business decisions than non‐

diverse groups (Bantel 1989 and Tsui 1999).

A key finding that Catalyst’s research found was that the group of companies with the highest representation of women on their top management teams experience better financial performance than the group of companies with the lower women’s representation. This finding show that ROE is therefore 35.15 higher and

TRS is 34.0% higher than the lower diversity companies (Catalyst 2004).

In conclusion, the businesses that maintain diversity and manage it properly make better decisions, produce better products, and retain advantages over homogeneous companies, resulting in financial superiority.

57 Chapter 7 Cultural barriers

Whether looking at retirement security programs, unemployment insurance plans or health insurance plans, the assumption that married women are dependants, engaged in full‐time reproductive labor is reflected from the beginning in the extent of such programs (Lahey 2001). As early as the 1920s, womenʹs struggle to be treated as individuals in their own right in fiscal legislation is highly visible

and publicly controversial (United Kingdom 1920).

During World War II, husbands had been allowed to claim the full spousal

deduction even if their wife was earning her own income; this helped increase

womenʹs work in war industries. In the late 1950s, the new dependency requirement

was designed to make it more expensive for both husband and wife to work. This meant that the working wifeʹs income was subject to two ʺtaxesʺ: the actual income tax rates imposed on her income, and the additional ʺtaxʺ arising from the loss of the spousal deduction that her husband had previously been permitted to claim.

Because most husbands had higher incomes than their wives, the loss of the husbandʹs deduction cost him more than the value of the wifeʹs new personal exemption saved her in taxes. In a sense, the difference between the wifeʹs new personal exemption and the husbandʹs lost spousal deduction was a second tax stacked on top of the wifeʹs actual tax. In addition, once the cost of child care expenses, new work‐related expenses, such as transportation, replacement of 58 housekeeping and cooking services, and the loss of the husbandʹs spousal deduction

were deducted from the wifeʹs income, it was shown that she earned practically nothing (König et al. 1995: Averett et al. 1997).

Since the 1980s, the growing tendency to target various tax benefits of low‐ income families has meant that womenʹs entry into paid work will attract high drawbacks on social assistance payments, loss of low‐income benefits like the child tax credit, and inadequate tax support for child‐care expenses (Baker 1995: Solera

2000).

In addition, sex‐role stereotypes assign responsibility for child care to

women, and this responsibility is typically backed up by both child protection and

criminal laws that penalize parents who do not supervise children until at least the age of 12 (Baker 1995).

As the twentieth century drew to a close, the focus in contemporary tax and

social benefit design began to undergo a huge shift. Many tax and social benefits that had been considered universal were restructured to target ʺneedyʺ or

ʺdeservingʺ poor people (http://www.swc‐cfc.gc.ca). This eliminated the ʺwomen in

relationshipsʺ while replacing it with ʺwomen as people.ʺ

Cultural assumptions that women are dependent make it easier for a woman

worker to be supported by a partner, another family member or the state. Cultural

assumptions about the ʺproperʺ role of women makes it simpler for both women

and other family members to accept that SHE will devote her time to child care or

59 other unpaid work that is considered to be similar with sex‐role stereotypes.

“There may be exceptional cases in which a man is able to live alone in his house and to perform all the duties connected with the house, but they are rare. As a general rule the presence of a woman is essential to the household.” (Allen 1983)

The term glass ceiling was created in about 1984. It refers to situations where

the advancement of a person within the ladder of an organization is limited. This

restraint is normally based upon some form of discrimination, most commonly

being gender and race (http://en.wikipedia.org).

The ʺceilingʺ is referred to as the control blocking upward advancement, and

ʺglassʺ (transparent) because the limitation is not immediately apparent and is

normally an unwritten and unofficial policy. The ʺglass ceilingʺ is characterized by

formal barriers to advancement, such as education or experience requirements

(http://en.wikipedia.org).

“The issue of women barriers is who or what is the enemy. This is a matter of idea, approach and practice. ‘In the late 1970s a split occurred between socialist feminists and radical feminists. Socialist feminists saw the dominance of men over

women and class politics as acting together in the oppression of women, whereas

radical feminists argued that male dominance formed the motor force behind

women’s subordination from which men, of whatever class, benefited. Indeed

Delphy, for example, argued that women constituted a class in themselves (Delphy

1970).’ (Roberts 1991).”

60 Concerns are with male stereotyped views of women. There is also an idealist

strand, a belief that if the methods for inequality are exposed, then these can be

changed and from that, men and women will change to make a better society.

In September, 2006, Inside Higher Ed (insidehighered.com) published a story

entitled ‘Bias or Interest’. The report explains that professors don’t agree that

discrimination is the main reason for more men in job positions than women. It

explains that professors overwhelmingly believe that it’s a matter of different

interests between men and women. The data was composed from a national survey

of 1500 professors from different kinds of institutions in the US. Neil Gross of

Harvard and Solon Simmons of Georgia Mason University are sociologists who ran

the survey. The survey asked professors, who were mainly men, the following: “In

many math, science, and engineering fields there are more male professors than

female professors. Do you think this difference is mainly a) because of

discrimination; b) because of differences in ability between men and women; or c)

because of differences in interest between men and women” (Bias or Interest 2006).

The survey showed that 1% referred to differing ability levels, 24% cited

discrimination, meaning 33% of women compared to 17% of men felt that

discrimination was the main factor, while 75% felt that the issue was a difference in

interest (Bias or Interest 2006).

61 Examples illustrating of women being at least equally as capable as men are

numerous. However, just as numerous are examples showing adverse treatment of

those abilities in females.

A case at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology illustrated a female

neuroscientist, considered one of the brightest minds of her generation, who was

discouraged by a senior (male) scholar to accept a job (Jaschik 2006, Oct.). Another case at Oakland University showed a woman biologist who won big grants and backing from her department, only to have the provost reject her tenure bid, which sparked widespread complaints (Bias or Interest 2006). It shows evidence that women

run into obstacles early in their careers that men might not face.

On a positive note, the UC system has steadily increased the number of women faculty over the past few decades and matched or outpaced other major universities in hiring female faculty. UC Davis, for example, gained 13% from 1998‐

99 to 1999‐00. In 2000‐01 there were 32% of female registered campus professionals

which increased to 42% in 2001‐02 (Office of Strategic Communications 2003, Feb.).

62

Women of different ethnicities

There are inequalities between women of race and class, and a variety of experience in terms of sexual orientation, long‐term relationships and motherhood.

It is therefore inaccurate to portray the interests of a white single woman in a professional job as being coincident with the grandmother in an extended family

from an ethnic minority.

Different cultures have different ideas of family, gender roles, and

family/work relationships. Carter and Cook (1992) claim that in some cultures,

“career” may have a group, not individual meaning. This may explain why some

professions, which may require individualized work, may not appeal to certain cultures.

Studies have shown that African Americans express greater importance in

home and family than in work (Naidoo 1998). Some literature such as Career

Development and Vocational Behavior of Racial and Ethnic Minorities by F.T.L. Leong

63 (1995) and Career Counseling for Native Youth: What Kind and by Whom? by R.V. Peavy

(1995) point out the great diversity in worldview, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status within groups such as Hispanic, Asian, African, and Native Americans. They also show how these differences effect what types of work is acceptable and the manner in which work is to be done. For example, Mexican American parents are focused on the role of continuing education in the career development process (Kim

1993), while Korean parents focus on career selection.

Professional surveys such as the ASLA Salary Survey (1998) and The National

Survey of Career Patterns among Women in Landscape Architecture (Nassauer 1983) illustrate the vast differences between the majority and minority populations in landscape architecture.

The choice of a career involves access to information and opportunities that are not as easily attained by some people as by others due to culture, race, gender, and class. In landscape architecture, minority groups make up less than 10% of the total professional population and less than 40% of the total profession is female

(ASLA Salary Survey 1998).

64 The two most significant demographic findings concerning landscape architecture are disparity in gender and lack of ethnic diversity. The lack of cultural

and ethnic diversity is a problem for the profession of landscape architecture. The

problem is not limited to low numbers of people but more importantly the inclusion

of diverse voices and perspectives. According to the ASLA, 96% of its members are

white (ASLA Salary Survey 1998).

Nationally, African American students accounted for 10% of the total

enrollment at colleges and universities in 1995. Hispanics made up 8% of enrolled

students; Asian/Pacific Islanders, 6%; and Native Americans 1% of all students

enrolled at colleges and universities in 1995 (National Center for Education Statistics

2000).

Most previous studies have not provided multiethnic or biracial as a category

for choice and therefore cannot be compared to any previous demographic studies

conducted by the ASLA or the Department of Education.

Improving treatment and graduation rates is a cornerstone of UC’s commitment to student success. Improvements in persistence and graduation have been even more significant for under‐represented minority students such as African

American, American Indian and Chicano/Latino students (Office of Strategic

Communications 2003, Nov.).

Persistence rates (student’s continued enrollment at the university one year or

two years after entering) for underrepresented freshmen continuing to their second

65 year at UC have gone up by nearly 5% over five years. Persistence rates for

underrepresented transfer students also increased, from 79.9 percent in 1986 to 90.3

percent in 2001 (Office of Strategic Communications 2003, Nov.).

UC has better graduation rates and persistence than state and national

averages. The Chronicle of Higher Education found that at UC, 77.9 percent of freshmen who entered in Fall 1996 had graduated by 2001‐02 (Office of Strategic

Communications 2003 Nov.).

A report, prepared by Dennis J. Galligani, Ph.D., Associate Vice President of

the UC Office of the President – Student Academic Services, and the Principal

author Nina Robinson, with assistance from Kyra Caspary, Veronica Santelices, Saul

Geiser, Roger Studley, Charles Masten, Neal Finkelstein, Stephen Handel, Robert

Tacconi, Liz Tamayo, and Scott Bruce, and was published in March 2003. During the period 1995 through 2002, the University of California was developing and implementing race‐neutral undergraduate admission and outreach policies and programs.

The University of California offers an excellent educational experience that is

chosen by California’s most talented students. This makes the University of

California one of the nation’s leading public research universities. By state policy, only the top one‐eighth of California’s high school graduates are considered eligible

for the University, whereas some campuses can only admit less than a quarter of those fully qualified candidates who submit an application. In addition, such highly

66 selective institutions find that employing race‐neutral policies leads to a substantial

decline in the proportion of entering students who are African American, American

Indian, and Latino (University of California 2003).

These declines have been partially reduced by programs designed to increase

enrollments of students of families with low‐income, families with little experience

with higher education, and students that graduate from schools that traditionally do

not send large numbers of students on to four‐year institutions (University of

California 2003).

The University of California has classified groups as “underrepresented” and

“underrepresented minority” students, if they were accepted at the University at a

rate below 12.5 percent such as African Americans, American Indians, and

Chicano/Latinos (University of California 2003).

Increases in the numbers of underrepresented minority students graduating from California high schools, combined with substantial expansion of enrollment

capacity at several UC campuses, have led to overall increases for some groups

within the University of California as a whole. However, underrepresented students

remain a substantially smaller proportion of those admitted to and enrolled at the

University’s most selective campuses than before the elimination of race‐conscious

policies. Additionally, the gap between of underrepresented minority students

graduating from California high schools and the enrolling at the University of

California has widened (University of California 2003).

67 During the 1970s and 1980s, the University pursued an aggressive program to provide access to the full range of California’s high school students and to racially and ethnically diversify its campuses. This effort was effective in enrolling substantial numbers of underrepresented minority students. However, beginning in the late 1980s, the increased in students applying to the more selective campuses led to decrease in underrepresented minority enrollments. At the same time, students from these groups were increasing rapidly as California’s high school graduates

(University of California 2003).

In 1995 and 1996, the UC Board of Regents and the voters of the State of

California adopted measures eliminating race‐conscious practices in University admissions and in other areas. Soon after, the University saw a drop in applications and admission rates for African American, American Indian, and Latino graduates, and the proportion of underrepresented students in the admitted class declined on all campuses from when race‐conscious admission policies were eliminated

(Atkinson: Pelfrey 2004).

Since then, the University has adopted a number of strategies designed to enhance the academic preparation of UC students. Also, strategies were enhanced to maintain access for low‐income students, educationally disadvantaged families and schools, and those from underserved geographical areas of the state (University of

California 2003).

68 The different ethnic and racial communities that make up California’s

population vary substantially in terms of income and education level. In particular,

California’s Asian American population tends to be well educated and considerably

more likely to pursue higher education, regardless of income. In contrast, African

American and Latino students tend to be from lower income families that are less

likely to have had previous experience with higher education. On average, students

from these groups have less access to educational resources and lag in academic

preparation. Refer to Table below (University of California 2003).

Studies of the rates at which high school graduates from these different

groups meet the University’s eligibility standards indicate that whites are the only group which tends to achieve eligibility at roughly the one‐eighth (12.5 percent) rate specified in the Master Plan. Fully one‐third of Asian American high school graduates are UC‐eligible, while rates for African Americans and Latinos are lower than 5 percent (Eligibility 1997).

69 Table # 1: Population, Income, Education, and UC Eligibility by Ethnicity

During the decade of the 1980s, the University of California made substantial

progress in diversifying its freshman class. As shown in the table below, in 1980,

underrepresented students constituted just slightly less than 10 percent of the enrolled UC resident freshman class, while these students comprised roughly a quarter of the state’s public high school graduates. By 1990, the proportion of

underrepresented freshmen had roughly doubled, to 19.4 percent. During this

period, underrepresented students grew to 31.5 percent of California’s public high

school graduates, so UC effectively reduced the size of the “gap” between

proportional representation among UC freshmen and among high school graduates.

This trend began to change in the early 1990s as campuses became increasingly selective. During the five years from 1990 to 1995, underrepresented students’ proportional representation among UC California resident freshmen grew moderately, from 19.4 percent to 21.0 percent. During the same five years,

70 underrepresented students increased from 31.5 percent to 38.3 percent of public high school graduates and the gap between UC freshmen and high school graduates

increased from 12.1 to 17.3 percentage points—an increase of 43.0 percent

(University of California 2003).

Table # 2: Underrepresented Minorities as a Percentage of New UC CA Resident Freshmen and CA Public High School Graduates 1980, 1985, 1990 and 1995

“First‐Year Implementation of Comprehensive Review in Freshman Admissions: A Progress Report from the Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools,” University of California, November 2002. http://www.ucop.edu/regents/regmeet/nov02/302attach.pdf

For the UC system as a whole, and on most campuses, applications,

admissions, and enrollment of underrepresented students followed a similar pattern

over the period from 1995‐2002. As the following display indicates, applications

from underrepresented students fell immediately following the decision to adopt

Resolution SP‐1 (Atkinson: Pelfrey 2004).

71

(University of California 2003)

Regents’ Resolution SP‐1 was adopted by The Regents of the University of

California on July 20, 1995. The major focus of Resolution SP‐1 was to eliminate

“race, religion, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin as criteria for admission to the

University or to any program of study.” In addition, Resolution SP‐1 incorporated

several other components. This resulted in drops in admission and enrollment as

well. In November 1996 the voters of California passed Proposition 209, a

constitutional amendment that eliminated racial preferences in the operation of all

state programs, including higher education. Both new policies took effect for

undergraduate admissions beginning with the class applying for Fall 1998.

Admission and enrollment of underrepresented students dropped further in 1998,

when SP‐1 and Proposition 209 went into effect. In the years since 1998, these

72 numbers have increased, although patterns have differed at various campuses

(Atkinson: Pelfrey 2004).

73 Profiles of UC First‐Time Freshman Applicants, Admits and Enrollments: Information Source and Data Definitions

Campus profiles have been generated using system‐wide admissions data

collected by the University of California and last updated in February 2003. Through

their applications to UC, students provide academic and demographic information

that is subsequently reviewed and standardized. Using data from the system‐wide

admissions process has allowed for consistent field definitions across years and

campuses (http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu).

Campuses profiles only consider students applying to fall semester as “first‐

time freshmen.ʺ In other words, it excludes transfer students and students in early

admission accelerated programs. In terms of admissions, the analyses consider

students who were regularly admitted as well as those admitted by exception

(http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu).

All indicators except underrepresented minorities were calculated as a

fraction of the overall number of students applying and admitted at a given campus.

Following a long‐standing UC reporting practice the proportion of underrepresented minorities was calculated as a fraction of domestic students only

(http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu).

First‐generation college students have been defined as those students for whom neither parent completed a four‐year degree. Family income is expressed in

1999 dollars and low‐income students are those whose parents have a combined

74 annual income less than or equal to $30,000 in 1999 dollars (University of California

2003).

Low‐performing schools are those in the 1st and 2nd quintiles of the

Academic Performance Index ranking constructed by the California Department of

Education. California rural students are those attending California rural high school.

Counts for the Eligibility in the Local Context program include all eligible students and not only “newly” eligible students. Note that admit rates include applicants that cancelled before being admitted to UC. Thus, ELC admit rates will be less than 100 percent (University of California 2003).

Table 3: Measures of Access for Admitted Students at the Six Selective Campuses from 2001‐2003 (All measures are given as percent of admitted students)

(http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regmeet/sept03/302attach.pdf)

75 Campus Trends 1995‐2002: Davis

At UC Davis, admitted students usually enroll at 21 percent. Overall

enrollment rates have fluctuated over the period from 1995 to 2002, but 2002 rates

are within one or two percentage points of those in 1995. In 1995 enrollment rates for

this campus averaged 24.3 percent; in 2002 these averaged 23.7 percent. Rates at

which underrepresented students enroll have also fluctuated, generally in the same direction as overall trends, but a few percentage points lower. At UC Davis these rates are slightly below where they were in 1995: admitted underrepresented students enrolled at rates of 23.2 percent in 1995; in 2002, these enrollment rates

stand at 20.9 percent (University of California 2003).

In terms of the proportion of the total enrolled class that underrepresented students comprise, the campus shows generally high points in 1994 or 1995, declining percentages through 1998 or 1999, and increases since then. At UC Davis,

underrepresented students increased as a proportion of the total freshman class from 1996 through 2001, but fell again in 2002 (University of California 2003).

If the profession of landscape architecture is to increase the diversity within

the profession it will eventually need to determine the needs of different groups of people and how to best meet these needs as they relate to the profession. For example, if females find getting job opportunities in the nursery or landscape construction industry difficult because they are women, it will reduce their access to career information in terms of related work experience. In fact, it could also

76 discourage them from further considering landscape architecture as a career.

77 Table # 4: Number of Applications, Admits and Enrollments for ELC and Non‐ELC

California Residents by campus and Ethnicity—Fall 2001 Admissions Cycle

78 Chapter 8 Educational barriers

In 1901, the Lowthrope School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, which allowed young women to train in landscape architecture, was established. A little more than a decade later in 1915, the Cambridge School of Architecture and

Landscape Architecture opened (Anderson 1980). These were very successful until they were closed or combined into other universities or college programs. The

Cambridge School was closed in 1942, and graduated more than 700 female students in its 26 years of operation (Brown and Maddux 1982).

According to the research by Valorie Hennigan and Jot D. Carpenter of 1998,

‘Women in the ASLA: A Descriptive Analysis’, the enrollment of women in accredited programs of landscape architecture has increased dramatically since 1942.

While women’s enrollment has increased or remained level over the last thirty years, male enrollment in landscape architecture has steadily declined over the past 15 years as illustrated in the Table below. The table shows an obvious gap in education of landscape architecture among women and men right from the beginning

(Hennigan 1998).

79 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 1996

Total Enrollment Male Enrollment Female Enrollment

Hennigan, Valorie and Jot D. Carpenter. Women in the ASLA: A Descriptive Analysis. Landscape Journal, Vol. 17, 1998.

Today, gender gaps still persist in education, particularly when it comes to training women and girls for todayʹs technology‐oriented workplace, leveling the playing field in athletics and other areas essential to the full development of their potential. The National Womenʹs Law Centerʹs Education program addresses these gaps by fighting for strong enforcement of Title IX and promoting programs that remove barriers to girlsʹ educational opportunities. Current priorities include opening doors to vocational and career education programs that train young women to enter and succeed in non‐traditional fields with the promise of greater pay and job opportunities; bringing groundbreaking lawsuits and undertaking other advocacy efforts to enforce Title IXʹs promise of equal treatment in education,

80 including in athletics, and fighting for strong affirmative action policies that take

race and gender into account to remedy discrimination and promote diversity in

education (http://www.dol.gov).

Previous studies are useful for the comparison of old and new data. The 1982

ASLA National Salary Survey of Landscape Architects (ASLA 1983), which researched

both men and women, provided some of the information for this paper.

Landscape architects who were members of the ASLA were compared with non‐members and with students and faculty. On educational variables, students

were compared with graduates, and faculties were contrasted with practicing

professionals. On a professional basis, full‐time landscape architects were compared

with part‐time professionals. In addition, women who were educated in the

landscape architecture field but were not practicing because of family commitments

were compared to full‐time workers, part‐time workers, students, and faculties.

Additionally, married versus never married respondents were compared, whereby

students were left out (Nassauer 1983).

In the 1983 – The National Survey of Career Patterns among Women in Landscape

Architecture – performed by the ASLA, current and former undergraduate and

graduate students from eleven landscape architecture programs were compared. It showed that ‘53.6% of students were 25 or younger, while 41.1% were between the ages of 26 and 32. It was noticeable that women respondents tended to be older than the 18‐22 year‐old college crowd. 72.2% of the students were single, about ¼ were

81 married, while 4.7% were married once. One tenth of women were parents of

children under 17 (Nassauer 1983).’

About a quarter of students already had earned non‐landscape architecture or bachelor’s degrees. The knowledge of students before entering their study of landscape architecture differed among them. A few students knew some basics of the field while others had no knowledge (Nassauer 1983).

The Women in the Labor Force in 2006 reported on April 30, 2007, that ‘of persons aged 25 years and older, 27% of women and men had attained a bachelor’s degree or higher; 32% of women and 29% of men had completed only high school,

no college (www.dol.gov).’

The study also showed that the higher the education the more likely the

person will participate in the labor‐force and the less likely the person will be

unemployed.

Table #5: Employment comparison compared to education levels. For women age 25 with: Participation in labor Unemployment Rate force Less than High‐school 33.2% 7.9% diploma High‐school diploma 53.8% 4.3% Some college, no degree 64.0% 4.3% Associate degree 71.2% 3.1% Bachelor’s degree or higher 73.1% 2.1%

ʺEducation is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.ʺ Oscar Wilde

82 Comparisons of the past studies with current women/male ratios in classes

show an increase of women participants in college studios over the past decades. It

also demonstrates that more women go on to graduate studies in today’s era than in

the past (Nassauer 1983).

Members of ASLA demonstrated that 58% had undergraduate degrees in

landscape architecture, 7.1% had both undergraduate and graduate degrees in the field, while 24.9% had a graduate degree in landscape architecture; 3.3% of the remaining affiliates had a degree in another field whereas 6.5% had no college

degree at all. The 1982 Salary Survey showed similar results wherein 97% of ASLA

men and women members had a bachelor’s degree and 30% of these had graduate degrees (Nassauer 1983).

In the graduating class of 1904, Marian Cruger Coffin, one of four women students in her class of 500 at MIT School of Architecture, said, ʺWe were thrown in all our work in competition with the men, and the invasion of their province as well as our specialty (which was a new and untried architectural development), put us on our mettle to prove that we too were serious students and competitors (Fleming

1995).ʺ

83 On November 2004, a recent study by Mercer Consulting showed that

increases in student fees will be necessary to achieve the goal to improve compensation for all UC employees. The Board of Regents voted in favor of a student fee increase for 2005‐06 (Office of Strategic Communications 2004).

“Mandatory System‐wide Fees:

• Undergraduate students: Mandatory system‐wide student fees will increase by 8 percent above the current fee level. For resident undergraduates, the additional 8 percent will raise fees $457, bringing mandatory system‐wide fees for resident undergraduates to $6,141. With the additional miscellaneous fees charged by individual campuses, the total average fees are estimated to be $6,769.

• Graduate students: Mandatory system‐wide fees for resident graduate academic student fees will increase 10 percent or $628 per year in 2004‐05, bringing the fees for such students to $6,897. The average total fees (including miscellaneous campus fees) are estimated to stand at $8,556.

• Professional students: Mandatory system‐wide fees for professional students will

be increased by $628, bringing these fees for professional students to $6,092. In

addition, professional students also must pay professional fees and miscellaneous

campus fees and, as appropriate, nonresident tuition (Office of Strategic

Communications 2004)”

84 To give some comparison, see Table below. Even with the 8 percent increase,

fees for resident undergraduates will be about $1,100 below the projected average

charged at other public universities (Illinois, Michigan, SUNY and Virginia) that UC

uses for fee comparison purposes. Total fees for resident undergraduates at UC will

stand at $6,769, while fees at comparison public universities will average $7,781 for

2005‐06 (Office of Strategic Communications 2004).

Table # 6: University of California and Public Salary Comparison Institutions Student Fees Public Salary Comparison Undergraduate Graduate Institutions 2004‐05 Fees Resident Resident Nonresident Nonresident University of Illinois $ 7,944 $ 20,864 $ 8,310 $ 20,310 University of Michigan $ 8,722 $ 26,941 $ 13,585 $ 27,311 State University of New York $ 5,907 $ 12,167 $ 9,455 $ 13,265 University of Virginia $ 6,790 $ 22,890 $ 9,200 $ 20,200

2004‐05 Average fees of $ 7,341 $ 20,716 $ 10,138 $ 20,272 Comparison Institutions

2004‐05 Average UC Fees $ 6,312 $ 23,268 $ 7,928 $ 22,867

2005‐06 Estimated Average $ 7,781 $ 21,958 $ 10,847 $ 21,082 Fees for Public Salary Comparison Institutions

2005‐06 Estimated Average $ 6,769 $ 24,589 $ 8,556 $ 23,537 UC Fees assuming increases in system‐wide fees consistent with the Compact* *Increases of 8% for undergraduate students and 10% for graduate students in system‐wide fees; and 5% in nonresident tuition for undergraduates.

85 Clearly not all change is bad. In fact, there may be some real opportunities that occur as a result of change. How can we as landscape architects remove some of the uncertainty associated with the changing world around us‐ and how can we position our profession to be beneficiaries of that change? Patrick A. Miller, FASLA

The University of California’s track record shows good news. ‘The UC system has steadily increased the number of women faculty over the past few decades and matched or outpaced other major universities in hiring female faculty (Office of

Strategic Communications 2003, Feb.).’

The overall proportion of women faculty being hired continues to increase for

the third consecutive year. In the school year 1999‐2000 the percentage of new female faculty hired was 25% which rose to 30% in 2000‐2001 and 31.2% in 2002. UC

Davis, for example, gained 13% from 1998‐99 to 1999‐00. In 2000‐01 there were 32%

of female registered campus professionals which increased to 42% in 2001‐02. UC

Berkeley increased hiring of all women faculty from 27% to 32% and assistant professors from 30% to 37% between 2000‐01 and 2001‐02 (Office of Strategic

Communications 2003, Feb.).

Additionally, the proportion of the total female faculty at the University of

California (24.2 percent) is noticeably higher than at institutions such as MIT (16 percent) and Stanford University (20.3 percent). In addition, UC has shown a substantial increase in the hiring of women into full professor positions, up from

18.5% of full professor hires in 2000‐01 to 27.1% in 2001‐02. (Office of Strategic

Communications 2003, Feb.)’

86 To fix the problem of faculty gender inequity, UC’s President Richard C.

Atkinson initiated steps to increase the involvement of women faculty members to

develop recommendations that better address gender equity on campuses (Office of

Strategic Communications 2003, Feb.).

Furthermore, individual campuses have made real progress in developing

policies that address faculty gender equity. UC Irvine was the recipient of a National

Science Foundation grant that allowed the campus to restructure committees and

advisors at each school to monitor faculty hiring, which has been very successful so

far in recruiting women to the higher ranks of academic leadership. Six of the 10 deans at UCI are now women (Office of Strategic Communications 2003 Feb.).

UC Berkeley now requires departments asking for new faculty positions to

provide an assessment of their record on hiring of women and minority faculty in

the past five years. UCB also developed a comprehensive web‐based survey for

faculty on career/family issues that will provide important data for evaluating

family accommodation policies (Office of Strategic Communications 2003, Feb.).

The Davis campus made a special effort to re‐examine faculty hiring to assess the problem of inequality and formulate solutions. It also completed a comprehensive study of equity in faculty hiring in March 2002 (Office of Strategic

Communications 2003, Feb.).

87 Tenure

Tenure is often associated with senior job titles such as Professor and

Associate Professor. A junior professor has to demonstrate a strong record of

research, teaching, and administrative service before being eligible for tenure.

Typical systems allow only a limited period to establish such a record, by limiting

the number of years that any employee can hold a junior title such as Assistant

Professor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure).

Academic tenure is primarily intended to guarantee the right to academic

freedom: it protects respected teachers and researchers when they disagree with

general opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or spend time on

unfashionable topics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure).

Universities themselves pay dearly whenever they guarantee lifetime

employment to an individual who proves unworthy of it. Universities therefore

exercise great care in offering tenured positions, first requiring an intensive formal

review of the candidateʹs record of research, teaching, and service. This review typically takes several months and includes the solicitation of confidential letters of assessment from highly regarded scholars in the candidateʹs research area. Some colleges and universities also solicit letters from students about the candidateʹs teaching. A tenured position is offered only if both senior faculty and senior administrators judge that the candidate is likely to remain a productive scholar and teacher for life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure).

88 The decisions are made by the senior faculty and senior administrators who

are often made up mainly of men. The data show that the gaps in employment vary

significantly both by sector and job title. In addition, the gender salary gap is largest

for those off the tenure track (Jaschik 2006).

Table # 7: Percentage of Women in Faculty Positions, by Sector, 2005‐6 Sector and Job Status % of Women Doctoral institutions —Non‐tenure track 52.2% —Tenure track, but not tenured 40.9% —Tenured 25.8% —Full professor 19.3% Master’s institutions —Non‐tenure track 54.1% —Tenure track, but not tenured 47.3% —Tenured 35.0% —Full professor 28.3% Baccalaureate institutions —Non‐tenure track 48.6% —Tenure track, but not tenured 47.4% —Tenured 36.1% —Full professor 29.3% Community colleges —Non‐tenure track 52.9% —Tenure track, but not tenured 53.1% —Tenured 47.4% —Full professor 46.9% The American Association of University Professors (AAUP). A report with “gender equity indicators”

89 Despite all these efforts, it is still obvious that gender discrimination exists.

One example of this just made the news at the beginning of the year 2007.

In January 2007 architect Martha Schwartz, the Harvard adjunct1 professor of landscape architecture at Harvard University, resigned in a letter criticizing the

Graduate School of Design’s gender inequities, including the landscape architecture

department’s utter lack of a female tenure hire in its 106‐year existence (Redden

2007).

Insidehighered.com published her statements in “Twist on Harvard’s Gender

Battles” on their web‐site. She said: “When I was a student [in Harvard’s landscape architecture program] in 1977, half the students were women. Now it’s 70 percent.”

In spite of that, the department today has six full tenured professors, who are all

men. There are also 11 other non‐visiting faculty members, four of whom, including

Martha Schwartz, are female (Redden 2007).

In 1992, Martha Schwartz declined to become the landscape architecture

department’s first tenured female hire, because she did not want to give up her

landscape architecture firm. The firm, Martha Schwartz Partners, is based both in

Cambridge and London. She decided to teach at Harvard as an adjunct together with two male colleagues. Soon after her start at Harvard, the University created the

“professor in practice” position – a more flexible tenured position that allows practicing architects to maintain and advance their professional commitments.

1 An adjunct professor is a teacher who educates classes for lower wages and fewer employment benefits under relatively short-term contracts and usually is non-tenured (Richardson, 1999). 90 Martha observed her two male colleagues advance into the new tenured positions

(Redden 2007).

In 2002, the University searched to fill another professor in practice position.

Schwartz interviewed for this position but without any obvious reasons, the school’s

former dean called off the search after a two‐year search without hiring anyone. “It was humiliating,” said Schwartz, “I’m not saying I’m the only qualified [professor], who could do it, but at that point, I’d been teaching for 10 years, and I had a practice. There was something strange about it and there was absolutely no place to turn. There were no women who could support me or guide me or mentor me through the process. We’re on our own (Redden 2007).”

Alan Altshuler, the current graduate school dean wrote in an e‐mail that while the design school may have proven to be unfriendly territory for the advancement of female faculty in the past, things have changed since the early 1990s

(Redden 2007).

Martha Schwartz was loaded with professional obligations when another

tenure review process was coming up. She was unwilling to put herself through the

process again. Schwartz resigned and sent a copy of her letter of resignation,

accompanied with her observation of the gender imbalance, to The Harvard

Crimson, which first reported the news. Alan Altshuler and President Bok quickly contacted her, comvincing Schwartz to withdraw her resignation (Redden 2007).

91 “Over the past dozen years,” Altshuler wrote, “six of the fourteen full professor appointments at the GSD have been women. During this period there have

been only two such appointments in landscape, both men. On my own watch as dean since July 2004, all three professor [appointments] — two in architecture, one

in urban planning — have been women, and we are at an advanced stage of

considering Martha Schwartz for tenure right now.” The department expects to

complete that process within the next several months (Redden 2007).

The landscape architecture department has also initiated a competitive search

for up to two tenured full professor positions, and two of the five finalists in that

search are women (Redden 2007).

Schwartz, whose anti‐discrimination was warmly welcomed by her female

colleagues at Harvard, plans to proceed with the tenure review but is not sure if she’ll be able to fulfill the responsibilities of a tenured position at this point (Redden

2007).

Schwartz feels that there seems to be good will toward reaching greater gender parity in the faculty of Harvard’s design school. But the relative lack of female faculty in the graduate school, she said, is a longstanding problem that may

take a long time to fix (Redden 2007).

The incident is the latest development in the gender wars at Harvard, where

the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in October released an internal report which found

that just 20 percent of individuals who accepted tenure‐track offers at the

92 university’s main undergraduate college in 2006 were women, a decline from 40 percent in 2004‐5 (Redden 2007).

Table # 8: UC Tenure vs. Non‐Tenure University‐wide and at UC Davis

93 Some universities, Martha S. West, a professor of law at the University of

California at Davis said, have done more to educate professors about bias, which she

said plays a real role, even if it is not of the “no women need apply” variety of

previous generations. “Discrimination is going to be entrenched until women reach

a critical mass,” she said. Bias “takes place in faculty members’ minds when they are

making individual decisions on whom to make an offer to. In our society and most

societies, women have long been regarded as inferior, but people aren’t aware of

their own biases — men and women have some of the same prejudices,” West said

(Jaschik 2006).

Barbara Taylor, the president of CUPA‐HR and associate vice chancellor for

administration and human resources at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville

said that she believed a variety of factors were at play, including demographics,

personal choices, disciplinary shifts and “old‐fashioned discrimination (Jaschik

2006).”

It proves that it will take time to remove all biases and generational beliefs about women in the profession before women in the work force are considered to

have the same capabilities as men (Jaschik 2006).

94 However, the profession of landscape architecture faces extra challenges.

Pressure to reduce university costs has resulted in threats to landscape architectural

programs. Monetary cuts result in inefficient funds for hiring additional faculty. In

addition, the landscape architectural programs need increasing numbers of students to justify their existence. The escalating cost of landscape architecture education is a

potential limiting factor for a new generation of students entering the profession,

and many students who might be attracted to the profession are unaware of it.

Information, research and continuing education within the profession are rapidly

growing needs that are not currently being met.

95 Chapter 9 Economical barriers

On June 1, 2005, the 2005 Salary Survey was distributed by the WinWriters.

The WinWriters Salary Survey reports that although two‐thirds of its respondents

are female, they lag behind their male counterparts in annual salary by an average of

$4,000, or a 7% difference. Looking at hourly wage earners, women contractors

earned an average of $41 per hour compared to $49 for the men (McGee 2005).

Looking at the findings of the 2005 salary survey, the wage gap between men and women appears to have grown. While average salary for males in executive management

grew from $99,327 in 2003 to $109,042 in 2005, the average salary for females in this job

category slipped from $75,129 in 2003 to $71,561 in 2005. The female executive

management respondents this year not only earned an average $37,481 less than their male

colleagues, they earned $3,564 less than the average for women in this category in 2003

(McGee 2005).

The 2005 salary survey asked respondents what they thought of the statement: “Men

and women in executive management are equally compensated.” (See Table 9). Of women

respondents, 63 percent said they strongly disagreed or somewhat disagreed with the

statement. This compares with 32 percent of men who said they strongly disagreed or

somewhat disagreed with the statement (McGee 2005).

96 TABLE 9: GENDER PERSPECTIVES TABLE 9: “Men and women in executive management are equally compensated.” Males Females Strongly disagree 8% 24% Somewhat disagree 24% 39% No opinion 23% 12% Somewhat agree 19% 8% Strongly agree 8% 1% No answer 18% 16%

When regarding the statement: “Men and women are equally compensated,”

54 percent of female respondents strongly disagreed/somewhat disagreed versus 29

percent of the males who felt the same way. Clearly the majority of women

respondents in both categories did not feel that women were equally compensated, while most of the males disagreed (McGee 2005).

Respondents were also asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement: “Men are more interested in reaching executive‐level positions than women.” Sixty‐six percent of women strongly disagreed/somewhat disagreed with the statement, while 43 percent of the males felt the same. Twenty‐four percent of

the males (the largest single response category) had no opinion of the statement

(McGee 2005).

“Women are afforded the same leadership opportunities as men.” Of the

female respondents, 60 percent strongly disagreed/somewhat disagreed, compared

to 32 percent of the males, who felt the same way. The largest single response

category for males: 28 percent somewhat agreed with the statement (McGee 2005). 97 There was one area where men and women generally agreed. Respondents were asked whether they thought that the leadership styles of men and women differed significantly. The majority of men (55 percent) and women (58 percent) agreed. Interestingly, 17 percent of women said “no,” while only 10 percent of the

men replied the same (McGee 2005).

To improving compensation for all UC employees, the Office of Strategic

Communications introduced RE‐61 in November 2005. The publication titled “RE‐

61: Improving compensation for all UC employees and strengthening oversight of

and accountability for senior management salaries”, announced that UC salaries, on

average, are behind the comparative market by 15%. Nevertheless, because of the

good health and retirement benefits offered at UC, the overall compensation for UC employees is considered currently at market level (Office of Strategic

Communications 2005).

The recent study by Mercer Consulting showed, however, that increases in

salaries over the next ten years will be crucial to ensure market‐level compensation

at all levels of the University. This is partially due to the expected increases in health benefit costs (Office of Strategic Communications 2005).

98 At the September 2005 meeting, UC Regents considered RE‐61, a proposal consisting of the following three suggestions:

1) Establish goals to increase salaries for all groups of employees over the ten year

period from 2006‐2007 through 2015‐2016;

2) Set compensation levels for senior leadership that are clear and to ensure that decisions regarding executive compensation are appropriate

3) Augment funding of salaries for amounts in excess of $350,000.

To achieve this goal the Office of Strategic Communications announced in

November 2004, that the student fees will need to be increased. On Thursday, Nov.

18, the Board of Regents voted in favor of a student fee increase for 2005‐06. This outcome resulted from the agreement made between the Governor and the

University of California in May 2004. For undergraduates, fee increases would

average 10 percent over a three‐year period (14 percent in 2004‐05; 8 percent in 2005‐

06 and 2006‐07). Graduate fees increased by 20 percent in 2004‐05 and 10 percent in

both 2005‐06 and 2006‐07. This increase was to create predictability around fee levels

for students and their parents (Office of Strategic Communications 2005).

99 For the good news on salary and wages, on September 21, 2006, The National

Association of Colleges and Employers reported in “Booming Job Market for

College Grads”, that it is the best job market for graduates in four years. They

reported increased recruiting activities, higher salaries, multiple offers for the class

of 2006 with 2007 looking even better. Economics and finance graduates are faring

the best with a 6.2% increase in average offer (The National Association of Colleges

and Employers 2006).

With consideration to the landscape architecture field, “…it’s a very good

time to be a landscape architect,” said Nancy C. Somerville, executive vice president/CEO of ASLA. “With only 30,000 landscape architects in the U.S. and the sustained growth in demand for landscape architecture services, there is significant opportunity for young people considering entering the profession. The traditional market sectors—residential, parks and recreation, planning, commercial—have all remained extremely strong while less conventional fields such as storm‐water management, green roofs, and security design have grown significantly (asla.org).”

100 Comparing the 1998 ASLA survey data with similar information published on

architects by The American Institute of Architects (AIA), it appears that landscape architects do better in terms of each profession’s average salaries. ASLA reports a higher average income of about $6,000. Of all the design professions, engineers earn the highest wages, especially right out of college and in the early years. After fifteen

years of experience, the difference between the salary of a civil engineer and a

landscape architect is less than $5,000. The average salary of the landscape architect

is right between that of the engineer and the architect. According to the 2006 Salary

Survey report by The American Institute of Architects the average compensation increase for architects has outpaced price increases by only 15% since the 1990

(asla.org).

For several years, the ASLA researched and surveyed the participation of landscape architects, their salary, their firms and organizations and their gender demographic, then published the results. To compare some of these results, this research looked at the 1998, 2004, and 2006 ASLA National Salary Survey of

Landscape Architects (asla.org).

The average salary of the landscape architect in America in 1998 was $52,886

(6% increase since 1981), 2004 was $74,664 (23.4% increase from 1998), and 2006 was

$89,700 (20.2% increase from 2004) (asla.org).

In the ASLA survey, total compensation rose steadily by years of experience.

In 1998, the average offers to recent graduates from the private sector were running

101 $22,775; and $25,730 from the public sector. With one to three years experience the

offers rose to $26,407 and $30,016 respectively. At four to nine years, it escalated to

$35,042 and $37,377. Finally at ten plus years, the private sector advantage appeared

and the offers were $45,454 for private and $44,096 for public. A person who had

been practicing for 15.9 years received $52,886. The Pacific region led, as it did in

1988, but the South East became the second best earning area, replacing the North

East in that distinction (asla.org).

In the 2004 Survey, most respondents had 21‐25 years of experience with an average salary of $80,273. The average salary for those with 0‐5 years of experience was $41,803. Those with 36‐40 years of experience earned the highest average salary

at $97,564. The Pacific region was again the top‐earning region (ASLA 2004).

Finally, the 2006 Survey illustrated that salary peaked for those with

36‐40 years of experience and an average compensation of $167,000. The Pacific

region was again the top‐earning region, with an average compensation of $99,700

(ASLA 2006).

Female respondents increased their involvement in the landscape architecture field from 1988 till 2006. The ASLA salary survey of 1998 demonstrated that females

represented 24%, which has changed very little since 1988, which then was at

22.5%. In 2004, female respondents rose to 26%. In 2006, female respondents rose to

30% (asla.org).

102 The 1998 Survey provided that racial minorities are almost invisibly low.

African Americans represent 0.8%, Asian American at 1.9%. Hispanic practitioners continued to rise to 1.1% in 1998 from 0.7% in 1988 (ASLA 1998).

The 2004 Survey illustrated that African Americans practitioners declined to

0.3%, Asian American declined to 1.6%, and Hispanic practitioners rose to 2% in

2004 (ASLA 2004).

Finally, the 2006 ASLA Salary Survey explained that 91% were considered white; 3% Asian‐American; 1.4% Hispanics; and 1.9% “other (ASLA 2006).”

The 2006 ASLA Business Indicators Survey reveals that there are not enough landscape architects to meet the demand for services, which is expected to continue to grow in the next decade. While 62 percent of respondents indicated there was a good supply of landscape architecture graduates, 38 percent thought there were too

few landscape architecture graduates. Almost half of the respondents (47 percent)

expect to hire landscape architects in the coming 12 months (asla.org).

“The results reflect the significant growth in demand for landscape

architecture services across the board,” said Nancy C. Somerville, executive vice president of ASLA. “The traditional market sectors—residential, parks and recreation, planning, commercial—have remained extremely strong, while green

roofs and landscape environmental mitigation are increasing. The profession is

gaining visibility and the increased salaries are an indication of that

(http://www.asla.org/nonmembers/asla_pub.cfm).”

103 At academic levels, when it comes to salaries, the averages for women are

below those for men at all ranks, but the gaps are quite small in certain categories.

Some experts on salary patterns warn that there are many possible explanations for

the disparities. In particular, they say that disciplinary salary differentials, not

gender, may be a key factor in explaining gaps (Jaschik 2006).

Table # 10: Women’s Average Salary as a Percentage of Men’s Average Salary, by Sector, 2005‐6 Sector and Job Title Women’s Salary Percentage Doctoral institutions —Professor 90.9% —Associate professor 92.7% —Assistant professor 91.5% —All ranks 78.1% Master’s institutions —Professor 95.2% —Associate professor 95.5% —Assistant professor 97.4% —All ranks 87.3% Baccalaureate institutions —Professor 95.5% —Associate professor 98.1% —Assistant professor 97.4% —All ranks 89.6% Community colleges —Professor 95.2% —Associate professor 95.9% —Assistant professor 97.5% —All ranks 95.5% The American Association of University Professors (AAUP). A report with “gender equity indicators”.

104 Chapter 10 Political barriers

“The time has come and the need pressing for the cooperation and heroic aide of women.” ‐San Francisco News Letter, November 30, 1895

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination. It is presented under Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects men and women from unwelcome

sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of sexual nature, constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individualʹs employment, unreasonably interferes with an individualʹs work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work

environment (http://www.eeoc.gov).

In Fiscal Year 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

received 12,025 charges of sexual harassment. Only about 15.4% of those charges

were filed by males, while 84.6% were filed by women (http://www.eeoc.gov).

In 1964, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act was passed, which prohibits

employment discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job

training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. This law is enforced by the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In addition, Title VI of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national

105 origin in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance, which is

enforced by the Civil Rights Center (http://www.eeoc.gov).

In March, 2006, Inside Higher Ed (insidehighered.com) printed ‘Federal

Inquiry on Women in Science’, an article that covers how female undergraduate and graduate students are being treated. It also incorporates questions about the hiring

of faculty members, promotions and tenure. The National Journal reported that the

reviews are then being examined by the department’s authority to ensure that sex

discrimination in education programs which receive federal funding is banned

under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. This law is enforced by the

Civil Rights Center (http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm).

A Government Accountability Office report of 2004 criticized that in the past

11 years the Education Department had conducted a total of three compliance

reviews, which is inadequate enforcement. Assistant education secretary for civil

rights Stephanie Monroe stressed that the discrimination women face as students or

faculty members in the field of math and science may be “subtle” and may not

include written rules, but “barriers” are still quite real. Policies might include

patterns of “glass ceiling” which exclude women from certain kinds of positions, or

where women with children are considered on “Mommy track”

(www.insidehighered.com).

“It’s important to not simply look at the numbers, but what the intent of the policy is and how the policy is carried out,” Monroe said. She also said that “our job

106 as a law enforcement agency is not to push or influence decision making in terms of women and men making choices, but to make sure that women and men have the same opportunities.” Similarly, Jocelyn Samuel, vice president for education and employment at the National Women’s Law Center, said that departments should see

if expectations for tenure such as number of publications, where they appear, type of

research grants expected, and so on, support men instead of women

(www.insidehighered.com).

107 ASLA membership

A 1980s investigation concluded that more women participated in the ASLA

membership than had in the 10 years before and anticipated the membership would

grow. One quarter of the associate members were women, who tend to be young

and less experienced than the male ASLA members.

In the 1982 survey, a woman member of ASLA was younger than 35, married

without children. This survey showed that the currently practicing women were a

group of young ladies, which still have a long career path ahead of them. It also

showed that a large percentage of them were unmarried (28%) and an even larger ratio had no children (66.5%) (Nassauer 1983).

Some evidence was found that indicates that some members of the ASLA wanted the society to discourage female membership. The following excerpt was published in Landscape Architecture from Bremer Pond’s article: …by 1912 some men considered admission to the society a right exclusively of the male sex. Charles Downing Lay, then Secretary of the Society, received the following note from a member;” I have a blank form stating that a young lady is being considered for junior membership in the ASLA. I think it is a mistake to encourage women to enter the society. I hope some action will be taken in this matter (Pond 1950, p.65). “

108

On the other hand there is proof that suggests that women were excellent in

the practice of landscape architecture before 1929.

Not only did women landscape architects enjoy a large and lucrative practice in the field of estate and garden design, but they wrote extensively about it and promoted the profession to a wide audience. Women landscape architects for the most part worked alone rather than forming partnerships with other women and men. Most operated small offices hiring one to two additional staff persons, but some like Beatrix Ferrand had larger staffs (Neal 1973, p. 8)

In 1989, the ASLA included roughly 8,128 women landscape architecture members (Hennigan 1998). This is a significant increase since the ASLA establishment in 1899, but women still only represent a small percentage of the landscape profession.

109 Chapter 11 Resources

ACE Mentor Program

ASLA has launched a partnership with ACE Mentor Program, which introduces

high school students to careers in design and construction, to increase the number

and diversity of students entering the landscape architecture profession.

American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) – www.asla.org

Founded in 1899, ASLA is the national professional association for landscape

architects, representing 14,200 members. Landscape architecture is a comprehensive

discipline of land analysis, planning, design, management, preservation, and

rehabilitation. ASLA promotes the landscape architecture profession and advances

the practice through advocacy, education, communication, and fellowship.

ASLA Committee on Women

In the 1982 Survey, women were asked to suggest what the Committee on Women

could do to help women in their profession:

• “Promote visibility of women in the profession by publicizing accomplishments

of women landscape architects and providing role models for younger women,

• Provide continuing education in management and marketing,

• Work to improve education in construction, and 110 • Become involved in improving salary levels and combating discrimination

within the profession.”

ASLA’s Professional Practice Networks (PPNs)

ASLA’s Professional Practice Networks are sub‐communities where landscape

architects sharing professional interests can communicate and network. ASLA

recently asked all PPN members to allow a glimpse into their unique work

portfolios. Results learned were then printed in LAND Online.

On July 10, 2006, the seventh article in a series that highlights the work PPN

members are doing in their practice specialties was published, entitled “Reports

From the Field: Women in Landscape Architecture and International Practice

PPNs.” The work of members of two PPNs was highlighted.

The Women in Landscape Architecture (WILA) PPN focuses on personal and

professional development for landscape architects. The International Practice PPN

promotes the practice of landscape architecture abroad as an instrument of public

service and as a source for professional opportunities. Together, members of these

PPNs span the universe of landscape architecture in its personal and professional

dimensions.

Two accomplished members of this PPN are Terry W. Ryan, FASLA, of

Jacobs/Ryan Associates and Patricia S. Loheed, ASLA, principal of Pat Loheed

Landscape Architecture (http://www.asla.org/land/2006/0710/ppn.html).

111

The Association for Women in Architecture (AWA)

The Association for Women in Architecture is a non‐profit, educational organization. Founded in 1978 as a grassroots organization to provide networking and professional support to local women architects, the AWA has grown to nearly

150 members, including landscape architects and construction managers, since its

incorporation in 1988. In 1994, the AWA was cited by Progressive Architecture as a

leader among grassroots professional associations of architects.

AWA Values:

• Educate ourselves and the community about issues relating to women in

architecture, the architectural profession, and the built environment

• Provide a forum for information exchange among ourselves and other

organizations

• Empower women architects through recognition and support

• Encourage diversity and inclusion rather than separatism

• Promote social responsibility in professional activities

• Collaborate with other organizations toward common goals

• Engage proactively, with emphasis on activities rather than meeting

112 Beverly Willis Architecture Foundation (BWAF)

http://www.beverlywillisarchitecturefoundation.org

The Beverly Willis Architecture Foundation works to advance the scholarly study

and public recognition of the contributions made by women to the architecture

professions in the United States during the middle years of the twentieth century. To

this end, the Foundation supports a variety of programs geared to both professional

and public audiences. BWAF supports other organizations and institutions that

actively acknowledge the contributions women have made and continue to make in

the production of architecture, whether as practitioners of design and urbanism, or

as historians and critics. The institutions and organizations which BWAF currently supports or with which it has initiated collaborative programs include the Society of

Architectural Historians, the International Archive of Women in Architecture at

Virginia Tech, the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, the National

Building Museum, as well as the Library of Congress.

Acknowledging that women have yet to assume dominant roles in

architectural design, urban planning and civic leadership, Ms. Willis and the Board

of Trustees established the Beverly Willis Architecture Foundation (BWAF) in 2002.

The current historical emphasis supported by the BWAF is largely inspired by the career of Willis, herself an architect and designer active during the middle years of the twentieth century. Her career parallels a time when the culture of architecture in the United States was predominantly male, yet it was also a seminal time for

113 launching careers of women in architecture.

By promoting research that focuses on the contributions of women practitioners in the fields of architectural design, the building arts, and urban planning, as well as architectural history and criticism, BWAF hopes not only to reshape the discourse within the architecture profession and the public realm, but also to ensure that it takes place within a culture of equality.

The Foundation strongly encourages collaborative participation with individuals as well as other foundations, institutions and organizations.

Contact: Beverly Willis Architecture Foundation

Director, Wanda Bubriski

2 Columbus Avenue, Suite 3A

New York, NY 10023

Telephone: 212 577 1200 —or— 203 488 9009

Email: [email protected]

Bureau of Labor Statistics

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is the principal fact‐finding agency for the Federal

Government in the broad field of labor economics and statistics.

114 California Women in Environmental Design

California organization of women design professionals and students in planning,

architecture, engineering, landscape architecture, interior design, and related fields.

Formerly known as California Women in Architecture.

They have printed newsletters, membership flyers, and posters and programs of the organizationʹs meetings in San Francisco in 1991 and Santa Monica in 1992. In

addition, they have thirty‐seven audiotapes of session proceedings at CWED

conferences.

ISI – International Statistical Institute

The National Womenʹs Law Center

Since 1972, the Center has expanded the possibilities for women and girls in the US.

The Center uses the law in all its forms: getting new laws on the books and

enforcing them; litigating ground‐breaking cases in state and federal courts all the

way to the Supreme Court; and educating the public about ways to make the law

and public policies work for women and their families. An experienced staff of

nearly 50 takes on the issues that cut to the core of womenʹs and girlsʹ lives in

education, employment, family economic security, and health ‐‐ with special

attention given to the needs of low‐income women and their families.

115 The Women In Design Network (http://www.architects.org)

The Women in Design Network, sponsored by the Boston Society of Architects, is a

community of women in the design professions, at all levels, in all roles, who come

together for discussion, fellowship and exchange of design and professional practice

ideas.

The Women in Design Network’s mission is to:

• To build a network of connections among women professionals involved in

the built environment through architecture, landscape architecture, interior design,

engineering, urban design, public art, graphic design, planning and construction;

• To use those connections to foster training, mentoring and professional

development;

• To provide a forum for discussion of current issues in design, construction,

practice and management; and,

• To promote a professional environment centered on teamwork, enjoyment

and collegiality.

Women in Landscape Architecture Professional Practice Network (WILA)

Women in Landscape Architecture Professional Practice Network focuses on

personal and professional development for landscape architects. The WILA assists

landscape architects in research on women and the profession of landscape

architecture. Membership in the group is open and encouraged for women and men.

WILA group publishes a newsletter for members, coordinates the WILA mentoring

116 program, and assists members in their search for workmen with similar interests

and expertise for research and design collaboration, sources for speakers, jurors, and employment opportunities for employers, employees and consultants. It encourages consideration of workplace and quality‐of‐life issues for all landscape architects

(http://www.asla.org/land/2006/0710/ppn.html).

117 Chapter 12 Conclusion

One of the primary questions in using the information of this research is: what can female newcomers to the field of landscape architecture learn from women landscape architects who have fought their way to recognition, who laid stepping stones for home‐makers, and who paved the way toward equal rights? As young women increase knowledge and skills in their profession, will it be possible for them to receive recognition and professional standing at the same pace as men? Will family commitments be recognized as part of the working environment? To understand the information of the survey, one must consider the experience of women who have a long career path behind them together with the possibility for change in the vocation pattern of landscape architect trainees must be considered.

Catalyst research finds that women as well as men need flexible work environments where they can vary their day‐to‐day schedules and reduce their work responsibilities for a time without leaving the workforce entirely and losing career advancement opportunities. This allows for better personal commitments and relieves at‐home tensions as well as at‐work tensions. Companies that foster these flexible work environments will harvest the benefits of a diverse leadership pool and retaining committed, productive, and experienced talent.

118 The growth of landscape architecture is limited by the amount of students

choosing it as their major. It is crucial for landscape architecture professionals to

promote a student body consisting of quality individuals with diverse backgrounds

and skills. Strategies fostering the growth of a diverse student body need to be

developed to ensure the health of the profession.

The main question is why change is even necessary? The answer is obviously

long and complicated. The US can not afford to under‐perform in academic institutions and needs to attract the best and brightest minds. It also cannot afford to

under‐appreciate the value that gender variation can bring to the workforce. There

are four reasons for taking action to eliminate gender inequality and bias in

landscape architecture academics and careers.

The first reason is global competitiveness. To remain competitive in a fast

changing global economy, the United States needs to make the best use of its talent

regardless of gender. Other countries are making strong gains copying the successes

of the United States.

Another reason is the law. The United States as a nation has strong anti‐

discrimination laws. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

(http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii/html) prohibits employment discrimination based

on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Title IX, passed in 1972

(http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm), prohibits discrimination or

119 exclusion on the basis of sex from any education program or activity receiving

Federal financial assistance.

The third cause is economics. The individual states, the federal government,

and the private sector invest heavily in training college students. The average

annual support provided for a full‐time student in landscape architecture is about

$7,000, not including research and training expenses. The average landscape architecture student takes about 5 years to complete the undergraduate study, bringing the investment to $35,000 per BA. That is a substantial cost. It does not make sense economically to have highly educated, expensive landscape architecture students leave the field because they sense a lack of opportunity to succeed.

The fourth and final motive is ethics. Men and women should have equal

opportunity to serve society, work in rewarding jobs, and earn a living.

120 What Must Be Done: A Blueprint for Action

Career barriers for women deprive the nation of an important source of talented and accomplished landscape architects. Transforming institutional

structures and processes to eliminate gender bias requires a major national effort, incorporating strong leadership and continuous attention, evaluation, and accountability. It will require constant care and long‐term patience. The

recommendations are rooted in strategies shown to be successful. They are large‐ scale and interdependent, and require the combined efforts of University leaders and faculties, professional societies and higher education organizations, funding agencies, federal agencies, and Congress.

This thesis is a beginning point for eliminating the obstacles women face in

today’s society, workplace, and education. These factors are dynamic and complex.

In the meantime, current students, faculty, professionals, and others associated with the profession of landscape architecture should do all they can to

promote the benefits and rewards of being a landscape architect to all people; especially those that will one day become the future of landscape architecture.

Faculty members and administrators at all levels need to correct or eliminate the policies and practices that lead to or permit gender bias. Strategies need to cover:

How should faculty members interact with students? How should young women

faculty deal with unwelcome social and sexual advances? How should faculty

121 members work with staff? How should institutions and individuals interview and hire? What are effective, unbiased strategies for evaluating performance?

A comprehensive list of policy actions for improving the retention and advancement of women in landscape architecture across the educational and career

path needs to be developed.

Improvements in at least some of the areas such as in the workplace deserve

credit. However, there should be zero tolerance of any illegal or inappropriate

behavior in the woman’s environment. Eliminate those barriers. At some point,

hopefully very soon, there will no longer be barriers. But our society is nowhere

near that point yet. There have been so many important technological ʺbreak‐

throughsʺ in the business world just within the past few years, most notably the

Internet. If we can develop highly sophisticated machines, why canʹt we also develop highly sophisticated people for which biases such as cited in this research

are absent? Itʹs time.

‘And I think women have come a very, very long way, but they have a long way to go.’ Lara Flynn Boyle

122 Bibliography

Atkinson, Richard C. and Patricia A. Pelfrey. (2004, October). Rethinking Admission: US Public Universities in the Post-Affirmative Action Age. University of California, Berkeley. http://ishi.lib.berkeley.edu/cshe

Allen, M. (1983). ‘The Domestic Ideal and the Mobilization of Womanpower in World War II’ Women’s Studies International Forum 6(4): 401-412.

American Society of Landscape Architects. (1998). Salary Survey.

American Society of Landscape Architects. (2004). Salary Survey.

American Society of Landscape Architects. (2006). Salary Survey.

American Society of Landscape Architect: Pennsylvania/ Delaware Chapter.

Anderson, Dorothy May. (1980). Women, Design, and the Cambridge School. West Lafayette, Ind.: PDA Publishers Corp.: 2.

Averett, Susan L., H. Elizabeth Peters and Donald M. Waldman. 1997. “Tax Credits, Labor Supply, and Child Care.” The Review of Economics and Statistics. Pp. 133.

Baker, Maureen. (1995). Canadian Family Policies: Cross-National Comparisons. Toronto: University of Toronto Press: 121.

123 Bantel, Karen A. and Susan E. Jackson. (1989). “Top Management and Innovation in Banking: Does the Composition of the Top Male a Difference?” Strategic Management Journal Vol. 10: 107-124.

Brown, Catherine R., and Maddox, Celia Newton. (1982, May). "Women and the Land: 'A Suitable Profession'." Landscape Architecture 76: 68.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2002, March). Annual Demographic Survey (Detailed Person Income). http://www.bls.gov

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2003).Current Population Survey, Annual Averages.

Carter, R. T., and Cook, D. A. (1992). “A Culturally Relevant Perspective for Understanding the Career Paths of Visible Racial/Ethnic Group People.” Adult Career Development (2nd Ed.). Edited by H. D. Lea and Z. B. Leibowitz. Alexandria, VA: National Career Development Association. Pg. 192-217.

Catalyst. (1996-2000). Catalyst Census of Women Corporate Officers and Top Earners.

Catalyst. (2003, August). Viewpoints. Workplace Flexibility is still a Women’s Advancement Issue.

Catalyst. (2004). “The Bottom Line: Connecting Corporate Performance and Gender Diversity”

Close, Leslie Rose. (1996). “A History of Women in Landscape Architecture.” Introduction to The Gardens of Ellen Biddle Shipman. by Judith B. Tankard. New York: Sagapress, Inc.: xiii-xix.

Delphy, C. (1970). ‘The Main Enemy: A Materialist Analysis of Women’s Oppression’ in Delphy, C. (1984) Close to Home, London: Hutchinson.

Dolder, Ced. A Biographical Profile (1914-2006) of Clermont "Monty" Huger Lee. http://www.tclf.org/pioneers/profiles/lee_clermont/index.htm

Doumato, Lamia. (1988). Architecture and Women: A Bibliography Documenting Women Architects, Landscape Architects, Designers, Architectural Critics and Writers, and Women in Related Fields Working in the United States. New York: Garland Pub.

"Eligibility of California's 1996 High School Graduates for Admission to the State's Public Universities: A Report of the California Postsecondary Education Commission," 1997 December. http://www.cpec.ca.gov/CompleteReports/1997Reports/97-09.pdf.

Fleming, Nancy. (1995). Money, Manure, and Maintenance: Marian Coffin Pioneer Landscape Architect, 1876–1957. Weston, Mass.: Country Place Books.

124

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, (2006, Nov.). Historic Preservation Division. Survey and National Register Unit. Georgia: A Women’s Place. A Historic Context.

Griswold, Mac and Weller, Eleanor. (1991). The Golden Age of American Gardens. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc.

Harris, Dianne. (Fall 1994). “Cultivating Power: the Language of Feminism in Women’s Garden Literature, 1870-1920.” Landscape Journal 13:2.

Hennigan, Valorie and Jot D. Carpenter. (1998). ‘Women in the ASLA: A Descriptive Analysis.’

Hochschild, Arlie Russell. (1990). The second shift: working parents and the revolution at home. New York : Avon Books.

Hollingsworth, Sherold D. (1995, October 5-7). “Women Landscape Architects and Their Influence on Southern Gardening.” The Influence of Women on the Southern Landscape. Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Restoring Southern Gardens and Landscapes. Old Salem, NC. p. 138-153.

Howe, Bea. (1961). Lady with Green Fingers: The Life of Jane Loudon. London: Country Life.

Inside Higher Ed. (2006, September). Bias or Interest. www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2006/09/20/women

Jaschik, Scott. (2006, July 20). Can’t We All Just Get Along? http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/07/20/colleague

Jaschik, Scott. (2006, Oct. 26). New Measures for Gender Inequities. insidehighered.com

Kim, E. Y. (1993). “Career Choice Among Korean American Students.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly. 24(3): 237.

Knox, Tim. (1998–1999) “Lady Mary Coke’s Garden at Notting Hill House,” in The London Gardener 4: 52-63.

König, Heinz, Francois Laisney, Michael Lechner and Winfried Pohlmeier. (1995). “Tax Illusion and Labour Supply of Married Women: Evidence from German Data.” KYKLOS. 48(3): 347.

Lahey, Kathleen. (2001). The Benefit/Penalty Unit in Income Tax Policy: Diversity and Reform. Ottawa: Law Commission of Canada: Chapter 1. 125 Leong, F.T.L., ed. (1995). Career Development and Vocational Behavior of Racial and Ethnic Minorities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McGee, Regina. (2005, Jun 1). 2005 SALARY SURVEY. http://meetingsnet.com/career/salary/meetings_salary_survey/

Martin, Van Jones and Mitchell, William Robert. (1983). Landmark Homes of Georgia, 1733-1983. Savannah: Golden Coast Publishing Co.: 57.

Naidoo, A.V. (1998). “Career Maturity: A Review of Four Decades of Research.” Bellville, S. Africa: University of Western Cape: 23.

Nassauer, Joan Iverson and Karen Arnold. (1983). National Survey of Career Patterns Among Women in Landscape Architecture. American Society of Landscape Architects.

National Science Foundation. (2001). Marital status and spousal employment for men and women scientists and engineers. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/employ.htm.

Neal, Darwina L. 1973. Report of the Task Force on Women in Landscape Architecture.” ASLA Bulletin (July). McLean, VA: American Society of Landscape Architects.

Office of Strategic Communications. (2003, February). Facts about the University of California: Moving toward Faculty Gender Equity at UC.

Office of Strategic Communications. (2003, November). Facts about the University of California: UC Graduation Rates, Retention and Academic Performance.

Office of Strategic Communications. (2004, November). Facts about the University of California: 2005-06 Student Fees.

Office of Strategic Communications. (2005, November). Facts about the University of California: RE-61: Improving compensation of and accountability for senior management salaries.

Peavy, R.V. (1995). Career Counseling for Native Youth: What Kind and by Whom? ERIC Document. Greensboro, NC. ED 399 486.

Pond, Bremer W. 1950. Fifty Years in Retrospect.” Landscape Architecture 23 (2) : 65.

Redden, Elizabeth. (2007, Jan. 18). Twist on Harvard’s Gender Battles. insidehighered.com

Richardson, James T. (1999). "Tenure in the new millennium: Still a valuable concept" National Forum.

Roberts, Marion. (1991). Living in a man-made world: Gender assumptions in modern housing design. Routledge, London. 126

Schenker, Heath. (2002). “Women, Gardens, and the English Middle Class.” Chapter in Bourgeois and Artistocratic Cultural Encounters in Garden Art, 1550-1850. Conan, Michael. Ed. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections.

Shteir, Ann B. (1996). Cultivating Women, Cultivating Science: Flora’s Daughters and Botany in England, 1760 to 1860. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 220–27.

Solera, Cristina. (2000). Income Transfers and Support for Mothers' Employment. Helsinki: International Social Security Association: 8.

Ten Landscapes: A Talk with Topher Delaney interview by Ketzel Levine at npr.org.

Tillyard, Stella. (1995, Nov.). .Aristocrats: Caroline, Emily, Louisa, and Sarah Lennox 1740-1832: 198.

The National Association of Colleges and Employers 2006. (2006, September 21). “Booming Job Market for College Grads.”

Tsui, Anne S. and Barbara A. Gutek. (1999). Demographic Differences in Organizations: Current Research and Future Directions. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

UC Office of the President. (2007). Creating Change Initiative, Associate President Linda Williams, Presidential Staff Fellow Amy Levine, and Interim Director of Faculty Equity Programs Sharon Washington.

United Kingdom. (1920). Royal Commission on Taxation. Report. London: HMSO.

University of California. (2002, November). “First-Year Implementation of Comprehensive Review in Freshman Admissions: A Progress Report from the Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools.” http://www.ucop.edu/regents/regmeet/nov02/302attach.pdf

University of California: Office of the President— Student Academic Services. (2003, March). Undergraduate Access to the University of California after the Elimination of Race-Conscious Policies. http://www.ucop.edu/sas/publish/aa_final2.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). The Condition of Education.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Digest of Education Statistics.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Digest of Education Statistics.

127 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, (2005, November). Employment and Earnings. January 2006 and Monthly Labor Review.

Weisman, Leslie Kanes. (1992). Discrimination by Design: A feminist critique of the Man- made environment. University of Illinois Press: Urbana and Chicago.

Zeisel, John. (1979). Inquiry by Design: Tools for Environment-Behavior Research. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

128 Web‐site Resources http://www.academics.triton.edu/faculty/fheitzman/schach.html Interview: Janice Schach and Mitchell Glass, Landscape Architects 1999& 2000. http://www.asla.org http://www.asla.org/nonmembers/publicrelations/pdf http://www.beverlywillisarchitecturefoundation.org http://www.businesswomanpa.com/2005_march.asp http://www.california-architects.com http://www.design.iastate.edu/2005programreview.php http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm. Title 20 U.S.C. Section 1681-1688. http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/Qf-laborforce-06.htm Women in the Labor Force in 2006 April 30, 2007 http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii/html. Pub. L. 88-352. http://www.emilycompost.com/gertrude_jekyll.htm http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_ceiling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure http://www.hillstead.org/gardens/beatrix.html http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2006/03/28/women. http://www.landscapearchitects.org/education.html http://www.laprofession.org/practice/history.htm http://www.library.nevada.edu/arch. Women and Landscape Architecture. Sept. 2005 http://www.oregonlink.com/deepwood/lord_and_schryver.html http://www.planetizen.com/node/23480 http://www.rpts.tamu.edu/Pugsley/Olmstead.htm

129 http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca Women and Employment: Removing Fiscal Barriers to Women's Labor Force Participation. http://www.tclf.org/pioneers/profiles/johnson_carol/index.htm. July 2006 http://www.udel.edu/TheGreen/people.html http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regmeet/sept03/302attach.pdf http://www.walpole.com/NewburyportGardens http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=printfriendly&id=2496 House Committee on Ways and Means. Statement of Lisalyn R. Jacobs, Vice President for Government Relations, Legal Momentum. Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support of the House Committee on Ways and Means. February 10, 2005 http://www.xroads.virginia.edu/~MA99/hall/Dumbartonoaks/women_dum.html

130 Appendix A Accredited Undergraduate Programs in Landscape Architecture

Arizona St. U Iowa St. U U of Illinois

U of Arkansas Kansas St. U Pennsylvania St. U

Auburn U U of Kentucky Purdue U

Ball St. U Louisiana St. U U of Rhode Island

Cal. Polytechnic St. U U of Maryland Rhode Island School of Design

Cal St. Polytechnic U U of Massachusetts Rutgers – St. U of New Jersey

U of Cal at Davis Michigan St. U St. U of New York – Syracuse

City College of NY Mississippi St. U Temple U

Clemson U U of Nevada, Las Vegas Texas A&M U

Colorado St. U North Carolina A&T St U Texas Tech U

U of Connecticut North Carolina St. U Utah St. U

Cornell U North Dakota St. U Virginia Tech

U of Florida Ohio St. U Washington St. U

U of Georgia Oklahoma St. U U of Washington

U of Idaho U of Oregon West Virginia U

U of Wisconsin

131