A proposed revision to the NAAB 2020 Conditions for Accreditation has drawn pushback from AIA New York (AIANY) and the New York Coalition of Black Architects, the New York Chapter of the National Organization of Minority Architects (NYCOBA-NOMA). The criticism from AIANY and NYCOBA-NOMA was outlined in a publicly shared letter dated November 25, 2024. The letter was signed by Greg Switzer, AIANY 2024 president; and Allison Lane, NYCOBA-NOMA president.The main concern shared by AIANY and NYCOBA-NOMA is the potential removal of Section 5.5 from the NAAB 2020 Conditions for Accreditation. Section 5.5 pertains to Supportive Environment/Social Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. For AIANY and NYCOBA-NOMA, Section 5.5s removal is an affront to their shared Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives.The removal of Section 5.5 is one of two revisions NAAB floated on its website in a Call for Comment that opened on November 1, and closed on November 30. The first point by NAAB asked members to address changes in the legal landscape surrounding institutions consideration of race and utilization of programs focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion across campus, including changes resulting from the U.S. Supreme Courts decision on race-conscious admissions and laws, regulations, and guidance of various federal and state agencies. The second point by NAAB asked members if they think its right to lessen the administrative burden on programs by shortening the list of documents that must be provided to the public. Concerns from AIANY and NYCOBA-NOMA were in relation to point number one.NAABs proposed removal of these critical requirements reduces DEI to the lowest legal threshold, undermining our greater efforts to create a profession that serves and reflects the communities we design for, AIANY and NYCOBA-NOMA said in a shared statement in response to NAABs actions. AIANY and NYCOBA-NOMA continued: We understand that the legal environments in some states, including Texas and Florida, are now hostile even to the language that expresses the values of equity and inclusion our community embraces. However, we look to NAAB to find creative ways to lead on this, rather than take the lowest common denominator approach that effectively nullifies the work we have collectively sought to enshrine through the 2020 changes and more focused engagement on equity over the last few years. These principles are fundamental to the integrity and ethical responsibilities of our profession, and the removal of such language for the sake of legal compliance in some states sacrifices too much. We urge you to consider the implications of this decision.In defense of the proposed revision, NAAB president Steve Schreiber told AN: As noted in the public notice to programs and other stakeholders, the revisions to the Conditions are being proposed in order to address changes in the legal landscape surrounding institutions consideration of race and utilization of programs focused on diversity equity and inclusion across campus, including changes resulting from the U.S. Supreme Courts decision on race-conscious admissions and the laws, regulations and guidance of various federal and state agencies. Schreiber continued: These changes place institutions and their NAAB-accredited programs in a challenging position with respect to their compliance with the current Conditions for Accreditation. NAAB has worked closely with national level consultants with expertise in this area of law to develop the proposal which we believe supports programs and remains faithful to NAABs values and those of our accredited programs. Now that the commentary period is over, a NAAB spokesperson told AN that there is no specific date when the Conditions could go into effect, if adopted by the Board.The proposed revisions arrived in the midst of ongoing anti-DEI legislation across the country. Diana Budds reported on what these anti-DEI measures mean for architecture educators and students for AN in October.These updates also came not long after AN reported on ongoing budgetary and administrative changes at NAAB that stand to have significant impacts for AIA, AIAS, ACSA, and NCARB. These proposals, which include the possibility for NAAB to be funded directly by accredited schools, were met with stiff pushback from AIA, ACSA, and NCARB.