657393

research-article2016
JPEXXX10.1177/0739456X16657393Journal of Planning Education and ResearchSen et al.

Research-Based Article

Journal of Planning Education and Research

Diversity and Social Justice in Planning

1­–12
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Education: A Synthesis of Topics, sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X16657393

Pedagogical Approaches, and jpe.sagepub.com

Educational Goals in Planning Syllabi

Siddhartha Sen1, Karen Umemoto2, Annette Koh2,

and Vera Zambonelli2

Abstract
This article provides an overview of the types of educational goals, pedagogical approaches, and substantive topics in planning
education related to issues of diversity and social justice. The study is based on a content analysis of one hundred syllabi
collected from more than seventy instructors from North American planning schools during 2012–2013. It presents a
synthetic summary of the range of educational goals and pedagogical approaches. It describes the curricular content in the
form of substantive topics. The article is intended to support efforts to incorporate issues of diversity and social justice in
planning education.

Keywords
planning education, diversity, social justice

Introduction into accreditation standards for North American planning

As society has changed, so too have demands on planning
education. One significant change is increased racial and eth-
nic diversity in the demographic composition of urban and
even rural populations. We have also seen greater income
and wealth polarization accompanied by intergroup tensions
surrounding issues such as policing, immigration, and envi-
ronmental justice. While one can argue that there may be
greater racial and gender equality and social tolerance for
difference today compared to previous generations, social
divides clearly remain. Meanwhile, in a neoliberal age of
government retrenchment, planning as a profession has been
subject to greater constraints in addressing these and other
problems. The need for planning education in the United
States and elsewhere to prepare students to proactively
address issues of social justice and work with multiple pub-
lics across cultural, religious, gender, age, class, and other
dimensions of difference is evermore pressing.
Attention to equity, diversity, democracy, and social jus-
tice is not new for planners, although such topics have
largely been relegated to the margins for most of planning’s
scholarly history (Sandercock 1998; Thomas and Ritzdorf
1997). Individual educators have long been advancing this
area of scholarship and teaching, but only recently have
institutional inroads been made. One significant advance is
the incorporation of issues of diversity and social justice
schools as overseen by the US-based Planning Accreditation
Board (PAB). Revisions that became effective in April 2014
state that programs “shall appropriately incorporate issues
of diversity and social justice into all required courses of the
curriculum”1 (Planning Accreditation Board 2013, 15). The
next challenge for planning educators is to gain a deeper
understanding of the discourse and debates surrounding
diversity and social justice and the integration of their con-
tents into the broad range of planning courses offered. By
examining efforts among planning educators who have
already been doing this, we can see how current efforts can
build upon the past.
This article synthesizes the existing educational goals,
pedagogical approaches, and substantive topics related to
issues of diversity and social justice in recent planning school
Initial submission, January 2015; revised submissions, February and May
2016; final acceptance, May 2016
1
Morgan State University, Baltimore, MD, USA
2
University of Hawai`i at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA
Corresponding Author:
Siddhartha Sen, School of Architecture and Planning, Morgan State
University, 1700 E. Cold Spring Lane, CBEIS 108A, Baltimore,
MD 21251, USA.
Email: siddhartha.sen@morgan.edu

Downloaded from jpe.sagepub.com at University of Hawaii at Manoa Library on October 28, 2016
2 Journal of Planning Education and Research 
curricula. The first two coauthors oversaw the collection of
one hundred syllabi from North American planning schools
that was compiled into a compendium of syllabi as a service
project done under the Association of Collegiate Schools of
Planning (ACSP) Committee on Diversity in 2012–2013.
The document was titled “Syllabus Book: A Compilation of
Planning Syllabi Addressing Issues of Diversity and Social
Justice.” But there were clear limitations to a 1,200-page
compilation of syllabi distributed through a few relatively
small academic networks. How could planning educators
identify the relevant issues and pedagogical tools from a
dauntingly long document? We decided to conduct a content
analysis of the syllabi in order to distill the current topics and
techniques among educators. The intent of the article is not
to offer a critique of the current pedagogical approaches and
topics related to diversity and social justice nor is it to ana-
lyze the differences in approaches between different types of
institutions. Rather, the main intent is to glean from the syl-
labi the range of pedagogical activities and substantive top-
ics as a starting point for further curriculum development.
We are generalists in the study of diversity and social justice
in planning and it is our hope that this article will generate
further discussion among specialists within various subfields
of planning in order to further advance planning education.
We begin this article with a historical background of
efforts to raise equity and social justice concerns within plan-
ning education. We then describe the methodology used to
collect and analyze the compendium of syllabi. The substan-
tive findings are organized in two sections: (a) educational
goals and pedagogy and (b) curricular contents. We provide
a synthetic summary of the range of educational goals and
pedagogical approaches used. The curricular content is sum-
marized in the form of three substantive areas: (a) planning
history and theory, (b) planning specializations, and (c) plan-
ning tools and strategies. We conclude with some thoughts
about the application of this material and areas in need of
further curricular development.
Historical Background
It is beyond the scope of this article to provide a thorough
synthesis on the evolution of academic thought about diver-
sity and social justice in planning literature. Instead, we limit
our discussion to the evolution of diversity and social justice
in planning pedagogy and to defining relevant terms and
concepts. Both terms suffer from conceptual fuzziness.
“Diversity” is a contentious term and is generally associated
with the politics of recognition around issues of race and eth-
nicity (Sweet and Etienne 2011). It often excludes other
dimensions of difference such as age, gender, class, disabil-
ity, ethnicity, sexual orientation, culture, religion, family
background, and cognitive style (Forsyth 1995; Sandercock
2000; Doan 2015). “Social justice,” on the other hand, is tra-
ditionally related with the distribution of public and private
resources as well as externalities to the urban poor and
Downloaded from jpe.sagepub.com at University of Hawaii at Manoa Library on October 28, 2016
working class (Agyeman and Erickson 2012). Critics have
argued that defining social justice as socioeconomic redistri-
bution may not remedy the injustice of cultural nonrecogni-
tion. Since ills of our cities stem from both socioeconomic
inequities and cultural nonrecognition and domination of
ethnic minorities, there is a need to address both aspects of
justice (Goonewardena, Rankin, and Weinstock 2004). For
the purposes of this article, we use the terms “diversity” and
“social justice” to encompass the broadest definitions possi-
ble, including those that integrate various dimensions and
intersectionalities of difference (e.g., race, gender, class, eth-
nicity, nationality, sexuality, physical disability, culture, reli-
gion, age), as well as more comprehensive definitions of
justice that includes issues of cultural recognition in addition
to socioeconomic redistribution (Agyeman and Erickson
2012; Sandercock 2000). We do so while acknowledging that
certain identity markers, such as race, ethnicity, and gender
have historically held a high degree of salience in the forma-
tion of the state and the persistent patterns of inequality in the
United States.
Planning education and practice in the United States have
only relatively recently come to embrace concepts and topics
related to diversity and social justice. Until the mid-1960s,
“monocultural” or “monistic” planning was the bulwark of
planning education, reflecting the notion of a unitary nation
and national culture in which minority groups were expected
to assimilate to the norms, belief systems, language, and
identity of the majority (Tiryakian 2003; Kymlicka 2003).
The dominant monocultural planning paradigm consisted of
adhering to a value-free singular public interest that planners
believed that they could promote as technicians through
rational or comprehensive planning rooted in positivist epis-
temology. Planning education was dominated by physical
planning, although the role of the social sciences began to
increase from the 1950s (Hemmens 1988). Nonetheless,
there was little reference to race, gender, or social justice
until the mid-1960s in planning education (Thomas 1996).
Normative assumptions about cultural and ethnic assimila-
tion underlay public policy and urban planning in the United
States. Planners had not been oriented to take issues of diver-
sity and social justice into meaningful consideration in their
endeavors despite their embeddedness in structures of
inequality (Gunder 2005).
Concerns regarding race, justice, advocacy, and equality
gained greater currency in planning education and profes-
sional practice on the heels of the Civil Rights Movement in
the 1960s and 1970s when seminal works on progressive
planning began to appear (Friedmann 1973; Grabow and
Heskin 1973). Scholars offered illuminating critiques of the
many shortcomings and detrimental effects of planning,
especially in regards to communities of color (Gans 1967;
Thomas and Ritzdorf 1997). Social movements were chal-
lenging the primacy of class as the fulcrum of social forma-
tion and the primary measure of equity and democratic
governance (Young 2000). Planning scholarship began to
Sen et al. 3
articulate the concepts of pluralism (Davidoff 1965; Qadeer
1997), multiculturalism (Allen and Cars 2001; Amin 2002;
Chan 2007), cosmopolitanism (Sandercock 1998, 2003), and
the negotiation of difference (Agyeman and Erickson 2012;
Sandercock 2000; Umemoto and Igarashi 2009) as they
related to planning theory and practice.
The rise of feminist scholarship also contributed to plan-
ning discourse as scholars and practitioners advocated for an
increased role for women in planning (Moser 1989; Rahder
1999), highlighted the importance of gender in planning and
place-making (Dyck 2005; Fainstein and Servon 2005), and
promoted strategies for research and teaching on these issues
in planning education (Sweet 2006). Internationalists also
challenged the dominance of monocultural planning
(Banerjee 1985; Qadeer 1986). Sanyal (1990) and others
argued for a “one world” approach to planning education,
including bringing American and international students
together as equal partners in a mutual learning process to
tackle shared issues (Amirahmadi 1993; Lim 1993; Afshar
2001). Over time, scholars began expanding planning
thought beyond monocultural planning, paving the way for
current debates on diversity and social justice in planning
education.
However, it is only in the past twenty years that North
American planning educators have come to widely acknowl-
edge the need to integrate issues of diversity and social jus-
tice into the curriculum (Rodriguez 1993; Thomas 1996;
Burayidi 2000, 2003; Wolfe 2003; Sandercock 2003; Milroy
2004; Rahder and Milgrom 2004; Sen 2000, 2005; Sweet
and Etienne 2011). Friedmann and Kuester (1994) argued
that such issues should no longer be tacked on as after-
thoughts to the curriculum nor should they only be offered
solely in separate courses on “planning and women” or “race
and planning.” Thomas (1996) criticized planning education
for “disjointed pluralism” citing the separation between
advocacy and equity planning, feminism, and international
movements.
Since then, many scholars have added their perspectives
to the debate. Some offered individual accounts of innova-
tive approaches to teaching issues of diversity, such as col-
laborative models of learning (Forsyth, Lu, and McGirr
1999). Some suggested service learning to expose students
to working in and with low-income and racially diverse
communities (Harwood and Zapata 2014). These and other
pedagogical strategies were suggested to help students
become aware of their own positionality and privilege
(Forsyth, Lu, and McGirr 2000), understand the meanings
of race in society (Harwood and Zapata 2014), and gain cul-
tural competency to appropriately interact with people with
backgrounds different from themselves (Agyeman and
Erickson 2012; Dearborn and Harwood 2011; Dewar and
Isaac 1998; Ritzdorf 1993; Sletto 2010).
One argument that remains relevant today is that issues of
diversity and social justice must be integrated into all parts of
the planning curriculum and not reserved for separate courses
Downloaded from jpe.sagepub.com at University of Hawaii at Manoa Library on October 28, 2016
that often remain on the margins of the core curriculum.
There is, however, no evidence that planning schools are fol-
lowing such a path. Furthermore, there is little literature on
how to achieve this except for Thomas’s (1996) seminal
article. Most of the literature consists of individual accounts
of innovative approaches to teaching various dimensions of
diversity and social justice. Although our analysis does not
directly examine how diversity and social justice can be inte-
grated in the curriculum, it can provide some direction
through a synthetic summary of the topical issues in recent
syllabi to the various planning specializations. Our analysis
also reveals that the separation between advocacy and equity
planning, feminism, and international movements has been
narrowed.
Research Methodology
We took a grounded theory approach to the analysis of syl-
labi to inductively examine the ways that issues of diversity
and social justice are presented in recent planning curricula.
Content analysis was used to examine the educational goals,
pedagogical approaches, and substantive topics contained in
one hundred course syllabi submitted by more than seventy
instructors that were collected as part of an effort on behalf
of the Special Committee on Diversity of ACSP during
2012–2013. Syllabi were collected for the initial purpose of
simply sharing curricula among planning educators. A call
for syllabi was made for courses that in any way addressed
issues of diversity and social justice through the nonofficial
“PLANET” list server of the ACSP as well as the list servers
of ACSP’s Planners of Color Interest Group (POCIG) and
Global Planning Educator’s Interest Group (GPEIG).
Solicitation emails were sent in 2012 and again in 2013.
Most syllabi collected were for courses offered in 2012 and
2013, though some submissions were for courses offered as
early as 2010. These list servers are largely populated and
used by faculty in planning programs accredited by the PAB,
though institutional accreditation was not a requirement for
the purposes of the article; all syllabi submitted were included
in the compendium and in this study.
Two of the coauthors coded the contents of the one hun-
dred syllabi according to types of educational goals, peda-
gogical tools and approaches, and substantive topics. Course
assignments were inconsistently included so this was not
examined as a separate category. A third coauthor reviewed a
random sample of the syllabi for consistency in coding.2 This
led to the recoding of some of the syllabi and discussions
about the interpretation of codes among the coders to increase
intercoder reliability. There was no predetermined list of
codes. We then clustered the coded items and identified pat-
terns and themes. Since we were simply identifying the range
of ideas rather than the most common ideas, we did not
record the frequency with which topics or ideas occurred,
though certainly some topics or ideas were more commonly
included than others. To identify the range of educational
4 Journal of Planning Education and Research 
goals and pedagogical tools and approaches, we took the
various learning objectives and pedagogical approaches and
techniques by cluster and gave each a descriptive label. We
similarly coded and clustered teaching techniques—such as
fieldwork, service learning, site visits, and journals—that
went beyond the traditional exams and term papers. We syn-
thesized each of these two sets of clusters and created for
each set a single list that included, respectively, discrete but
interrelated goals and techniques.
For the substantive topics in the curricula, we conducted
two rounds of coding and clustering. The first round focused
on planning topics. We coded each article by the topic area(s)
that could be gleaned from the referenced titles when the
intended topic was not listed. Some readings were listed
under multiple topics. Twelve topics emerged, which largely
corresponded to the different subfields of planning covered
by many accredited planning programs: community plan-
ning; diversity and social justice–related theory; demogra-
phy, poverty, immigration; disaster planning and mitigation;
environmental planning and sustainability; economic devel-
opment; food systems; history and theory; housing policy;
research methods and evaluation; transportation; and urban
design and land use. Across these topic areas, we conducted
a second round of clustering by type of knowledge, and the
following categories emerged: theory and concepts; contex-
tual knowledge; specific planning issues (such as housing
segregation or workplace discrimination); planning strate-
gies for social justice; and issues related to research methods
and ethics. We used this second set of themes to create a
“curriculum map,” an outline of substantive topic areas
addressed in curricula concerning issues of diversity and
social justice. This map was used as the main organizing
framework for the narrative and embedded the first set of
themes within it. We used the topics that emerged in the
course of clustering to further structure the narrative under
each of the main categories of knowledge. We present the
findings in a way that would be useful for educators looking
for ways to integrate issues of diversity and social justice
into their courses.
This was a fundamentally interpretive inquiry shaped in
large part by our understanding of these subjects in the
absence of additional data about the educational philosophy
and pedagogy of the instructors themselves. We had to sur-
mise the general content of the course from the descriptions
offered on the syllabi and the titles of the readings. A more
detailed analysis of the readings was not feasible and is
beyond the scope of this article. Thus, a major limitation of
the study is that we did not have the benefit of interviews or
other qualitative data that would clarify the intent of the
instructor in assigning those readings nor were all article
or book titles descriptive enough to categorize. We also
acknowledge that the topics covered in the compendium of
syllabi are not exhaustive and there may be others that plan-
ning educators are including in their teaching. Lastly, we also
recognize that an analysis of syllabi tells us nothing about
Downloaded from jpe.sagepub.com at University of Hawaii at Manoa Library on October 28, 2016
student outcomes and what was actually conveyed and
received in the course of instruction, which is an important
area of inquiry for the future.
Educational Goals and Pedagogy
A range of educational goals emerged from the syllabi. The
preeminent educational goal related to diversity and social
justice in planning is to introduce students to applicable theo-
ries and concepts as well as historical cases and contempo-
rary issues. Courses do this in different ways; some are
entirely devoted to this subject, while others integrate them
as readings or topical modules. There are, however, distinct
educational goals as follows:
1. Developing a positive ethos toward learning about
critical concepts and issues related to diversity and
justice in planning
2. Building knowledge and individual capacity for com-
munity engagement in issues of social equity and
community development, including the ability for
critical self-reflection and awareness of one’s own
positionality
3. Developing skills to work in a variety of community
settings with individuals and groups from diverse
backgrounds, including communities of color
4. Learning research and professional practice methods
and methodological approaches that are equity-ori-
ented, culturally and gender-appropriate, socially
responsive, and environmentally sensitive
5. Collaborating with others in creating a safe, open,
and participatory learning and working environment
that is respectful of difference
6. Contributing to positive social change while gaining
professional experience in addressing issues of diver-
sity and social justice issues through community
engagement
7. Engaging with and generating multimedia materials
that advance our understanding of issues of diversity,
equity, and social justice
Of course, many of these educational goals are interrelated,
and some are embedded within a course’s broader educa-
tional goals. For example, teaching key concepts and meth-
ods of community development may include promoting
capacity for engagement in social equity and community
development.
One of the most characteristic pedagogical approaches
was service learning. Service learning can be a powerful
vehicle through which to convey both the knowledge and
firsthand experience of planning for diversity and social jus-
tice. This approach (a) exposes students to lived experiences
in low-income and historically marginalized communities,
(b) increases awareness of class and racial privilege as well
as the conditions and causes of racial disenfranchisement and
Sen et al. 5
poverty, (c) facilitates critical thinking about the techniques
of power that perpetuate inequality and injustice, and (d)
encourages culturally tailored approaches to participatory
planning. Immersion in community action initiatives can
also nurture appreciation for the ways that grassroots groups
and organizations work toward greater empowerment and
justice by offering vivid examples of active agency in com-
munity change.
Planning education strategies used by faculty range from
engaging in hands-on community mobilization and grass-
roots organizing to more technical planning projects. Many
choose to highlight how adopting a particular analytical lens
(gender, racial equity, etc.) changes what questions are asked
and what data are collected. Classes focusing on or incorpo-
rating diversity and social justice include data collection and
analysis of demographic data, GIS mapping, economic and
spatial analysis, analysis of existing plans from the frame-
work of social equity, and program evaluation. Educators
also turn to fieldwork-based projects that rely on popular
planning methods such as survey research, charrettes and
visioning workshops, photography, windshield and walking
surveys, and interviews and focus groups. In many cases, the
community is explicitly positioned as a collaborator rather
than an object of study.
Some instructors engage students in participatory research
and action: forming collaborative partnerships in communi-
ties; attending or participating in community meetings;
observing or participating in consensus building processes;
skill-sharing through activities such as creating a community
garden; helping to organize a planning event; and carrying
out modest action projects such as social media calls for
action. Such classes can foster an open and participatory
learning environment that help address issues that often arise
at the interpersonal level and find ways to negotiate social
tensions and communication difficulties that can come with
working across cultural and other differences.
Courses also feature group activities intended to create
a more cooperative and self-reflexive classroom atmo-
sphere, including Freire-style co-teaching and co-learning
approaches, student-facilitated class discussions, interactive
in-class activities, group projects, team-based learning, peer
assessments, personal evaluations of class performance and
progress, and self-guided tutorials. For students new to or
less familiar with conversations about topics such as racism
and injustice, which can seem quite personal, written jour-
nals provide a less intimidating space through which to
engage in conversation.
Required “readings” include alternative or online
resources such as social media, podcasts, e-journals, and
online class sessions. Films and video are also helpful peda-
gogical tools for courses that underscore the epistemological
diversity inherent in planning practice. Educators develop
assignments designed to facilitate and encourage nontradi-
tional learning styles through the use of art, skits, and role-
playing; collaborative documentary filmmaking; the crafting
Downloaded from jpe.sagepub.com at University of Hawaii at Manoa Library on October 28, 2016
of personal narratives drawing on students’ experiences with
social justice and community organizing; and autoethnogra-
phy informed by theoretical frameworks as well as students’
positionalities.
Action-oriented assignments also include writing letters
to Congress; preparing plans and policy documents for
agencies and community organizations; designing an
action project; developing profiles of community develop-
ment and planning practitioners; writing op-eds; making
documentaries; and contributing to a publicly accessible
wiki or database. Many of these projects focus on creating
a final product for use by the public or sharing research
findings in a public format, emphasizing the need for plan-
ning knowledge to be accessible to nonexpert audiences
and diverse groups.
Curricular Content
In this section, we present major ideas and concepts con-
tained in the syllabi related to issues of diversity and social
justice. Table 1 outlines the organization of this content
under three main headings: planning history and theory,
planning specializations, and planning tools and strategies.
Some of the specializations mentioned earlier are combined
because of the overlap in ideas and the limited number of
syllabi in some planning subfields.
Planning History and Theory
Historical and Contemporary Processes.  The study of historical
and contemporary processes helps to explain how social,
political, economic, and cultural changes at the global and
national scales affect racial, ethnic, gender, economic, and
other groups in disparate ways. Attention is paid to the
cumulative impacts of colonialism, globalization, financial
speculation, neoliberal market-oriented governance, and the
dismantling of the social welfare system that negatively
affect historically marginalized groups. Planning processes
are examined in historical context, shedding light on the atti-
tudes, beliefs, laws and practices promoting inequality, such
as residential segregation, exclusionary zoning, red-lining,
racial covenants and ordinances, uneven environmental risk,
and the historical lack of inclusion of marginalized groups in
planning processes. Course content also includes cases of
agency and activism of communities combating inequality
or exclusion through broad-based social movements
that reshape institutions and social relations. Theoretical
approaches range from political economy perspectives to
discursive analyses of planning in both the subjugation and
empowerment of diverse groups.
Normative Political Theory.  There are normative theories that
problematize diversity and issues of social justice in very dif-
ferent ways. The historically dominant Anglo-Saxon Protes-
tant assimilationist view has given way to greater acceptance
6 Journal of Planning Education and Research 

Table 1.  Outline of Topics Related to Diversity and Social Justice in Planning Education.

Topics
Planning History and Theory
  Historical and Contemporary Processes
  Normative Political Theory
  Planning Traditions
  Spatial and Distributive Justice
  Dimensions of Difference
  Dimensions of Social Justice
  Recognition and Inclusion
Planning Specializations
 Housing
  Community Development
  Economic Development
  Environment and Sustainability
  Transportation, Land Use, and Urban Design
  Disaster Management
Planning Tools and Strategies
  Strategies for Change
  Tools and Techniques for Change
  Planning Ethics and the Role of the Planner
  Research Methods

of a pluralist ideal where people of different racial, ethnic,
gender, religious, and cultural identities should coexist equi-
tably and harmoniously without necessarily conforming to
“mainstream” cultural norms. Normative theories include
multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism, interculturalism, and
indigenous sovereignty, with various models projecting a
unique vision of a just society. Theorists have argued for the
“right to the city” and the “just city” with an increasing rec-
ognition of the diasporic, hybridized, and evolving nature of
race, ethnicity, and culture. Normative theories are applied to
current planning controversies to define problems and solu-
tions. Similarly, readings on utopian visions of the city and
images of the city serve as entry points into discussions of
the good life, social justice, and diversity in the theoretical
and pragmatic realms.
Planning Traditions.  Planning theory courses integrate issues
of diversity and social justice into the study of various plan-
ning traditions, such as rational planning, advocacy and
equity planning, communicative and deliberative planning,
collaborative planning, radical planning, transformative
planning, and indigenous planning. Courses highlight how
each has tended to treat the notion of diversity and social
justice. Examples of case studies include collaborative plan-
ning to address racial and class inequities in disaster recov-
ery and radical planning’s critiques of technocratic planning
in the destruction of African American neighborhoods
through urban renewal. Transformative planning looks more
deeply into human and social growth through community
engagement while indigenous planning has distinct roots in
movements for self-determination, as in the case of Native
Americans. Students are encouraged to connect the various
planning traditions with cases of community and social
change among historically marginalized groups.
Spatial and Distributive Justice. Conceptions of distributive
justice and spatial justice provide frameworks for under-
standing the impacts of planning on multiple publics as well
as rationales for planning. Courses address questions such
as, How can questions of social justice and equity be fore-
grounded? What means of analyses are helpful in under-
standing claims? How can students prepare themselves to
deliberate politically contested decisions with an eye toward
justice? Spatial and distributive justice claims are made in
planning controversies of all types. The idea of spatial justice
is useful in exploring the manifold ways that planning, espe-
cially in land use, may produce, exacerbate, or address
inequality (e.g., access to jobs and housing, transportation
mobility, the location of green space or hazardous facilities).
The idea of distributive justice is useful in understanding
equitable allocation of goods and services, amenities, capital,
and opportunity. Course readings also highlight ways that
communities pursue justice and create and maintain their
own place-making capacities, such as in the face gentrifica-
tion or in the midst of environmental change.
Dimensions of Difference.  Issues of diversity and social jus-
tice in planning can be studied along different dimensions of
difference, including race, class, gender, sexual orientation,
culture, citizenship, religion, national origin, age, language,
and geography. No course examined all dimensions, but
many explicitly acknowledge the importance of considering
their centrality, salience, and meanings as well as under-
standing how power and inequality operate to influence the

Downloaded from jpe.sagepub.com at University of Hawaii at Manoa Library on October 28, 2016
Sen et al. 7
status and position of individuals and groups in society. In
the syllabi, students were urged to understand how planning
and development seldom have neutral impacts and to exam-
ine the impacts of plans at the intersections of these catego-
ries. By foregrounding such impacts, educators can unsettle
assumptions of a unitary “public good” and the equality of
access and opportunities. Race and gender along with class
were recognized as having particular salience in the history
of US social formation relative to other important cross-cut-
ting markers of identity or association. Course readings often
addressed the hybridized and evolving nature of many of
these categories.
Dimensions of Social Justice. How to define and measure
social justice is an ongoing debate reflected in the course
readings. Planning educators seek to define key concepts,
such as equity, equality, fairness, justice, recognition, democ-
racy, participation, rights, inclusion, and equal opportunity.
Underlying conceptions of justice are drawn from variety of
political philosophers, such as John Rawls, Martha Nuss-
baum, and Amartya Sen, as well as feminist and radical
social theorists. How issues are framed and from whose posi-
tionality they are seen influences planning deliberations and
decisions. One key planning debate is whether social justice
should be measured according to the fairness of the outcomes
of a planning process or according to the fairness of the pro-
cess itself. Courses provide subject familiarity and a vocabu-
lary to articulate and analyze social justice issues in order to
better facilitate constructive discussion and debate involving
conflicting claims (e.g., inclusionary zoning can be under-
stood as an infringement of individual property rights or as
fair access to affordable housing).
Recognition and Inclusion.  The ideas of political, social, and
cultural recognition and inclusion were used to provide a
framework for planning a diverse and socially just society. In
examining the social and political barriers to justice and
inclusion, course readings examine whose voices are
included, whose epistemic worldviews are recognized as
legitimate, and whether planning decisions fairly reflect
diverse interests, experiences, and points of view. Topics
covered included citizenship and citizenship rights, language
rights, voting rights, participatory planning, participatory
budgeting, inclusionary planning, cultural empowerment,
the politics of recognition, and everyday urbanism. Readings
include the experiences of planning practitioners who have
undertaken projects aimed at expanding cultural or social
inclusion, with recent attention paid to place-making and the
role of culture and the arts.
Planning Specializations
Housing.  How has planning for housing and development
produced differential social and spatial outcomes affecting
diverse groups? What have been the shifting approaches to
Downloaded from jpe.sagepub.com at University of Hawaii at Manoa Library on October 28, 2016
providing affordable and integrated housing and what
approaches toward inclusionary housing appear most prom-
ising? In the historic context of redlining, racial covenants,
and other laws and practices that have supported residential
segregation and marginalization, courses examine strategies
for the provision of public, affordable, or rental housing
along with policies promoting homeownership and changes
in funding at the federal and local levels to understanding
present-day housing issues. Readings on policies targeted at
combating racial segregation and concentrated poverty,
such as fair housing and inclusionary zoning, include both
their achievements and shortcomings. Persistent homeless-
ness, how homelessness is experienced by different groups
(e.g., victims of domestic violence, parents with children,
substance abusers), and the contrast of approaches from
punitive to restorative are also examined. Case studies of
alternative and inclusionary housing include community
land trusts, self-help or informal housing, shared equity,
cooperatives, and post-disaster reconstruction models.
Some courses focus on the impact of immigration on tradi-
tional ethnic enclaves as well on outlying “ethnoburbs.” The
interactions over time between different groups sharing the
same neighborhood (e.g., gay residents moving into histori-
cally black neighborhoods) highlight conflict and negotia-
tion over community identity, affordability, and expectations
about community life.
Community Development. How have community develop-
ment efforts hindered and/or advanced issues of diversity
and social justice? What frameworks of analysis can be used
to deepen community development praxis? Community
development courses address the contested definitions of
community and the multiple approaches to community
development—from technical assistance to empowerment
and asset-based self-help strategies. Readings feature the
many ways that planners can seek to expand grassroots
involvement of perennially marginalized or tokenized
groups, including strategies for capacity building and com-
munity mobilization. This involves an understanding of
neighborhoods as complex social structures as well as for-
mal and informal networks of actors and institutions, such
as neighborhood associations, banks, local nonprofits, pri-
vate developers, and government agencies. Courses con-
sider the history of community development, emergence of
community economic development finance tools and insti-
tutions as strategies for economic, social and political
empowerment in historically marginalized communities and
populations. Other development strategies include immi-
grant and women’s entrepreneurship, social enterprise,
place-making, and cultural tourism.
Economic Development.  How has economic development and
the laws governing it shaped social stratification and inequal-
ity? What economic development strategies can narrow
with wealth divide and provide real equality for women,
8 Journal of Planning Education and Research 
communities of color, and other historically marginalized
populations? Approaches to poverty alleviation emphasize
the historical, economic, and spatial processes that have led
to structural inequality. Students are asked to contextualize
cycles of disinvestment and reinvestment and think about
who benefits from urban revitalization or job creation poli-
cies. Also included are critiques of the major economic theo-
ries that undergird community and regional economic
development strategies within a globalized economy. Plan-
ning educators ask students to familiarize themselves with a
range of macro and community-based economic develop-
ment strategies and tools, institutional and political frame-
works, and financial institutions. Some strategies focus on
labor rather than capital, such as education, living wage cam-
paigns, and worker protection policies. Many courses include
the role and impact of growing immigrant populations, par-
ticularly Latino communities, on economic development and
the labor market, including the role of immigrant entrepre-
neurs, day laborers, and the informal economy. Readings
include perspectives from the Global South, including the
imbalances in power, wealth, and quality of life as well as
innovative development strategies.
Environment and Sustainability.  What does an environmental
justice lens add to our understanding of sustainability? How
can planning for disaster resilience, food security, public
health, sustainable urban design, and other areas achieve
social justice goals in addition to desired technical or mate-
rial outcomes? The long-standing environmental justice
movement and scholarly literature help to frame many of
these interdisciplinary debates over social justice as it relates
to sustainability and the environment. These range from
issues of equal access among all to clean and safe environ-
ments, fresh and healthy foods, walkable communities, and a
variety of environmental amenities. Concepts such as envi-
ronmental gentrification, in which environmental advances
can result in displacement of low-income and minority resi-
dents, challenge students to find the nexus between issues of
social justice and sustainability. Study of sustainable food
systems and other resource systems include critical analyses
of the spatial and political dimensions of race, class, gender,
and citizenship in order to understand issues of access and
control, such as over food at different scales from neighbor-
hood gardens to global trade agreements. The influence of
the built environment on community health is also included
in planning curricula, including concepts such as junk food
oases and healthy food deserts.
Transportation, Land Use, and Urban Design.  Courses encour-
age students to pay attention to patterns of inequality and
disparity in the use, allocation, and regulation of land and
infrastructure in cities and regions. Courses also challenge
students to think about how land use, urban design, and
transportation planning and processes can lead to improved
conditions for women, communities of color, differently
Downloaded from jpe.sagepub.com at University of Hawaii at Manoa Library on October 28, 2016
abled, elderly, and other populations who have been under-
served or have special needs. Courses cover the concepts
such as transit equity, including transportation access across
populations (and subsequently jobs), environmental and
public health impacts of transportation infrastructure and
operations, progressive and regressive forms of infrastruc-
ture funding, equity implications of transit-oriented devel-
opment (TOD), and the value of infrastructure in improving
economic and health outcomes for low-income, minority,
homeless, and female-headed households and communities.
Topics of equity and justice also apply to urban design more
generally, such as the impacts of urban design on social,
physical, and psychological well-being, access to open
space and public amenities, walkability and mobility,
engagement in creative placemaking, and access to goods,
services, and recreational spaces. Special attention is paid to
equity and justice in light of the unique physical needs, life-
ways, histories, and social dynamics among and between
different populations.
Disaster Management.  Courses examine how some commu-
nities, especially low-income and racially and otherwise
subordinated groups globally, face greater vulnerability to
natural disasters by virtue of the quality of lands they have
historically occupied. Readings include the politics of land
development, segregation, and the uneven geography of
disaster risk. Once disasters hit, there are also inequities in
government responses to disasters. Case studies of Hurri-
cane Katrina and others are used to illustrate differential
responses by income and race and the particularly slow
response to the needs of African American communities. In
the face of disasters, there are also opportunities and chal-
lenges for building resilient communities. Courses cover
different approaches, with critical examination of how
disaster management efforts have often lead to greater dis-
placement of the urban poor during the process of recon-
struction and redevelopment. Case studies examine the
possibilities for social change in times of community recov-
ery and rebuilding and encourage students to think about
ways to plan and implement equitable and community-
appropriate recovery in postdisaster contexts.
Planning Tools and Strategies
Strategies for Change.  Courses provide students with a criti-
cal understanding of strategies for change as well as plan-
ning approaches that can be considered in seeking social
justice. By acknowledging the “dark side” of planning and
the damage done under colonial and modernist planning
paradigms, planning educators set the stage for a more
reflexive practice that aims at undoing structural inequities
and creating new, more just planning futures. These attempts
focus on planning and place-making processes that are more
democratic, emancipatory, and transformative. Some exam-
ples include citizens’ academies, guerrilla urbanism, and
Sen et al. 9
various approaches to political mobilization. Course read-
ings help students understand and assess the effectiveness of
various planning methods, models, and strategies to achieve
a more just and equitable society. For example, courses
examine the concepts of power and social capital and the
role that planning can play in helping community develop-
ment achieve social and institutional change. Courses also
examine the tensions inherent in many university–commu-
nity partnerships and in university efforts to assert itself as
an anchor institution for community reinvestment and
development. Drawing from diverse strands of political the-
ory and organizing, including the labor and Civil Rights
Movement, readings contrast multiple approaches to move-
ment building along with their underlying values. Students
are asked to critically analyze the role of planners in agenda-
setting and strategy-making, juxtaposing planning with a
community and planning for a community. Case studies also
highlight organizing and policy activism in immigrant and
LGBTQ communities.
Tools and Techniques for Change.  There are specific tools and
skills that planning education provides that foster more
inclusive and empowering planning processes and outcomes.
These are centered on communication, collaboration, partici-
pation, facilitation and mediation, self-awareness, and reflec-
tive praxis. Students study different process designs and
practice these various techniques in class and in field set-
tings, such as public workshops and meetings. Some courses
train students in cross-cultural communication and nontradi-
tional forms of knowledge production and transmission such
as personal narratives. In some cases, instructors use story-
telling to build a sense of community in the classroom as
well as in projects involving relationship building with com-
munity members. Some planning educators include research
techniques to measure inequality and unjust outcomes, such
as the use of GIS in analyses of spatial disparities across
groups or disproportionate impacts across communities; sta-
tistical measures of inequality, segregation, and spatial mis-
match; culturally appropriate survey methods; and indicators
of community well-being. By learning to apply a social jus-
tice lens, planning students are trained to think more criti-
cally about which planning tools and techniques support
more inclusive and equitable planning processes or outcomes
and which may work to perpetuate unequal structures of
power. Readings also include the importance of attending to
emotions in planning facilitation as well as language access
in multilingual cities.
Planning Ethics and the Role of the Planner.  While ethical ques-
tions are woven throughout the various specializations and
courses, we highlight some of the key questions here. Grow-
ing inequalities, scarcities, nationalist bigotry, and wealth-
bound power imbalances have magnified the need for
planners to confront related ethical issues that arise in plan-
ning processes. Planning education trains students to be
Downloaded from jpe.sagepub.com at University of Hawaii at Manoa Library on October 28, 2016
reflective practitioners—to make thoughtful and deliberate
decisions that acknowledge their own positionality. Courses
encourage planners to examine their actions and their implicit
or explicitly held principles, ideologies, and beliefs in rela-
tion to the various rationales of planning, such as equity and
social justice. Why do we plan, for whom do we plan, how
should we plan, who benefits, and who gets to decide?
Courses highlighted various ethical dilemmas for planners,
such as how planners listen to marginalized voices while
being mindful of their own positionalities, how they design
processes in an effort to mediate and minimize imbalances of
power and knowledge, and how they bring disparate parties
together to resolve differences that are embedded in different
epistemic worldviews. Course topics related to planning eth-
ics focus on the politics of planning and policy and role of
the planner as an agent of social change. Some of the case
studies examining planners’ political roles are drawn from
the Civil Rights and other social movements and the history
of advocacy planning.
Research Methods. Some of the ethical issues discussed
above apply to the use of different research methods, par-
ticularly in the study and practice of planning in diverse
communities. Some courses include critiques of positivist
approaches to research while turning the gaze of research to
the social constructions that perpetuate injustices and
inequalities. Methods are tied to theoretical approaches, and
some related to issues of diversity and social justice include
critical race theory, queer theory, and feminist theory, which
favor methodological approaches such as narrative analy-
ses, phenomenology, grounded theory, participant observa-
tion, action research, and case study. Quantitative methods
include a variety of ways to measure demographic, social,
economic change, and well-being across groups. Included
are readings that emphasize the use of methods that inte-
grate the perspectives of multiple publics and acknowledge
multiple epistemologies, especially indigenous epistemolo-
gies that integrate the physical landscape with larger knowl-
edge and value systems. Students are encouraged to think
critically about the relationship between the researcher and
historically marginalized communities for or with which a
researcher is working, especially given long histories of
exploitation of many communities of color by researchers.
Planning education helps students develop self-awareness
and an understanding of how their own race, gender, sexual
orientation, class, religion, or any intersections of identity or
belonging might affect their research in specific communi-
ties and situations. Readings also explore issues of reciproc-
ity and human integrity related to a chosen method or
planning practice.
Future Investigation
Our review of syllabi shows that planning education in the
United States has made significant progress in teaching
10 Journal of Planning Education and Research 
issues of diversity and social justice. This is especially
clear in terms of the depth and breadth of course offerings,
pedagogical and methodological approaches, the applica-
tion of concepts and theories, as well as increasing variety
in the topical areas. There is also an expanding body of
literature since the time these syllabi were created that are
not captured in this study. Though this article tended to
focus on racial and ethnic diversity and social justice, there
are other important dimensions of difference that can be
included in future course development. Several syllabi did
include readings on gender, including gendered experi-
ences and issues of sexuality and a few classes used gender
as their primary lens of analysis. However, a full treatment
of planning curricula on gender, religion, physical ability,
language, age, and income—among other dimensions of
difference—remain for future inclusion.
This article focused on topical issues more than peda-
gogical ones. There is a great deal to learn about how best
to teach these issues in ways that lead to a deep under-
standing of the ways that difference matters to planners.
Facilitating classroom discussions on issues that may be
sensitive or conjure controversy or strong emotion may
be challenging for faculty and students unaccustomed to
engaging in such conversations. Much more should be
done to help faculty and students overcome the chal-
lenges in engaging in constructive and critical dialogues
about difference and how they affect planning. For exam-
ple, while friction and disagreement should not be
avoided, planning educators should ensure that students
in the minority do not to bear the burden of such discus-
sion. As experience has shown, simply launching into a
discussion about racial privilege without also discussing
economic inequalities would be counterproductive to stu-
dents whose lived experiences reflect the disadvantages
of class just as much as the advantages of whiteness
(POCIG Roundtable 2015). Many instructors are quite
skilled and experienced in transforming the classroom
into a safe space to engage students in discussions about
difference, diversity, and justice, but more lessons in this
area are needed.
A major challenge identified by planning educators has
been the difficulty in locating research on diversity and
social justice in the major planning journals. Oftentimes,
planning educators draw from scholarship in geography,
urban studies, and American studies in order to find perti-
nent articles. We hope to see more articles on issues of
diversity and social justice generated from within the
planning academy in planning journals that meet the chal-
lenges facing our changing cities and societies. It is
incumbent on planning educators to bring fuller treatment
of and sensitivity to issues of diversity and social justice
into our classrooms if we are to train professionals who
can effectively work in the urban landscapes of the new
millennium.
Downloaded from jpe.sagepub.com at University of Hawaii at Manoa Library on October 28, 2016
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
1. This version of the PAB (Planning Accreditation Board)
Accreditation Standards was under review with new wording
under consideration at the time of this writing.
2. Coding was done manually on an Excel spreadsheet; no
qualitative software was used because of the simplicity of
the coding given the nature of the data and the scope of the
inquiry.
References
Afshar, F. 2001. “Preparing Planners for a Globalizing World:
The Planning School at the University of Guelph.” Journal of
Planning Education and Research 20 (3): 339–52.
Agyeman, J., and J. S. Erickson. 2012. “Culture, Recognition, and
the Negotiation of Difference: Some Thoughts on Cultural
Competency in Planning Education.” Journal of Planning
Education and Research 32 (3): 358–66.
Allen, J., and G. Cars. 2001. “Multiculturalism and Governing
Neighbourhoods.” Urban Studies 38 (12): 2195–2209.
Amin, A. 2002. “Ethnicity and the Multicultural City: Living with
Diversity.” Environment and Planning A 34 (6): 959–80.
Amirahmadi, H. 1993. “Globalization and Planning Education.”
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 20 (5):
537–55.
Association of Schools of Planning (ACSP) Committee on
Diversity. 2013. Syllabus Book: A Compilation of Planning
Syllabi Addressing Issues of Diversity and Social Justice.
Banerjee, T. 1985. “Environmental Design in the Developing
World: Some Thoughts on Design Education.” Journal of
Planning Education and Research 5 (1): 28–38.
Burayidi, M. A., ed. 2000. Urban Planning in a Multicultural
Society. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Burayidi, M. A. 2003. “The Multicultural City as Planners’
Enigma.” Planning Theory & Practice 4 (3): 259–73.
Chan, W. F. 2007. “Writing Multiculturalism? Planning for
Culturally Different Identities in the City of Birmingham.”
Planning Theory & Practice 8 (1): 69–85.
Davidoff, P. 1965. “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning. “Journal
of the American Institute of Planners 31 (4): 331–38.
Dearborn, L. M., and S. A. Harwood. 2011. “Teaching Students
about Complexity: Reflections about an Interdisciplinary Studio
in East St Louis, Illinois.” Journal of Urbanism: International
Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 4 (2):
127–51.
Dewar, M. E., and C. B. Isaac. 1998. “Learning from Difference:
The Potentially Transforming Experience of Community-
University Collaboration.” Journal of Planning Education and
Research 17 (4): 334–47.
Sen et al. 11
Doan, P. L. 2015. Planning and LGBTQ Communities: The Need
for Inclusive Queer Spaces. New York: Routledge.
Dyck, I. 2005. “Feminist Geography, the ‘Everyday’, and Local-
Global Relations: Hidden Spaces of Place-making.” Canadian
Geographer 49 (3): 233–43.
Fainstein, S., and L. Servon, eds. 2005. Gender and Planning: A
Reader. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Forsyth, A. 1995. “Diversity Issues in a Professional Curriculum:
Four Stories and Some Suggestions for Change.” Journal of
Planning Education and Research 15 (1): 58–63.
Forsyth, A., H. Lu, and P. McGirr. 1999. “College Students and
Youth Collaborating in Design: Research on the Design
Studio.” Landscape Review 5 (2): 26–42.
Forsyth, A., H. Lu, and P. McGirr. 2000. “Service Learning in
an Urban Context: Implications for Planning and Design
Education.” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
17 (3): 236–59.
Friedmann, J. 1973. Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive
Planning. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.
Friedmann, J., and C. Kuester. 1994. “Planning Education for the
Late 20th Century: An Initial Inquiry.” Journal of Planning
Education and Research 14 (1): 55–64.
Gans, H. J. 1967. “The Failure of Urban Renewal: A Critique and
Some Proposals.” In Urban Renewal: People, Politics and
Planning, edited by J. Bellush and M. Hausknecht. New York:
Anchor Books.
Goonewardena, K., K. N. Rankin, and S. Weinstock. 2004.
“Diversity and Planning Education: A Canadian Perspective.”
Canadian Journal of Urban and Regional Research 13 (1
Suppl): 1–26.
Grabow, S., and A. Heskin. 1973. “Foundations for a Radical
Concept of Planning.” Journal of American Institute of
Planners 39 (2): 106–14.
Gunder, M. 2005. “Obscuring Difference through Shaping Debate:
A Lacanian View of Planning for Diversity.” International
Planning Studies 10 (2): 83–103.
Harwood, S. A., and M. A. Zapata. 2014. “Changing Racial
Attitudes.” In Community Matters: Service-Learning in
Engaged Design and Planning, edited by M. Bose, P. Horrigan,
C. Doble, and S. Shipp. New York: Routledge.
Hemmens, G. C. 1988. “Thirty Years of Planning Education.”
Journal of Planning Education and Research 7 (2): 85–91.
Kymlicka, W. 2003. “Multicultural States and Intercultural
Citizens.” Theory and Research in Education 1 (2): 147–69.
Lim, G. C. 1993. “Reforming Education toward the Global
Century.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design
20 (5): 567–76.
Moser, C. O. 1989. “Gender Planning in the Third World: Meeting
Practical and Strategic Gender Needs.” World Development 17
(11): 1799–825.
Milroy, B. M. 2004. “Diversity and Difference: A Comment.”
Canadian Journal of Urban and Regional Research 13 (1 Suppl):
46–49.
Planning Accreditation Board. 2013. “The Accreditation Document:
Standards and Procedures of the Planning Accreditation
Board.” http://www.planningaccreditationboard.org/.
Qadeer, M. 1986. “Comparative Studies to Counter Ethnocentric
Urban Planning.” In Learning from Other Countries, edited by
I. Masser and R. Williams. London: Geo Books.
Downloaded from jpe.sagepub.com at University of Hawaii at Manoa Library on October 28, 2016
Qadeer, M. 1997. “Pluralistic Planning for Multicultural Cities.”
Journal of the American Planning Association 63 (4): 481–94.
Rahder, B. 1999. “Victims No Longer: Participatory Planning with
a Diversity of Women at Risk of Abuse.” Journal of Planning
Education and Research 18 (3): 221–32.
Rahder, B., and R. Milgrom. 2004. “The Uncertain City: Making
Space(s) for Difference.” Canadian Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 12 (1 Suppl): 27–45.
Ritzdorf, M. 1993. “The Fairy’s Tale: Teaching Planning and Public
Policy in a Different Voice.” Journal of Planning Education
and Research 12 (2): 99–106.
Rodriguez, S. 1993. “Schools for Today, Graduates for Tomorrow.”
Journal of the American Planning Association 59 (2): 152–55.
Sandercock, L., ed. 1998. Making the Invisible Visible: A
Multicultural Planning History. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Sandercock, L. 2000. “When Strangers Become Neighbors:
Managing Cities of Difference.” Planning Theory and Practice
1 (1): 13–30.
Sandercock, L. 2003. “Planning in the Ethno-culturally Diverse City:
A Comment.” Planning Theory and Practice 4 (3): 319–23.
Sanyal, B., ed. 1990. Breaking Boundaries: A One World Approach
to Planning Education. New York: Plenum.
Sen, S. 2000. “Some Thoughts on Incorporating Multiculturalism
in Urban Design Education.” In Urban Planning in a
Multicultural Society, edited by M. A. Burayidi. Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Sen, S. 2005. “Diversity and North American Planning Curricula:
The Need for Reform.” Canadian Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 14 (1 Suppl): 121–39.
Sletto, B. 2010. “Educating Reflective Practitioners: Learning to
Embrace the Unexpected through Service Learning.” Journal
of Planning Education and Research 29 (4): 403–15.
Sweet, E. 2006. “Spy or Feminist: ‘Grrrilla’ Research on the
Margin.” Advances in Gender Research 10:145–61.
Sweet, E., and H. F. Etienne. 2011. “Commentary: Diversity in
Urban Planning Education and Practice.” Journal of Planning
Education and Research 31 (3): 332–39.
Thomas, J. M. 1996. “Educating Planners: Unified Diversity for
Social Action.” Journal of Planning Education and Research
15 (3): 171–82.
Thomas, J. M., and M. Ritzdorf, eds. 1997. Urban Planning and
the African American Community: In the Shadows. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tiryakian, E. A. 2003. “Assessing Multiculturalism Theoretically:
E Pluribus Unum, Sic et Non.” International Journal on
Multicultural Societies 5 (1): 20–39.
Umemoto, K., and H. Igarashi. 2009. “Deliberative Planning in
a Multicultural Milieu.” Journal of Planning Education and
Research 29 (1): 39–53.
Wolfe, J. M. 2003. “Politics and Planning Schools.” Plan Canada
43 (3): 15–17.
Young, I. M. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Author Biographies
Siddhartha Sen is a professor and interim assistant dean of the
School of Architecture and Planning and director of the Graduate
12 Journal of Planning Education and Research 

Program in City and Regional Planning at Morgan State University. Annette Koh is a doctoral candidate in Urban & Regional Planning at
His research focuses on international planning and race and ethnic- the University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Her research interests include the
ity in planning education. right to the city, temporary urbanism, public space, and civic engagement.

Karen Umemoto is a professor and chair of the Department of
Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Hawai’i at
Manoa. Her research interests are primarily in planning and gov-
ernance in multicultural societies, race and ethnic relations, youth
and urban violence, and community building.
Vera Zambonelli is a lecturer in the Department of Geography at
the University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Her research and teaching
interests include diversity in place and space, intercultural place-
making, visual methodologies, youth community building, and
feminist filmmaking.

Downloaded from jpe.sagepub.com at University of Hawaii at Manoa Library on October 28, 2016