...Gage claims that he is doing exactly that: "promote and serve the public interest", "improve public appreciation and understanding of architecture".
You'd have to prove he is knowingly, and actually, confusing the public. We here tend to think that's a no-brainer, but I am not sure...
Hi Everyone - I'm back.
Only two points I will refer to at this late stage of the thread.
The first, which is a derail, but my continuing observation of the extent to which US folk despite "Freedom of Speech" in their constitution, over-read that freedom to mean "free to say whatever you want wherever you want and damn the consequences".
The second point I think goes to the core of this thread topic and it is this:
What action by Richard Gage could constitute a breach of ethical standards of AIA? That in turn requires us to define two things - what the standards require and what Gage does which could breach the standard.
Let's take the core elements which Oystein has quoted viz:
1) "promote and serve the public interest"; AND
2) "improve public appreciation and understanding of architecture".
..and I think I can be more definite than Oystein and claim that Gage is in breach of both these standards.
Recall that it is "public interest" which he is required to serve NOT "Richard Gage's version of 'public interest' which suits Richard Gage's personal view"
AND, similarly
It is "..public appreciation and understanding of architecture" NOT "appreciation of the bit of architecture which R Gage wants to put forward".
So it is the whole body of Architectural profession which he is obliged to represent - not his personal preferences to the exclusion of the overall interest of the profession.
Now the core issue is that Gage presents a set of views about WTC 9/11 collapses which he may or may not believe. The status of his personal honesty on those matters is not relevant. What is relevant is that he is aware that the majority of architectural (and engineering) professionals hold views contrary to his own.
To legitimately represent the architectural profession in public presentation he is obliged to do two things (at least) in his public presentations. Those are:
A) Advise those lay or persons otherwise uninformed about 9/11 matters that the body of professional opinion disagrees with his own view.
B) Desist from presenting his own "explanations" as if they are complete, legitimate, unopposed or stronger in merit that the accepted wisdom of the profession.
If he does not comply with those two conditions he is not "[promoting or serving] the public interest" NOR is he "improv[ing] public appreciation and understanding of architecture".
Therefore, prima facie, he is in breach of the AIA ethical standard.
