When our Justice by Design submission was rejected from the UIA conference, I was first surprised. But then I paused and asked myself: why?

Why does this kind of gatekeeping persist across academic and disciplinary fields?
Why are we comfortable with a few individuals, groups, and perspectives controlling the narrative, deciding who gets to contribute and who does not?
Why is there so little space for dialogue, learning, and growth?

The UIA’s call for submissions initially seemed refreshing and progressive. It invited formats beyond the standard academic abstract, suggesting openness to diverse voices and ways of knowing. But the rejection revealed the opposite. We were dismissed for not conforming to the norms of traditional academic communication.

The Reasons for Rejection

Both reviewers said our proposal was “interesting,” “promising,” and that they valued the contribution of innovative pedagogies. One even wrote:

“…i believe that it is important to have innovative pedagogies represented in the conference.”

Another said:

“The argument of this proposal is compelling and reads urgent and in line with the UIA congress.”

And yet, we were rejected. Why?
• Because we did not follow the expected reflex of citing the “right” literature
• Because we didn’t perform the academic ritual of positioning ourselves on the “shoulders of giants”
• Because we challenged this logic and insisted that our work stands on its own while contributing a unique perspective
• Because we forgot to explicitly mention that the Winter School took place in Amsterdam at the Academy of Architecture

A missing location detail can be fixed. But should that be grounds for rejection?

What This Reveals

This experience reflects a deeper problem. Many reviewers, even with good intentions, remain bound by biases about what “good academic framing” looks like.

That framing is not neutral. It is shaped by colonial and Western traditions of knowledge-making:
• privileging certain epistemologies over others
• valuing competition over collaboration
• prioritizing the reproduction of “recognized” authorities rather than enabling new voices

What gets excluded in this process are alternative methods, nontraditional formats, and community-driven perspectives. These are the very contributions these “open calls” often claim to welcome.

A Call for Change

This is not just about one rejection. It is about how our academic ecosystems are designed to reproduce hierarchies instead of nurturing learning.

If conferences truly want to embrace diverse contributions, they must:
• Foster care-oriented dialogue between reviewers, organizers, and contributors
• Offer opportunities to revise and resubmit rather than shutting doors
• Create hybrid and multi-city formats that make participation accessible
• Allow alternative forms of knowledge, including zines, workshops, films, and community projects, to be presented on their own terms

I recognize that conferences face budget and resource constraints. But there are low-cost and thoughtful solutions to make space for more contributors and more voices.

Why I Am Writing

I write from a place of frustration, but also from a deep commitment to change.
To challenge who gets to define what counts as knowledge.
To question who gets to be in the room and whose voices are left outside the door.

If we want academia to be truly open, inclusive, and transformative, we need to confront these barriers directly and reimagine what rigor and contribution really mean.

Thanks for reading.