The almost simultaneous publication of Five Architects and the Venturis' Learning from Las Vegas marks, one hopes, an opportunity to step back and consider what it is that our architecture stands for at this time; it gives us a chance to evaluate opposing points of view that have been described as European/idealist on the one hand, American/pragmatic on the other, exclusive and inclusive, conceptual and perceptual, invulnerable and vulnerable.
Robert Stern, "Stompin' at the Savoye".
Pritzker jury will not revisit decision to exclude Denise Scott Brown
... you're conflating history a little bit. All the names you list (excluding Siegel) are involved within "FIVE ON FIVE" a feature within the May 1973 issue of The Architectural Forum magazine, from which the notion of "whites" vs. "grays" followed.
Here's the short introduction to FIVE ON FIVE:
Constructive criticism has long been a characteristic of the Forum. So has constructive candor. On the following pages, the work of Architects Peter Eisenman, Michael Graves, Charles Gwathmey, John Hejduk and Richard Meier--published in Five Architects (Wittenborn, 1973)--is criticized by five other architects. Robert Stern organized the team of critics because he felt that Five Architects presented an opportunity (too rare these days) to discuss current architectural attitudes. It is only to be expected that Stern sought a team whose orientation is more or less opposite that of the original Five--a stance that could be loosely described as sympathetic to the Yale-Philadelphia Axis, meaning Louis Kahn and Robert Venturi. It is the Forum's position that confrontations between various philosophical camps are much needed, and sallies like the ones you are about to read not enough with us. Thanks are due to the original Five, of course, for being so sporting.