It is probably pointless to unravel the events around Professor Peggy Deamer’s exit from the Auckland School of Architecture, and it would be of little use; when large organisations make a decision they are invariably final and non-negotiable. Suffice to say that the Auckland University School of Architecture has lost a Head of Department who, in a very brief time, has managed to gather the support, respect and loyalty of much of the student body and of those in the profession who came in contact with her. While Professor Deamer’s departure is a particular and significant loss to the school and, one presumes, to her too, it also suggests difficult times ahead for the school in its search for direction.

The ruthless accounting of contemporary tertiary education funding has been hard on architecture; the space hungry requirements of lecture theatres, studio space and specialist workshop areas are a heavy overhead in a discipline with limited means of generating external revenue. The consequence has been a slow and inexorable decline in facilities available to students and an increasing feeling of embattlement by the staff, the relentless bureaucratisation of duties choking the enthusiasms of committed staff.

While the machinations at the School of Architecture might sound like business as usual to those with an infrequent contact with the school (was it only two issues ago I wrote of the protests against Professor Light’s appointment as Head in the 1950s), the exit of Professor Deamer has to be seen as part of an inexorable change at the school; a change the profession has a significant interest in and should take a more significant role in shaping.

There are complex forces at work in University funding, forces that drive inter-University competition for scarce funding and which have spawned a plethora of numerical measures used to assess the performance of department against department, faculty against faculty, university against university and, ultimately country against country. Savvy university heads now manipulate course structures to achieve more favourable numbers in the measure of research work undertaken and the number of graduate versus undergraduate students.

There is little point in railing against such restructuring in pedagogical terms. The University’s academic heads are as well versed in the strategies of funding as the accountants and are experts at maintaining the highest possible academic standards while creating the best scores in the various acronyms by which success and funding are linked. The Institute of Architects has a much more potent lever with which to affect some sort of change within the University: that of a customer, a user of the institution’s graduates- it is high time this lever was employed.

Architecture is a sort of broad spectrum discipline; its location on the campus midway between engineering and fine arts being roughly representative of the mix within. While there are many in the profession who call for graduates to be equipped with greater craft skills, it is the development of the intellectual skills of enquiry and research which are the truly valuable outputs of a university and which, when required, will facilitate the rapid uptake and assimilation of the profession’s necessary skills.

The School and the profession have often struggled to reconcile these conflicting expectations, the profession sounding wheedling and pedantic, the school aloof and indifferent. A head of school with a clear vision of architecture, its education, its research and its profession can bring these disparate views together and see symbiotic growth rather than conflict. Professor Deamer saw the possibilities for both profession and school in closer engagement and sought to facilitate interaction through her presence at Institute meetings, the greater use of the profession in teaching and the initiation of a long overdue lecture series by local architects. It should not be necessary to remark on her presence in the studio too, but such is the administrative pressure her predecessors have been under that the regular appearance of the Head in a studio teaching role was a welcome change too.

One might argue that a single person does not make a school and indeed the School has generally maintained its quality of education through many ructions and the coming and going of many personalities. There is though no doubt that a strongly articulated vision of architecture and its education as Professor Deamer illustrated will strengthen the School in its ability to attract students and staff, to undertake research and education and in its relationship with the profession.

The Institute must engage with the University to ensure that the school is again led by someone who is able offer this vision, and to ensure that any future appointment be supported to meet the relentless administrative demands of the University. The loss of Professor Deamer will make it hard for the University to attract such a candidate again and we must do all we can to ensure that efforts are directed to find someone with knowledge, vision and experience - any new Head of School must have, and personify, an inclusive vision of architecture.

It may be that the Institute is at work lobbying the University Council, the Vice-Chancellor and the Faculty but I have my doubts; if I am wrong let us rank-and-file members have some hint of the action afoot. It is not enough to wait for the visiting reviews or to suggest the School is no longer top of the list for prospective students; these are too slow in their effect. The Institute Council should request a joint working party with the University, acknowledging the University’s academic and fiscal responsibilities but acknowledging too that the profession the Institute represents has a significant interest in the quality and nature of the education offered.

The format for the day is that the Panel meets in separate sessions with the Head and Deputy Head of School, staff and students in the morning. In the afternoon they prepare a report and present it to the Head at the end of their visit.

10.45am
Friday 9th November 2007
Design Theatre, Conference Centre
22 Symonds Street

A session of 45 minutes has been arranged to meet with students from 10.45-11.30am.  Please come to show your support and be heard.

Click to download PDF
or
Click thumbnails to enlarge

Published September/October 2007 in Architecture NZ

Click a thumbnail for enlarged image.

Cover

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Click each thumbnail for a larger view.

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Extract From Article
“University of Auckland vice-chancellor Professor Stuart McCutcheon said at the time any system could be “managed”. He suggested other universities may have boosted their performance by strategically reducing the number of eligible staff who did not do research.” …

Read Full Article @ http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=25&objectid=10441390

Extract From Article
“We are sure that we detect among staff, academic as well as general, a feeling of helplessness, of alienation, even at times of fear, that seems to us utterly alien to the proper spirit of a university, and utterly incompatible with its proper aspirations.”

Read Full Article @ http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=134&objectid=10469330&pnum=0

The following photos were taken at 1.30am Wednesday in the Architecture Studio.

So to update you all,
We have a meeting with the Dean and Head of School next Tuesday at 1pm.
Unfortunately only 8 people can go again, which is disappointing.

What we need the most for next week is an action plan with points of how the Faculty and School can move forward.

This basically is a list of how we want the Faculty to operate with the School in the future:

like: take our suggestions seriously. Consult with the students before big decisions are made. etc

To do this we’re going to meet at 1pm tomorrow (Friday)

Meet next to the Support our School board on level 2, next to the courtyard. Hopefully we would have found a smaller room by then.

Pass this message on to. thanks !

cool, hopefully catch you tomorrow.
–
Society of Space
Student Body, School of Architecture
sos.auckland@gmail.com

- - -

Regarding Professor Pretty’s Letter - 7th September

What is even more extraordinary than the continuous denial of a currently poor relationship between the staff, students and the faculty head, is the lack of concern over the resignation of a highly valued professional with a clear vision as the leader of the Architecture department.

This is not to suggest the quality of the current staff is grossly undervalued, but it is no secret that the department is in permanent need to fill staffing positions. Any unnecessary loss is detrimental and cause for concern. Peggy Deamer is only the most recent and most high profiled resignations following the highly regarded Professor Robert and Brenda Vale, Charles Walker and others. The loss of staff from the department directly impacts the quality of education as papers are dropped and interrupted frequently. This has been the case for the past 3 or 4 years.

The performance of the students are a credit to the available staff, but this should not deter the fact that with the vast pool of talent available, higher achievement could no doubt be reached without these disruptions. Imagine the standard of work that could have been accomplished without reduced access of the architecture studio, wind tunnel, climate chamber and treats to our workshop …

The value of a devoted professional with a highly regarded background in the education of architecture students is the greatest resource a university can provide. The awareness to the needs of the students and staff must be examined by management so that it may better align itself to the vision of the school

- - -

Dear Professor Pretty,
Re: University Resignation, letter to editor, published 07/09/07.

It would appear to be one of your strengths to “play down” and disguise any “misalignments” that occur between you and our school.

The departure of Peggy Deamer is the most recent of several key staff in the school of Architecture to have resigned. This is most certainly not one of those things that “happen on occasion”!. Must I also make note of the 10+ staff who lost their jobs at the Elam School of Fine Arts of whom you are also Dean.

You continue to avoid any truthful discussion of these misaligning issues which continue to result in not only the loss of staff but access to the vital resources our school requires. Can you please openly and truthfully communicate with both staff and students and without threat to jobs or ones education and degree. We then might achieve the potential Peggy Deamer saw in our school.

NS, anxious student of the UoA School of Architecture

- - -

In response to the Dean of NICAI and Vice Chancellor of Auckland University’s letter, I find many issues.

The Students are not questioning the management of the 4000 staff at the University. We are questioning the treatment of the 39 staff within the Architecture School, which is directly controlled by the NICAI Faculty.

The students do not doubt the quality of teachers at the School. We question the Faculty’s attitude towards these teachers. It is the students’ belief that if this does not improve, we will continue to lose staff, when already the school is understaffed.

The Dean and Vice-Chancellor fail to mention that a concern of the APARP Accreditation Panel was that management by the NICAI faculty had resulted in a ‘disenfranchising’ of staff and students at the School of Architecture.

Students do perform well in international competitions, but I worry that this will not continue if concerns about the school are not resolved effectively. I would argue that student success is more a result of the student and the staff’s hard work, not the Faculty’s, whose actions are hampering student efforts.

The Dean would not have examples of the “climate of fear” because as stated people are afraid of reprisals, especially since they are in regard to her.

- - -

Manifesto of Disatisfaction

I am an architecture student at Auckland University. I wish to respond to the letter written by the Dean of the National Institute of Creative Arts and Industries, Shaman Pretty.

Professor Deamer’s resignation is not merely a 1 in 4000 event as she claims. In the past 3 years the school of architecture has had 4 heads of school, leading to incongruity and stagnation in the development of the school. Deamer’s resignation is the latest in this series of disappointments.

Why does nobody want the job? It is because the Head of School is incapable of advancing the school under the constant micromanagement of Dean Shaman Pretty. Pretty’s management style is unprofessional and undignified. Intimidation, inappropriate emails and marginalization are hallmarks of her treatment of architecture students. One can only imagine how staff are treated behind closed doors.

During Pretty’s reign I have seen the school’s resources (including staff) shut down, sold off, made redundant and restricted. Her claim that there is no climate of fear at the school is ludicrous. All statements made by students have been anonymous, for a very real fear of reprisal.

Annonymous Architecture Student
University of Auckland.

- - -

Attached is a letter from the Dean of NICAI in response to the Student Meeting, September 4th 2007.

It had been raised at the meeting that we wished the Dean to correspond directly to Students, especially due to the nature of events in the last months.

At the Staff meeting today, her reason for not sending this to you was that it is not usual procedure for the Dean to communicate directly to students.

The questions she has put in her response are not the exact wording of what was asked at the meeting by the students.

The Student’s original questions for the meeting are here: http://www.sos.derail.co.nz/?p=28.

Click to download the Dean’s Response.

”

Readers of this page may care to know that Peggy Deamer has accepted a temporary position teaching design at Auckland’s other school of architecture at Unitec. The staff and students there are pleased that her talents remain available to architecture in New Zealand, at least until the end of the year.
Tony van Raat
Head of School
Unitec Institute of Technology

“

This article has been recently removed from the NICAI website. The google gods have retained it for us. Click to download PDF of the article Cached by Google.

Extract from article:

“Professor Deamer comes with an impeccable academic background, broad experience in architectural practice, a clear vision for the future of architecture internationally, new ideas and approaches to architectural education, and a strong commitment to sharing her knowledge and experience in the New Zealand environment,” says Professor Sharman Pretty, Dean, NICAI. “We could not have hoped for a more outstanding appointment as a result of our international search for this new Chair in Architecture.”

Striking a false note

A series of staff problems and allegations of a ‘climate of fear’: one university is having a difficult year. David Cohen reports

David Cohen
Tuesday September 11, 2007
Guardian

During his years spent teaching at the Guildhall School of Music, Eric Hollis used to say that a golden rule for learning instruments was to start young. Keeping a tidy resume, the respected bassoonist and conservatoire teacher might have added, rates as a handy academic principle, too.

Hollis departed Britain three years ago for an executive position in New Zealand at the University of Auckland’s School of Music, initially to much antipodean fanfare. But he left under a cloud earlier this year, shortly after a delegation of the school’s academics raised concerns about a number of apparent loose ends in his 12-page curriculum vitae. The concerns were not mentioned when he resigned for personal reasons.

The then 52-year-old Hollis arrived in New Zealand after a well-regarded stint as director of initial studies at the London conservatory, where he had been responsible for overseeing external consulting and professional development activities and worked as an editorial director of Guildhall School Press.

Listed among the fine-print of the music professor’s “key publications”, however, was a well-known guide to instrumentation, The Essential String Method, which is based on the Guildhall School’s string curriculum - but not authored by Hollis.

Efforts to discover another of his highlighted publications, The Modern Conservatoire, also proved frustrating. The book’s given publisher, Doce Notas, appeared to be a music shop in Spain. The letters MMus after Hollis’s name on a document were also a bit of a misunderstanding - he is an MA, Master of Arts.

Hollis’s leaving comes during an unusually prickly year for a number of international scholars at New Zealand’s leading institution of higher learning, once headed by Oxford University’s vice-chancellor, John Hood, and still home to many of the country’s academic trend-setters.

In August, the head of the university’s school of architecture, Peggy Deamer, who took up the position earlier this year, was ordered to clear out her office and leave within hours of what the former Yale University scholar later described as a “misalignment” of views between her and the institution’s top management.

Her departure followed another high-profile parting of the ways, when the director of the university’s fledgling school of Latin studies, Paul G Buchanan, was summarily dismissed in July after firing off a shirty late-night email to an Arab student accusing her of preying upon feelings of “western liberal guilt” by seeking an extension for an overdue assignment because of a recent family bereavement. Buchanan apologised for any intemperate tone and is claiming unjustified dismissal.

Spurred by the flurry of media coverage set off by these high-profile cases, the correspondence columns of the country’s major newspaper, the New Zealand Herald, has seen both Auckland’s vice-chancellor and several of his top scholars exchanging claims and counterclaims during recent days over whether their university is operating in a “climate of fear”.

“It would be fair to say that, from the union perspective, we would wish for a better and far more constructive relationship with the university at the moment,” Nigel Haworth, head of the country’s Association of Academic Staff, said.

Meanwhile, articles lauding Hollis’s accomplishments remain on the university’s website. “I suppose I’ve always had an inclination to looking at things from another angle,” the professor says in one upbeat profile. Unfortunately, perhaps, a fact of international academic life these days is that others might be inclined to do the same in respect of the fine print of one’s claimed accomplishments.

The following points were raised by students in attendance.

Student Meeting with:
Dean of NICAI, Professor Sharman Pretty
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor Raewyn Dalziel
Head of Architecture and Planning, Professor Jenny Dixon

Meeting is in response to letter delivered to the Vice Chancellor’s office 29th August 2007. Letter is signed by 373 Architecture and Planning Students.

——

Our issue here today has come about through the resignation of Prof Peggy Deamer which happened on the 17th of August 2007. This was 10 days after the last Dean’s forum.

We are here not to bring back Prof Deamer.

We are here to ask for more transparency in the handling of our School.
For more collaboration with the students when making key decisions which affect our education.

• Peggy Deamer resigned from our school and quoted a Deep Misalignment with the Faculty. The faculty has never explained this misalignment: What was Prof. Deamer’s vision for the School? What is the Faculty’s vision for the School? What were the points of misalignment? How are successes and failures of the vision measured? Does the vision for the School align with what the architecture profession believe is fit for a school of architecture, considering that, without the approval of the profession, the School would be worth nothing?

• Why did we have to come to you, under these circumstances, to ask for this information that is critical to the wellbeing of the School? Why are the students not communicated to in a timely and effective manner, even on such important matters as this? Why does the Faculty default to non-communication?

• Communication between the school and Faculty have been documented as not being effective. This has been demonstrated in:

NVP report – National Visiting Panel of the Australian Architecture Program Accreditation and Recognition Procedure

“The panel … observed a resistance to participate in consultative processes brought about by a perception that contributions to the consultative process were largely ignored. This process has been consultative but not collaborative.” NVP report page 5 – 2006

Staff

It is shocking that a culture of fear exists within this school. Staff who have given us their support but are unwilling to speak openly for fear of losing their job. This becomes even more offensive when reading the recent media reports.

Email

Staff who are fed up with the treatment of the School are now leaving. Profs Vale, said one of the reasons for their departure “was due to the lack of support from the faculty. Our reasons for going to Victoria … It provides a supportive environment “

• Question:

How can the School operate effectively at all if there is no trust and goodwill between the Faculty and the staff and students?

Without collaboration how is it possible for the Faculty to know what is good for us?

• A stated goal in the NICAI annual plan 2007 is :

“Recruit and retain high quality staff and student body, striving to create equal opportunities for all those of ability to succeed in a University of high international standing” Point13 - Page 10

“Create and maintain an outstanding learning environment” Point 9- Page 8

“Engage Alumni and friends in mutually supportive and productive relationships” Point12 – Page10

“Create and promote a student environment that is welcoming, enjoyable, stimulating, encouraging students to reach their full potential within a climate of academic excellence.” Point14 – Page11

“Create a culture that encourages academic and general staff to meet their full potential” Point15 – Page11

Question: Why are the actions of the Faculty so contradictory to its stated aims ?

• The NVP outlines some serious issues concerning the relationship between the Faculty and it’s mismanagement of valued staff members.

“The panel identified significant challenges currently facing the Faculty and the School that largely hinge on the matter of human resource management:

• There is a significant schism between the vision for the School held at the level of the office of the Dean and a confidence in and ownership of that vision at School level
• The panel observed that there were significant opportunities for the School in the University’s NICAI vision but that management of that change between Faculty and School has resulted in a disenfranchising of staff and students in the School. Some of these staff themselves command significant Australasian and international reputations for their research work

Is the departure of Deamer another symptom of this “human resource management” problem? If this problem continues, is the School and Faculty ultimately sustainable?

Vice-Chancellor, Professor Stuart McCutcheon

University of AucklandRoom 203,
Alfred Nathan House
Princes Street
Auckland

The Student Body
Society of Space
School of Architecture and Planning sos.auckland@gmail.com

Friday, 24th August 2007

To the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Auckland,

We are writing to you, not as one voice, but as a collective group of students, both the Society of Space (SOS) – and as a wider School of Architecture and Planning community.

This letter is to highlight our concerns about the current state of the School of Architecture and Planning, and our worries about where the school appears to be going. This is not something that has suddenly happened, but is the most recent and disturbing in a succession of detrimental occurrences. It has now reached a point where, unless we step in as students, we will see the School continue in a negative direction.

These concerns stem from key questions – and we require your thoughts on how this will be remedied.

• What is happening to the School of Architecture and Planning?
• Why is there a critical break-down in relationship between the Faculty and the School ?
• Why have we lost a highly regarded Ivy League Professor and Head of our school that had the support of the Student body, Staff and Profession?
• What are the misalignment of views that lead to Professor Deamer’s departure?
• What is being done to repair the reputation of the School compared to other Universities?
• What steps are being taken to ensure the confidence of the Profession in the University of Auckland’s, School of Architecture and Planning’s qualifications?
• Why has the departure of KEY staff not been addressed and what is being done to ensure the retention of current staff?
• What POSITIVES have come out of becoming part of the National Institute of Creative Arts and Industries ? Is the Faculty working effectively for the School given the following:
• No Uniphoto
• No Photography lab
• No Wind Tunnel Lab and Climate Chamber
• No 24 hour studio access
• Reduced Metal workshop time
• No School trips

There appears that a rift has developed between the school and NICAI and this is effecting the students and staff to an extent that the school is functioning far from its’ potential. It is both the immediate prospect and more importantly the future of the school that we are concerned about. As soon as the reputation of our Architecture school is tainted it reflects badly on the Architecture profession, and crucially the University of Auckland.

We look forward to the answers regarding these serious concerns.

Yours Faithfully,
Student body of the School of Architecture and Planning
sos.auckland@gmail.com

American Scholar resigns due to conflicts with Auckland University.

Views from a staff member from the Elam School of Fine Arts regarding Peggy’s resignation and the issues Elam faced in 2005. See 2005 Herald Article.

This coming TUESDAY (4th)
Meet in the courtyard at 1:15 pm - meeting is at 1:30pm

If you can’t come send an email showing your support to:
sos.auckland@gmail.com
So we can show the Deputy Vice-Chancellor we mean business !
It’s important that the VC keeps receiving our message.

Just a few words is all we need !

Thank you for your letter of 24 August 2007 and the associated student petition.

I understand that the Dean, Professor Pretty, has arranged for student representatives to meet with herself and Professor Jenny Dixon (Head of School) next Tuesday to discuss the issues that students have raised. Professor Raewyn Dalziel (Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)) may also attend to provide advice on academic matters. I am also aware that Professor Pretty has previously made herself available to discuss these matters with students.

It is my view that matters such as these should, where ever possible, be resolved “at source” and I trust that your discussions with senior staff will lead to positive outcomes for all concerned.

Stuart McCutcheon
Vice-Chancellor”

Weeks after the controversial sacking of Auckland professor Paul Buchanan, a top professor has resigned as head of the University of Auckland School of Architecture and Planning. Professor Peggy Deamer says that a deep “misalignment” of views between her and Faculty management is behind her premature departure. Deamer was Assistant Dean at Yale University’s School of Architecture before taking up her position this February. She resigned on Friday 17 August and was ordered by Professor Sharman Pretty, Dean of the University’s National Institute of Creative Arts, to clear out her office immediately, despite offering six months’ notice to minimise disruption to her students. Deamer’s sudden departure is reported to have shocked staff and students. 372 students have signed a letter to the Vice-Chancellor asking for problems between the Faculty and School to be resolved. Most Architecture staff spoken to by press did not want to be named, describing a “climate of fear” at the School and saying their jobs would be in jeopardy if they spoke out.

”

Source: http://www.critic.co.nz/about/news/246

Another key resignation from Auckland
A top professor has resigned as head of the University of Auckland School of Architecture and Planning, telling students a deep “misalignment” of views between her and Faculty management is behind her premature departure, according to a story in today’s New Zealand Herald .

Professor Peggy Deamer, who was Assistant Dean at New York ’s renowned Yale University’s School of Architecture, took up her position in February this year, appointed with much fanfare by Professor Sharman Pretty, Dean of Auckland University’s National Institute of Creative Arts.

The Herald says that Professor Deamer, who resigned on 17 August, was ordered by Professor Pretty to clear out her office over the weekend. Professor Deamer told students she had offered six months’ notice to minimise disruption, but that was rejected.

Professor Deamer’s sudden departure is reported to have shocked staff and students, who have been given no official explanation. Students gathered in the School’s courtyard in protest and 372 have signed a letter to the Vice-Chancellor asking for problems between the Faculty and School to be resolved.

A group represented by the University’s Students’ Association is due to meet Professor Pretty next week. Most Architecture staff spoken to by the Herald did not want to be named, describing a climate of fear at the School and saying their jobs would be in jeopardy if they spoke out.

The Herald understands Professor Deamer was constantly thwarted by Professor Pretty in her efforts to make changes at the School.

Acrimonious relations between the School and the Faculty have been a longstanding problem and were highlighted in a 2006 accreditation report. Staff talk of a lack of autonomy in decision-making, token democratic processes in Faculty meetings and centralised “micromanagement” control by the Faculty.

”

Source: http://www.aus.ac.nz/Publications/tertiaryupdate/2007/No%2031.asp#3

As advised to the students, the Vice-Chancellor was away in Wellington and the letter will be brought to his attention on his return.

Yours sincerely
Gill Wilson
Executive Manager - Vice-Chancellor’s Office
The University of Auckland”

August 2005. Published in NZHerald.

Link to Article.

At present count we have 367 signatures for the letter we will be presenting to the Vice-Chancellor on Monday.

This is a fantastic result so far but we know there’s still a few of you who haven’t signed. If you haven’t come to Level 5 and ask for the letter. The more signatures the better !

Thanks also to Beth from AUSA for coming along and speaking to us all. It’s great to know we have AUSA’s support.

Remember she is a direct link to the University heads.

So if have any thoughts or concerns you wish to share with them, you can pass them along to Beth.

SOS is of course happy to hear from anyone. You can always contact us at this address - sos.auckland@gmail.com

We’ve also set up a Facebook account and Group.
Be a friend to: Archi Auckland
and join the Support our School group.

We’ll be keeping in touch,

SOS
School of Architecture and Planning Student Body.

Signing the letter to the Vice Chancellor.

An Auckland University head of department resigned within weeks of staff raising concerns about discrepancies in his claimed credentials.

Link to Article.