This entry was posted
on Sunday, September 30th, 2007 at 8:32 pm and is filed under Media/Press.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
5 Responses to “As Reported to NZIA, Printed in BLOCK - NZIA Newsletter”
Once again, statements regarding the ability of Ms Dixon to lead the School of Planning AND Architecture are not appropriate. Ms Dixon is eminently suitable to lead the School - as a planner one has to deal with architects closely, every day.
Making such statements drives a wedge effectively between the planners and architects in this current situation. Did planners moan when Peggy (an architect) was appointed? Did they moan at the inappropriateness of an architect leading a Planning School? No.
To constantly criticise the ability of a Planner to lead an Architects school betrays an arrogance that is not needed or welcome.
In regards to the NZIA report and Christopher’s comment.
The Students complaint lies with the system governing both the Planning and Architecture Department which was enforced on us both by the formation of NICAI back in 2005.
At the time it was argued by the University that the two Deaprtments should be placed together due to the similarities academically. However it is clear that this was just an exercise in University administration by the University as both Departments opposed the merger.
The students of Architecture wish the system governing our School be changed.
We apologise if it appears that we are attacking Prof. Dixon personally, as we are not.
We however do feel that if both Departments are to work effectively then Co-Heads of School from each Department would be a better option.
It has been argued by NICAI that each Department has program leaders, from which leadership can be provided. The Architecture program leaders have written to the Vice Chancellor, expressing their concerns, which shows they share similar thoughts.
We see ultimately that the system determining School management, and it’s enforcement by the NICAI Faculty and the Dean needs to be seriously assessed. This goes down to deep questions on how each Deaprtment is allowed to make decisions for themselves ….
Pasted below is an email sent to Prof Dixon the week following her appointment:
———————————————————————————–
Dear Professor Dixon,
We the student body wish to inform you that we are delivering a letter to the Vice-Chancellor on Monday.
It has been signed by a large number of the Architecture and Planning student body.
The letter contains concerns we have with the University’s attitude towards the school.
Our complaint is not with the Staff of the School, but with the greater University.
We look forward to seeing you when you return.
Yours faithfully
Society of Space
Student Body
School of Architecture and Planning
We must also add that at the Meeting held between the Dean, Head of School and Architecture Student Representatives with the Chair of the SSCC, we formally asked that the Dean Sharman Pretty, support Prof Jenny Dixon our Head of School, to her full capacity.
We do not want the present Head of School to experience the same difficulties that our previous Head of Schools have had to deal with over the last 4 years of NICAI’s existence.
This is ultimately what the Student arguement is about.
For the Faculty and the Dean to consider our teachers’ concerns.
To support them effectively on all levels.
Academically, admistratively and for a working environment that does not hamper their ability to work and teach effectively.
Unfortunately the Faculty is not providing this situation.
The University and the Vice-Chancellor have been told by the Staff that this is the case but choose not to listen.
The University is playing a dangerous game, and are not acting on the responsibilty that they owe the Students and the Staff, by choosing to either not understand the situation or even worse ignore the situation completely.
It is our opinion that, inevitably the Faculty and University Heads are waiting for the ’storm to blow over’ and for the time when it can withdraw its psuedo-attempt to really deal with the problems that are concerning the School of Architecture and Planning.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:51 pm
This is a no brainer Dixon got the job because she is Sharman’s “YES MAN” that was all that was required of the applicant.
The NZIA need to condemn this appointment publicly.
DOWN WITH NICAI
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Once again, statements regarding the ability of Ms Dixon to lead the School of Planning AND Architecture are not appropriate. Ms Dixon is eminently suitable to lead the School - as a planner one has to deal with architects closely, every day.
Making such statements drives a wedge effectively between the planners and architects in this current situation. Did planners moan when Peggy (an architect) was appointed? Did they moan at the inappropriateness of an architect leading a Planning School? No.
To constantly criticise the ability of a Planner to lead an Architects school betrays an arrogance that is not needed or welcome.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:59 am
In regards to the NZIA report and Christopher’s comment.
The Students complaint lies with the system governing both the Planning and Architecture Department which was enforced on us both by the formation of NICAI back in 2005.
At the time it was argued by the University that the two Deaprtments should be placed together due to the similarities academically. However it is clear that this was just an exercise in University administration by the University as both Departments opposed the merger.
The students of Architecture wish the system governing our School be changed.
We apologise if it appears that we are attacking Prof. Dixon personally, as we are not.
We however do feel that if both Departments are to work effectively then Co-Heads of School from each Department would be a better option.
October 4th, 2007 at 10:05 am
It has been argued by NICAI that each Department has program leaders, from which leadership can be provided. The Architecture program leaders have written to the Vice Chancellor, expressing their concerns, which shows they share similar thoughts.
We see ultimately that the system determining School management, and it’s enforcement by the NICAI Faculty and the Dean needs to be seriously assessed. This goes down to deep questions on how each Deaprtment is allowed to make decisions for themselves ….
Pasted below is an email sent to Prof Dixon the week following her appointment:
———————————————————————————–
Dear Professor Dixon,
We the student body wish to inform you that we are delivering a letter to the Vice-Chancellor on Monday.
It has been signed by a large number of the Architecture and Planning student body.
The letter contains concerns we have with the University’s attitude towards the school.
Our complaint is not with the Staff of the School, but with the greater University.
We look forward to seeing you when you return.
Yours faithfully
Society of Space
Student Body
School of Architecture and Planning
October 4th, 2007 at 10:20 am
We must also add that at the Meeting held between the Dean, Head of School and Architecture Student Representatives with the Chair of the SSCC, we formally asked that the Dean Sharman Pretty, support Prof Jenny Dixon our Head of School, to her full capacity.
We do not want the present Head of School to experience the same difficulties that our previous Head of Schools have had to deal with over the last 4 years of NICAI’s existence.
This is ultimately what the Student arguement is about.
For the Faculty and the Dean to consider our teachers’ concerns.
To support them effectively on all levels.
Academically, admistratively and for a working environment that does not hamper their ability to work and teach effectively.
Unfortunately the Faculty is not providing this situation.
The University and the Vice-Chancellor have been told by the Staff that this is the case but choose not to listen.
The University is playing a dangerous game, and are not acting on the responsibilty that they owe the Students and the Staff, by choosing to either not understand the situation or even worse ignore the situation completely.
It is our opinion that, inevitably the Faculty and University Heads are waiting for the ’storm to blow over’ and for the time when it can withdraw its psuedo-attempt to really deal with the problems that are concerning the School of Architecture and Planning.