Word has been spreading since yesterday about the resignation of Michael Jemtrud, Director of McGill's School of Architecture. Archinect has just been anonymously informed, however, that "a very reliable senior faculty source within the school" has confirmed that the resignation was forced and that Jemtrud is not allowed to talk about it.
The message we received follows:
On Thursday, June 23, 2011, Michael Jemtrud was forced to resign from his position as Director of McGill University School of Architecture. Jemtrud was hired four years ago with a mandate to integrate current technologies into the professional programs, to reinvigorate critical discussion and research about their use, and to foster a clearer organizational structure and closer collaborations within the school's many professional and post-professional programs. Jemtrud approached the job with a distinct vision and direction, and an ability to move quickly while continuing to foster the school's longstanding strengths. In recent months it had become apparent that this level of ambition and intensity was never truly desired by the faculty or the university. While this sudden move to force Jemtrud out of his leadership role is provoking both outrage and mixed responses among the school's faculty, Jemtrud had enjoyed overwhelming support among students--who saw that their education under Jemtrud's directorship better preparing them to engage the profession in meaningful ways.
As current students of McGill University School of Architecture, we want to make our position known. In recent months, our work had been emerging into the international spotlight through a number of initiatives that uniquely engage the use and understanding of technology within the profession. Our school had become vibrant, engaging, and prolific in ways that were unimaginable only a few years ago. While our colleagues in other North American schools of architecture might perceive this move as one of McGill simply returning to its old ways, this falls short of the truth: in the coming days, a new McGill University School of Architecture will begin to emerge. We do not know what is in store for us.
19 Comments
I studied under Prof. Jemtrud and worked as a researcher in his media lab when he was at Carleton University. Architects who have had exposure to his ideas and research can all vouch for how well it has positioned them within the profession in regards to critically rethinking the design process with the continual emergence of new technologies.
To not be ambitious about engaging current technologies is indeed returning to the old ways. Disengaging with the discourse on technology is to disengage the practice of Architecture.
I worked for Michael for over a year when he first arrived at McGill and I could see how invested he was in his students' education and in building the school. He was also a super boss, helping me to value teamwork as well as my own abilities--I learned a HUGE amount working for him, and am really proud of what we accomplished.
Needless to say, I think this is McGill's HUGE loss!
I've known Michael for nearly twenty years as we did our Masters together at McGill with Alberto Pérez-Gómez. Michael is an visionary thinker, researcher, architectural educator, and a solid good person. His knowledge, interests, and experience are wide-ranging and genuine, and his generous character has touched the lives and careers of many people.
Michael's persecution by the Dean of the faculty has been shameful. This is a shameful day for McGill.
I worked and was advised by Michael during my two years at McGill. His dedication to student initiatives and his perseverance in instituting change is a rare commodity in places where personal interests seem to reign. His actions generated a clear example that ought to be followed. This loss is not only McGill's, but mostly the student's. It is unfortunate to say, but this was the result of conduct unbecoming the name and reputation of the university.
The experiences I have had with Michael Jemtrud—both as his student and his research assistant—have been amongst the most rich and formative that I have enjoyed at McGill or any other academic institution. He invested himself fully into the success of his students and providing a world class discourse within the school. Forcing his resignation was a short-sighted misjudgement that makes a mockery of what McGill claims to stand for. The goals which establish the platform held by McGill’s Principal include the promotion of “excellence”. This embarrassing disaster shames excellence and promotes mediocrity.
Already in the middle of a faculty search, the good news is that our school has other decisions close at hand in which it could clearly state that it will not continue to settle for comfortable mediocrity. Still feeling the loss of this tragedy, our sincere hope as students is that McGill will leave mediocrity behind and reposition itself for a progressive and genuinely excellent future.
I have luckily had the pleasure of having studied and been advised by Michael from my formative years as an undergrad at Carleton University, to my Masters and as a research assistant at McGill. His discourse on technology has been fundamentally influential in critically shaping my understanding of the design process. Yet it is his genuine character, generous dedication, and his sincerity which has developed me the most. His patient investment in seeing the richness of each students' strengths and bringing them to the forefront is a unique quality that is a loss to McGill. Under his visionary guidance at FARMM, we travelled to Tokyo to present McGill's direction for digital architecture and among the top schools of the world, came back with the top academic development award. With Michael's direction, McGill was on a path towards integrating technology as a means of progressive architectural innovation. It is a shame that with his resignation, the university has decided to reward mediocrity. It saddens me that for all of the efforts Michael has taken to push the school in a direction for the future, in one fell swoop that effort has been prematurely cut short.
I have worked and studies under Michael for more than four years. He is the most dedicated, intelligent and forward-looking person I have ever met. He was appointed Director of the School in a moment of a complete academic mess in terms of curriculum and courses; in a moment when the school did not have a direction; when the school's budget was cut and when the growing tension between Engineering and Architecture students has grown uncontrollable.
As an ASA president during Michael's first year at McGill, I was amazed by the level of competency, patience and dedication he had. He was highly professional and acted as a true Director - having the time to meet with everyone involved, giving impeccable advice and direction. Shortly after his appointment students gained confidence and pride to be part of the school because Michael proved that the school can reach an international recognition. Under Michael's supervision, 14 students won the prestigious New Orleans House competition, and has the chance to visit (with all expenses covered) the devastated Post-Katrina areas of the city. The competition brought enormous exposure to the school in magazines, newspapers, blogs and the radio. Michael was always an inseparable part of the work, the travels and the interviews with Radio Canada and CBC. His dedication was highly motivating and inspiring.
As a thesis adviser Michael was extremely supportive and critically constructive. Unlike many other professors, his comments did not lead to depression and insecurity, but rather to an understanding and comfort within your own strengths. His suggested readings and resources were personal and relevant to the skill-set and interest every student has. Under Michael's suggestion and support, I received a highly-regarded SSHRC research grant, an award, given for the first time to a Master student in architecture.
The recent news about his resignation are a shame for the University. It is against everything McGill is trying to promote and achieve. It is something that brings McGill down in the eyes of the students, other researchers, professors and the industry. It is a celebration of mediocrity. It is highly shameful the higher-up administration let this happen. It is a true loss for the University and all the students. Michael's vision stresses on multi-disciplinary approach, collaboration and desire for the excellence. McGill has lost an impeccable intellectual, researcher and visionary. It has lost an incredible person.
As a member of the class of students who recently graduated from the new DRS Professional M. Arch. program, and having done my undergraduate degree at McGill as well, I have had the privilege of experiencing the changes found in the school of architecture since Michael Jemtrude's appointment as director. From our first encounters with Michael he has challenged us to do better work by being an honest and passionate critic, and yet has helped us gain confidence by encouraging self-initiated student projects. I was personally involved in the selected topics course in which every single project submitted by the class was chosen as a finalist in the Billes Architecture Home Design Competition. One project selected, or perhaps even two or three, could be considered a fluke; but the selection of all seven projects for ten finalist positions, along with the diversity shown between the proposals, is a testament to Michael's incredible skills as an educator.
Under Michael's direction, the school seemed to be at the point of achieving an integration of its longstanding traditional strengths with a critical awareness of the new technologies transforming our profession. The new initiatives introduced in the past few years such as the DRS program, the FARMM research center activities, and the annual fall colloquium are only beginning to cement the school's promising new trajectory. Michael's resignation represents the unfortunate loss of a visionary leader at a critical moment. This was a foolhardy, short-sighted decision on the part of an institution which claims to pride itself on the excellence of the education it provides.
can anyone shed light on what actually happened? I recognize that the people posting here felt a positive influence from his directorship, but they didn't force a resignation for no reason, right? Do any McGill students have a non-partisan account of what might have happened?
I'm certainly not non-partisan here, nor do I know all the details (there are very few who do at this point), but I can sketch a rough outline.
Michael Jemtrud was brought into the school at a time when many saw it as stagnating and increasingly under siege by an extremely unsympathetic Faculty of Engineering, of which the school remains a part. (Key members in the Faculty of Engineering have been very open about their lack of understanding or appreciation of architecture in general and of architectural pedagogy more specifically. For example, the school's investment in time and money-intensive studios has repeatedly been questioned, when studios are of course the soul and center of contemporary architectural education almost everywhere. Same with the study of history, and study-abroad programs; these may be of less interest to engineers, but are clearly of value to us as architecture students. So it's very important to understand that this was the administrative context that Jemtrud was brought into.)
Jemtrud's mandate as director was to bring about change and move things forward for the school. He was very ambitious in doing this. Some faculty members within the school have found the pace of change hard to take, and the resulting politics presumably created some treacherous moments that were difficult to navigate. Just as importantly, Jemtrud was a fierce defender of the school (and of architecture and architectural pedagogy more generally) within the Faculty of Engineering, which meant that he had to stick his neck out on many occasions.
Throughout all this, the characteristics that may have exposed Jemtrud to criticisms--his straight-forward nature and willingness to take a stand, his passion for thinking critically about the discipline, and his insistence on excellence--were also what many of us students really appreciated about him. He could be demanding and brusque but he was also honest and smart and deeply committed, and he helped his students do amazing work.
Others will undoubtedly see certain details differently, but this is the gist of it from my point of view.
My more personal thoughts on the matter are here.
was it that Christophe Pierre behind all of this?
In response to JFS_II’s request for more a non-partisan account of what happened, I can only echo Lian’s statement that very few people know for sure exactly what happened and why.
I’ve been a student at McGill’s School of Architecture for 5 years, selected Michael as a secondary thesis supervisor, and have experienced firsthand the changes he set into motion. The introduction of a longer professional Master’s degree program (60-credits as an alternative to 45-credits) is but one example of a change he unequivocally believed would afford us the opportunity for a better education. I found him to be extremely forthright, challenging, visionary, and inspiring.
A non-partisan observer could claim that the school may have progressed under directorship other than Michael’s; a new director was going to be appointed at the time regardless. In terms of the future, someone truly unbiased could contend that his alleged forced resignation does not necessarily mean that the School of Architecture will regress.
However, the unsavory handling of this affair makes it extremely difficult for students to be “non-partisan”. The student body has not yet been officially informed of this action, much less informed why. Needless to say, the students were not invited to contribute their opinions before the fact. We are left to use the word “allegedly” and struggle to make sense of a shocking situation with undeniably profound repercussions.
McGill’s self-proclaimed mission speaks of “the advancement of learning through teaching, scholarship and service to society by offering to outstanding undergraduate and graduate students the best education available, by carrying out scholarly activities judged to be excellent when measured against the highest international standards […].” Michael embodied this in words and in actions, and I wish someone would explain why it was in the best interests of the university to remove him.
"We are left to use the word “allegedly” and struggle to make sense of a shocking situation with undeniably profound repercussions."
Amen, brother.
I had the privilege of taking Michael's class when he was an adjunct at McGill in 1995-1996. His course was one of the most important and influential of my five years at the school of architecture. In fact, I often refer to his methodology in teaching my own students at Cornell. Now working in New York, I have been boastfully proud of MIchael's pedagogical and research advancements at the school, and have spoken excitedly about them to fellow American architects and teachers at other renowned universities. In fact, I foresaw McGill's program becoming at par with Harvard, Yale, Princeton and MIT in the near future. Michael will no doubt be snatched up quickly by one of the above schools or other similarly prestigious university, who will undoubtedly appreciate his value.
Unfortunately, all of Michael's momentum at McGill has been stopped cold - this not only at a loss to students and to Montreal, but to architecture. As a world suffering from increasingly complex environmental issues, population growth, and information overload, we have an imperative to train future architects to think very critically about design intent, tools and representation. Michael tackled all of these issues on a profound and ethical level, not shying away from the hard questions. It is unfortunate that those involved in influencing the outcome of Michael's resignation have not been able to recognize or value this as a necessity to the advancement of architectural education.
I know that the school of architecture is a financially intensive program, and not a big money maker as compared to other departments. However, McGill needs to recognize the inherent value of becoming a leader in architectural education, and the impact that it can have on our greater society - especially now.
I'm starting in september (M1) as part of the DSR-60 program and I am very concerned... What can we do to help reverse this decision? I would like to understand what is really happening. I decided to go to McGill's School of Architecture mainly because of Michael Jemtrud's contribution and was looking forward to learn and take part in the discussion.
For what it's worth, I'd like to put a bit of history on the table - take it for what it's worth.
I was at Carleton when Jemtrud was there. Almost the exact same thing happened during his time there - the faculty had removed one previous director from his position in 1998 or 99 after the school nearly lost its accreditation, and many in the faculty wanted one of the longest-serving professors there to take on the directorship. Reluctantly, he did (his name is Dr. Gulzar Haider). He was enormously influential, passionate, and beloved by all of the students - and committed to pushing the school in the direction he thought it should go, as any director should be. After a couple of years, for a variety of reasons (some of which were legitimate, some of which were political and strategic) a rift formed in the faculty - those that were for, and those that were against. Those that were against (I will state there was ample reason and evidence to believe Jemtrud was against) teamed up, went over Gulzar's head, and used the Dean of Engineering to remove the him from his position. Shortly after this, after one of the professors took on the Acting Director role and it was decided to pursue a non-faculty Director, Jemtrud left the school for McGill (the Director Search ultimate found Dr. Marco Frascari). I won't say "what goes around comes around", but Michael is certainly on the other side of the equation now. Knowing his sometimes political and strategic nature, it doesn't surprise me that attitudes (at the faculty level) would be polarized for or against him.
But none of this is new - something similar happened to Alberto Perez Gomez when he was at Carleton in the late '80's. No doubt it has happened at McGill before, too. It's always a disservice to students when politics trumps education - which is usually what these resignations are about - so no matter who is involved it is definitely a loss for the students. I hope Michael is able to find a good position to fill elsewhere, and I hope the students get an equally passionate and visionary director in his place. I don't mean to detract from his influence, accomplishments or stature in the minds of the students here, but I do think that a bit of history and context is necessary.
Marie-Eve,
Indeed, this is a big challenge, to say the least, for the incoming class of DSR students. Information that students have right now (not much--we really don't know what will happen) is available at the 'In Support of Michael Jemtrud' facebook group, and that's where updates will be, so I'd recommend that you go there to get in touch with folks. You can also inquire with the Dean, the Provost, and the Interim Director at McGill because as an incoming student, they need to be able to hear and speak to your questions and concerns.
L
As the student member on the Director Search Committee that brought Michael Jemtrud to McGill University four years ago, I am deeply saddened by this news. We chose Michael because of his ability to bridge architectural theory with contemporary practice and technological innovation, as well as his potential to teach and contribute as a faculty member. We also wanted to raise the level of discourse in the professional program, to a level that would put McGill amongst the ranks of other top professional programs around the world.
I did not have the opportunity to study at McGill under his directorship, but as evidenced by the comments here from past and present students, he has fulfilled (or at the very least, set in motion) the mandate that was set before him - moulding it into his own unique vision and in so doing, shaping students and architectural education in a broader sense toward an exciting future.
A loss for all of us.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.