UC asked David Niland not to enter the architecture school unless invited. Mr. Niland, who taught there for forty years and retired in 2001, felt the emphasis had switched from training professional architects to a reliance on theory and was outspoken about it. "The university followed the national trend in making that switch," said Jay Chatterjee, a professor at DAAP, UC's College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning. In a letter sent to professor Niland, "We trust that you will honor these conditions and hope that we are never forced to ask you to leave and/or be escorted out of the building," wrote Michaele Pride, director of the architecture program, and Judith Koroscik, dean of DAAP. The Enquirer | the letter | the discussion
16 Comments
boo-hoo. find a school that cares and go teach there.
"Most programs have moved this way" "If we didn't do this, we'd be left behind."
Dont be a follower cincy, be the mastermind!
architecture=trend
Dean 'theorist' Koroscik
bye
"more" theory Michaele Pride
David "too much theory no good" Niland
he should fucking' sue. what kind of letter is that, after 40 years of teaching somewhere.
you either make it clear like sci arc, no one can ever have tenure, or respect people's work after all those years. all i understood was he opposed the new regime. so what? academies are fast becoming little fiefdoms. if the academies are not supporting free speech, where then?
without knowing much about of anything about UC, i think that there is a place, and hopefully, a fine balance between reality/pragmatism/professional training and architectural/social theory and history. architects are not simply academics, theorists or artists, but at their best also pragmatists, economists, sociologists and competent designers. i think this professor probably has a point, but even if he doesn't, it seems outlandish that UC believes that it can keep him from expressing his views.
orhan, i have to believe a Uni is allowed to change direction, right? if this person was continually creating a contentious environment, does it not effect a programs ability to attract new students? i mean, i am not saying the direction they are going is the right one, but at the same time they should be allowed to make that choice, right?
I don't really understand why he can't teach what he wants in studio and others teach theory. Don't you get to pick your professors, for the most part? This is ridiculous -- every professor teaches about what they care about -- the point is that over the course of your 10+ studios you will have learned the basic tools of the profession. Some of these tools from one prof/studio; some from another; and so on. No one teacher teaches everything you need to know, and conversely no one point of view on architecture could possibly be taught in the same manner over the course of 10 different studios. Anyone who's taught design knows that you try to stay in line with the university as much as you can but ultimately your teaching is always going to be colored by what you care about most; it's the nature of the beast in a subjective profession with no textbook to follow.
I guess I'm not sure why there isn't room for all types.
Of course the flip side of that coin is that diplomacy is a necessary part of life, especially in a complex social structure like a university. You do have to be willing to give and take, to compromise on some things, in order to create the best possible environment for the students, together.
(I know nothing about this situation, the school, nor the agents involved.)
beta, absolutely. but that should not mean people can't question the change. specially if the so called change is brought upon to follow a "national trend."
it is a freedom of speech issue, as well as disrespectful way to treat somebody after forty years of service.
i don't know these individuals other than what i have read in the news and discussions.
i also find the issue very debatable from the point of view of recent trends in architectural education.
myriam, great points as usual...
I'm sure there must must have been personla issues on the ground there that have complicated the situation.
Maybe it's less a question of theory vs. practice, and more a question of whether you should act like a jerk to impose your worldview on others. Which, from as far as I've been able to read about it, both parties here are guilty of.
his "right" to teach whatever he wants ends when the Administration says it does. whether or not that is right in terms of good form is not the issue, because clearly respect for diseenting opinions is not something that the UC is interested in hearing. now you can debate the merits of whether or not a Uni should encourage dissenting opinions, and that is an argument worth havin and criticising, but they have a right to be stupid too.
The pictures above tell the whole tale in themselves.
Architecture has become overly theoretical.
My stomach turns when I see these monochrome people with libeskind glassses on the architecture scene here,
pretty much par for the course at good ole UC.
the administration there is incompetent at best.
and good points about the massive cliches in yhevery aspect of that school.
also, as soon as that DI ranking falls, im not sure what UC will have left. All the good professors except for one have left, and he is a walking cliche.
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.