In a clash with University leaders, the Department of Architecture at the Graduate School of Design (GSD) unanimously voted Wednesday to protest plans to divide the Great Hall of the Harvard Union.

The objection, lodged as a written complaint with President Neil L. Rudenstine, Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles and Phillip J. Parsons, director of planning in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), and was drafted during a department meeting Wednesday.

Faculty members encouraged the University to examine other proposals more closely before proceeding with renovations.

"We urged that the demolition of the room not continue until alternate plans were considered," said Jude W. Leblanc, assistant professor of architecture.

The recommendation stems from a meeting last month between Parsons, an architect working on the project and several GSD faculty members, according to Scott Cohen, associate professor of architecture.

Faculty members feel the issue boils down to a fundamental philosophical difference between themselves and the administration, according to Cohen.

"The unbalanced relationship between what [the University] wanted to achieve and the loss of such a great space devoted to social life does not seem reasonable," Cohen said.

Professor of Architectural Theory K. Michael Hayes said the University's proposal ignores "alternatives that could have saved the room and still met the needs of FAS."

The Department of Architecture plans to urge the remaining two departments in the GSD--Urban Planning and Design and Landscape Design--to adopt a similar position, Hayes said.

But Parsons defended the University and discouraged other departments from taking similar stances.

"I think that reasonable people can disagree on something like this," Parsons said. "But the way to look at this is to see that there are better ways of discussing these issues," Parsons said.

He added that he was disappointed by the sharp disagreement the issue has ignited. "The irony is that the principal motivation behind the project was to create a better sense of academic community," Parsons said.

In an interview yesterday, Knowles told The Crimson that GSD faculty members should become more familiar with the needs of the humanities departments that will be moved into the renovated Union before offering additional criticism.

Knowles also said the faculty should realize the "exhaustive efforts" made by the architects and the University to find a reasonable solution to the problems.

Parsons said in an interview last month that he could not recall another project in which faculty members were accorded such deference.

Parsons added that he has tried to expand the discussion to include GSD faculty and students in discussions.

But a recent offer to discuss the renovations with the architectural firm of Goody and Clancy was rejected by faculty members, according to Parsons.

Architecture faculty members charged that their wealth of knowledge of structural repairs was not sufficiently drawn upon.

"The review process did not allow adequate representation from people in the University whose expertise [lies] in renovations and preservation," Hayes said.

Although Hayes said he was "not optimistic about affecting the current project," he added that the protest may persuade University officials to alter or modify their process for evaluating further projects on campus