By Bill Barrow
News Editor

THINH NGUYEN/Photo Staff Bryan Walton, a graduate student in rural sociology, holds up a sign in front of Broun Hall on Tuesday to protest the placement of an art museum in the arboretum.

Since the beginning of time, man has battled nature.

Since the earliest form of government the common man has fought with the powers that be.

And since the founding of the University, various members of the Auburn family have been at odds with the Board of Trustees.

It is 1998, and things haven't changed.

The latest tension stems from University plans to construct an art museum within the boundaries of the Donald E. Davis Arboretum, located along the southeast periphery of main campus.

At the heart of the conflict are the University architects and planners, who see the museum as a way to enhance the beauty of the arboretum, and a grassroots movement of faculty, staff, students and alumni led by George Folkerts, an assistant professor of zoology and wildlife science.

This movement views the museum as a threat to the arboretum's function as an outdoor classroom and natural learning environment.

Also in the mix is Donald E. Davis himself, a retired University the life sciences at Auburn.

At its April 3 meeting, the Board of Trustees unanimously approved the arboretum as the site of the long-planned art museum, which will house the University's art collection currently on display at the Alabama Museum of Art in Montgomery.

The museum committee and the University architect's office recommended the site to the board. The only opposition to the proposal came in the form of a protest letter from Davis, read by Gary Swanson, then chair of the faculty senate.

Davis said, "I did not learn of the proposal in its early stages. No one contacted the arboretum committee. They accomplished their ends quickly. They did not let the people that were concerned express their opinion before the board considered."

Roland Dute, chair of the arboretum committee, said he was put on the museum committee after the arboretum site was selected.

Hugo Rogers, affiliate professor of agronomy and soils and a 15-year member of the arboretum committee, said he did not learn of the proposal until after the trustees finalized the site.

University architect Gregory Parsons defends the site as beneficial to the arboretum, art museum and University. "If it is done properly, (the arboretum) would be more attractive. I think the two facilities can complement each other."

Parsons also defended the choice because of its location in the "newer, less developed portion of the arboretum."

The resolution passed by the trustees recognized this and called for land adjacent to the arboretum to be set aside for arboretum expansion to replace any uprooted plants.

Parsons also said opposing forces have blown the potential effects out of proportion.

"People have been misinformed," he said. "It sounds like their thinking we're bringing in bulldozers and decking the arboretum.

"We're not talking about clear cutting the arboretum."

The growing protest over the issue sprang from the opposition of Folkerts, who has organized Swarm, "a group that has gotten together because something needs to be done," he said.

Swarm has organized a mass letter writing and e­mail campaign to University President William V. Muse.

Folkerts also organized a rally on the Concourse prior to Tuesday's University Senate meeting.

More than 200 arboretum protesters attended. They all wore green ribbons around their arms to signify their support of the arboretum.

Davis and Folkerts said the trustees' choice stems from well-meaning individuals' and groups' ignorance about what an arboretum actually is.

"It is not a park to play in. It is not a garden to display pretty flowers," Davis said.

"It's a learning laboratory of outdoor instruction, a place to teach about plants and animals that live in the habitat. Therefore, if you interrupt the ecosystem that's involved you damage that teaching environment."

"Twenty classes use this area frequently," Folkerts said. "Ornithology comes down to look at birds in the morning, 4-H classes are brought in by the extension service and botany classes come to identify and study plants."

Students have also used the arboretum as their lab for thesis research. These studies, Davis said, cannot take place "on campus where there is the hustle and bustle of cars and people."

Folkerts told the University Senate Tuesday, that currently, there are six graduate studies taking place in the arboretum, one of which will be directly affected by the proposed placement of the museum.

In addition to its academic function, Folkerts said the arboretum is vital to the mission of the University.

"Remember, this is a land-grant university. As the only land-grant university in Alabama, it is our job to protect and preserve species that are not surviving in their habitat outside this arboretum.

"If you look at that charter, there's no way you can say that this arboretum is not doing its job for the people of this university and this state," he said.

"Arboreta are also places for man to store plants in a safe environment. Man has been changing the world significantly for many generations, and this is a place that is not affected by that change.

The museum, he said, would begin such a change that would damage the arboretum permanently.

"This museum will almost certainly mean the end to this arboretum," he said. "Heavy construction equipment thumping on the ground can damage trees up to 100 yards away by separating the roots from the soil."

Folkerts said placing the museum in the "newer, underdeveloped" portion of the arboretum does not make the choice any more sound.

The western portion of the arboretum has a wider variety of trees than the older portion he said.

"It's newer, but it's not underdeveloped."

A statement released by the arboretum committee detailed potential long-term damage caused by construction.

The statement sites runoff, chemicals, altered, water regimes, shading or increased light, artificial lighting and erosion as potential effects of construction which would become causes for immediate or long-term plant mortality.

Muse said he has a meeting scheduled with the arboretum committee next week.

He told the University Senate Tuesday, "I'm certainly willing to become more educated on the issue."

Folkerts and Parsons do agree on one matter-how to analyze the situation.

"Everyone that hears both sides needs to look at it with an open mind and weigh each side in their mind and heart," Parsons said.

Heart is exactly what Folkerts is using.

"Some people say this is all about emotional attachment and nothing else. Emotion is the only thing that separates human beings from the animals.

"If we don't use our emotion here, then we are just machines" - exactly what Folkerts wants to keep out of the arboretum.

BACK TO TOP

MATT MCMAHAN/Photo Staff The Auburn Commission examined Auburn's relationship with AUM at its meeting Friday in the Hotel and Conference Center.

After they "sort of chased each other around the bush for the first three meetings" the Commission to Review the University's Role set a definitive course for its analysis of the University.

The Commission accepted three proposals from University President William V. Muse at Friday's meeting held at the Auburn University Hotel & Conference Center before a standing-room-only crowd and a closed-circuit television audience on campus.

Following Muse's request to endorse the 21st Century Commission's conclusion regarding the relationship between Auburn University main campus and Auburn University Montgomery, the commission committed itself to finding a way to make the two campuses a"more fully integrated and interactive university, both academically and administratively."

Ed Richardson, state superintendent of education and a commissioner, asked Muse to define the role of AUM presently and the role Muse thinks it should play.

Muse identified two polar models of the future relationship between the two campuses as being either one university with two campuses or a university system with two separate universities.

Muse said the present status of the system is 75 percent toward the latter.

AUM chancellor Roy Saigo said, After they "sort of chased each other around the bush for the first three meetings" the Commission to Review the University's Role set a definitive course for its analysis of the University.

The Commission accepted three proposals from University President William V. Muse at Friday's meeting held at the Auburn University Hotel & Conference Center before a standing-room-only crowd and a closed-circuit television audience on campus.

Following Muse's request to endorse the 21st Century Commission's conclusion regarding the relationship between Auburn University main campus and Auburn University Montgomery, the commission committed itself to finding a way to make the two campuses a"more fully integrated and interactive university, both academically and administratively."

Ed Richardson, state superintendent of education and a commissioner, asked Muse to define the role of AUM presently and the role Muse thinks it should play.

Muse identified two polar models of the future relationship between the two campuses as being either one university with two campuses or a university system with two separate universities.

Muse said the present status of the system is 75 percent toward the latter.

AUM chancellor Roy Saigo said, "We do not have a system. Where AUM is, is probably where it should be.

"This institution is the institution of Montgomery. I don't see what more we can do."

Muse wants a plan to establish, among other things, a common core cirriculum and transfer policy.

He said, "This will help students on both campuses.

The proposal endorsed by the commission calls for the provost and AUM vice chancellor to collaborate and report back to the commission at its Sept. 15 meeting with specific recommendation by which this integration might be achieved.

Muse also recommended the commissioners accept his plan for accepting proposals for the administrative and academic structure of main campus.

The commissioners adopted this proposal unanimously. Muse's plan calls for any interested parties, on or off campus, to submit reorganization proposals to his office by Aug. 1.

Muse will then present the most viable proposals to the Commission at its Aug. 21 meeting.

Muse said proposals will be evaluated by criteria such as "educational enhancement, demonstrated efficiency, program viability and economics of scale."

Billy Powell, head of the Alabama Cattleman's association, presented one such proposal Friday.

His plan called for the creation of a new College of Agriculture, Forestry and Life Sciences. Through administrative downsizing, consolidation of programs and staff mergers, Powell said his plan would save up to $1.34 million.

No action was taken on Powell's presentation.

The Commission also endorsed Muse's proposal which charges the University administration with recommending University-wide priorities to the commission.

Muse must submit a list of priority programs and a list of non-priority programs to the commission.

Initially, some commissioners questioned whether Muse should submit both lists.

Richardson said, "If you gave me a list that says Œthese are my priorities,' I would assume you're automatically saying that which is not on the list is not important."

Tuesday, Muse told the faculty senate he had not ironed out the methods of his prioritizing.

"The process for achieving this objective has not been fully developed," he said.

The issue of prioritizing programs served as a catalyst for commission tension as faculty representatives spoke out.

After commissioner Paul Spina said it was time for a decision on the matter of program cuts, Wayne Flynt responded, "You can't appreciate the hurt that has already been caused by cuts. The assumption that nothing has been done is not only false, it is truly hurtfully false.

"You're saying speed it up. I'm inclined to slow the process down to bring people along slowly. Speed is not the issue here."

We do not have a system. Where AUM is, is probably where it should be.

"This institution is the institution of Montgomery. I don't see what more we can do."

Muse wants a plan to establish, among other things, a common core cirriculum and transfer policy.

He said, "This will help students on both campuses.

The proposal endorsed by the commission calls for the provost and AUM vice chancellor to collaborate and report back to the commission at its Sept. 15 meeting with specific recommendation by which this integration might be achieved.

Muse also recommended the commissioners accept his plan for accepting proposals for the administrative and academic structure of main campus.

The commissioners adopted this proposal unanimously. Muse's plan calls for any interested parties, on or off campus, to submit reorganization proposals to his office by Aug. 1.

Muse will then present the most viable proposals to the Commission at its Aug. 21 meeting.

Muse said proposals will be evaluated by criteria such as "educational enhancement, demonstrated efficiency, program viability and economics of scale."

Billy Powell, head of the Alabama Cattleman's association, presented one such proposal Friday.

His plan called for the creation of a new College of Agriculture, Forestry and Life Sciences. Through administrative downsizing, consolidation of programs and staff mergers, Powell said his plan would save up to $1.34 million.

No action was taken on Powell's presentation.

The Commission also endorsed Muse's proposal which charges the University administration with recommending University-wide priorities to the commission.

Muse must submit a list of priority programs and a list of non-priority programs to the commission.

Initially, some commissioners questioned whether Muse should submit both lists.

Richardson said, "If you gave me a list that says Œthese are my priorities,' I would assume you're automatically saying that which is not on the list is not important."

Tuesday, Muse told the faculty senate he had not ironed out the methods of his prioritizing.

"The process for achieving this objective has not been fully developed," he said.

The issue of prioritizing programs served as a catalyst for commission tension as faculty representatives spoke out.

After commissioner Paul Spina said it was time for a decision on the matter of program cuts, Wayne Flynt responded, "You can't appreciate the hurt that has already been caused by cuts. The assumption that nothing has been done is not only false, it is truly hurtfully false.

"You're saying speed it up. I'm inclined to slow the process down to bring people along slowly. Speed is not the issue here."

BACK TO TOP