Illustration by Josh Hagler

Amazingly, the battle to keep the Krutch cactus garden seems to be a victory. On Friday, the Alumni Association and the Hargreaves Associates presented their (hopefully) final rough design of the plaza - which incorporated the cactus garden - to the UA Planning and Design Review Advisory Committee (PADRAC).

The stink of the matter is that among University of Arizona President Peter Likins, the Alumni Association and Hargreaves, credit is not being given where credit is deserved.

We want to thank the students, UA staff and members of the greater community who took action and caused the decision-makers to take a closer look at the situation. We want to thank all those who stood out peacefully at the cactus garden collecting petition signatures, and who corresponded through e-mail or letters directly to Likins.

We want to thank you because no one else has. Because of your efforts, the garden was saved amid the muck of personal egos and bureaucracy.

For those of you who didn't make the Alumni Association's public hearings last November and December, the fate of the cactus garden seemed to have been a done deal - the garden would be relocated. In an e-mail provided to the Wildcat, John Engen, director of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Development and Alumni Office expressed concern to Sandy Ruhl, the Arizona Alumni Association president, on Dec. 5, 2001.

Engen wrote: "The 'expert' information provided during the public hearing was taken out of context (by Hargreaves) and slanted towards a desired goal of removing the cactus garden from its present position. As I read the information provided by the consultants' own experts (not handed out at the public hearing), it is quite clear they recommend not moving the boojums."

Thus, it was clear from the beginning that the Alumni Association did not want the garden to stay.

But ironically, Jay M. Rochlin, associate director of the Alumni Association, was quoted in the Arizona Daily Star on Jan. 18 saying, "I hope the university interprets this as a wake-up call that the valuable Krutch garden is going to need serious, immediate attention."

The Alumni Association did an about-face in their opinion of the garden's fate, consequently undermining the work of the petitioners and letter writers.

And the alumni are not alone.

Last Friday, President Likins publicly announced to PADRAC that he had supported keeping the garden since December. In order to reach this conclusion, he must have misspoken on Jan. 15 when the Star quoted him as saying he "want(ed) more information before deciding."

Likins then expressed to PADRAC how frustrated he was with the overwhelming response to save the garden. "Through e-mail, I responded over and over that we have heard you. But, it was as if the word was never accepted. They (petitioners) were in disbelief," he said, and "the protests grew, long after the decision was resolved."

To put it mildly, Likins is either a hypocrite, or he changed his mind when it was politically advantageous to do so. In another e-mail provided to the Wildcat, Likins wrote to Libby Davison, interim director of the UA Arboretum on Dec. 5 saying, "I told Sandy (Ruhl) this evening that I will stand behind the plan to relocate the cactus garden ... there will be protests of this plan, so we must be ready to accept criticism and prove the critics wrong by creating a better cactus garden."

It is not a criminal act for Likins to change his mind, but he failed to let anyone know. He undoubtedly misled the public. Not one of the petitioners heard him say it was a done deal. Nor did Randal Holdridge, an alumnus who researched the history of cactus garden. He was quoted in the Arizona Daily Star on Feb. 9, "(Likins') change of heart wasn't publicly communicated until mid-January."

And until Friday, when Hargreaves unexpectedly presented only one plaza design, it logically was assumed there was a chance of another design being implemented - thus, the petitioners had the impression that their battle still could be lost.

Come on!

How on earth could Likins say he was frustrated by the protests to move the garden when he led them to believe that it would be moved? He said Friday that "he never had been on two different sides · and that he and the Alumni were attacked in an unhealthy way." Likins' lack of respect for the petitioners managed to polarize an already divided campus community.

Well folks, this is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. Those who protested moving the cactus garden did it the right way. Those who protested the cactus garden removal did so peacefully and followed what they believed to be the proper channels to prevent a bad decision. No one chained themselves to a boojum. They calmly gathered a 2,000-signature petition, and of all things, went through the Associated Students of the University of Arizona.

Likins claims that the channels the garden's supporters used were inappropriate and "caused hurt feelings." If this was not how they should have responded, then what, President Likins, should they have done? By offering no alternative, he implies that students should not have any say in campus decisions.

This "battle of the boojums" ended in a victory. But, it wouldn't have if people hadn't spoken up for the sake of saving the small piece of Sonoran Desert integrity.

The lesson here is that the UA and local community members have a right to be heard, and they deserve to be part of the planning and design process.

When Likins turns a dead ear, the UA students and staff the entire campus suffers.