About 75 — a significant portion of the 710 alumni who have studied in Rennes — gathered for a reception in Orange House and a dinner in Old Chapel. Wine was provided by Abby '74 and Andy '71 Crisses.
"I was very touched to see the photos, albums and notebooks that so many kept all these years," said Bill Thomas, director of international programs. �It was abundantly clear to me that the term abroad experience, particularly learning a new language in a different culture, made a lifelong impact on these alumni.�
�As we celebrate continuity in the anniversary,� said Charles Batson, associate professor of French, �I�m thrilled to know that people are continually discovering the newness of what living elsewhere, vivre autrement, can do.�
Paul LeClerc, president of the New York Public Library and a former professor who led two groups to Rennes, could not attend the event, but wrote, �When I wasn�t worrying about my intrepid flocks, I was quietly rejoicing in their admirable skills in adapting to life in France, in acquiring facility with spoken French, in mastering culinary squeamishness�and in maturing exponentially, both intellectually and culturally.
�The Term Abroad program was and still is one of the best things about a Union education,� wrote LeClerc. �I congratulate my friend and former colleague Bill Thomas for having directed it with so much skill and dedication these many years.�
Christopher Sears �93 reports that he has kept in close touch with a couple he met while studying in Rennes. �I would go so far as to say they are some of my closest friends,� he said. �I have visited them many times in France�went to their wedding�and they came to my wedding a couple years ago in Michigan.�
Michelle Jester �98 wrote to say that she couldn�t make the Rennes ReUnion, but that she has been living in Rennes since 2000. She offered to take some photographs to show changes in the town over the last several years.
Laura Rachlin �77 wrote, �Not only did my independent study there confirm for me my interest in architecture�I became an architect �but my three daughters have all studied in a French immersion program�It was an enriching experience that even transcended a generation.�
Ellen Witt Reiss �76 said, �Many years after Rennes, I became certified as a French teacher and have spent the last four years teaching middle and high school French in New Jersey. In talking to my students about French life and culture, my experience in Rennes (from 1974!) is frequently in my thoughts.�
They were certainly trying to win the war. And they were willing to devote huge amounts of resources to building rockets, jet planes, and other forms of deadly and sometimes exotic forms of military technology. So why not the atomic bomb? Nazi Germany, it turns out, made other choices and simply ran out of time. A nuclear program is born In January of 1939, the German chemists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann published the results of an historic experiment: after bombarding uranium with neutrons-neutrally charged particles- they found barium, an element roughly half the size of uranium. Their former colleague, Lise Meitner, who a few months before had been forced to flee Germany and seek refuge in Sweden, and her nephew, Otto Frisch, realized that the uranium nucleus had split in two. These revelations touched off a frenzy of scientific work on fission around the world. The German “uranium project” began in earnest shortly after Germany's invasion of Poland in September 1939, when German Army Ordnance established a research program led by the Army physicist Kurt Diebner to investigate the military applications of fission. By the end of the year the physicist Werner Heisenberg had calculated that nuclear fission chain reactions might be possible. When slowed down and controlled in a “uranium machine” (nuclear reactor), these chain reactions could generate energy; when uncontrolled, they would be a “nuclear explosive” many times more powerful than conventional explosives. Whereas scientists could only use natural uranium in a uranium machine, Heisenberg noted that they could use pure uranium 235, a rare isotope, as an explosive. In the summer of 1940, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, a younger colleague and friend of Heisenberg's, drew upon publications by scholars working in Britain, Denmark, France, and the United States to conclude that if a uranium machine could sustain a chain reaction, then some of the more common uranium 238 would be transmuted into “element 94,” now called plutonium. Like uranium 235, element 94 would be an incredibly powerful explosive. In 1941, von Weizsäcker went so far as to submit a patent application for using a uranium machine to manufacture this new radioactive element. Researchers knew that they could manufacture significant amounts of uranium 235 only by means of isotope separation. At first German scientists led by the physical chemist Paul Harteck tried thermal diffusion in a separation column. In this process, a liquid compound rises as it heats, falls as it cools, and tends to separate into its lighter and heavier components as it cycles around the column. But by 1941 they gave up on this method and started building centrifuges. These devices use centripetal force to accumulate the heavier isotopes on the outside of the tube, where they can be separated out. Although the war hampered their work, by the fall of the Third Reich in 1945 they had achieved a significant enrichment in small samples of uranium. Not enough for an atomic bomb, but uranium 235 enrichment nonetheless. Nearing a Nazi bomb Uranium machines needed a moderator, a substance that would slow down the neutrons liberated by chain reactions. In the end, the project decided to use heavy water-oxygen combined with the rare heavy isotope of hydrogen-instead of water or graphite. This was not (as one of the many myths associated with the German nuclear weapons effort had it) because of a mistake the physicist Walther Bothe made when he measured the neutron absorption of graphite. Rather, it appeared that the Norsk Hydro plant in occupied Norway could provide the amounts of heavy water they needed in the first stage of development at a relatively low cost. Heisenberg and his colleagues did not push as hard as they could have to make atomic bombs. The Norwegian resistance and Allied bombers eventually put a stop to Norwegian production of heavy water (see Norwegian Resistance Coup and See the Spy Messages. But by that time it was not possible to begin the production of either pure graphite or pure heavy water in Germany. In the end, the German scientists had only enough heavy water to conduct one or two large-scale nuclear reactor experiments at a time. By the very end of the war, the Germans had progressed from horizontal and spherical layer designs to three-dimensional lattices of uranium cubes immersed in heavy water. They had also developed a nuclear reactor design that almost, but not quite, achieved a controlled and sustained nuclear fission chain reaction. During the last months of the war, a small group of scientists working in secret under Diebner and with the strong support of the physicist Walther Gerlach, who was by that time head of the uranium project, built and tested a nuclear device. At best this would have been far less destructive than the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Rather it is an example of scientists trying to make any sort of weapon they could in order to help stave off defeat. No one knows the exact form of the device tested. But apparently the German scientists had designed it to use chemical high explosives configured in a hollow shell in order to provoke both nuclear fission and nuclear fusion reactions. It is not clear whether this test generated nuclear reactions, but it does appear as if this is what the scientists had intended to occur. Time runs out All of this begs the question, why did they not get further? Why did they not beat the Americans in the race for atomic bombs? The short answer is that whereas the Americans tried to create atomic bombs, and succeeded, the Germans did not succeed, but also did not really try. This can best be explained by focusing on the winter of 1941-1942. From the start of the war until the late fall of 1941, the German “lightning war” had marched from one victory to another, subjugating most of Europe. During this period, the Germans needed no wonder weapons. After the Soviet counterattack, Pearl Harbor, and the German declaration of war against the United States, the war had become one of attrition. For the first time, German Army Ordnance asked its scientists when it could expect nuclear weapons. The German scientists were cautious: while it was clear that they could build atomic bombs in principle, they would require a great deal of resources to do so and could not realize such weapons any time soon. Army Ordnance came to the reasonable conclusion that the uranium work was important enough to continue at the laboratory scale, but that a massive shift to the industrial scale, something required in any serious attempt to build an atomic bomb, would not be done. This contrasts with the commitment the German leadership made throughout the war to the effort to build a rocket. They sunk enormous resources into this project, indeed, on the scale of what the Americans invested in the Manhattan Project. Thus Heisenberg and his colleagues did not slow down or divert their research; they did not resist Hitler by denying him nuclear weapons. With the exception of the scientists working on Diebner's nuclear device, however, they also clearly did not push as hard as they could have to make atomic bombs. They were neither heroes nor villains, just scientists working on weapons of mass destruction for Hitler's Germany.
Prof. Walker wrote this text (used with permission) for the website that accompanied the PBS NOVA show “Hitler's Sunken Secret” last fall. Walker was a featured guest in the show about Nazi development of the atomic bomb.
Union has, throughout its history, been a remarkable innovator in higher education,” he said. “That fact is well known out there among all of us who pay attention to higher education. “Union has masterfully combined a commitment to the liberal arts and a commitment to innovation.” With the sun streaming in Memorial Chapel behind him, hundreds gathered in pews before him, and the portraits of past presidents looking on, Union's president- elect greeted members of the Union College community on Nov. 16. It was the first public opportunity for faculty, staff and students to meet the man who will assume the presidency in June. Ainlay comes to Union from the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass., where he is vice president for academic affairs and professor of sociology and anthropology. He holds a distinguished record as a teacher, scholar and administrator. “From the first time we met Stephen Ainlay, we knew we had someone special,” said Frank Messa '73, chair of the Presidential Search Committee, who introduced the College's 18th president. “We have a leader who is going to join us at a very exciting and critical time in our school's history.” Eschewing the lectern and microphone to speak informally from the front of the stage, Ainlay joked about upstate winters, his mother's reaction to Union's glowing press accounts of him (“Who are they talking about?”) and being surrounded by stern presidential portraiture that seemed to whisper, “Don't mess up.” He thanked James Underwood, interim president and professor emeritus of political science, for his service to the College and his help throughout the transition. “I feel very fortunate to be here,” Ainlay said. “A lot of people ask, ‘Why Union?' Union has for its entire history been a remarkable innovator in higher education. You've combined a commitment to liberal arts while finding ways of making that liberal education pertinent to the world that faculty, staff, administrators and most of all, students, live in. “One of the biggest problems we have as a culture and as a society is the problem of integration,” he said, noting that in our increasingly fragmented society, “institutions like Union have the opportunity to provide integration in the face of that fragmentation.” Ainlay cited the College's hallmarks-Undergraduate Research, Converging Technologies, International Studies, Minervas and Community Service-as ways that the College is fostering integration. “What you are screaming to the outside world is that ‘union' is possible in the modern world,” he said. “You have retained the spirit of the best of liberal education and are giving new meaning to these pillars.” For example, the Minervas demonstrate that “the social and intellectual truly can occupy the same space.” Ainlay said the College's $200 million “You are Union” campaign is about more than bringing in important resources. “It's an opportunity to unite with constituencies outside the campus-alumni, friends and benefactors who care deeply about the College.” He also cited the College's efforts to promote diversity. “Union has the opportunity to share this wonderful education with an even broader spectrum of individuals and thereby enrich the campus culture here in important ways.” And he spoke of using continuing education to keep alumni connected with the College's intellectual life. “In the end, it's not just about the reputation of this institution,” he said. “It's about providing leadership to higher education. From where I stand today, it's clear we have the opportunity to make Union more meaningful, to continue the rich tradition of innovation that has made a mark on the past.” Following his talk, Ainlay spoke with individual audience members before meeting with other members of the Union community on campus. A native of Indiana, Ainlay earned his bachelor's degree in sociology from Goshen College and both his master's and Ph.D. from Rutgers University. He is married to Judith Gardner Ainlay, and they have two sons-Jesse, a 2005 graduate of Holy Cross, and Jonathan, a University of Arizona student.
Two years ago, Nixi Cura led a group of three computer science students on a field trip to Beijing, where they did a computer modeling of a Chinese emperor's tomb. “It was a cool task for them, and it helped me in my research. We didn't have a computer science-arts arrangement then. Every spring, the computer science department used to invite professors to propose projects that the following year's computer science majors could help with. Three students were interested in working on my project-Michael Losure, Bryce Levin, and Steve LaPlante, who all graduated in 2004. The students used 3D programs now used in movies such as “Lord of the Rings.” The project was a way to introduce themselves to three-dimensional modeling. One version of the tomb rendering has a fly-through-as if the viewer is flying through the inside of the tomb. (See http://www.vu.union.edu/~losurem/tombweb/View_Manchu_WalkThrough.swf .) Explains Cura, “It's the tomb of the most famous Chinese emperor ever. And it's the only tomb that's been opened that's entirely filled with Tibetan iconography. Naturally, this is a touchy political issue. The Chinese haven't been able to translate the text. The text is in Sanskrit, transliterated into Tibetan, and so far, nobody knows what it says.” The findings of the team will be published in the journal Artibus Asiae. Aware that further research will represent a huge project, requiring the cooperation of the Chinese government and/or a major museum, she'll be applying for grants “to make official my research on the tomb- and to do a full-scale archeological report of this tomb.” Some people, including some archeologists, wonder about the utility of creating a model like this, says Cura. “First of all, not everyone can actually visit the tomb, and besides, as a pedagogical tool, it's unparalleled.”
On February 3, Room 102 in the F.W. Olin Center was dedicated as the John E. Kelly III Digital Arts lab, containing what Fernando Orellana terms “some of the best computers at Union, with graphics cards that would make Pixar take a second look.” Says Trustee Kelly '76, “I have a deep-seated belief that really exciting things are happening at the intersection of disciplines.” “If you're going to have a career in either technology or art, you will be forced to work with the other, whether you're making movies for Hollywood or games for electronics or doing historical art cataloguing,” says Kelly, IBM senior vice president of technology. With digital art a hot “new media” field-encompassing everything from Web design to 3D modeling and animation -and Converging Technologies, a pillar of a Union education, the time is ripe for the College to explore this latest cross-disciplinary approach, Kelly notes. He recently earmarked a portion of his overall “You are Union” campaign commitment toward supporting the new initiative. “I'm happy to help make available very high-performance computing workstations and high-resolution displays so faculty and students can work with state-of-the-art equipment,” he says. In addition to lab support from Kelly, campus-wide support and resources for the new initiative have been tremendous. “Everything has aligned perfectly for this initiative.” Kelly says. “Digital art is an exciting area that resonates well with Union's capabilities.” “I've wanted to establish a poster child project for converging technologies,” he says, “something that can light up the imagination.”
