Following its Greek etymology, “character” refers to a distinctive mark impressed, engraved, or otherwise formed. James Davison Hunter, director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture at the University of Virginia, has suggested that a person’s character “reflects the affirmation of our commitments to a larger community, the embrace of an ideal that attracts us, draws us, animates us, inspires us.” In his book, The Death of Character, Hunter worries that many of the mechanisms by which commitment to a larger community and character are formed have been seriously weakened in the modern age.
Up Front photo. Stephen C. Ainlay.
Small liberal arts colleges have a key role to play in awakening a sense of commitment to something larger than self. They are also well positioned to help form character. This belief was what inspired Eliphalet Nott and Joseph Ramée to create the architecture of Union College – arcades encircling a common green and rotunda, a college on a hill overlooking the Mohawk Valley, a community of teachers and learners. They believed that their then-novel campus design offered the ideal architectural setting for forming commitment and character. They were not wrong. Witness the many alumni of the College who carried a sense of commitment to community into their life’s work; witness the Union men and women of character who literally changed the world.
At Union today, we continue to believe that it is our responsibility to help form the character of the students who have come here to live and study. We believe that the formation of character doesn’t simply happen; we believe we have a role to play in its engraving. This is why we have returned Founder’s Day to its original purpose: to remind us all of the inspirational characters of Union’s past. This year, Paul LeClerc, reminded us of the contributions of John Bigelow, Union Class of 1835. Bigelow was author, statesman, publisher and public servant. (See “A career under the laws of Minerva,” page 16.)
As author, he wrote books on historical and political topics as well as biographies and works on travel. As statesman, he served as President Abraham Lincoln’s consul at Paris and minister to France during the years of the Civil War. In that capacity, he is credited with thwarting a scheme to deliver French-made naval vessels to Confederate forces. As publisher, he was joint owner and editor (with William Cullen Bryant) of the New YorkEvening Post. As public servant, he is regarded as the key person behind the founding of the New York Public Library, a cultural jewel that Paul LeClerc now directs. Bigelow’s life certainly makes for interesting history. More importantly, Bigelow’s life should be an inspiration for today’s members of the Union community. His commitment to purposes beyond individual gain should serve to awaken a noble purpose within all of us.
For similar reasons, the College has developed a program and courses focused on ethics. The Rapaport Everyday Ethics Across the Curriculum initiative aims at helping students understand and ultimately better respond to ethical issues. Thanks to generous support from Michael (’59) and Jo-Ann (Friedman) Rapaport, the Ethics Across the Curriculum initiative has helped ensure that helping students see that the ethical dilemmas and implications confronted in everyday life are not the domain of any one academic department. This should convey an important message: ethical decision making cannot be compartmentalized. This too is about the development of character. (See “Teaching ethics,” page 4.)
We were honored and delighted to host the National Undergraduate Bioethics Conference at Union this spring. The fact that this conference came to Union is testimony to Professor Robert Baker’s stature in this area. It is also evidence of the role that Union can play in leading a national discussion about ethical issues and decision making.
While methods and curriculum have changed, in the beginning of our third century, just as in the beginning of our first century, Union continues to think about character as a commitment to the larger community, and as an embrace of an ideal that attracts us, draws us, animates us, and inspires us.
A family of seven will celebrate their new home Sunday, May 18, when the College and Habitat for Humanity of Schenectady County help dedicate the latest Habitat project.
Chip Miller ’09, front, and Gabe Kramer '09 and, Psi Upsilon fraternity members volunteer for Habitat for Humanity at 1124 Barrett St.
President Stephen C. Ainlay and Jeffrey W. Clark, executive director of the local Habitat chapter, will be joined at the 1 p.m. dedication by Michael and Kelly Harris, and their five children – Sujea, 12, Sabrina, 9, Michael, Jr., 8, Isaiah, 8, and Samone, 3. The family had to complete 400 hours of “sweat equity” and a financial background check to qualify for the Habitat home.
The College donated the house at 1124 Barrett Street in Schenectady to the local Habitat chapter in 2006, and the campus community has worked since last fall to help refurbish it. Local Habitat officials said this is the first time that a college in the Capital Region has provided the property and the labor to Habitat.
The home was among 13 purchased by faculty and staff under the Union-Schenectady Initiative, an ambitious plan to revitalize the neighborhood just west of the campus.
Ainlay challenged the campus community to help restore the home, which is adjacent to the Turf at College Park Hall, as a way to re-cultivate its sense of social-connectedness and civic commitment.
Hundreds of volunteers, including members of athletic teams, Greek organizations, student groups, faculty, staff and administrators pitched in to renovate the house, built in 1910.
In a message to the campus community, Ainlay praised the campus community for their "extraordinary participation in this worthy cause" and invited them to attend the dedication.
"Once again, you have all confirmed my conviction that we have a keen understanding of our sense of social-connectedness and civic commitment," Ainlay said in his message.
Clark also thanked the College for their efforts.
Habitat for Humanity Rugby women pitch in
“People from Union joined Habitat for Humanity volunteers on a regular basis and learned a great deal not only about construction but also about the family,” Clark said. “They can be proud of their participation in this project.”
Habitat for Humanity International is a nonprofit, nondenominational housing organization. Since 1976, Habitat has built more than 200,000 houses around the world, providing more than 1 million people in some 3,000 communities with safe, decent, affordable shelter.
A 1998 Union College magazine interview with Professor Linda Patrik.
From “In the Ballpark: The Working Lives of Baseball People.” Summer 1998 magazine cover, cropped version. Fanning.
In the summer of 1995, Linda E. Patrik, associate professor of philosophy, began to read newspaper reports about the Unabomber case. She became concerned that the Unabomber's profile seemed to match her brother-in-law, Ted Kaczynski, and she encouraged her husband, David Kaczynski, to consider that his brother might be the Unabomber.
Nearly three years later, after the conviction of Ted Kaczynski as the Unabomber, Patrik sat down with Adrian MacLean '98 and Katie Pasco of the Office of Communications to recount the details of her discovery and the impact of the conviction of Ted Kaczynski on her life.
Q: What role did you play in the Kaczynski family's recognition that Ted Kaczynski had a mental disorder?
Patrik: I have never met Ted Kaczynski, so I only know him from the stories that my husband and mother-in-law have told me. Psychiatrists say that in eighty percent of the cases of schizophrenia, family members themselves do not recognize the disease and resist the diagnosis, even if it comes from a professional psychiatrist. Usually it takes someone from outside the family to see that there is a problem. They think that this is the role that I played with Ted Kaczynski.
Q: How did you recognize his illness?
Patrik: Since I never met Ted, I came to know him through his correspondence with the family. Ted briefly corresponded with his family in 1990 and 1991 but then lapsed into sending extremely negative, insulting, violent-sounding letters.
In the fall of 1990, after the death of his father, he resumed correspondence with his mother, and at first the letters were cordial. They would address, for example, Buddhism, because Wanda was puzzled as to why David and I were married in a Tibetan Buddhist ceremony. They wrote about other matters, such as books and politics, but sometime in the spring or early summer of 1991 Ted became furious with his mother again, as he had many times in the past. He insisted that she not write to him again, and these letters included fairly cruel and vicious attacks. He blamed her for his lack of sociability and for his lack of relationships with women. He blamed her for pushing him academically; he blamed her for everything.
One of the most frightening letters for me — the one that convinced me that we needed a psychiatric opinion — was about two women. They were women that Ted knew from a distance and would have liked to date. The way that he described them was strange. So I was worried and wanted a professional opinion.
Q: So you convinced David to take Ted's letters to a psychiatrist?
Patrik: The letters convinced me that we needed a psychiatric opinion, so David took them to Dr. Robert Mitchell in Schenectady. At the two consultations, Dr. Mitchell told us that he thought Ted was mentally disturbed. At that point, we discussed strategies and whether it was possible to have Ted committed, but Dr. Mitchell explained that it is extremely difficult to get someone institutionalized if they have not committed a crime and if no one knows of them harming themselves or others. At that point, in 1991, we had no evidence whatsoever that Ted had harmed anyone or had harmed himself, so we didn't think that it was possible to have him committed.
Dr. Mitchell also reminded us that most violence occurs within families, and if we confronted Ted and tried to put him in a mental hospital, he could react with violence. We decided to contact a heart specialist whom Ted had been seeing in Montana for a heart problem, and we begged her to urge Ted to get therapy. But Ted never came to her office again, so nothing ever came of that.
Q: When did you first realize that Ted might be the Unabomber?
Patrik: In the summer of 1995, I was vacationing in Paris and I began to look over the reports about the Unabomber that were printed in the Herald Tribune. That summer, after the Unabomber threatened to blow up a plane flying out of Los Angeles, the FBI changed its policies and began to seek help from the public by releasing a lot more information.
I read this information every day in the Paris Herald Tribune and began to worry that Ted could be the Unabomber. When David joined me in Paris, I urged him to consider that his brother might be the Unabomber.
Q: What indications did you have that Ted might be the Unabomber?
Patrik: It was a lot of things — Ted's woodworking capability, the cities he had lived in, the fact that at this point the FBI believed the Unabomber to be a loner, and they believed him to be highly committed to an anti-technology cause.
Q: When did you first read the Unabomber's manifesto?
Patrik: My colleague, Professor Felmon Davis, downloaded the manifesto from the Internet for me in mid-October. I had lied and told him I was going to teach a course on environmental ethics.
I knew as soon as I saw it that it was Ted who had written it. The anti-technology stance in the manifesto was as extreme as Ted's views and lifestyle. There were also criticisms of liberals that seemed to be similar to the attacks he made against his parents. I called David right away and told him to come to my office so that he could read it, too. David was deeply disturbed by the manifesto but he was not sure it was written by Ted. And if David couldn't be sure, I really couldn't be sure either, since all I had to go on was the evidence and feelings that David had.
Q: What did you do next?
Patrik: After David and I both read the manifesto, David dug up many letters that he had from Ted, and we spent a month talking about it and comparing the letters to the manifesto. I also discussed my concerns with Dr. Robert Mitchell in therapy sessions. Then we contacted my best childhood friend, Susan Swanson, who is a private investigator in Chicago. I knew that we could trust her; I didn't know anyone else who could help us in a practical way.
Without telling Susan that it had anything to do with the Unabomber, we asked her how to get a writing analysis done. As a teacher of writing — at that time I was grading at least thirty to forty papers a week — I had an eye for writing style. I convinced David that we should have a writing analysis done, but we didn't know how to locate someone who would preserve our confidentiality, so that's why we turned to Susan.
Q: What did you tell her?
Patrik: At that point we just told her we had two documents that needed to be compared. She began to search for experts in the field, and she came back to say that the top expert was Clint Van Zant, a retired FBI agent. We knew that turning over any document to him was tantamount to turning it over to the FBI, so we had to make a decision whether we were willing, even with the scanty evidence that we had, to essentially turn this information over to the FBI.
It took us another month to decide. David was particularly concerned that his brother was so paranoid that if Ted were innocent, anyone showing up on his doorstep, especially an FBI agent, would be in danger. David was worried that his brother might either shoot himself or shoot the person who showed up — or, if his brother were innocent, we would be putting him through great emotional turmoil.
We made our decision by mid-December and told Susan to go ahead and engage Van Zant to do the writing analysis. We sent the letters, retyped, to Susan, who sent them to Van Zant and protected our confidentiality.
Q: What did the analysis indicate?
Patrik: The report came back around New Year's Eve and said that there was a forty to sixty percent chance that the manifesto and the letters were written by the same person. David and I had agreed that if the report said that there was at least a twenty-five percent chance, we would go to the FBI.
Q: This was your first contact with the FBI?
Patrik: Yes. We had a problem finding a lawyer to be our mediator with the FBI, but finally Susan arranged for her old law school friend, Tony Bisceglie, to be our mediator.
Susan had drawn up a list of nine conditions that we wanted the FBI to agree to, most of which involved preventing the FBI from jumping the gun and targeting Ted as their main suspect. We wanted them to search out evidence very carefully, because we didn't know if he was guilty or innocent, but we knew that he was mentally ill.
The list included conditions for a safe arrest and for the preservation of our confidentiality. The FBI was not supposed to reveal that David and I were the ones who turned in Ted. Susan's list of conditions was used by Tony Bisceglie as the basis for his letter to the FBI, which opened our negotiations with the FBI.
Q: When did you learn that the FBI had breached your confidentiality?
Patrik: David and I were listening to the CBS News the night of Ted's arrest in April, and Dan Rather announced that David had turned in his brother. His exact words were that David "fingered his brother." The FBI had had a chance earlier that day to tell us that they had breached confidentiality, but they chose not to notify us.
Q: Based on the media craze that invaded your life at that point, what are your impressions of the media?
Patrik: David and I have very different views on this. David feels positively about the media now, whereas I still have some residual resentment. Since David launched himself into a two-year battle to save his brother's life, he had to rely on the media. The interviews he gave lasted three to four hours, and he came to find journalists who were thoughtful people, good writers, intellectuals. So he actually made friends with some of the media people.
This is only my third interview. I certainly liked the 60 Minutes interview; I found them intelligent and sensitive; they didn't pressure us. It's just that first onslaught — the paparazzi — they had no ethics whatsoever.
Q: Why did you and David make the decision that you did?
Patrik: It's very clear to me that the decision was for the sake of the victims. The victims had suffered greatly, and we wanted to make sure that never happened again. David has met with some of the victims, but I have never had a chance to talk to them. I would like to tell them that the decision we made was for their sake and for the sake of people like them. There is no easy way to tell them that their horror and their pain touched us all deeply, and that's why we didn't stop. We had only the vaguest idea that Ted might be the Unabomber. Many people would have just put those suspicions out of their minds, but I think that it was the pain of the victims that motivated us to continue.
Q: How was your life on campus?
Patrik: Union itself was great. Roger Hull, Dean Cool, Dean Sorum, all of my colleagues, the philosophy secretary, the people in the Public Relations and Safety and Security Offices — they all were great.
First, they stonewalled the media when the media were out of control and behaving unethically. The media in this country, in cases like this, have no respect for privacy and no respect for the feelings of a family going through trauma. Everybody at the College, from the top down, did their best to stem the tide of the media invasion, and I greatly appreciate the protection they gave me — both the protection that I needed to continue working and the protection of my privacy.
On a more personal note, the Philosophy Department secretary, Marianne Snowden, and my colleagues were very gentle in giving me space — not pestering me with questions, not wanting to know the latest news. Also, a number of friends at the College helped David and me move into a new home. We were reluctant to hire a moving company because we had confidential papers, and we didn't want strangers coming into our home. About ten of our friends, many of them professors, helped us move during the time that they were still teaching.
My two best friends, Professors Roset Khosropour and Sigrid Killenter, also provided great emotional support, even when they didn't know what was troubling me. Through all of this, I have found that friendship is more important than everything else.
Q: As a philosopher, what have you learned from all of this?
Patrik: Based on this whole experience, I have lost respect for tremendous intellect. I have discovered that genius needs to be coupled with heart and loving relationships with people to have a positive impact on society. I now know that intellectual brilliance alone has great dangers.
This experience has also made me think about some things in terms of my research. I don't have answers, but I do have questions. Before all this, I was working on a book about the obstacles that block us from figuring out what is in our own self-interest. I had focused my thinking on individuals and self-interest, but I think that what this experience has revealed is not an answer but an understanding that sometimes ethical decisions need to be made that have nothing to do with self-interest or self-benefit. Sometimes, ethical decisions are simply called for. They come to you by fortune, I suppose one might say.
On a more personal note, I also see how the ability David and I had to make our decision arose out of the good things David and I had in our life. In my book, I had concluded that what is in our self-interest is not necessarily something that we have to strive for or work toward. Instead, much of what is good for us we already have — the privileges that we enjoy. These privileges are the talents that we have, the opportunities that are open to us, the strengths in our lives, either from our family, our economic situation, our jobs, or our marriages.
On a personal level, I have realized that I am quite privileged to have my job at Union and a loving marriage with David. These are great gifts, wonderful things. I have realized that when one is privileged in these ways, one can undertake difficult tasks.
Q. You are going on sabbatical next year. What are your plans?
Patrik: When all this came up, I essentially dropped my book project; I had neither the time nor the concentration to work on it. This has absorbed my husband's life and, as a result, it has also absorbed my life. So the main project for my sabbatical is to return to the book, Knowing What is Good For Us. I will also be editing an anthology on existential literature.
Q: How are you going to move on from this? What is left to confront?
Patrik: We still have to pay our attorney's fees. We have to figure out a way to pay him, which is difficult because we have been reluctant to do a movie or book deal.
We don't know if the government will give us the million-dollar reward. We would very much like the reward money to go to the victims, but if they tax us and then if they tax the victims when they receive the money, there's not much money left.
David has been approached about book and movie deals, but he doesn't feel like he can write a book. He's still in too much pain from this experience and in too much pain over his brother. I've urged him to write a book, partly because he's an excellent writer and partly just to pay our attorney, but he has always said no. Maybe he'll change his mind once we go on sabbatical.
Personally, I am eager to return to the work I had set out for myself and return to the things that mean a lot to both David and me. One thing that means a lot is our marriage; we are deeply committed to it. We would like some private time to go canoeing, go to the movies, and to have fun — like we used to have before all this started. We want our lives back.
“Imagination in Color” The Digital Study of Line and Portrait by Elliot Cohen ’08 will be featured in the Union College “Senior Art Exhibition” May 6 through 18, 2008 in the Burns Atrium Art Gallery, Visual Arts Building.
Through May 18
Visual Arts Building
Burns Arts Atrium Gallery
Senior Exhibits
Works by Rachel Start, and Elliott Cohen; artists’ reception Thursday, May 15, 5-7 p.m.
Emily Burgess ’10, “Dance,” 2008, digital linocut, 10” x 8” was exhibited at “LGBT: A Union Perspective” Monday, April 7 through Sunday, May 18, 2008, at the Wikoff Student Gallery in the Nott Memorial. The exhibit, which coincided with the National Day
Through May 18
Wikoff Student Gallery
The Nott Memorial
LGBT: A Union Perspective
A juried exhibition of artwork by students and faculty that explores issues surrounding the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community at Union.
May 20 through June 1
Visual Arts Building
Burns Arts Atrium Gallery
Senior Exhibits
Works by Ben Lehrer and Charlotte Messervy
Through June 12
Humanities Gallery
Aesthetic Divisions
Works from former Union artist-in-residence Arlene Baker's “Silk Spaces” series.
Untitled (Mt. St. Victoire), 2007, oil on canvas, 19 ¾” x 25” by artist Kaitlin Pickett ’08 will be featured at the “Union College Senior Invitational” in the Mandeville Gallery from May 15 through June 15, 2008.
Through June 15
Mandeville Gallery
Nott Memorial
Senior Invitational
Featuring the work of graduating seniors Ben Atkins, Robbie Flick, Jen Libous, Kaitlin Pickett, Amanda Silvestri, Rachel Start, Clare Stone and Walter Yund. Reception set for Friday, May 18, 5 to 9 p.m. to coincide with Art Night Schenectady.
“Halong Bay, Vietnam, 2007,” photograph, Meggie Moriarty ’10, is one of 20 photographs in the “Photographing Another Culture: Vietnam 2007” exhibit on display in the Global Visions Gallery, Grant Hall. The photos were made by 19 students that participate
Through June 15
Global Visions Gallery
Grant Hall
New Eyes: Images of Daily Life in Vietnam
Features 20 photographs by students from Union and Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, N.Y., taken during the fall 2007 color digital photography class in Vietnam. Nineteen students from the two schools spent 97 days armed with cameras and immersed in the language and culture of Vietnam. They came away with nearly 1,200 images in all. This show was curated by Jen Libous ’08 and Martin Benjamin, professor of Visual Arts and director of the Vietnam term abroad. .
Arguing that all students need a broad-based education to compete in an increasingly technological world, President Stephen C. Ainlay said it’s time to make the case for engineering as a liberal art.
“The time has come for the Academy as a whole to regard engineering as a fully legitimate component of the liberal arts,” Ainlay said Friday in opening remarks at the national symposium, “Engineering and Liberal Education.”
Engineering and Liberal Education symposium. President Carol Christ of Smith College.
Academic leaders from more than a dozen top colleges and universities participated in the symposium held on campus last weekend.
In his speech, titled “Re-imagining Liberal Education in the 21st Century,” Ainlay stressed that “some basic paradigm shifts are needed before engineering is regarded as fully integral to the liberal arts.”
It will mean more than redefining traditional academic boundaries, he said.
“The intellectual traditions and divides forged over centuries cannot be quickly re-imagined,” he said. “It is, rather, a larger project that not only involves changing the nature of a modern education and what we teach to college students, but also how we think about knowledge and its sources.
“If the integration of engineering with the sciences, social sciences and humanities does not take place at the levels of basic conceptualization and intellectual purpose, it will not be sufficiently well grounded to become broadly accepted across the Academy.”
Up Front photo. Stephen C. Ainlay.
The idea of integrating engineering into the liberal arts is attracting considerable buzz on college campuses. A white paper issued in December by James J. Duderstadt, a president emeritus of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, urged universities to better prepare all undergraduates to understand and solve technical problems. Last month, Princeton University announced a $25 million gift to help integrate the two disciplines.
In 1845, Union became the first liberal arts college to offer engineering. The symposium explored different models for integrating engineering, technology and the traditional liberal arts.
Among the participants were Princeton, Dartmouth, Swarthmore, Lafayette, Smith, Trinity, Villanova, U.S. Military Academy, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Sweet Briar College, Tufts, University of Vermont, University of Georgia and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
Ainlay told participants at the symposium that they “have a remarkable opportunity to push the conversation about engineering and liberal education forward.” But he cautioned that “the integration of engineering into the liberal arts is no single institution’s innovation or mandate. It is a national and even international mandate, important to our collective future. We will be far more effective if we all work together.”
Besides Ainlay, others who spoke included President Carol Christ of Smith College; Lance Schachterle, associate provost of WPI and Domenico Grasso, dean of the College of Engineering and Mathematics, University of Vermont.
a national symposium on Engineering and Liberal Education. Program.
“There is real urgency to educate students who are great scientists and engineers and who can see the big picture,” says Cherrice A. Traver, dean of Engineering, citing concerns of the National Academies of Science and the National Academy of Engineering. “We understand that narrowly educated graduates are not prepared to address either the threats or the opportunities presented by the technological world.”
Noting Union’s pioneering status as the first liberal arts college to offer engineering, Traver said that participants in the conference “are in a position to help reshape higher education to produce graduates with the skills to think broadly and holistically about the challenges of our diverse, global, and technologically complex society."
The symposium was funded in part by The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation of New York City.
