Ever since Theodore J. Kaczynski '62 was discovered in Montana by police and tentatively identified as the Unabomber, there has been a craze over this elusive character--especially here at Harvard, the place the Unabomber called home for four years. In the state the Unabomber has more recently called home, the Montana Freemen are causing a craze among the 1,400 backwoods people who feed and clothe FBI agents.

How backwoods Montana and Harvard could come to be somewhat related is still a mystery with me. But, on some of their recent fliers, the UNITE! Harvard conference, a forum on building a unified progressive and radical activist group, has sported the classic witness identification picture of the supposed madman with the hooded sweatshirt and the cool aviator glasses. Why is the country's most famous loner glorified by an organization whose purpose is to unite disparate groups--including BSA, RUS, BGLSA, AAA and La Raza--for social action?

The Unabomber, despite his threatening behavior, represents those who are completely fed up with American society and its problems, the ugliest of which are racism, sexism, homophobia and alienation. That's why the Unabomber was chosen to be the proponent of UNITE. Granted, not all of the groups backing UNITE support the use of that picture in posters and advertisements, but the fact that the picture was used suggests that the Unabomber represents something related to the mentality of the groups included in the alliance.

The Unabomber, given all of his media exposure, has turned into a symbol for outsiders who are disgruntled with the way things are going in America. Like the country at large, the Harvard community considers activists to be dangerous. Being an activist therefore means accepting the role as a "threat." Sometimes activists push that idea a little far by actively associating themselves with known threats: a.k.a. the Unabomber.

These "threats" share some similar characteristics with the Montana Freemen. Certain prominent and outspoken blacks, women and people of differing sexual orientation suffer from FBI monitoring. They were and are considered "threats" to America somehow, and are subsequently given the same treatment as anti-government buffoons in Montana.

This situation is a scary dilemma for America. The activists now perceive themselves as threats because they are largely perceived as threats. Blacks are perceived as threats. Women are perceived as threats. Liberals. Gays and lesbians. Latinos. Asians. That's a huge group that encompasses, in my estimation, more than 70 percent of America.

How are all of these people threats? Not to themselves, obviously, but to that minority--white, straight males who are not progressive. The fact that Americans who shake up and mix this bottle of free spirits are considered threatening does not sit well with me.

Irealize that the Unabomber was chosen by UNITE to represent a worthy cause, but there are problems and contradictions with these groups associating themselves with the Unabomber--they further the negative image that they are already given. The Unabomber, according to his manifesto, supports a complete renunciation of society. "The Bomb" wants us to return to nature and live off of the land.

The goals of the UNITE alliance contradict the Unabomber's: the alliance does not wish to renunciate American society but to work within it, to act as an agent of change for a system in America that's working--but not for everyone.

By associating with the Unabomber, the social action groups implicitly associate themselves with someone whose ideas will never change America for the good. I am sure that America's majority does not support the Unabomber, but does identify with his mentality and his base values.

I'm sure that many people identify with the Unabomber somewhat; in fact, I'm sure that seventy percent of America sometimes feels that this place is not for us. That does not warrant an exaggeration of the labels and tags associated with groups that rally for change. Yes, subtle identification with a demagogue can further the extremity of the message presented but, at the same time, activists should avoid labeling themselves as Unabombers for obvious reasons.

Let's put a good face on activism; activism could only change "democratic" America for the good. In challenging America, we deconstruct it somewhat and this should be noted--activism could be potentially harmful for America. But the goal is to challenge America and its presuppositions and preconceptions for further growth, not to destroy America.

In a way, the Unabomber garb is a symbol for the fact that in America, almost everyone is an outsider, and the hood and aviators inspire others to wonder who is really inside. I believe that we all have a little Unabomber in us. We all have the impulse, at times, to shut ourselves out of the real world, don that hood and wear those aviators.

But we should not let the Unabomber represent activism today despite the negative associations that are pressed on activism. Give activism a better face because activism could only lead to a better America. Let America's majority and activists at Harvard representing America's majority be free from even distant associations with so-called "Freemen" in the backwoods of Montana.