I.. I o o
y
Olympic tragedy
Daily Nebraskan editorial policy is the
product of an editorial board consisting of
Editor-in-chief Jim Gray, Managing Editor
Tom Lansworth and News Editor Randy
Beam. Individual editorials represent the
views of the writer but not necessarily those
of all editorial board members.
The dove of peace had one of its few
remaining feathers plucked Tuesday as the
most brazen and senseless international crimes
virtually destroyed the Summer Olympic
Games and any ideas of future
understanding-through-competition.
The insane assassination of 11 Israeli
Olympians must be classified as the most
bloodthirsty of crimes-the epitome of the
entire strategy of revolution-through-terrorism.
Murder-any murder-is an
irrevocable waste, an undoing of all mankind's
good work.
But the terrorist-murderers killed more
than humans. They have, for the present,
extinguished any hope ot international
cooperation. They destroyed a last refuge
from international crime.
In the past, the Olympic Games have
conspicuously lacked political barriers. Once
in an Olympic atmosphere, sportsmen left
political differences behind and competed on
an even level-individual against individual.
For over 30 years, the games were the
paragon of international cooperation. Minor
skirmishes developed in the past, but they
were always dealt with in the spirit of
cooperation. Three times the games have been
cancelled by world wars. But the games
themselves have been remarkably fres of
political terrorism.
This year was different. Politics forced its
way into the games early, disallowing
Rhodesia its right to compete. And once the
spectre showed its head, the outcome was,
perhaps, inevitable. Political maneuvering, it
seems, breeds terrorism.
It is remarkably ironic that the last time
the Olympics became a political arena was
also in Germany-36 years ago. In the 1936
Olympics Adolph Hitler used the games to
display the prowess of his Aryan race and to
further discriminate against
non-Aryans specifically blacks and Jews. It
seems amazing that the 1972 Olympics could
become a battleground over the same two
prejudices.
But now that they have, another major
issue is brought to mind. U.S. Olympic discus
thrower Jay Silvester hit the heart of the
matter when he predicted 'They're going to
kill the games."
Admittedly, chances are that the games will
continue in years to come. But the question is
whether they should.
As they were in the past, the games were a
worthwhile undertaking, a small display of
the possibility of cooperation. But as they are
now, they are worthless another violent,
chaotic, political shell game.
To continue the games as political
set-pieces would be a great injustice to the
world. They must change or be abolished, for
the future's sake.
Fund fiasco
In a fairly typical move this week, the
federal government's ACTION agency decided
to remove funding from the Nebraska
Opportunities for Volunteers in Action
(NOVA) program.
. The UNL program, rated among the top
few of those sponsored by ACTION, does not
deserve such treatment. Last year, in its initial
year of operation, NOVA proved itself a
worthwhile and constructive program.
By no means should the NOVA program be
allowed to expire. Alternative funding for the
program must be sought from all possible
sources-including other federal agencies,
foundations and private contributors.
If all attempts at funding the program
should fail, the responsibility for funding the
program should be taken by the University.
If the University abandons NOVA at this
critical juncture, it would be a sad end indeed
for a valuable Droaram.
Jim Gray y
Stereotypes
limit
women's
opportunities
miche e
coue
A woman, depending upon whom you talk to, is a passive,
dependent creature, often illogical, unreliable and inconsistent.
Although she may be good with her hands, intuitive and
compassionate, she is over-emotional, overreacts under stress,
is sexually threatening and by her very nature tends to need
protection.
A man, on the other hand, is resourceful, innovative,
aggressive and decisive. He is dependable, quick thinking,
strong at all times and ever mindful of the dominant leadership
role he must assume. It is natural that he be the family
patriarch, provider and protector.
Of course, in the unlikely event any individual deviates
from this pattern, a simple explanation can be provided. If
female, this individual is either an unfortunate neurotic in
need of immediate re-education to her proper social role, or
else she must be an embittered, cold "womens' libber,"
unmarried, unattractive, undoubtedly having missed the boat.
Very often these two types coincide.
But, obviously, if this misfit is male, he must have
experienced a peculiar childhood resulting in
over-identification with his mother. Such deviants should not
be tolerated. Anatomy is destiny after all is said and done.
That's the way it used to be until a Southern member of
the U.S. Senate tried to kill the Civil Rights Act. He jokingly
inserted the word "sex." To his surprise, and the surprise of
others, the bill passed as amended.
This was the first time since the 1920 passage of the 19th
amendment, the only reference to women in the entire
constitution, that legislation affected the American woman so
profoundly. For over forty years an equal rights amendment
had bounced back and forth between the House and Senate
and had never been passed.
Groups of women organized, lobbied and by 1972 the 26th
amendment, or Equal R ights Amendment, was passed by both
the House and Senate. It only awaits ratification by
three-fourths of the states before it becomes law.
But for the majority of women, life and its economic
situation has not really changed. The National Organization of
Women has painted a bleak picture. Fifty-one per cent of the
population is female, and yet for all intents and purposes,
women are accorded a minority status.
Twenty-nine million women work, and two-thirds of these
work at menial, repetitive, and unchallenging jobs. Forty per
cent of all working women work because they have to, they
are their own sole means of support, and fifteen per cent of
working women are heads of households.
Yet, full-time women workers earn an average of 40 per
cent less than men in similar jobs in every working category.
And, half of all working women earn less than $3,700 ($3,300
is the poverty level) with 1.4 per cent of working women
earning over $10,000 compared with 13 per cent for men. This
wage gap is not decreasing but continuing to increase as it has
for the past 25 years.
Perhaps the most significant inequality of all lies in
education. Women with college degrees earn about the same as
men with high school educations, and even when their
educations are equal, men earn about twice as much as
women.
On Saturday August 26th, Women's Equality Day,
approximately 300 Nebraska area women and men met in
Omaha to discuss these issues so important to women.
Sponsored by NOW, the Women's Equity Action League and
the Nebraska Women's Political Caucus, working and
professional women, students and housewives all participated
in workshops dealing with job discrimination, women's rights,
welfare and the past and present women's movement.
Emphasizing the economic and job inequalities that face
most women, the artificial limits imposed on both men and
women by traditional sex roles and stereotypes, and the
resources available for help or reinforcement in dealing with
these problems, this conference opens the possibility of a
united effort to approach the Nebraska woman's difficulties in
a special way.
Whatever is this state coming to?-a question posed rather
cynically by a conference observer, yet one mixed with more
than a glimmer of hope.
v.
page 4
daily nebraskan
thursday, September 7, 1972
