Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 16, 1981)
page 4 daily nebraskan friday, january 16, 1981 ") DrnfeoDdtoitoDiit Land, health decisive issues Caution urged in mining of uranium reserves The discovery of uranium reserves in northwest Nebraska is intriguing, but at the same time, quite alarming because of the detrimental environ mental effects that may result if extensive mining begins. According to figures released by the chief executive officer of Kanas Nebraska Natural (las Co., the owner of a subsidiary exploring the area, the discovery of at least 25 million pounds of uranium oxide "may be a major discovery which could develop into a world class deposit in a new uranium province." Regardless of whether a person supports the use of nuclear energy, it is exciting to think that under the seemingly tranquil and picturesque terrain near Crawford rests unknown quantities of radioactive, and per haps valuable material. However, caution must be taken not to endanger the quality of life enjoyed in Dawes and Sioux counties merely for the sake of expanding commercial endeavors. A prime objective pertaining to the uranium prospect, named Crow Butte, must be to protect the area's vital natural resources. Concern has been expressed about whether drilling at the site will con taminate area water supplies. This is an important question that should be answered to the satisfaction of ('raw ford community residents before any further plans to mine the site are made. Crawford residents already have experienced water problems and have considered drilling additional wells. If extensive mining for uran ium is clone, radioactive material in the underground water supply could jeopardize the health of people in the area by seeping into these wells. Studies are underway to discover just how much uranium lies under the Crawford area and to determine the method of extracting the radio active material to be used if a deci sion to mine is made. Although a warning to protect the citizens and the natural beauty of the area may seem premature, it is never too early to advise caution, es pecially when handling such poten tially hazardous materials. Human lives and the environment are priceless and irreplaceable re sources to be protected at all costs. Sports become 'on-the-job training' for Cornhusker scholarship athletes The idea introduced by State Sen. Ernie Chambers concerning athletes-football players in particular being paid as Nebraska employees has been criticized by some as ridiculous. Why, they say, should athletes be paid extra when they already receive free housing, free meals and free school ing? And don't forget the chance at professional sports, a notion that coaches dangle before the players like a car rot in front of a horse's nose. "'U charles Even if this fantasy had the slimmest chance of becom ing a reality, what about the period of "on the job train ing" which is actually what college football has become? If you're the average player on the team, scholarship or no scholarship, coaches demand that you put in a number of hours of intense practice during the week, only to have the "honor" of watching the game from the sidelines with a uniform on. And between books and practice, you can forget about a part-time job, so if your folks aren't rich, well, you just have to do without luxeries. But if you work very hard, sacrifice all your free time, practice until you're ready to drop dead, grin and bear the broken bones and torn ligaments, you might win your coach a "Coach-of-theYear" award. You might even help him get a raise. Isn't that nice? With all of these people profiting off of you, the ath lete, and your athletic talents the coaches, who get their own weekly television shows, the downtown businessmen, whose profits swell with the How of Nebraska Cornhusker fans from all over the country, and the publicity agents, who print your face all over posters to sell and help you make even more money for them --why not share in some of the profits of your work? But why stop at football? All sports activities are de manding enough on the individual to merit a salary. Why not pay all athletes hourly wages'.' And if the coach feels that extra time should be spent in practice or in the weight loom, why not pay overtime'.' It's a hazardous line of work. Cracked ribs, pulled ham strings, sprained ankles. Most hazardous jobs provide disa bility compensation. What do disabled athletes get? Benched. People have argued that paying amateur athletes would classify them as professionals. But what's wrong with pay ing university students for their service? After all, how many work-study students work for free? What kind of arrangement provides workers with only meals and lodging in exchange for hard labor designed to make large profits for somebody else? I thought they ab olished that system 100 years ago. ( SHE SAYS V "I DO" J Front-page trend suggests stay-at-home moms Someday when they write a media history of the wo men's movement, the chapter on the 1970s will be called The Bra-Burning That Never Happened. This will focus on the nationwide report of the Flam ing Feminists who set a torch to their underwear. In fact, no piece of lingerie was ever kindled in anger, but from then on, women's rights advocates were permanently labeled "bra-burners." But the next chapter, the one on the 1980s, may well be called The Trend That Never Was Let me explain. On Sunday, Dec. 28, the front page of t , Vov York Times carried the headline: "Many Younj. V men Now Say They'd Pick Family Over Career." The story strongly suggested a new conservative trend on the part of elite fe male college students. It opened with a short profile of a Princeton senior who planned to study in France, go to business school, and work in international finance. But she would then take 10 years off to be a full-time mother: "If I can't give my children 100 percent. I'd rather not be a mother at all." The reporter had done "dozens of interviews." But interviews are not a scientific sample, so the whole piece hinged on A STUDY. According to the Times, this re search on 3.000 college students from six highly selective schools showed that "77 percent of the women said that mothers should either not work at all or work only part- time until their children were 5-years-old." Here was a tale that fit perfectly into the New Con servative Era. What's more, it bore the New York Times f ront Page Seal of Approval. So. faster than you can say "high-speed data wire," the news of a T-R-E-N-D was sent across the country to the 51 1 newspapers that subscribe to the Times wire service. In a mere two weeks, we have been peppered with the notion - loosely interpreted and popularized that 77 per cent (count 'em) of the young elite women believe that the place of a mother of a preschooler is in the home. All this is fine and dandy and typical. But this tune the "hinge" for the story was so loose that, when you wiggle it. the whole trend falls down. OOC3lH3il Allow me to wiggle it. The crucial statistic came from a 300-page Brown University report designed to find out how well Ivy League Schools, such as Brown, were treating women. I he data were not vintage 1980: they were collected from 1976 to 1978 In one small section of the study, students were asked how they felt about a mother working when her child ren were very young. Among the women. 27 percent thought mothers shouldn't be working at ail when their children were between 2 and 5-years-old. Fifty percent thought mothers should work part-time and 16 percent chose full-time. If you aren't suffering from math phobia, you can read these figures at least three ways: (1) 77 percent think wo men shouldn't work full-time OR (2) 66 "ercent think they shouldn't be at home fuSl-time OR (3) 50 percent prefer part-time jobs. But in no way can you read this statistic as a trend BACKWARDS Helen Astine. the UCLA professor who J id this ic search. says that the students' altitudes reflected the long term trend away from strict traditional roles. Jean Howard, who wrote the conclusions to the Brown study, agrees: "We found women who want to work longer ami longer, and to combine that with families. We don't have some conservative revolution on our hands." The data did point out some potential conflicts foi the students. Conflicts between men and women. Conflicts between the women's ideal life plan and reality. For example, two-thirds of the women expected full time careers. But only two-fifths of the men expected their partners to work full-time. At the same time, the women preferred to plot out flexible lives, with time to reduce and then resume career commitments. But in the real world, career patterns are more rigid, economic needs more urgent, and part-time professional work more scarce than these women suspect. In fairness, many of the Times interviews captured the ambivalence and uncertainty of young women. But the whole piece shouted Conservative Trend. The media tale would be unimportant, except that a story like this takes on a life of its own in the public mind. "According to the Xew York Tunes . . . "It be comes part of the self-fulfilling prophecy of the retreat to traditionalism." Professor Carol Leland. the project director who tried to dissuade the Times reported from "misusing our figures." now says. "I guess this made it a better front page beginmng-of-the-year story." Does she sound paranoid? Well, what do vou expect from those bra-burners? tc) 1981. The Boston Globe Newspaper Company Washington Post Writers Group
