4
Thursday, June 29, 1978
University Daily Kansan
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Comment
Unused editorials represent the opinion of the Kanan editorial staff. Stated columns represent the views of only the writers
Real deadline needed
Three years ago the Department of Health, Education and Welfare selected July 21 as the date by which postsecondary schools must comply with Title IX regulations in athletics. Title IX, part of the Educational Amendments Act of 1972, prohibits sex discrimination at any educational institution that receives federal funds.
However, that date has become meaningless after HEW's announcement Monday that because of its limited staff, few institutions would be thoroughly examined to see whether their policies and procedures had eliminated sex discrimination in athletic programs.
J. L. THOMAS, the regional chief of higher education of HEW's office of civil rights, said institutions that already are receiving federal funds would not, in most instances, have their Title IX policies investigated until October 1979 at the earliest. The date of a compliance review would be earlier than if either class action complaints or complaints that indicate a pattern of non-compliance were filed. Otherwise, HEW will rely on self-evaluations of institutions and assurances from the institutions that they are in compliance.
HEW surely cannot believe that programs at educational institutions whose federal funds are threatened will not try to evade their commitments to provide an equal opportunity for men and women in athletics. KU administrators speak of Title IX plans and progress and say that a compliance review of KU probably is not needed.
Del Shankel, executive vice chancellor,
Tuesday said, "I think we've done all we
could do. I'm sure we will continue to make progress."
However, several objections to that easy-going attitude have been raised, one by Marian Washington, director of women's athletics. Washington said it was possible that a compliance review of KU would be needed.
"There's no question that we have had some concerns in the department," she said. Disparities in the women's and men's athletics budgets, particularly in coaches' salaries and scholarships, especially concern her, she said.
"There's not one area that's in equity with the men's department," Levinson said. "There's no point in having TITLE IX if there's not anybody to enforce it."
THE MOST SCATHING of the objections against HEW's and the administration's attitude toward Title IX compliance comes from Anne Lewinson, a member of the Women's Athletic Council who also plays field hockey.
Levinson last month filed a complaint with HEW concerning the disparities she sees in KU athletics. The complaint says inequities exist between the two athletic programs in such areas as coaches' salaries, team cuts, facilities, training, scholarships and travel funds.
It appears that only through such complaints as Levinson's will KU's compliance with Title IX be examined closely and soon. Without such complaints, July 21 will pass as another date with which the government threatens programs at educational institutions that rely on federal funding. An unforced deadline is no deadline.
Protests against nuclear power are more than just political a squawking. They are all the same. We think their health is in danger.
Hazards haunt nuclear waste
Almost 500 people gathered at Burlington last weekend to protest the construction of a new nuclear power generation station nearby.
The construction of such nuclear plants in the United States continues, but no one knows yet how to dispose of the dangerous waste the plants produce.
It just hasn't been that way.
The solution to the nuclear waste problem continues to be relegated to the future.
The assumption has been that by the time enough nuclear waste has accumulated to cause a safety problem, someone, sometimes, could come up with a way to get rid of the radioactive stuff.
THE SLUDGE IS the biggest problem. It has to be put into containers before it can be stored. No containers have been used that don't eventually corrode and leak.
The U.S. government produces the sludge as a result of nuclear weapons production. The 75 million tons of material have been stored in underground tanks. But accidents can happen. In 1973, 115,000 gallons leaked from government tanks in Richland, Ohio.
The 65 nuclear generating stations in the United States produce two kinds of atomic waste: spent uranium fuel rods and radioactive sludge created from spent uranium fuel rods are reprocessed.
Radioactive leaks will continue as will production of the unmanageable waste.
Estimates place the total amount of nuclear waste at 190,000 tons by the year 2000. Seventy-five more u.S. nuclear
generators are expected to be operating by then.
A recent report by the Energy Research and Development Administration predicted that as many as 23 nuclear plants are in use, down 10 years from now if more storage isn't found.
One storage possibility is to put it in underground geologic formations, such as salt mines, but no one knows whether that is safe. An earth tremor could rupture the cache.
NUCLEAR WASTE remains radioactive for thousands of years Packaging it and placing ground is a stop-gap solution.
Radiation seeps not only from storage sites but also from power plants. Seepage in either
Kevin Kious Editor
way poses a serious safety and health problem.
There is no agreed-upon safe level of exposure to radiation. Some scientists say that no level of exposure is safe. The U.S. government has attempted to set exposure standards for
plant workers and for people who live near the plants.
But the established standards have no effect because the government does not measure radiation emissions. The government standards are applied in the plant's interior, an apperent potential leakage. The leakage is determined before the plant is licensed.
THE GOVERNMENT then depends on the plants to report their own violations of the standards.
When environmentalists have requested a government check, the government has found
consistently higher levels than reported by the plants.
High emissions pose health risks for the nearby population. The states with the most nuclear plants—Washington, Connecticut, Tennessee, Rhode Island, New Jersey and South Carolina—are among the country's most rapidly increasing cancer rate.
The development of nuclear energy is thus causing unwarranted dangers to the people it was intended to benefit. No amount of needed energy could be converted can produce can offset the inherent danger to health that the plants also produce.
Harper calls editorial misleading
To the editor:
I feel that your editorial of June 22 entitled “A Comedy of Errors” was exactly that. In my experience working with the paper I don't believe that I have ever seen an editorial that was more inaccurate. I can only hope that in the future the newspaper will talk topics more thoroughly before it blinders into discussions that become the opinion of the Kansan.
I was particularly interested in the paragraph that stated, "Harper apparently does not recognize that he is at least part of the team of students in which he had ventured into Lucas' office, he would have known that construction was ready to begin." While it is true that I have never heard a story about me having on many occasions visited the Regents Conference Room in Strong Hall, the meeting rooms of Carruth-O'Leary and Robinson Hall, the conference rooms at the Sadler House and Fraser Hall for the numerous meetings throughout the past year and a half that have been held on the subject. I have always been told by them since the beginning of the project. Incidentally, a student newspaper might better have asked why Lucas has never seen me before. Since we are talking about a project to benefit the University
that is being entirely funded by student activity fees.
Another paragraph stated, "According to Lucas, Harper apparently did not know that a construction company had been appointed and was swaiting final approval from the state to begin work." On Friday, June 16, in one of my attempts to keep informed of the project, I discussed contract negotiations with both the chancellor and the executive vice chancellor; they both informed me that the contract would be within the next few days. Keep in mind that those conversations took place June 16. Your editorial, however, imprinted as public communication on my part that kept me from knowing the details of the contract award date.
Letters
The paragraph I find most objectionable is the one that says that I don't "appear to be interested enough in the experiment," and keep informed of the project." First, I feel the least that your editorial staff could do would be to research my involvement in this project, and such a nonsensical statement. While I do indeed have a responsibility to represent students, I believe the Kansan community should report facts. Clearly this hasn't been done in this instance.
Second, I believe my involvement and interest in this project can be verified by every member of the planning committee as well as the University administration and the Student Senate. Finally, our editorial writers didn't even check with any committee members prior to printing the editorial.
Finally, if I weren't truly concerned about the progress of the project, I wouldn't have personally been able to talk about the problems we have been having. I was hoping that perhaps the Kansan might have been able to spur on the progress of the project. But as a result, after your editorial, will be the exact opposite. With the overall tone and the accompanying lack of facts, this editorial in which I wrote is rather the best interests of students in the recreation project.
Mike Harper Student body president
10 to the editor
Last week's editorial (June
22) about student-funded im-
Delay blame is misplaced
gements in recreational facilities blamed the delay of more than a year in work on her streets primarily on Mike Harper, although he has only been in office for about one month. The money was allocated by the Student Senate in April 1977.
The editorial ignored any blame that might be directed toward University authority, and research been done, the Kansas would have learned that Max Lucas, director of facilities planning, promised in January that all of the work at 23rd and 24th floors was completed by April of this year. He made this promise without qualification al least three times in a meeting called toHarper grant leaders, including Harper grant myself, about the delays.
To the editor:
It should be noted that Lucas full-time job is supervision of facilities improvements on the campus where she should spend more time researching its once-a-week editorials and less time doing investigative pieces on campus thermostat settings.
El Dorado first year law student
NPOEEDG CEERMONDIN SALA GENTY BY MOTION
Deter Soviets in Persian Gulf
By THOMASH.MOORER N V Times Feature
A general erosion in our commitment to fundamental national security objectives has been brought about in part by the perception that the country between the Soviet Union and the United States for dominance in world affairs is over.
Although the United States has in recent years backed away from such competition, there is no evidence that the plan to attain dominance.
Many see detente as a Soviet willingness to retreat, but Moscow openly describes it simply as one more approach in its plan.
tacks, coupled with a firm commitment that any attack on our allies involves the United States.
WE MAINTAIN a military presence in the Western Pacific to keep Japan and South Korea aligned with us and to prevent the Soviets from coercing the Peo-
While the United States seems lacking in resolve, the Soviet Union remains committed to its national strategies, which include the following: avoidance of a major confrontation, or nuclear conflict, with the West until the outcome favors the Soviet Union. The threat posed by North Atlantic Treaty Organization-Warsaw Pact conflict; the creation of an environment in Third World countries conducive to Soviet orientation and alignment; exploitation of wars of liberation and "anticolonialism" against "capitalist" countries; development of the means to locate the United States in global communication; and the creation of an environment of debilitating competition among Western countries, fostering dissension among them.
- We deter a nuclear attack on our forces by threat of reprisal and by basing our forces and targeting them against the Soviet's nuclear and conventional forces so that the Soviets perceive no net advantage in an initial attack.
- We deter aggression against NATO by an overall military conventional and nuclear capability to contain such at-
- We deter an attack by the Soviets on our cities by the threat of reprisal attacks against theirs. Military forces in the form of the nuclear triad-sub-missiles and airplanes are maintained to underwrite this strategy.
IN RECENT YEARS, we have supported the following four national objectives:
intermittent deployment of two carrier forces to the Eastern African coastal region and Arabian Sea, conducting an expedition through the Persian Gulf on a random basis.
THE SOVIET UNION underwrites its objectives militarily and politically by doing the following: accelerating its development of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and ballistic missiles; maintaining a massive military force in Europe opposing NATO; developing naval forces for projection of power and acquisition of base rights in the Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean, and the Arabian seas, most recently in Angola, Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa; deploying a navy capable of threatening our access to sea lines of communication in a crisis; and creating an environment for securing resources in the West, particularly with Middle East oil.
IF WE ARE to counter these Soviet objectives, we must be visibly committed to our own. Objectives critical to our nation are important, and underwritten with explicit strategies.
- REVITALIZE THE bilateral security agreement of 1959 with Iran and ex-
ple's Republic of China into an alignment against us.
Recent events underscore what should be a fifth national objective equally critical to our national security, and a major component of a viable global strategy in the Middle East, creating an environment in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf and the Horn of Africa that could result in the denial of oil to the United States, N.A.I. and Japan and deterring the Soviets from acting against Iran or Saudi Arabia.
THERE IS A CONSENSUS that an uninterrupted flow of oil from the Persian Gulf is essential to the well-being of most Western countries. Such an interruption could be devastating effect during peaceetime, a devastating effect during wartime
Through such actions as those in Ethiopia and Afghanistan, the Soviets can create the perception that the United States is impotent to respond to threats and unreliable as an ally. In the presence of this environment, Saudi Arabia and Iran—long enjoyed by international relationship—will decide States—may be forced to decide that their national interests are best served by making substantial concessions to the Soviets.
In particular, I would urge that we do the following:
*Ensure that President Jimmy Carter is under no constraint that would prevent him from exercising his authority to counter Soviet initiatives promptly and with force.*
- Make arrangements with the governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia for the
plore the possibility of similar bilateral arrangements with Saudi Arabia.
- Explore with our allies-NATO and Japan-joint guarantees and military pacts that adequately reflect our common responsibility for maintaining stability in the region and for the security of the sea routes to oil-producing countries.
- Exempt Saud Arabia and Iran from quota restrictions on the transfer of military equipment, explicitly recognizing that they are as important to our national security as the other countries that enjoy this privilege.
- Formally arrange for the periodic conduct of joint Allied-Saudi-Iranian U.S. exercises involving all branches of the armed services—directed at possible external threats—in the Persian Gulf region.
STABILITY IN THE Persian Gulf is critical to the United States, NATO and Japan. Our security is threatened if one of those three power centers does not remain alert to threats that we that give a clear message about their aspirations. The Saudis and Iranians are very concerned; they cannot avoid questioning our commitment, our reliability and the wisdom of maintaining their alignment with the United States.
We must demonstrate our commitment by following an explicit political and military strategy. We must do this with a firm commitment soon with a fatal and unsolvable problem.
Thomas H. Moorer, a retired admiral, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from July 1770 to July 1774.