The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

MS. FARNSWORTH: Good evening and Happy Thanksgiving. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Jim Lehrer is off tonight. On the NewsHour this Thanksgiving, Margaret Warner runs a debate on student loans, Rod Minott reports from Seattle on the Boeing strike, Charlayne Hunter-Gault talks with people who've learned lasting lessons about race. Also, a report from Moscow about politics, Russian style, and a Richard Rodriguez Thanksgiving essay. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday.NEWS SUMMARY

MS. FARNSWORTH: Bosnian Serb Leader Radovan Karadzic accepted the Bosnian peace plan today according to Yugoslavia's state news agency. Karadzic accepted the peace plan after meeting with Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic in Belgrade. Milosevic initialed a peace settlement on behalf of the Bosnian Serbs Monday. Some local Bosnian Serb leaders accused President Milosevic of betraying their cause. Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic said yesterday on state television if the Bosnian Serbs don't honor the peace agreement, his soldiers could go back to war. Defense Secretary William Perry ate Thanksgiving dinner with American troops in Macedonia today. Earlier, he told reporters NATO troops in Bosnia won't hesitate to return fire immediately if attacked. Tomorrow, Perry visits the First Armored Division in Germany. Soldiers from that division could go to Bosnia to enforce the peace. At least four people were killed in a riot in Haiti today. Local radio reports said violence broke out after police shot at a bus driver and accidentally killed a child. The riots took place in Cite Soleil, on the outskirts of the capital city of Port-au-Prince. The new Israeli prime minister, Shimon Peres, assumed the additional job of Minister of Defense today. He was sworn in along with his new foreign minister, Ehud Barak. The two men posed for photographers after the ceremony. Barak is a former army chief and war veteran. He has assumed the foreign ministry post vacated by Peres. President Clinton and his family left a rainy Washington, D.C. this morning for Camp David, Maryland. That's where they will spend this Thanksgiving weekend. Mr. Clinton will put in some time working on the Bosnia speech he'll deliver to the nation Monday. On Capitol Hill, a community group served its 16th annual Thanksgiving meal to Washington's needy and homeless. They were among the thousands of volunteers across the country who dished up traditional holiday fare to the less fortunate. In New York, the 69th annual Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade floated into town. Kids of all ages bundled up and braved 36-degree weather for the show. About 2 million spectators lined the streets to see giant balloons, singers, and marching bands. Another 55 million are estimated to have watched on TV. That's all for the News Summary. Now it's on to student loans, the Boeing strike, reflections on race, politics Russian style, and a Thanksgiving essay from Richard Rodriguez. FOCUS - BUDGET MATTERS - STUDENT LOANS

MS. FARNSWORTH: The Thanksgiving holiday has produced a temporary lull in the fighting here in Washington. But Congressional Republicans are gearing up for a renewed struggle with the President next week over budget priorities. Tonight we look at student loans, an issue that will be high on the negotiating agenda. Margaret Warner recorded this debate yesterday.

MS. WARNER: The Republican-passed budget plan seeks to make a major change in the way federally-subsidized student loans are administered. We start with a report by Elizabeth Brackett of public station WTTW-Chicago on how the loan program currently works.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Northwestern University, a private institution in suburban Chicago. The cost for room, board, books, and tuition this year, $23,000, up 54 percent from 10 years ago.

JANAE BAKKEN, Northwestern Student: It was all resting on financial aid, whether I could go here, because there's just no way we could have covered it by ourselves.

MS. BRACKETT: Add rising tuition costs, subtract declining grant scholarships and family contributions, and that adds up to the need for more student loans. Rebecca Dixon, provost of university enrollment at Northwestern, says 45 percent of undergraduates here have loans.

REBECCA DIXON, Provost, Northwestern University: For most students, particularly those with high financial need, they are going to get not only grants from Northwestern, a work-study job, but they're going to have to borrow some money. So we're absolutely dependent upon loans.

MS. BRACKETT: Even at cheaper state schools, more and more students are borrowing money. Marsha Weiss heads up the University of Illinois at Chicago's student loan program which serves one out of every three undergraduates.

MARSHA WEISS, University of Illinois at Chicago: Right now, there are 50 percent of the aid that we give to our students, and that has been an increase. It has been slowly creeping up over the last ten, fifteen years. As the grant programs have diminished, the loan programs have filled the gap.

MS. BRACKETT: Federally-backed student loans make up the bulk of student financial aid packages. There are a variety of types, depending on financial need, repayment terms, and the source of the funds. Banks, backed by state guarantee agencies, provide the money for one category of loans. Students apply for them through their schools but pay the bank back directly. Needy students are eligible for Stafford loans, which the government pays interest on until six months after graduation. Students without financial need can get non-subsidized Stafford loans, meaning they have to pay the interest while still in school. And non-needy parents who want to borrow money can apply for a Plus loan, which requires payments on both principal and interest during the college years. Chicago banker Rich Koretz says lending to students makes good business sense.

RICK KORETZ, Banker: And we look at student lending as kind of community reinvestment at its, at its finest. It's our opportunity to get our foot in the door with an up-and-coming bank customer.

MS. BRACKETT: Last year, the federal government got a piece of that business with the direct student loan program started by President Clinton. Like the banks, the government funnels money through schools for needy students, non-needy students, and parents, and the loan is paid back directly to the government. Officials at the University of Illinois at Chicago said the new federal program had significantly cut loan processing time. And that's good news for students like Roy Matthew.

ROY MATTHEW, University of Illinois Student: This year I got my loan in about two weeks, two to three weeks, as opposed to, I think, four or five weeks the last time around.

MS. BRACKETT: And does that make that much difference, just that two weeks?

ROY MATTHEW: A great deal, a great deal of difference for a student who's wondering who's going to pay his rent.

MS. BRACKETT: But as happy as they are to get their loans, students also worry about paying them back. Janae Bakken will owe $17,000 when she graduates from Northwestern.

JANAE BAKKEN: I think it comes out to be about a hundred or two hundred a month for your loans, and that's only if you pay it in ten years. I really personally would like to pay it off as soon as possible to get rid of all that extra interest and just get it out of the way, and so I want to pay more, but I don't know how I'm going to, and you can't expect to make more than about $20,000, unless you're an engineer or an econ major. So I'm very concerned.

MS. WARNER: The Republicans' reconciliation budget bill would reduce the Department of Education's new direct loan program to no more than 10 percent of the total $25 million a year student loan business. Currently, the Education Department is providing about 40 percent of student loans nationwide. The proposed change is controversial, and lobbying has been intense. President Clinton opposes the measure and has said it's one of the reasons why he plans to veto the reconciliation bill. We debate the issue now with Congressman Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, a freshman member of the House, Economic, & Educational Opportunities Committee, and Sen. Paul Simon, Democrat of Illinois, a long-time advocate of the direct loan program. Welcome, gentlemen. Congressman Graham, you're one of many Republicans who wants to get the federal government out of the direct loan business. Why?

REP. LINDSEY GRAHAM, [R] South Carolina: Well, the whole effort of this Congress is to downsize the size and scope of the federal government. What you do with direct lending is you replace private capital with government-borrowed money, and you allow the Department of Education to manage that loan portfolio to become bankers. And that's the best opportunity I've seen in this new Congress for the great society to repeat itself again. To go to direct lending I think is a big mistake, because you're replacing, like I say, private capital with government-borrowed money, and you're allowing a bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., basically to become a bank and a banker. And that's a great opportunity for the Department of Education to grow and in the long-term, I think it is a very wasteful program and we'll lose more than we'll gain. The federal government doesn't need to be in the banking business.

MS. WARNER: All right. Sen. Simon, why are you such an advocate of the direct lending program? Why not let the banks handle it?

SEN. PAUL SIMON, [D] Illinois: Well, the banks would love to do it. And we heard a great speech that unfortunately is not too accurate of why we should do away with direct lending. It's very interesting, over 1300 colleges and universities now have direct lending, not a single one, including more than a dozen in South Carolina, want to go back to the old system. When he says we're increasing the risks for banks, the, the increase is from 98 percent now guaranteed by the federal government to 95 percent, and this is something--the banks make more money on student loans than they do on house mortgages, car loans, or any other loans other than their credit card loans.

MS. WARNER: Okay. But you just said that the universities and colleges seem to prefer the new direct lending program. Why?

SEN. SIMON: No question about it.

MS. WARNER: Why?

SEN. SIMON: It is much simpler. As you heard from the University of Illinois, they can process this without having to deal with hundreds of banks, plus the guarantee agencies, which is another middle man in this process that hasn't been mentioned. And that's government money. Lindsey talks about this as though this is not government money. This is government either way, except the new system requires one fourth as many government employees. I think we ought to be taking a look at the realities, and while the banks like it and these middle men guarantee agencies like it, I think we ought to say what helps students and whathelps taxpayers.

MS. WARNER: Let me ask you both a question just to clarify something. And Congressman Graham, you take a crack at this first. If, on the one hand, this is a business that all the banks want to be in, because they think they can make a profit--

REP. GRAHAM: Right.

MS. WARNER: --why when we're looking at the government's role, are we saying that it's costing the government money? In other words, why are you--do you Republicans believe you'll actually save in budget terms if you get out of the business?

REP. GRAHAM: My goodness, to go to direct lending where the federal government assumes all of the risk, has to borrow the money to lend it to begin with and allow the bureaucrats at the Department of Education to become bankers is not the way to go. The Congressional Budget Office has said in evaluating our program if we eliminated direct lending altogether, we'd save $1.2 billion over a seven-year period which shows you the bureaucracy that's going to be created to manage this huge loan portfolio that currently exists at the Department of Education. And if you want to allow the Department of Education to grow and to become a larger entity, then allow them to get into the banking business. That's not the purpose of this Congress. You do save money if you reduce the bureaucracy in Washington. We'd save $1.2 billion by eliminating direct lending--

MS. WARNER: All right. Sen. Simon.

REP. GRAHAM: --because of the bureaucratic maze that you create.

SEN. SIMON: It is very interesting, because what they did in setting up the budget resolution, they, in the words of the "Chicago Tribune," cooked the books so that direct lending would not look like it saves money for the taxpayer, and it would be a bonanza for the banks and the guarantee agencies. The reality is in seven different ways they say don't count this in calculating the difference between the old system and direct lending.

MS. WARNER: So you're saying--

SEN. SIMON: For example--

MS. WARNER: Go ahead.

SEN. SIMON: For example, under direct lending, the federal government pays interest on bonds, but collects money because it's revenue. These are not income tax-free bonds. While when the guarantee agencies do it, it's the other way around. That alone saves $1.3 billion for the federal government. There are six other ways that that is done.

MS. WARNER: So you're saying--

SEN. SIMON: So they have cooked the books, and the Congressional Budget Office says if you take the present law established in the bipartisan way, if you take the present law, the taxpayers pay $4.6 billion under direct lending.

MS. WARNER: So you're saying actually direct lending in the long- term is more advantageous financially for the government?

SEN. SIMON: No question about it. And let me just give you one other example, because Lindsey talks about the free enterprise system. Sen. David Durenberger, who is my co-sponsor in this program and a Republican from Minnesota, in talking to a group of bankers said very candidly, said this isn't free enterprise, this is a free lunch.

MS. WARNER: Let me ask Congressman Graham, what about that point that the guarantee program, the old program, isn't really free enterprise, because if these loans go bad, the federal government comes in and makes the banks almost whole?

REP. GRAHAM: Well, under direct lending there is--the federal government loses the entire loan, because there's no one to share the risk with. We've created an artificial market, because a high school student getting out of school doesn't have the assets to get a loan on their own, so we made a public policy commitment to allow them access to education. There's two ways you can do that. You can use private capital, where the government and the private sector share the risk, allow banks to make a profit, or you can center everything into the federal government, allow the federal government to borrow the money, lend it out, be managed by the Department of Education, assume all the risks. There are problems in the student loan guarantee program that are being fixed. When we sent our proposal to the Senate, we saved $5 billion by doubling the origination fee to banks to participate in the program, doubling the risk that they share now in a bad loan, we saved $5 billion. When we sent it to the Senate, it came back at $3.9 billion. We're going after the super good deal and trying to make it a fair deal, but direct lending takes all the risk out of the private sector, puts it all on the federal government, allows the Department of Education to become a bank, and replace private capital with government borrowed money. This is not the theme of the Congress.

MS. WARNER: All right. Let me just ask you--wait, let me just ask the Congressman the one point you already raised, Senator, which is--and the taped piece raised too--that most students and universities think the direct lending program by the Department of Education gives better service. It's more efficient. It works better.

REP. GRAHAM: My goal is not to please the loan officers at schools. They get their money quicker because they cut a check from Washington, D.C., much quicker. When you go through a bank, it takes some time to get the loan established, but we've got a system to collect that loan that is much more aggressive. There's risk being shared with the private sector. There is none in direct lending. I guarantee you, politicians would love to take about a $36 billion pot of money, hand it out like it's candy, pay it back when you can, rewrite the rules, and let some bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., chase the money. That is not a good system for the American taxpayer.

MS. WARNER: Okay. Senator--

REP. GRAHAM: I'm not concerned so much about making it efficient for schools. I want to make it efficient for the taxpayer, share the risk, and use private capital versus government-borrowed money.

SEN. SIMON: Well, let's take a look at what the schools, themselves, think, and lets take a look at what the students, how the students benefit. And then let's set up a program that is for students and schools and taxpayers. And if you use those criteria, direct lending is the way to go or what we--what we want to do is not say go 100 percent direct lending, as the administration originally requested, but say to the colleges and universities, you can have a choice. Now, what's wrong with that in a competitive situation? But instead, we have set up a system that is a bonanza for banks. Now, if you want to have a Banking Assistance Act, call it that, but don't, don't let it fly under the title of student assistance. That's what our friends in the Republican Party have done. They are trying to--and I shouldn't make it that categorically Republican, because the idea originally was by Congressman Tom Petrie of Wisconsin, a Republican, who did a great job in coming up with the idea.

MS. WARNER: All right. Gentlemen, we're almost out of time. Let me ask you about the political prospects. This is part of the reconciliation bill. The President is opposed to this cap. Sen. Simon, do you think this is a deal breaker for the President? Do you think he would continue to veto a reconciliation bill as long as it included this cap?

SEN. SIMON: Let me tell you, the President understands this one, and he is committed. He understands it is a classic confrontation of special interest over against the public interest. And this is one I don't think the President of the United States is going to back off on. He has been solid on this. He can be very proud. It's one of the major steps forward by his administration, and I don't think you're going to see Bill Clinton back off on this one.

MS. WARNER: All right. And Congressman, how important do you think this is to all of your Republican colleagues, when the horse trading really begins in the budget bill?

REP. GRAHAM: This is very important. This fits in with Bill Clinton's philosophy to allow the federal government to run the program completely, borrow the money, lend it out, let politicians write the payback scheme. Don't worry that we are 100 percent at risk on the direct lending. This is big government at its best. This is exactly what we're trying to get away from. Let's make it a better business deal for the 2/3 of the students that don't go to college. Let's rework the student loan guarantee program, but my goodness, let's don't create a bank at the Department of Education, let bureaucrats run it. Let's get tough on the bankers. And the Senate needs to help us because they--we saved $10.1 billion in our rescission reconciliation package. The Senate would only go with us $4.1 billion. So we need to get the Senate talking like Sen. Simon. Let's make it a better business deal for the taxpayer, but my goodness, don't center everything in Washington, D.C..

MS. WARNER: All right. Congressman, thank you, and Sen. Simon, I'm afraid we'll have to leave it there, but thank you both very much. FOCUS - BOEING ON STRIKE

MS. FARNSWORTH: The on again/off again strike at Boeing is on again. This week workers rejected the company's most recent contract offer, citing increased health care costs and cuts in union jobs. Rod Minott of public station KCTS in Seattle reports.

ROD MINOTT, KCTS-Seattle: Sherrie Williams says she never wanted to walk this picket line. But after seeing jobs of colleagues disappear over the past several years, the 39-year-old toolmaker says she decided to take a stand against more layoffs. She voted to strike.

SHERRIE WILLIAMS: I feel threatened, and I think if you asked anyone out here on the line, they'd tell you the same thing, yeah, their jobs aren't safe. None of 'em are.

MR. MINOTT: Thirty-two thousand members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Boeing's largest union, walked off their jobs in Washington, Oregon, and Kansas, on October 6th. This is the fifth time in Boeing's history, Machinists have hit the picket lines. The strike came after contract negotiations broke down over issues of wages, medical benefits, and job security. Boeing remains the world's largest maker of commercial jets, such as the new 777. Over the past several years, the company says it's been forced to slash thousands of blue and white collar jobs because of growing competition from other aircraft makers and falling demand for new jets. Since 1992, Boeing has seen orders of its planes drop nearly in half.

SPOKESMAN: We are competing on a global scale.

MR. MINOTT: Boeing President Phil Condit says to survive, the company needs to keep cutting its production costs.

PHIL CONDIT, President, Boeing: We are trying to look at how do we do our processes, how do we make ourselves more efficient, not trying to leave any rock unturned, so this isn't just how can we put pressure on labor; it is really trying to put pressure on ourselves overall to find the best way of making the company competitive.

STRIKER: The walker's power.

MR. MINOTT: But Machinists say the cuts have gone too far. Since 1989, job losses have shrunk the ranks of Boeing Machinists in Washington State by nearly half to 23,500 members. The remaining Machinists also are being asked to accept lower than demanded wage increases. They say they are particularly rankled by the changes that Boeing asked for and their medical benefits. For the first time, employees would have to pay higher deductibles and make higher contributions to the company's most popular medical plan.

STRIKER: Program that you have, and to attempt to destroy it overnight, giving your negotiating committee short notice in order to look at it is--I really think it's not proper. It's immoral. It's wrong. And by God, we ain't gonna let them get away with it!

MR. MINOTT: Boeing argues that such an increase is inevitable because its monthly costs to provide full medical coverage to each worker have doubled in the last five years.

PHIL CONDIT: There is a change to benefits package, but it's sort of in line with what we're all trying to do, which is to find ways of putting a cap on health care costs.

SHERRIE WILLIAMS: [holding daughter] Are you tired?

LITTLE GIRL: Are you tired Shalee?

SHERRIE WILLIAMS: I think Shalee's ready for a nap.

MR. MINOTT: Sherrie Williams, a single mother with two children, says the higher medical costs would be a hardship.

SHERRIE WILLIAMS: If I'm to pay another three to four thousand dollars a year for my family, I can't afford it. I pay $10,000 a year now for child care. I cannot afford to add, keep adding this on top.

MR. MINOTT: In a new contract Boeing offered this week after two days of marathon negotiations, the company offered a general wage increase of 3 percent in 1997 and to lower the monthly cost for insurance. A family now would have to pay $30, down from $45. Although the compromise was endorsed by the union leadership, the rank and file disagreed. Sherrie Williams and a majority of her fellow Machinists rejected the settlement.

SHERRIE WILLIAMS: I voted it down myself.

MR. MINOTT: The language on the picket line in Seattle after the contract was rejected suggests that perhaps what really killed the new contract offer was the issue of subcontracting, jobs that Boeing has been farming out to foreign and domestic aircraft parts suppliers.

VALERIE DAVIS: The American jobs are leaving this country, and they need to look at in the bigger picture than just a little job being subcontracted. Pretty soon a lot of people's jobs are going to be gone because of this.

MR. MINOTT: The unions had demanded a greater voice in okaying Boeing's subcontracting, including a chance to bid on some of that work. Prior to the final contract offer, Boeing had said it would have to contract out even more work to remain competitive. The plan would have meant that 52 percent of each Boeing jet would be made outside of the company, a move that Boeing said would save it $600 million. The company also insisted it needed to subcontract for political reasons. Sales to foreign countries, where 70 percent of Boeing's sales are made, often necessitate and offset a promise that those foreign nations will get some of the aircraft jobs generated. Those offsets were not considered in the new contract offer, but the company did propose to give the union serious consideration on othersubcontracting work; however, Boeing would not guarantee that the union would win the contract even if it had the lowest bid. The compromise also would have obligated Boeing to give 90 days advance notice that 50 or more jobs in the Seattle area were going to be eliminated because of subcontracting, but the union said this wasn't enough. In the end, the union membership just wasn't willing to believe that Boeing really needed to cut jobs and benefits. They say they were not willing to ignore the recent disclosure that five of Boeing's top executives stood to make millions of dollars in stock option bonuses for boosting the value of the company's stock.

MIKE LONEY: Sure I'll go back, because if the company wasn't making any money, we wouldn't want more. They are so we do. We'll be there till the last dog is hung.

MR. MINOTT: For its part, Boeing says its reaction was one of disappointment.

RUSS YOUNG, Boeing Spokesman: Just very, very disappointed, but we'll have to try to continue as best we can. Our doors are open, and there's work here for everyone who chooses to report to work.

MR. MINOTT: The union leadership says it is now reevaluating what to put into its contract proposal. No new talks are yet scheduled. FOCUS - REFLECTIONS ON RACE

MS. FARNSWORTH: And now a reunion of people who got educated about race in a way they never forgot. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has the story.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: It was a day of embraces--

WOMAN: Oh, this is wonderful!

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: --and of reminiscing.

WOMAN: My gosh, look at me. I was skinny.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: This is a reunion of a group of former students who had all taken a psychology class on race relations at North Florida University in the early 70's. When they all came together in Jacksonville, many of them had not seen one another for 20 years. Prof. Peter Kranz was also there. He taught the class called Human Conflict, Black and White for five years. What made these classes unique was that Kranz required each of the students to live with the family of another race for a week.

PETER KRANZ, Professor: I wanted students, both black and white, to really get to know each other as people. I was hoping for friendships and learning beyond just the usual classroom atmosphere.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Twenty years later, Kranz conducted interviews with the students and found that the class had had profound effects on their lives. He taught the class from 1972 to 1977, the decade that followed the Civil Rights Movement.

PETER KRANZ: Many of the students at that time had had little or no contact with those of the other race.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: At this reunion, students from various years were joined by some of the hosts' families, anxious to learn what had become of their former guests. Minor Chamblin had volunteered his home for the project, and he had this to say about the experience.

MINOR CHAMBLIN: By virtue of talking with and interacting with young men that came and stayed with us for a week, it gave me a better appreciation as to what it's like to grow up as a minority in our society. This guy, even though he was very, very intelligent, very articulate, very self-assured and confident, also on some instances just enabled me to see what it was like growing up in an environment where you knew that things were going to go against you, where sometimes the opportunities would not be there, and that was, of course, totally foreign to my experience.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: After the reunion, I sat down and talked with six of the former students about how the class had influenced them. Karen Johnson Akers took the class in 1975 and is now a potter. Ann Whitherspoon was in the class of '77. She is now a substance abuse and mental health counselor in Jacksonville. Karl Swed took the class in 1973. He's now an army recruiter and living nearby. Clifford Bartley was in the class in 1973. He is now a manager at Sea World. Cary Burns took the class in 1975, and he's now planning to run for political office. Harold Lee, who took the class in 1973, is now a private investigator. He says all of his contracts are with white-owned firms.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Thank you all for joining us. I'd like you to first start by telling me what your thoughts were when Prof. Kranz told you about the home visit.

CARY BURNS: I thought, "Oh, Lord, what have I gotten myself into." I thought this was going to be an easy class here, and when I got that first thought about the home visit, that really kind of scared me.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What was your biggest fear?

CARY BURNS: That I would do something wrong, I think, that I would offend somebody, or--you know, growing up in the South, I didn't--you know, I'd never really lived or, you know, been in real close contact with--on a personal level, like you would when you're living with somebody.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Harold, what about you, what was your biggest fear?

HAROLD LEE: The unknown. The only view of I've had of white families was what I saw on television, you know, "I Love Lucy" and shows like that, the "Dick Van Dyke Show," where the parents slept in separate bedrooms, and that seemed kind of strange to me. I just wanted to know, you know, was this how white Americans lived, you know, did the Mother come to the table, dinner table, dressed with her pearls, and did the father wear a coat and tie to lunch and dinner?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Anybody else?

KAREN JOHNSON AKERS: Jacksonville was very segregated at that time, and where I stayed was very close to Rebault High School, which at that point was predominantly black. When I was in high school, it was a white school, and so the whole racial mixture of this town, Rebault Scenic Drive, was, all of that area was all white when I was in high school. At this point it was all black, and so you were driving into areas that were not predominantly black, were all black, and that was a real problem for my family.

HAROLD LEE: That's something else we have to realize too. For a black male to be caught in a white neighborhood after dark in Jacksonville was not one of the most prestigious things that you could come up with.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Did that worry you? Did that work on your mind?

HAROLD LEE: Yes, it did, in terms of like when I would have classes, if I would get back late in the--you know--or at night, and or, you know, I would leave the part-time job I was working, it really, it really, you know, it bothered me to a degree, because I didn't want to be a mistake.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Tell me some of the perceptions that you had about the other race that got changed when you got to your--when you had your time with your other family?

CARY BURNS: All I had going in was the stereotypes that I learned growing up.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Like?

CARY BURNS: That black people were dirty, that they, that they smelled differently. I mean, these were things that, that you just heard. I mean, my parents didn't teach that, but it was things that you heard. You know, it's kind of like your friends--and growing up in Jacksonville, you got to remember at the time when I graduated from high school in '69, I mean, the KKK was still very active in this town at the time. I mean, I went to school with kids that were my age and, and they didn't get Boy Scout uniforms; they got robes.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: White ones?

CARY BURNS: White robes. That's right.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you remember a light going off in your head once you got into this home, saying, mmm, this is different?

CARY BURNS: I don't think it was like a mystical conversion that just happened, but through the course of the semester that we went through and everything, you know, I became cognizant of the real insidious nature of racism, how the little things like a racial joke were really hurtful and it was really, you know, and even to this day after that, I'll tell you one of the big things was the word "nigger." That for me--I mean, this is probably the tenth time it's ever come out of my mouth since that class twenty years ago, because it became such a dirty word to me.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Ann Whitherspoon, what about you?

ANN WHITHERSPOON: I think the perception of them in terms of how they perceived me was different. As I indicated earlier, when I went to church with them and they were surprised that I knew the hymns, they were surprised that I knew the anthems and the spirituals and I think they had a perception that because I am of an African-American race that I would not listen to the same type music or be exposed to the same type music in a church environment that they were, that I was a little bit more non-traditional.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: They expected you to be singing spirituals, and you could sing the anthem?

ANN WHITHERSPOON: My point is that they thought that I would just be jumping up, clapping, like, you know, some of our churches do. And there's nothing wrong with that, but I think that they were very surprised at my decorum in church and the fact that I knew the music.

HAROLD LEE: The only opinions that I had of whites and their homes are what I saw on television, as I said before, so, you know, in my house, the parents didn't sleep in separate beds. You know, they slept in the same bed. But once I got into the home, I saw it was totally different. The father cooked, you know, and cooked very well. As a matter of fact, he introduced me to lasagna, you know, something that I hadn't had before, I was introduced to, you know, before that time. So it changed for me. It made white families the same as black families, to me.

MR. LEHRER: Karl Swed, any perceptions that changed for you?

KARL SWED: I stayed at Cliff's house and I didn't--I didn't know he was a Seventh Day Adventist, okay, and strictly vegetarian, the whole family, and I had a chance to get involved in that, some vegeburgers. Remember that, Cliff?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What did you think black people ate? [everyone laughing]

KARL SWED: Well, all I heard was collard greens and fried chicken and pork and beans, okay, but I was really surprised. It just really enlightened me.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Didn't you--you had an experience at a college where you all were taken on a trip by your professor and you went to an all-black college.

HAROLD LEE: There were three black males, three white females, two white males and two black females, so the professor had us to pair off, and he wanted us to just go around the campus, you know, with all the different activities, the football game, and also wanted us to go into downtown Albany, Georgia, and ask, just try to ask something in a store, or try to talk to the people and see what their reaction was going to be to us. That was a trip. I mean, 1973, here I am, black, male, with a white female on my arm walking across this river, and I'm looking down, wondering how many of my people have been thrown off this bridge for looking at a white female, let alone walking with one.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You felt uncomfortable?

HAROLD LEE: That's putting it--that's putting it very mildly.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And then what happened with the white people when they saw you in town?

HAROLD LEE: Oh, we were downtown, and I think I went into a store with the, with the white girl with me, and we were asking the clerk, sales clerk, a white female, something. I can't remember what. And she told us we were in the wrong city. And so we kind of eased on out and hoped that no one bothered us on the way back to the campus, because we had to walk. See, we had no--the fan was at the college campus.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What was the impact of this experience on your life over time? I mean, did this forever change the way you looked at things?

CLIFFORD BARTLEY: We kind of fear those things that we don't understand, and I know even now, as I'm in a work environment, the class has helped me to be more on an equal footing when I'm dealing with white or black in a work type situation. I'm not as concerned about them getting an upper hand, or me getting an upper hand. I basically can treat them just like I am, feel comfortable in dealing with them, and work on the issues, as opposed to working on getting involved with color. Color basically is negated at that point.

ANN WHITHERSPOON: I've been in a couple of settings where I've had to function as the only minority in those settings, work settings primarily, and I think that this experience prepared me for that. I'm getting ready to relocate to Minnesota in a few weeks, where there are still few blacks in that area. And I think that, consequently, with my experiences, it makes me have more fortitude about walking into situations that I feel like I can function effectively.

KAREN JOHNSON AKERS: By the conversations in the class, the home visit, I came to understand how insidious racism was and is. It made me more verbal about feelings that I had always had. I came from a neighborhood that was--part of it was all white, part of it was all black. I grew up on this property, and there's a black community down the street. There's two black communities. And so we had all played together, grown up together, but when we went to school, we went to separate schools, and maybe that makes me young, naive, stupid, insensitive, something, along the way. I never asked, why do you all go to different schools, you know, but through the class, it allowed me more self-confidence in that I felt that my feelings had validity to them, that I had a right to say the jokes that we've talked about, that I can tell people that that's offensive to me. The word he used describing blacks is the second time that word has been used in my home. The last person that used that word was related to me, and I asked 'em to leave, and they haven't been back since.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You mean the word "nigger?"

KAREN JOHNSON AKERS: Uh-huh.

KARL SWED: I've learned to accept people as they are, Okay. We're all working for the same goals, to raise our children and make the American dream come true, and it's not just the whites. It's the blacks, too. And that's where I sit. That's the impact I've had from it, just deal with each other as individuals; we're all the same.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you think that today classes like the one you took twenty some years ago would be useful?

KAREN JOHNSON AKERS: Too many mindsets are alreadyin place, and I think that it has to be changed, and the earlier in elementary school, the better.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you all agree?

HAROLD LEE: It helped all of us. Professionally, yeah.

ANN WHITHERSPOON: I think that for me the stimulation in terms of the growth of becoming intricately connected to individuals, period, of different races is because I developed personal relationships, and they're maintained. It's not just about staying in somebody's house and being exposed, because in a week, you're not going to learn that much to begin with. You're gonna dispel just, you know, a minute part of a myth, but in terms of living and functioning with individuals that are part of your life, you grow constantly and you learn so much.

KARL SWED: I think what we did was fantastic, okay. And I think it should go on, even you said elementary school. And that's where it needs to start is with kids.

CLIFFORD BARTLEY: I don't think any one of us would have visited and stayed overnight in the opposite race's home outside of this class. We would not have on our own. But the class helped us to do that. And because of that experience, we've been enriched. We're more comfortable with our white brothers and sisters. We're more at ease, and we're able to deal with them on a personal level, not on a racial level.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But how do you see the racial situation today compared to when you were taking this class?

CARY BURNS: I see that intelligent, moderate people have moved to the center, but the extremes seemed to have moved farther out. I was telling Dr. Kranz when I brought him from the airport, related a story that just recently happened with me, because the- -Johnny Gammage was a friend of mine that got killed in Pittsburgh just recently. I worked with him in St. Pete, and Johnny was, you know, was a really neat guy and black, and he got killed up there by four policemen, driving through a white neighborhood. And I know this guy, and he wouldn't have done that. He wouldn't have caused them a problem. And when my friend called me to tell me about it, I said, "You know, God, I thought it was getting better, but it's not." And so that was real--that really brought it home to me, that there are still some really bad problems out there.

CLIFFORD BARTLEY: Legislation has helped in the outward perception, but legislation don't change the hurts of people. And the hearts of people change over time. We see a difference in generations here. We are probably twenty some odd years older than the time that we took the class, over twenty some odd years, and you can see the changes that have taken place, but--and it's helped, it helped in the overall environment, but I think what's happening is those individuals who are, who are die-hard segregationists, racists, racist or whatever--you see them polarizing, backing up into corners, and you're seeing those corners being entrenched which are very, very difficult to get at, and sometimes the only way you can get at it is lawsuits, whatever means that are possible that are legal to try and break down those barriers.

HAROLD LEE: Every day as a black man, I must be very cognizant of the fact that you are a black investigator, you may be in a million dollar neighborhood today interviewing people, and if you stop to check the address, someone's going to call the police. And they're not going to say that there's a black investigator in my neighborhood, there's going to say, there's this black, whatever you want to call me, individual in this neighborhood who shouldn't be there. And until we can sit down with each other not based on race but based on who you are and talk about any subject, be it golf, be it--be it education, be it anything, you know, we're still going to have problems.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, thank you all for joining us. FOCUS - POLITICS RUSSIAN STYLE

MS. FARNSWORTH: Now, a political story from Russia, where democracy is still in its infancy. There's an election on December 17th for members of the Russian parliament known as the Duma. Polls show the Russian Communist Party stands a good chance of being the big winner. But that prospect doesn't worry some people as much as the current collection of zany characters. Lawrence McDonnell of Independent Television News reports.

LAWRENCE McDONNELL, ITN: Collecting rare insects is a hobby few Russians can afford. Sergei Mavrodi, businessman and politician, is one of those Russians. Mr. Mavrodi is the president of MMM, investment fund or pyramid scheme, depending on who you believe, who persuaded millions of Russians to give him their savings. When MMM collapsed last year, thousands of people turned out to demand their money back. Deposits that jumped fifty-fold over six months disappeared overnight. Under pressure from millions of impoverished investors, the government sent in the commandos to raid MMM's offices and arrest the infamous financier. At this stage, Mr. Mavrodi decided to go into politics.

SERGEI MAVRODI, President, MMM: [speaking through interpreter] I had to get out of prison and getting elected was the only way out. Let's be clear about this: It's the only reason I became an MP. It's a normal route for any politician.

MR. McDONNELL: The Russian parliament has a poor reputation not helped by scenes like this. Far too many deputies, it's said, take advantage of their immunity from the law. Others are simply hooligans. Extreme Nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky is usually at the center of things. More orthodox politicians argue that at least parliament does keep trouble off the streets.

GRIGORY YAVLINSKY, Russian Parliament: If the parliament would act, we would have in the country the crazy forces like Zhirinovsky's forces which would fight on the streets, which would create some social oppressed, which would simply execute a crime in the streets. But just now we have a parliament. In the parliament, the generals, we have a possibility to express his energy in a much more civilized way than in the streets.

MR. McDONNELL: Meet Viachislav Marachev, the Bernard Manning of Russian politics. Here, dressed as the leader of the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo. Mr. Marachev, a member of Mr. Zhirinovsky's party, has more outfits than there are parliamentary sessions. MPs argue the Russian parliament must be given more power. Under the constitution, it's weak, and as long as it's weak, people won't care who they elect to it.

GRIGORY YAVLINSKY: If we would not give the parliament real responsibilities, we would never have equality of the parliament, because the people would say it's a circus, this is not a parliament. Why we have to elect serious people there, so this is the question of the chicken and the egg, what is going for him? First we have a serious parliament, and then we have responsibilities, but that's very difficult to do it, because serious people are not going to unserious parliament. From the other hand, whether we have to give responsibilities and then we would have a serious people in the parliament.

MR. McDONNELL: Though this place is often described as a mad house, it has been united on key issues. It condemned the war in Chechnya, and has recently passed key economic legislation, and in the end, if Russians aren't happy with their parliament, they've only got themselves to blame. This is an early generation of truly, popularly-elected deputies. With only a few weeks to go before the elections, Mr. Marachev is getting down to the serious business of campaigning in his St. Petersburg constituency. On the stage alongside other candidates, he performs well. He graduated from the Institute of Musical Comedy. His first job, he says, is to ban bald people from the elections. But not everyone appreciates his antics.

ELVIRA OSPIOVA, St. Petersburg University: It's not exactly our opinion of a deputy that--who could appear every day in the Duma in some kind of outrageous attire with silly slogans. His place is in a different circumstance maybe in the circus, in the culture center.

MR. MARACHEV: [speaking through interpreter] The costume's a way of emphasizing an actor's role, and an MP must be an actor. Before I turned up dressed like the leader of a Japanese cult, Parliament had wasted two weeks arguing whether to ban them or not. Once they saw my costume they banned all these religious groups from Russia.

MR. McDONNELL: To gather support there's nothing quite like a walk-about, still a novelty for politicians and voters alike. Before the reforms, there was only one party, and the elections were a formality. Today, most people are taken by this light- hearted character offering to personally improve their lives. But what's this? A dissenting voice. A difficult old man tells Mr. Marachev he can't rely on his vote. Suddenly, it all goes terribly wrong. Mr. Marachev, it turns out, is not in the mood for political discussion. The clown has lost his sense of humor. Mr. Marachev tries to save the day with a quick hand out, but the crowd isn't quite convinced. Will they really vote this man into office? Parliamentary democracy is still in its infancy. How quickly it improves depends on the characters ordinary Russians choose to elect. ESSAY - WORK ETHIC

MS. FARNSWORTH: Finally, this Thanksgiving night, essayist Richard Rodriguez, an editor at the "Pacific News Service," has some observations about the connection between Americans and their work.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: Thanksgiving again. The blur of football on TV, Macy's parade, the meal idealized by Norman Rockwell. Thanksgiving again. But this year an unease threatens the traditional point of the day. Most other countries of the world have national holidays like our 4th of July and Memorial Day, very few have a holiday like Thanksgiving. It is a deeply American Protestant celebration, shaped by notions of a benevolent God, predestination, blessed, bountiful nature, and, of course, work rewarded, much more than Labor Day, which is a celebration of the American union movement. Thanksgiving has been the harvest festival permitting Americans to remember the goodness of God and the value of work. What is the value of work in America? That is now the question. Recently, in Washington, the Labor Department reported that over the last 12 months the wages of American workers rose at the lowest rate ever. Medical benefits are also down. At the same that the U.S. Stock Market is booming, the wages of the American middle class are stagnant. Those early Protestants, the Pilgrims, who gave us Thanksgiving, planted on American soil a belief in the value of work. Generations since, Protestant or not, have come to assume what we loosely called our Protestant work ethic. Elsewhere in the world when strangers meet, they ask about one another's village or family name or tribe. There are cultures where the first question a stranger asks another is about children, how many children do you have? Here in the United States, the first question we ask is about work: What do you do? Work is central to our sense of identity. In recent years, Americans have been losing their jobs, or given early retirement, or forced to work harder or longer hours as their companies euphemistically downsize, or Americans have found them displaced by Third World peasants who will assemble a television set or will sew faster or more cheaply than we an manage. The world increasingly seems not to need our labor.

WOMAN: [talking to workers] I want to apologize for yesterday, for the delay that we had with the meeting, but the driver have accident, and they promise--

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: Here in San Francisco, within the last 10 years, the language of labor, I mean, literally the language of maids, restaurant workers, car washers, that language is suddenly Spanish, as was clear at the recent AFL-CIO convention, where a slate of young Turks took over the leadership, the future of the U.S. Labor Movement will depend on whether or not it can organize a new labor class, much of it Latino, much of it Democrat, both legal and undocumented, work, paint the wall, wash the car, faster, make the bed. Work, assemble the computer faster, work. At a time of widespread job uncertainty, politicians in Washington, politicians in Washington seem to sense a middle class impatience with the poor who are perceived to be unwilling to work. What is new these days, what the politicians seem not to sense, what I hear is a growing middle class anger at the rich, baseball salaries, or the multi-million dollar bonus for the CEO. It used to be the distinguishing mark of the American. We didn't envy the rich, as much as we yearn to be rich ourselves, someday. But someday is troubling in a new way. Futurists tell us that the world would require the work of fewer and fewer of us, or we will have to redefine, expound our sense of the meaning of work. Make the care of aged parents or the raising of children salaried work. We will also need to redefine the meaning of leisure. Already, I meet young people of slight expectation. They assume menial jobs as bike messengers or coffee house waitresses. They do not take their identity from their job. They take their identity from what they do after work, what they call their lifestyle. Perhaps we are destined to become ancient people again, rediscovering the earliest reason for holidays which were holy days. Perhaps we are moving toward a future when we will take our identity not from work, but from the deepest moments of leisure as when we gather together as family with friends, in the warmth of a room in late Autumn. I'm Richard Rodriguez. RECAP

MS. FARNSWORTH: Again, the major stories of this Thursday, Bosnian Serb Leader Radovan Karadzic reportedly accepted the peace plan for Bosnia after meeting with Serb Leader Slobodan Milosevic today in Belgrade. And as many as three people are said to have been killed in riots in Haiti. That's the NewsHour for this Thanksgiving. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Good night.