The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. The Reagan administration is stepping up its campaign to improve discipline in the schools. Critics say it is grossly distorting the problem. Tonight we air that debate. We also see a different approach to discipline -- a thriving junior ROTC, and we look at the latest in another controversial administration policy, rules for hospitals in Baby Doe cases. Jim Lehrer is off; Judy Woodruff is in Washington. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Also tonight we update events in the Middle East, where another French soldier was killed in Lebanon, and the head of USIA says he's sorry. A former EPA official receives her jail sentence, and the President's commission on hunger readies its report. And, finally, we know what kind of reception Jesse Jackson had in Syria. Tonight we find out how he did in New Hampshire over the weekend.

JESSE JACKSON, Democratic presidential candidate [call and response with New Hampshire children]: In my heart I can/Believe it/I know/I can achieve it/I am/somebody/Right on.

MacNEIL: Terrorists scored another hit on the multinational peacekeeping force in Beirut today. One French paratrooper was killed and two wounded in an attack with rocket grenades and machine guns on a guardpost outside French headquarters. The attack came a day after another with similar weapons which killed a U.S. Marine, Corporal Edward Gargano, of Quincy, Massachusetts. He was the 258th member of the U.S. contingent in the multinational force to be killed in Lebanon.

Today U.S. forces moved their helicopter landing site away from the beach where Corporal Gargano was killed to a strip of heavily guarded road between the British and French embassies. Meanwhile, six Lebanese civilians were killed in new fighting between Druse Moslem and Christian militiamen 20 miles south of Beirut. Talks to finalize the Gemayel plan to disengage the rival factions continued in Saudi Arabia, but no progress was reported.Syria was reported continuing to insist that Lebanon revoke the May 17th agreement with Israel on withdrawing troops. The Israeli government, putting down speculation reported last week, said it still insists that Syrian and Israeli troops be withdrawn simultaneously. Judy?

WOODRUFF: The head of the U.S. Information Agency said today he issued misinformation when it was first disclosed that he had taped telephone conversations. Charles Wick said he meant no harm and apologized for what he called his insensitivity in making the secret tapes. Wick also disclosed that until just before Christmas secretaries listened in on some of his conversations and made notes of what was said. When the taping incidents first came to light last month, Wick denied ever having taped anyone without first informing them he was doing so. That turned out to be wrong. Today Wick attributed his earlier response to misinformation, some of which, he said, came from his own anxiety and faulty recollection. Wick also revealed today that he's turned over to two congressional committees 81 transcripts and four taped cassettes.

Rita Lavelle today became the first Reagan administration official to be sentenced to serve time in prison. The former Environmental Protection Agency official was sentenced to six months and fined $10,000 for lying to Congress about her handling of the government's toxic waste cleanup program. Ms. Lavelle said that she intends to appeal. Justice Department lawyers have declared the case closed, but some members of Congress, conducting their own investigation, say Lavelle has been made a scapegoat by the Reagan administration.

Robin?

MacNEIL: The United States Supreme Court today considered two civil rights cases. On one, ignoring a plea from the Reagan administration Justice Department, the court refused to review a lower court ruling which permitted Detroit to use racial quotasto promote police officers. The Justice rejected an appeal by white police sergeants in Detroit who were passed over for promotion in favor of minorities. The Justice Department had urged the court to use Detroit's affirmative action program as a way of reviewing the whole question of public employer use of racial quotas.

In the other case the Court agreed to decide whether states may force the Jaycees to admit women as full members. Women's groups have argued that admission to such groups as the Jaycees and Kiwanis is necessary to make the kinds of business contacts essential in building a career. The Jaycees, with 300,000 members nationwide, admits women as associate, non-voting members. The court challenge arose when two Minnesota chapters admitted women and the national Jaycees tried to revoke their charters. A Supreme Court judgment in this case could conceivably affect other men-only groups.

Judy? Reagan and School Discipline

WOODRUFF: The President's task force on hunger said today that they have not been able to substantiate allegations of rampant hunger in America. The 13-member group, appointed four months ago by President Reagan, said that while they found evidence of hunger in the sense that some people don't have access to food, it is impossible to estimate the extent of the hunger.

Also today the administration stepped up its campaign for better discipline in the nation's schools.Officials called it a necessary first step to improving education in this country. At a briefing, Secretary of Education Terrel Bell made public a report on school discipline.At the same time it was formally presented to the President.

TERREL BELL, Secretary of Education: And I think that we've emphasized the student rights side of it to the detriment of teachers. Teachers need to have more support than they've had when they respond firmly and affirmatively to problems knowing that they're going to be able to be supported if they're sued. I think that teachers need to be supported in their actions as long as their actions are within bounds of propriety. I would say that corporal punishment ought to be a last resort matter.

WOODRUFF: The theme of combatting school violence and discipline problems is quickly becoming one of President Reagan's pet issues. He devoted his weekly radio address to the subject last Saturday when he announced that the Justice Department would file court briefs to help expand the rights of teachers to enforce school discipline. The report released today was the product of an infra-Cabinet task force headed by the deputy undersecretary of education, Gary Bauer. He is with us this evening in Washington.

Mr. Bauer, what did your task force find? Just how widespread is the problem of school discipline?

GARY BAUER: Well, we found there were two problems. One was a problem of violence and crime -- a headline-type of problem -- that was particularly prevalent in the urban areas of our country, and also a problem of unruly classrooms -- basically a discipline problem that interfered with the search for academic excellence. That problem is more pervasive and reaches into all communities around the country.

WOODRUFF: How serious would you say this is?

Sec. BAUER: Well, we think it's a major problem. It's cited by teachers as the number-one reason, ahead of salaries, that they are inclined to seek other careers. It's on the top of the list of parents' concerns; it has been for over 10 years in polls that have been taken on the issue, and we think it's a major impediment to reaching academic excellence.

WOODRUFF: Well, the policy of this administration, as you know, has been that education is primarily something for the state and local governments to worry about. Why do you think this is a -- there's a role for the federal government here?

Sec. BAUER: Well, we haven't forgotten our commitment to federalism, and we do believe it basically is a state and local problem. However, we think the President, by highlighting the issue, can become an ally of parents and local officials who want to do something about it, and we also want to make sure that the federal government is not doing anything to make this problem worse on the state and local level, and we think in some cases we inadvertently over the years have done so.

WOODRUFF: Well, you know, you have said yourself -- you've been quoted as saying that the administration feels that it can use this issue to improve its standing with minority voters and with teachers. Isn't this really a political issue that the administration sort of latched onto?

Sec. BAUER: Well, I think in an election year every issue is a political issue, but you're right to say that we consider it an issue that's important to minorities. It's basically minority children in our urban schools who are having their education interrupted, and we want to make sure the nation's attention focuses on the rights of those students to an atmosphere in the classroom that's conducive to academic excellence.

WOODRUFF: What exactly are you saying that teachers should be permitted to do -- principals and administrators?

Sec. BAUER: Well, we're not deciding in Washington what is appropriate and inappropriate conduct.What we are saying is that the courts shouldn't be second-guessing the teachers, and they shouldn't be putting teachers and school administrators up for possible financial damages if they misstep on the state and local level. We want teachers, the school administrators to have the same type of rights they had 10 or 15 years ago to deal with school discipline problems.

WOODRUFF: Well, what about the rights of the students?

Sec. BAUER: The rights of the students are important, but we think the problem has been that the courts have focused on the rights of the disrupting students. We want the courts to focus on the rights of the other 25 children in the classroom -- their right to a good education. And, again, those are basically minority children.

WOODRUFF: How exactly now is the administration going to proceed on this issue? What is the next step for the administration?

Sec. BAUER: Well, we're going to do several things. One of them is that the President has directed the Justice Department to look for cases around the country that we could file briefs in to increase the rights of teachers and school administrators. In addition, the Department of Education will be conducting some studies on how schools have effectively dealt with the issue, and we'll be disseminating that information to schools around the country. Also there will be a safe school center in the Justice Department that will publish pamphlets and resource material to help school principals and teachers deal with the issue.

WOODRUFF: All right, thank you, Mr. Bauer.

Sec. BAUER: Thank you.

WOODRUFF: Robin?

MacNEIL: Not everyone agrees with the Reagan administration's big new emphasis on violence and discipline in the schools. One who disagrees is sociologist Amitai Etzioni from George Washington University in Washington. He's the author of the recent book, An Immodest Agenda. Dr. Etzioni, why do you disagree with this approach?

AMITAI ETZIONI: Well, first of all, I think it's very, very important that we get the elementary facts straight. I happen to have examined this same study which is being so often cited these days, as I was preparing my book, and a study which is called "Violent Schools, Safe Schools" reports, and I quote, that "violence is a serious problem in 8% of the schools" -- one out of 12. And I think reporters and editors and policymakers and everybody who really is concerned about this, I urge you to read the study itself rather than what has been made out of it by somebody. These figures are simply in error. It's not millions of cases; it's not a common issue in schools. It's the exception rather than the rule. Ninety-two percent of our schools do not have violence as a serious problem. And therefore it could not be -- violence could not be at the heart of the matter because, by and large, our schools are in difficulties, and violence is a problem, serous problem, of a very small number of schools.

MacNEIL: But Mr. Bauer just said that while violence is confined, perhaps, to many ghetto schools, that schools in all communities across the country have unruly classrooms, discipline problems that are interferring with, as he put it, the search for excellence in education.

Dr. ETZIONI: Okay, but it's very important, first of all, to separate these issues because of this question of courtrooms and Department of Justice and police departments -- they have been mentioned elsewhere -- are really dealing with the small 8% business. Now, let's talk --

MacNEIL: Are you saying that courtrooms and police and giving the teachers more power won't have anything to do with unruly students?

Dr. ETZIONI: Well, okay, let's talk about the issue of what's the real issue. The real issue is the inner motivation and makeup of the students, which is first of all a question of the home and, second, the general education, because what our studies show very clearly -- a student, in order to be able to learn, needs a motivation and a capacity to discipline the person itself. It means if you impose order it works as long as you patrol the corridors, as long as you issue penalties. If you want a student really to grow up to be a productive member of society, he has to internalize that discipline. The voice has to come from inside, and this doesn't happen by snapping the whip. That happens by creating experience in schools which are meaningful. The best predictor, all studies show, of a student who can learn is a student who does his homework because he believes the homework has been fairly assigned and is fairly evaluated. That is self-discipline, not imposed discipline.

MacNEIL: Well, what will be the effect, in your view, of this Reagan administration emphasis? You just heard Mr. Bauer say that by example they were going to back up the teachers in imposing discipline in the classroom and so on. What will be the effect of this campaign?

Dr. ETZIONI: Well, I don't see how the Department of Justice can help in the first place except, again, in the minority of the situations. What worries me, that they deflect attention from the real issue. The real issues are psychological, are motivational, are a better relationship between students and teachers and not, how are we going to establish law and order. In most schools, which they have law and order in the first place. The issue is to understand what this is all about. The question is that we had a generation of people who believe that if you leave the students to themselves they will turn like sunflowers to the sun; they will learn on their own. And we discovered that we need more structure, but not structure of penalties, of suspending people left and right, of sending policemen after kids. What we need is educators who can motivate the children to want to learn.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Mr. Bauer, what about Dr. Etzioni's first point that the discipline and the problem of violence really only exists in a very small proportion of schools? He said 8%, and he was citing this report.

Sec. BAUER: Well, I think what he said was that the violence problem is a problem in only 8% of the schools and we would agree with that. That is a limited problem, basically in our urban areas. But the other problem of discipline, of unruly classrooms, is cited by many more teachers as being a serious problem. In California on average teachers indicated they were spending 30 to 70 percent of their time on that type of a discipline problem of just unruly classrooms. I don't think we have any disagreement, and the two issues do need to be kept separate.

Dr. ETZIONI: All right, let's be a little concrete. What does it mean when a student is unruly? He speaks when he's supposed to be quiet. He throws a paper airplane at somebody.

WOODRUFF: Well, what do you mean by unruly? Maybe we should clear that up.

Sec. BAUER: Well, the term "unruly" was a term used by the study out in California where, depending on the definition that teachers would give it, it's behavior that made it difficult for the teacher to follow the class lesson she or he had prepared for the day.

Dr. ETZIONI: But that means the students were not motivated to learn. They misbehave.But the question is, how do you get at the roots of that? That's the issue.

WOODRUFF: All right, then that's the question we put back to you, Mr. Bauer. You heard what he's saying, that it's an internal -- it's something we have to internalize with the students; it's not something you can impose from the outside.

Sec. BAUER: We would never argue that the problem is a problem that can only be solved by outside action, and certainly many, many things have gone into the discipline problem we have in our schools, including developments in the society at large. But we don't want to underestimate what the President of the United States can do by addressing this problem in the days ahead. We think already he's beginning to stir a national debate over the issue, just as we have over the last year on academic excellence. We think it can't be anything but a positive development for American schools.

WOODRUFF: Dr. Etzioni?

Dr. ETZIONI: Ivery much agree the President has the power to flag attention to issues or to misdirect attention. And I very much hope that in these next days he'll stop talking about the violence and talk about how to develop character, which is very much part of his agenda, too. How to help young people to make up for what they no longer get at home very often because often both parents are at work, that they need to strengthen their psychic makeup. Let me just give one quick example. When we say the kids today cannot write, what does it take to be able to write? It's not a question of IQ. It is there are six, seven rules. A sentence has a noun; a sentence has a period, and such. You have to memorize those rules and make yourself follow those, rather than gush on the paper. That requires self discipline. I could show the same for math. By and large when we say that kids don't learn, that's what we talk about.

WOODRUFF: How does what you are talking about, Mr. Bauer, address this question of motivation on the part of the students, students who have never, perhaps, known much in the way of motivation at home?

Sec. BAUER: Well, that's very difficult for Washington to supply an answer to.I don't think we can hand out motivation from Washington. We can direct attention to the problem. We can try to encourage parents and teachers to address the problem. And, interestingly enough, the President has spoken many times on the whole issue of character education and his commitment to that, and I think we will be hearing a lot from him in the months ahead on the need to be developing character in the nation's schools.

WOODRUFF: But I guess what puzzles me is we're talking about something that needs to take place on a very personal level, and you're talking about something the President can go around and make speeches about.

Dr. ETZIONI: Well, he can make speeches --

WOODRUFF: And I don't quite see how that --

Dr. ETZIONI: -- of value issues. That's welcome. It's just the cause of unruly is authoritarian and negative. Let me give one quick example of what we need. We need homeroom teachers who spend more time with the kids. We, since Sputnik, shuffle the kids a lot. We keep moving them around. If the homeroom teacher would teach, let's say, two subjects, history and English --

WOODRUFF: That's the teacher they see in the morning --

Dr. ETZIONI: Right, who is in charge of discipline. But instead of being a disciplinarian who punishes, the same teacher would also be in charge of educating for values, for instance, by teaching history. Every homeroom teacher would also teach history. Then we would hopefully get the education happening that the teacher would relate more to the kids and develop a positive relationship to them. What worries me about this unruly business, it sounds so punitive, and what we need is order and then positive inducement.

WOODRUFF: Isn't there a large punitive connotation to what you're talking about?

Sec. BAUER: No, I don't think so. Again, we want to make sure that Washington's not making the discipline problem worse on the state and local level. We trust local officials and teachers and principals to be able to deal with the situations that they find in the schools. We want to encourage them and let them know that the President understands the problems they're facing, and I think down the road you'll hear a lot more from the President on the larger question of character and what we can do in our society to create the kind of students that don't need this type of activity in the classrooms.

WOODRUFF: How do you measure success on something like this?

Sec. BAUER: It's very difficult to measure, but I found it interesting over the last year, when the President talked about academic excellence and there was a great deal of concern about how we would show progress in that area. We received a report in the last week that 45 states have now moved to make curriculum stronger, to make graduation programs more difficult, etc. We think there is progress on the state and local level, and we think the same thing will happen with this issue in the year ahead.

WOODRUFF: Dr. Etzioni, how far do you think what the administration is talking about doing goes towards solving the greater problem of deteriorating education in this country?

Dr. ETZIONI: Well, to the degree that the President will change his tune, he may help, with his move to talk about character as we've been promised tonight. That has yet to happen. But basically it's not a Washington issue, I agree. It's something for parents, educators, local communities to work out, and it will not be worked out through the Department of Justice, through police departments.It will have to happen in parents and teachers becoming more committed, more motivated to see to it that the students know why they are there and find their assignments meaningful. There's 50%, roughly, unemployment in the ghetto. Why would you study?

WOODRUFF: All right, thank you.

Sec. BAUER: Judy, I would just like to add that the President has already addressed the character issue and will do so more in the future.

WOODRUFF: All right, thank you both, Mr. Bauer, Dr. Etzioni. Robin?

MacNEIL: As a followup to that discussion we have a different look at the question of discipline in school. This year the Defense Department is spending about $28 million on junior ROTC, or Reserve Officer Training Corps classes. The program brings the military directly into the classrooms of more than 800 schools and involves some 113,000 students. Marty Goldensohn of station WNET in Newark reports on one program and how it's affected disipline at the high school in Union Township, New Jersey.

MARTY GOLDENSOHN, WNET [voice-over]: Friday drill practice in the Union High School cafeteria. Two years ago, just 55 students signed up as cadets. Now it's 150. Five days a week ninth through twelfth graders learn what the military is all about from teachers whose salaries come from two sources -- the school district and the Department of Defense. Both the military and the school administration are pleased because the program seems to be solving problems.

Sgt. ROY BRECKENRIDGE, ROTC administrator: probably the most valuable thing is the discipline that they're picking up through the classes, through the laboratory programs, just their personal discipline.

GOLDENSOHN: You have kids who have been discipline problems who've come into junior ROTC and who have shaped up.

Sgt. BRECKENRIDGE: This school year alone we have at least five individuals who were probably not even going to complete school, and now are not only going to complete school, but grades are improving, attendance is improving. We can't lay this all or contribute it all to the ROTC program, but as a major factor it probably did contribute.

GOLDENSOHN [voice-over]: In Lt. Col. Henry Touhey's course the subject is military science, but the lesson involves respect for authority.

Lt. Col. HENRY TOUHEY, ROTC instructor: Let's kind of keep up with our courtesy, huh? It means a lot. Your other classes, when you're out on the job. How many are working right now? Quite a few of you. The fastest way to turn somebody off is to say yeah, no, things like that.

GOLDENSOHN [voice-over]: Cadet Angela Mobley has taken Col. Toughey's advice to heart.

ANGELA MOBLEY, ROTC cadet: How have I changed? Well. I feel a lot better about myself since I do have a lot more discipline, because I do see now how it really wasn't helping me, like he said, always having the last word, because I wasn't getting nowhere. But now, since I have a little discipline, a little more discipline, things are working out better for me.

Lt. Col. TOUHEY: Manuel Santiago, do you like this class?

MANUEL SANTIAGO, ROTC cadet: Yes, sir. It's my favorite class in school.

Lt. Col. TOUHEY: Why?

Cadet SANTIAGO: Well, out of all the subjects that we have besides ROTC, this is the only real class that we have that instills any sense of discipline in you. We covera wide variety of subjects so it's never boring.Like, other classes will cover the same subject over and over, and ROTC ranges from discipline to world affairs to everything. So it's never boring.

GOLDENSOHN [voice-over]: It's never boring because for these students the teachers have credibility.

Sgt. BRECKENRIDGE: How many of you saw the movie [that] was out a little while back, I think, on TV, "The Battle of the Bulge"?

GOLDENSOHN [voice-over]: Sgt. Breckenridge is a Vietnam veteran with extensive combat experience.

Sgt. BRECKENRIDGE: If we're going to attack the enemy we fire a whole bunch of artillery shells out there to make them keep their heads down, all right? Yes, we want to destroy as many of them as we can in the bombardment, but we want to keep their heads down so we can move, all right? If they've got their heads down, they can't shoot at us. So we throw a whole bunch of artillery out in front of us, okay? Okay. Now, this is the symbol for a nuclear burst, right? When you plot this on a map you would also plot an arrow, and you would shade in the bottom portion of the cone to indicate that it was a weapon which produced heavy radioactive fallout, okay? Now, if it was a neutron bomb, okay? which doesn't produce radiation that's lasting, right? then it'd just be open, okay? It's just an atomic weapon.

[scenes of physical workouts]

GOLDENSOHN [voice-over]: If JROTC has one outstanding success story at Union High, it is Keith Peace. He was a troublemaker. Now he is a football star that the colleges are wooing. He says it was JROTC that changed him.

KEITH PEACE, ROTC cadet: To me it's not playing a game. It's like when you put garbage in you get garbage out, and sometimes you put garbage in and you're getting something good out. And I was garbage and I turned it around, and now I feel good about myself. And before, you know, I always had problems, always had OD -- office detention. I have been suspended 10 times. And I haven't got suspended yet, not no more.

Sgt. BRECKENRIDGE: He has changed drastically. Within the past year, year and a half, Keith is not the same person that he was before.

GOLDENSOHN: Does your guidance department, your guidance counselors, do they channel people into this -- troublemakers, for example?

WILLIAM HAZELTON, vice principal: No, we don't channel any of our students anywhere. We offer them the opportunities. It's in our curriculum catalogue, and we do -- if we do have a student who might have a discipline problem, we let them become aware that this is available, that discipline is pretty much the crux of the entire program. We let them and their parents make the choice.

GOLDENSOHN: How do the other students look at you? Do they laugh at you walking around in high school with a uniform, or do they show you some extra respect?

Cadet SANTIAGO: Well, that all depends on the type of person. You have some people that give you more respect. They realize what you stand for and what you belivev in. And then you have other students who are like clowns, who laugh at you in the uniform, and try to make a mockery out of you in front of the whole school. But regardless of what other students thought, it wouldn't influence my part in the program at all.

Lt. Col. TOUHEY: After you're here for two or three years and you start out with someone, a sophomore like a few of the individuals you talked to, that then were kind of between the devil and the deep blue sea when they were sophomores and now here they are seniors and are on the straight and narrow path and they know what they want, well, then you feel like you've accomplished something.

GOLDENSOHN [voice-over]: Besides helping to put the kids on the straight and narrow, the military has accomplished another purpose with its presence at Union High. They have acquainted the kids with a military option. Cadets aren't recruited, but there are inducements to join up. A JROTC cadet who does enlist enters the army at higher rank with higher pay.

[interviewing] In a sense high school is helping the military. Is that an appropriate thing for a high school to be doing?

Mr. HAZELTON: Well, I'll give you my personal opinion on that. I see certainly there's a certain correlation -- there has to be a correlation between the school, citizenship, loyalty to country, etc. So what helps the country -- and if we can continue to support that -- obviously, it has to be one of our contributions. No problem with my mind at all with that.

ROTC CADETS: Discipline, determination, motivation, graduation. Drive on, Sergeant Major, drive on!

Sgt. MAJOR: Who's the best?

CADETS: We are!

Sgt. MAJOR: Who?

CADETS: We are!

Sgt. MAJOR: Who?

CADETS: We are!

MacNEIL: On the money markets of Europe today the American dollar went up sharply, sending the British pound to less than $1.40 for the first time ever. At the same time the price of gold fell to just over $364 an ounce on the London gold market for the first time since August, 1982. Traders said the pound was hit especially hard because of concern that Britain might reduce the price of its North Sea oil. But the dollar was also strong in West Germany and France. Only the Japanese yen withstood the rising price of the dollar.

On the New York Stock Exchange the price of Getty Oil Company stock went up more than $14 a share, closing at $118 1/2. Over the weekend, Texaco announced an agreement to buy all of Getty's stock at $125 a share in the biggest takeover deal in American history. It'll cost Texaco nearly $10 billion.

We'll be back in a moment.

[Video postcard -- Swinomish Slough, Washington]

MacNEIL: The report by the Kissinger commission on Central America has been making news well before it's to be published. Leaked passages indicate that the bypartisan commission will endorse the Reagan administration's contention that communism must be stopped in Central America. The commission is also reported ready to insist that future military aid to El Salvador be conditional on human rights performance. Congress had made a similar insistence, but President Reagan recently vetoed it. Asked what he would do if the Kissinger commission made the same insistence, White House spokesman Larry Speakes said today the President would be inclined to reject it. The commission report is due on Wednesday, and we'll be dealing with it fully when it's made public.

In a related matter the Associated Press reported today that the Reagan administration plans to seek an additional $140 million in military aid to El Salvador this year.

Judy?

WOODRUFF: The government warned today that space heaters are causing an increasing number of fires. Space heaters may be either wood stoves or heaters that use electricity, kerosene or gas. The Consumer Products Safety Commission said the number of heating equipment fires had risen by more than 20% since 1978 as consumers installed more space heaters to reduce their fuel bills. Commission Chairman Nancy Steorts said that while space heaters are generally safe, too many accidents are happening because consumers are using them incorrectly. The commission said 217,000 fires in 1982 involved the use of home heating equipment. Last year woodstoves alone caused 140,000 fires.

One of the big stories of last fall returned to the news today. In October the Reagan administration became involved in a question of medical ethics -- whether parents and a Long Island hospital had the right to deny all possible forms of treatment to their incurably ill infant, known in the headlines as Baby Doe. Today administration officials called for the creation of a hospital ethics committee to help deal with the problems raised in that case. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has more. Charlayne? Baby Doe Rules

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Today's announcement represented both a retreat by the government and a compromise. Initially the administration had proposed the so-called Baby Doe rule which made the federal government the watchdog over life-and-death decisions involving infants. That earlier rule required federally-funded hospitals to prominently post a toll-free number to encourage the reporting of cases where life-saving treatment was being denied. But the rule was vigorously opposed by many doctors and others, and last April a federal judge threw it out on a technicality, sending the government back to the drawing board.Today, after receiving more than 16,000 public comments on the issue, Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler and Surgeon General Everett Koop held a news conference. The surgeon general spelled out the compromise on the rules.

Dr. C. EVERETT KOOP, Surgeon General: First, encourage the establishment of voluntary infant care review committees with at least three functions. One, recommending institutional policy concerning the withholding or withdrawal of medical treatment to infants; two, providing advice in specific cases where such decisions on withholding or withdrawing treatment are being considered; and, finally, reviewing retrospectively on a regular basis infant medical records in situations where life sustaining treatment has been withheld or withdrawn. The rules require the posting in hospitals of an informational notice regarding the legal rights of handicapped infants. The notice requirements have been revised to permit hospitals to highlight their own policies and review procedures in addition to federal law. Specific points that are made include these: nourishment or medically beneficial treatment not be withheld from a handicapped infant solely on the basis of present or anticipated physical or mental impairment; reasonable medical judgments are not interfered with; futile treatments or measures that merely prolong the act of dying are not required. It is our sincere hope that the issuance of these rules, which become effective in 30 days, will end the controversy which has surrounded their development.

HUNTER-GAULT: Dr. Koop said the new rule will protect as many as 1,200 potential Baby Does born each year with life-threatening birth defects. Robin?

MacNEIL: The 25,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics today praised the announcement, particularly the endorsement of hospital ethics committees to oversee decisions to withhold treatment. Up until now such committees have been rare. One man who has been advocating them for some time is Dr. Alan Fleischman. He is a specialist in newborn care at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, in New York. Dr. Fleischman, how do you feel about this new rule? Is it an improvement, in your view?

ALAN FLEISCHMAN: Well, I think I'm very pleased. It's a tremendous improvement, and I think it will help many, many babies and their families.

MacNEIL: Why is it a tremendous improvement?

Dr. FLEISCHMAN: Well, first of all, it will be mandatory for babies' care to be reviewed by these committees, unlike the hotline, which was really quite sporadic or haphazard. Secondly, it will be local. It will not cause the families to be in the public domain. It will allow them to quietly discuss these issues with physicians, and yet it will allow for review of these very important decisions.

MacNEIL: I see. Will committees be able to make such decisions in time? Don't some of these life-and-death decisions have to be made very quickly?

Dr. FLEISCHMAN: Well, I think some of these decisions, actually, no committee, no person could make quick enough except for the physician right there, and those decisions will be reviewed retrospectively and hopefully give some plan for the future. Other decisions such

MacNEIL: With an element of criticism of the doctor for something he did or didn't do?

Dr. FLEISCHMAN: Well, just as in hospital committees now, committees review surgical pathology, committees review care. Quality control committees review the care of physicians all the time and make comments to enhance the care of the next patient.

MacNEIL: Would these committees include people from the community outside the medical profession?

Dr. FLEISCHMAN: I think they must. I think they must include people from the community in order to open up these issues to public scrutiny, to get the community's moral input.

MacNEIL: The case that's become notorious recently, of the Long Island couple who wanted to deny life-saving operation -- or life-extending operation to their spina bifida baby, the courts have upheld, and New York State has upheld, that it was the right of the parents to make that decision. Now, are these committees going to overrule parents or go against their wishes?

Dr. FLEISCHMAN: No, I think what these committees will do is to decide whether the cases are in an ambiguous area, of whether we really know what is in the best interest of the infant. There are many cases in which we don't know whether treatment or nontreatment is truly in the best interest. In those cases we believe the committee ought to uphold the families' rights to decide.

MacNEIL: But it isn't strictly objective, is it? I mean, we've had an argument on this program over the Baby Jane Doe case and the spina bifida cases with one doctor and one center arguing that you should intervene in almost every case and you produce almost normal people when they grow up, and another doctor in another part of the country arguing that only in about 50% of the cases was it worth intervening in terms of quality in life. It's not just objective, is it? There's a lot of politics involved --

Dr. FLEISCHMAN: I don't know if politics is the right word, but I don't think that medicine --

MacNEIL: Well, religious or ethical attitudes involved.

Dr. FLEISCHMAN: There are some, I think, but really when these committees, as Dr. Koop suggested, will sit down to develop policies and procedures, I think they'll find there are three types of cases: those in which treatment is absolutely mandatory in the best interests of the infant; those in which treatment is totally futile and not necessary; and those in which there really is ambiguity, and that's the time when I think the committee will support the parents' rights to decide, in most cases.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: The administration's compromise is not sitting well with everyone. Among those who oppose it is Gary Curran, director of government relations for the American Life Lobby, a right-to-life group that favors the original policy of having the federal government act as watchdog. Mr. Curran, what's wrong with the administration's compromise, in your view?

GARY CURRAN: Well, they have accepted these institutional review boards, which are part of the problem, in many cases, and not part of the solution. They are sometimes irreverently known as "God squads" and they cause as many problems as they solve. There's a recent study in the American Academy of Pediatrics journal about a God squad in Oklahoma City where they initially decided on spina bifida children not to treat almost 50% of them. Of those, 34% died. That is 126% higher death rate than Dr. David McClone has. He runs the largest spina bifida clinic in Chicago, and his policy is to vigorously treat virtually every patient he sees. When you have a committee involved you're going to slow down the process of protecting the baby's rights, and you're going to get the lowest common denominator decision, which is basically to ratify the nontreatment decision.

HUNTER-GAULT: But you just heard Dr. Fleischman say that the purpose of the committees in part would be to provide some moral input into what clearly must be a very difficult

Mr. CURRAN: Well, the committees are going to be chaired by the hospitals; the majority of the committee members are going to be doctors and/or hospital employees who have beholding for their jobs to the doctors involved in many cases. The outside input is going to be a minority input at best, and these committees will largely ratify nontreatment decisions or they will start out with the premise, as did the Oklahoma City God squad, that some of these kids don't deserve treatment.

HUNTER-GAULT: So you just feel that the medical community in general should not be in a position to make these decisions, that they're all going to behave --

Mr. CURRAN: In this country, no private group of individuals or private person has the right to make death-giving decisions without being publicly accountable and publicly reviewable, and that's what the administration's original regulations did. Their original regulations, both in March and in July, said absolutely nothing about these institutional review boards.

HUNTER-GAULT: What about the situation that Dr. Fleischman described where there is this ambiguity about what to do, and the parents are involved and need this support? What do you say to them?

Mr. CURRAN: Well, whenever there is any doubt, both the American Academy of Pediarics and about nine handicapped groups have signed off on a set of principles for treatment of handicapped babies, and that says when in doubt, you treat. What Dr. Fleischman, as you noted, said, when in doubt, they will support the parents' decision. Now, that is contrary to his own organization's principles.

HUNTER-GAULT: What do you see, then, as the alternative to this compromise?

Mr. CURRAN: The Reagan administration started out on this issue very properly. We supported them 100%. The President's statement of April 13, 1982, after the Bloomington Baby Doe situation, his speech in Orlando in March of '83, and the two sets of regulations, both in March and July of 1983, were excellent efforts to protect these handicapped babies, but they have for some reason caved in to the medical establishment and are adopting a mode of practice that is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

HUNTER-GAULT: And, briefly, in summary, you feel that as a result of this compromise, if it is carried out, a lot more babies will die because of the decisions being taken by these committees?

Mr. CURRAN: There will be less vigorous enforcement of the civil rights laws to protect these babies, and some of them will not survive because of these regulations as opposed to the regulations that the Reagan administration originally proposed. That would have protected many more babies, in our opinion.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, thank you. Robin?,tMacNEIL: Dr. Fleischman, more babies will die because their civil rights will not be protected?

Dr. FLEISCHMAN: No, I think to clarify the comment that Mr. Curran made, the ambiguous cases are cases in which patients are suffering, in which children have very little potential for competent and satient being. And we're talking about letting parents decide in those kinds of issues, not in cases when someone just doesn't know which direction to turn in. Clearly, one ought to treat patients who one isn't sure about diagnoses or outcome. But when treatment is going to be futile, when babies are suffering, families ought to be allowed to decide. I don't think more patients are going to die because of this. I don't think this is a wholesale problem.

MacNEIL: Mr. Curran?

Mr. CURRAN: Well, the report on the God squad in Oklahoma City shows that they decided up front that 50% of the babies shouldn't be treated. Thirty-four percent of them died, and in the process they withheld antibiotics for infection from most of those babies that they did decide shouldn't get treated. That's discriminatory in and of itself. That God squad is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

MacNEIL: Dr. Fleischman?

Dr. FLEISCHMAN: Well, I don't wish to debate someone else's approach to this problem. I think an ethics committee in that hospital might have had a different approach to this problem. A committee in which this was debated in public, in which there were community members, might have approached this problem differently. I do think, however, that even if those patients had been treated, the majority of them would have died in a shorter period of time than normal life expectancy within their infancy and young childhood with a great deal of suffering.

Mr. CURRAN: That's just not true. The death rate for the Oklahoma City God squad is 126% greater than Dr. McClone's figures in Chicago, and he vigorously treats virtually every patient he sees. Now, 126% higher death rate is not enforcing civil rights laws.

MacNEIL: What is your interpretation of these two sets of figures? In fact, we had those two gentlemen on this program about six weeks ago.

Dr. FLEISCHMAN: My own feeling is that most children with spina bifida and uncomplicated central nervous systems should be treated. And in fact there are many of the children who were not treated in Oklahoma who I think most ethics committees would vote to support the concept of treatment.

MacNEIL: I see. So you're saying that, in this case, Mr. Curran's worry is not well founded, that committees would meet his anxiety. Are you saying that?

Dr. FLEISCHMAN: Well, I think without committees it's very clear that one can have situations like that. With committees one will be observing these issues and will have some objective evaluation.

MacNEIL: How do you respond to that, Mr. Curran?

Mr. CURRAN: Well, Dr. McClone says that 5% of the babies referred to his facility -- spina bifida babies -- have not received the prompt treatment that he thinks they ought to. In Oklahoma City, that committee, that God squad, decided not to treat almost 50%. That's just unacceptable, and what was going to happen, regardless of the good intentions about these institutional review boards, is that they are going to degenerate into the same sort of committee that Oklahoma is, which was, in effect, a death squad.

MacNEIL: Will you answer that and tell us also how you feel about having the committees, which you're espousing, characterized as God squads?

Dr. FLEISCHMAN: Well, I think the committees will confirm parents' decisions, will assure communication, will assure support for the best interests of infants. They will not make God-like decisions. They will decide who shall decide. They themselves, if they disagree with the parents and with the physician's decision to not treat, will help in bringing the courts into the case, will help in changing that nontreatment decision.

MacNEIL: How about that, Mr. Curran?

Mr. CURRAN: In Oklahoma, the decisions for nontreatment were led by that team. The parents were led into nontreatment decisions. Less than 10% of all the cases did the parents go against the recommendation for nontreatment, and that's what's wrong with these God squads is that they lead parents into improper, discriminatory decisions.

MacNEIL: How about his point, just to add to that, the point Mr. Curran was making earlier that what these are going to do, because they'll be in the thrall of the local medical establishment, will ratify nontreatment decisions? That's what he charged.

Dr. FLEISCHMAN: Well, I think the difference is that the treating physicians will not be members of the committee. They may well give testimony to the committee based on their facts to the best of their knowledge.But the treating physicians themselves, which was the case in Oklahoma, will not be the committee. The committee will be those who can look objectively at these issues.

MacNEIL: Does that meet your objection, Mr. Curran?

Mr. CURRAN: Certainly not because the committee is going to be made up largely of other doctors and/or hospital employees who are one way or the other beholden to whoever it is that makes the initial decision for nontreatment.

MacNEIL: What about the point that Mr. Curran also made, that in this country no private person or private group has the right to make, I think he called it death-dealing decisions, without public accountability?

Dr. FLEISCHMAN: Well, I think these committees are clearly public accountability. What's happened in the past is these decisions have been tremendously private, and hotlines and federal intervention squads have not changed that. There are still many decisions being made within the very private confines of the nursery and of the delivery room. Now hospitals will be mandated to review these in the public domain.

MacNEIL: How about that, Mr. Curran?

Mr. CURRAN: The federal civil rights laws that have been on the books for years and specifically Section 504, which has been on the books for 10 years, the administration, the Reagan administration, has the duty to enforce that and not to abdicate the responsibility for that enforcement to some private organization, institutional review board that many times is made up of people who have a conflict of interest vis-a-vis the people who made the initial nontreatment decision.

MacNEIL: How do you respond to his final charge that what's happened in this case is that the Reagan administration has caved in to the medical establishment politically?

Dr. FLEISCHMAN: Ithink what the Reagan administration has done, and I applaud them for it, is to review very carefully this issue and to come out with regulations in the best interests of infants and their families.And the original regulations were clearly a) unenforceable and b) hurtful to families and their children, so that I think they have taken the counsel of many groups in this country and have generated regulations that are quite good for the children.

MacNEIL: Do you have a brief comment on that, Mr. Curran?

Mr. CURRAN: The more babies will be better protected by teh original Reagan proposal than by these. This is a venal cave-in to the medical establishment.

MacNEIL: Well, gentlemen, Mr. Curran in Washington, Dr. Fleischman in New York, thank you both for joining us this evening.

Judy? Jesse in New Hampshire

WOODRUFF: Up until a week or so ago some of the people who watch politics closely had grown increasingly concerned about the lack of suspense in the election year ahead. That's because it looked as if, in addition to President Reagan having the Republican nomination sewed up, there might be no contest among the Democrats either, what with former Vice President Mondale maintaining a commanding lead over his seven opponents.But Jesse Jackson's recent diplomatic triumph may have changed all that. At the very least he has managed to stir up some new interest in the Democratic race. That became obvious over the past weekend in New Hampshire, the state where the nation's first primary will be held just seven weeks from now.

[voice-over] The scene, the Manchester, New Hampshire, airport last Friday, where there were more reporters and camera crews waiting to meet Jackson's plane than there were New Hampshire voters. In fact, the press Jackson drew was larger than that of any of the other five Democratic contenders, who were also here this weekend. Frontrunner Walter Mondale's motorcade, for example, was only about half as long as Jackson's.

First stop for the candidate who has never made a major appearance before an environmental group before was a conference on acid rain, a pollution problem some New Hampshire voters feel strongly about. Jackson gets an enthusiastic response as he takes off his diplomatic hat long enough to sound like an expert on the environment.

JESSE JACKSON, Democratic presidential Candidate: The seemingly insubstantial yellow plumes of sulfur dioxide emitted from the super tall smokestacks of America's utilities and smelters do not simply dissipate harmlessly into the air. Instead these plumes return to the earth in the form of an incredible 25-million tons a year of poisonous sulfuric acid that is chemical warfare, and it must end, and it must end immediately.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: The speech won rave reviews from the crowd, but it was his Syrian mission that made Jackson the focus of attention.

BETSY BENNETT, Rumney, New Hampshire: I saw a man who was willing to risk his own career politically, because he could have failed, you know.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Betsy Bennett is a grandmother who drove 90 miles to hear Jackson. She and a few dozen others were interested enough to want to talk about being a Jackson delegate. They were besieged by reporters.

Rev. JACKSON: Thank you, man, for this private meeting with our delegates.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: The next morning, at a neighborhood coffee klatch, even the candidate who wants attention had to tackle overzealous camera crews. Jackson charmed some children with a routine he's often used before, but usuallywith the underprivileged.

Rev. JACKSON: In my heart --

CHILDREN: In my heart --

Rev. JACKSON: I can believe it.

CHILDREN: Can believe it.

Rev. JACKSON: I know --

CHILDREN: I know --

Rev. JACKSON: -- I can achieve it.

CHILDREN: -- I can achieve it.

Rev. JACKSON: I am --

CHILDREN: I am --

Rev. JACKSON: -- somebody.

CHILDREN: -- somebody.

Rev. JACKSON: Right on.

WOODRUFF [VOICE-OVER]: That morning, at least, he made a few friends. [clip of rally]

ANNE MOLIS, neighbor: I think for some people it might translate into votes, but I don't think it will be that many people, not in the long run.

CHICKIE GAGNE, neighbor: Before I listened to him speak, before I listened to him speak today I was wondering the same thing; you know, would I be swayed because he did this fantastic thing? But knowing, you know, and hearing what he said today, that's what made the difference for me.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Then it was on to open his New Hampshire campaign headquarters. No one mentioned that Jackson's starting a year behind some of his rivals.

Rev. JACKSON: We're going to win New Hampshire in 1984 and set this nation on a new course with a new coalition and a new leadership. Thank you so very much.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Jackson's problem is translating his diplomatic triumph into votes and into delegates to the Democratic national convention.George Bruno heads the Democratic Party in New Hampshire.

GEORGE BRUNO, Democratic State chairman: The first think Jesse Jackson needs to do is to roll up his sleeves, demonstrate a presence in New Hampshire, open up some field offices and begin meeting the voters.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Still, Jackson isn't shy about reminding audiences it was he who brought Goodman home, here, at a rally in Goodman's former hometown of Portsmouth.

Rev. JACKSON: We called for Mr. Assad to release Goodman. The next day our own President then responded to Mr. Assad, and perhaps these two men will meet. That is important to talk to try to get some understanding. Syrians backed up in the equation of peace in Lebanon [unintelligible] to bring our boys back home from Lebanon.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Some in the audience signed up to sponsor parties to help Jackson raise money, but is it too late?

Mr. BRUNO: The other candidates, major candidates, have been working in New Hampshire for the past year, year and a half. You don't eliminate all that groundwork that they've performed over that period of time by an overnight success like this. Americans, they like winners. They like underdogs who take big chances and who go and win, regardless of what they do, who they are, and that's what Jackson did.

WOODRUFF: Campaigning today in Detroit, Jackson acknowledged that he still has not raised much money. "We're behind on techniques and money," he said, "but we're ahead on spirit." Yesterday the Jackson campaign put together its biggest rally thus far, with 6,500 people at a Detroit rally.

Robin?

MacNEIL: Once again the main stories of the day.

In Beirut a French paratrooper was killed and two others were wounded in a terrorist attack on an outpost at the French army headquarters.

In Washington the government outlined new Baby Doe regulations for the protection of severely handicapped infants who might be denied full medical care.

The secretary of education reported to President Reagan on the need to improve discipline in the nation's schools.

And the President's task force on hunger said that a four-month study did not turn up support for allegations that there is rampant hunger in America.

Good night, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Good night, Robin. That's our NewsHour for tonight. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.