The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Leading the news tonight, the U. S. and Iran had talks on returning frozen Iranian assets. President Reagan gave medals to the crew and designer of the experimental aircraft Voyager. Chinese students staged another demonstration for democracy, despite an official ban. We'll have details in our news summary coming up. Jim? JIM LEHRER: After the news summary, we look at the Afghanistan war seven years later, at a small university's way of raising money, at the general quest for charitable contributions, and finally at an essay on nuclear bombs.News Summary LEHRER: There were official talks today between the United States and Iran. They occurred in the Hague, Netherlands, before a tribunal set up to resolve longstanding U. S. --Iranian disputes about money. The specific point of today's session was to work out the return of $506 million from the Federal Reserve Bank in New York to the government of Iran. It is the amount of overpayment Iran has made into an international loan account since 1981. The speaker of the Iranian parliament has said on several recent occasions the return of that money could prompt Iran to assist in freeing the remaining U. S. hostages in Lebanon. State Department spokeswoman Phyllis Oakley said in Washington today, the U. S. agrees the $506 million belongs to Iran, but she said there is no link between that money and the hostages. Robin? MacNEIL: President Reagan today honored the pilots and crew of the experimental Voyager aircraft with Presidential Citizens Medals. We have a report by Joyce Miller of Broadcast News Service.

JOYCE MILLER [voice over]: President Reagan took time out from his week long California vacation to honor the record breaking feats of the Voyager pilots and crew in Los Angeles today. Pres. RONALD REAGAN: On December 23, 1986, the name Voyager joined the distinguished family of airborne technological breakthroughs, and three men -- or new names, I should say -- will be added to the column headed, ''the right stuff. '' MILLER [voice over]: While touched by the award, the recipients, pilot Jeana Yeager, Dick Rutan and designer of the craft Burt Rutan, were quick to share the spotlight with the hundreds of volunteer crew members who packed the audience today. DICK RUTAN, pilot: All of you that were involved in this thing, I want you all to stand up right now, and I want to applaud you and accept this medal in your behalf, because I'm proud to death of you. The Voyager crew, ladies and gentlemen. MILLER [voice over]: Just six days ago, Rutan and Yeager set an aviation record for the longest nonstop non refueling journey ever. It was a trip followed closely by the President and First Lady. Pres. REAGAN: When we saw you coming back home so ungainly, yet so graceful, flying into the desert landing strip at Edwards Air Force Base, well, that was just about the best Christmas present America could have had. MacNEIL: Families of four of the seven astronauts killed in the Challenger disaster have accepted financial settlements of all potential claims. Announcing this today, the Justice Department said the families wanted the amounts of money paid them kept confidential. Morton Thiokol, maker of the shuttle's faulty booster rocket, will make a substantial contribution to the sums paid to the families of astronauts Christa McAuliffe, Francis Scobee, Ellison Onizuka and Gregory Jarvis. The settlements mean that those families can not in the future sue NASA or any of its contractors. LEHRER: Local taxes will be raised in at least a third of the nation's cities and towns next year. That was the lead finding of a survey of 396 municipalities across the country. It was done by the National League of Cities and was released today in Washington. Washington was also given much of the blame for the need to raise local revenues.

ALAN BEALS, National League of Cities: If there were a woodshed behind city hall, it appears that there would be a well worn path to it awaiting most of the administration and the Congressional leadership. The cuts made in Washington will bring tax increases or service cutbacks in many communities. And it will hurt the most in places where the needs are the greatest. LEHRER: Texas Air Corporation took another step today toward becoming the nation's largest airline company. The shareholders of People Express approved its merger with Texas Air, which already owns New York Air, Continental and Eastern Airlines. A Texas Air spokesman said People Express will be absorbed into one of its other carriers, thus ceasing to exist as a separate airline. MacNEIL: In Peking, despite an official ban, there were more demonstrations by students. As many as 3,000 of them shouted pro democracy slogans and staged a pre dawn march on four campuses. A short time later, a strongly worded editorial appeared in all of China's major newspapers. It warned against challenging the ruling communist party and aping what it called the fake democracy of the West. LEHRER: In South Africa today, the government issued new education guidelines aimed at stopping so called alternative education programs for blacks. The new rules forbid the teaching of courses not officially approved. Many blacks had established special courses to circumvent what they said were the pro apartheid teachings in the official curriculums. MacNEIL: The Philippines government today claimed title to four New York office buildings and a Long Island estate, saying they were part of the hidden wealth of ex President Ferdinand Marcos. The $750 million lawsuit was the largest civil action in Philippines history. It was filed by the presidential commission set up by the Aquino government to recover an estimated $10 billion it claims Marcos and his associates amassed. Time magazine has chosen Corazon Aquino as its Woman of the Year, saying she was the person who most influenced world events in 1986. LEHRER: And that's it for the news summary tonight. Now we look at the seventh anniversary of war in Afghanistan, at a small university's and other institutions' quest for money, and at essayist Aaron Freeman's thoughts about nuclear war. Afghanistan: Report from the Front MacNEIL: Our first focus tonight, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, now going into its eighth year. Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has called the war a bleeding wound. And last week, a top Soviet official indicated the Russians might pull out all their 110,000 troops, even short of victory. In August, the Soviets withdrew a small contingent. But if the Soviets are not winning, neither are the out gunned and outmanned Moslem insurgents. Does the stalemate mean a war without end, or does it help set the stage for a negotiated settlement? We'll take up these questions in a moment. But first, we'll get a look at the guerrilla war being waged by mountain tribesmen. The reporter who travelled with the Mujahedeen is Sandy Gall of Independent Television News.

SANDY GALL [voice over]: The agony of the Afghan people began on Christmas Eve, 1979, when the Russians invaded their country -- 85,000 troops, backed by tanks and jets. They came in to save the communist government which had been in power for only 18 months and was on the point of being overthrown by nationalist guerrillas known as Mujahedeen. Today, the Russians have at least 110,000 troops in Afghanistan, with more just over the border. The anti communist rebellion has turned into a war of national liberation. Afghanistan lies at the crossroads of Asia, surrounded by the Soviet Union to the north, China to the east, Iran to the West, and Pakistan to the south. We crossed the Pakistani border near Chitral and trekked for nearly four weeks across the Hindukush to Farkhar, only 55 miles from the Russian border. This convoy's carrying a new weapon for the Mujahedeen in the north, a Chinese BM 12 rocket launcher. Last June, the United States Congress voted $500 million for arms for the Mujahedeen, including Stingers. It takes two weeks for a convoy to cross the mountains from Pakistan to the Panjeh Valley. Four years ago, we were caught in a heavy Russian bombing offensive in the Panjeh. This time, we escaped. But many Afghans were not so fortunate. The jets strike at will, leaving a trail of death and destruction behind them. We met two men, Manam and Ibrahim, whose village had just been hit. MANAM [through translator]: The women were heating the milk. Two airplanes went over very high. We said nothing would happen, but there was danger. They went away, but two black airplanes all of the sudden dived and dropped their bombs. There was a lot of smoke. It was as dark as night, and we couldn't see one another. I was hit and fell down. I couldn't see anyone. It was like nighttime, and everyone was worried about his own safety. They bombed for quite a long time. They bombed and bombed. IBRAHIM [through translator]: When I was searching around, I saw that my sister in law had also been killed. We took the bodies outside, and at night we buried three in one grave, four in another. It was a terrible sight. May God never let this happen to any Moslem. GALL [voice over]: Ahmed Shah Masoud, perhaps the most gifted guerrilla leader in the whole of Afghanistan, the only Afghan leader, someone said, who can think strategically: AHMED SHAH MASOUD, guerilla leader [through translator]: In every corner of Afghanistan you visit, you will see thousands of villages which have been destroyed by the Russians. Every day, you will see villages under attack by Russian planes, missiles and long range guns. Every day, you will see the destruction of crops, livestock, and the massacre of civilians. But as far as we can see, there's not as much pressure on the Mujahedeen as there is on the civilian population. Soviet strategy seems to be to drive the population into the cities, where they are under close control, or to empty the country of its inhabitants and force them to seek asylum abroad. In my opinion, the Russians have started waging war against the civilian population, and not just against the Mujahedeen. GALL [voice over]: The BM 12 ammunition, each rocket weighing 19 kilos, comes north from the Panjeh on donkeys -- hardier and cheaper than horses. It's only three or four days' march from the Panjeh to the secret base in the hills south of Farkhar where Masoud is planning his attack on a big government post. To avoid detection from the air, every rocket and round of ammunition is transported to a narrow side valley and hidden among the rocks. It dribbled in over a period of several days, nearly all of it Chinese made -- ammunition for the Dashuka heavy machine guns and rounds for the 75mm recoilless rifles. The BM 12 was a new weapon to Masoud's Mujahedeen. He obviously didn't know much about it either. So as soon as it arrived, he gave orders for it to be assembled and test fired. He himself was briefed by a former Afghan army officer who had deserted to join him. Mr. MASOUD [through subtitles]: Why don't you aim more this way? OFFICER [through subtitles]: Because of the wheels. Mr. MASOUD [through subtitles]: What's the difference? OFFICER [through subtitles]: About 150 meters lower than the stone. Mr. MASOUD [through subtitles]: What did you set it at? OFFICER [through subtitles]: Three thousand. Mr. MASOUD [through translator]: The enemy is situated or is resided in five security mountain posts. The operation will be coordinated on first these two security posts and the base. Enemy is about 300 people, one 75mm gun, two Dashukas and three mortars -- three or four mortars. Just with the help of God, commander says that we hope that we will capture it in, oh, two and a half hours. GALL [voice over]: Nine groups have been assembled from all over the northeast for the attack on the government post, and those that needed it given at least basic training. Next day, Masoud put the finishing touches to an elaborate, large scale model of the Farkhar post, painstakingly reconstructed by the defector who'd previously served there. Using his captured Russian map, Masoud supervised every detail himself, while the defector marked out the road in front of the post with pebbles. Masoud took up position on a nearby hilltop, from where he could direct the battle. At 5:30 p. m. , after a short prayer to Allah, he gave the order to fire. Mr. MASOUD [through subtitles]: 90, 90, 90, are you ready? OFFICER [through subtitles]: 90 is ready. Mr. MASOUD [through subtitles]: Put your trust in God and start firing. Start firing. GALL [voice over]: The first objective was the machine gun position on a hill overlooking the post. That was quickly taken, and the attack then switched to the forts below. Mr. MASOUD [through subtitles]: It's Commander Panna. GALL [voice over]: These now fell in fairly rapid succession, although Panna's group was held up by an unexpected mine field. Mr. MASOUD [through subtitles]: Commander Panna, 25, 25, can you hear me? This is headquarters. Commander PANNA [on radio, through subtitles]: Yes, I can. Go ahead. Mr. MASOUD [through subtitles]: Where are you? Where are you? Commander PANNA [on radio, through subtitles]: I've reached the mine fields. Mr. MASOUD [through subtitles]: Listen, don't worry about the mines. You can go by the road. Two positions have been captured. Use the road. Hurry! GALL [voice over]: Panna's men were still being pinned down by a machine gun post on another hilltop. Then the BM 12 got the range, and the battle seemed nearly over. OFFICER [through subtitles]: Praise to God. God is great. GALL [voice over]: But the fifth and last post still continued to hold out, the secret police, not surprisingly, always being the last to surrender. Late at night, Masoud called off the attack. The last fort fell 30 hours later. Masoud lost five dead and eight wounded and claimed to have killed over 100 of the enemy. He strongly believes the war is turning in his favor. Mr. MASOUD [through translator]: With the passing of each day, the economic and political pressures increase on the pro military faction in Moscow. Russian casualties, which mount up day by day, are another problem they face. The many deaths that people hear about, in spite of very tight censorship, have caused protest movements against the war. The next problem is the loss of morale among the Russian forces fighting the war in Afghanistan, particularly the officers. At the moment, I can assure you, Russian army morale is not what it was four years ago. It has gone down considerably. GALL [voice over]: Masoud's men captured more than 200 of the Farkhar garrison, many of them boys -- the youngest was nine -- who when asked, said, perhaps naturally, they want to join the Mujahedeen. They also said they'd been press ganged into the army from local villages. Mr. MASOUD [through translator]: If the border is closed and help doesn't reach us, it won't make the slightest difference to our determination. We will carry on fighting until we achieve victory or death. MacNEIL: Now, two perspectives on the Afghan war and the prospects for a diplomatic settlement. Jeri Laber is executive director of Helsinki Watch, a New York based human rights monitoring group, and has made several trips to Mujahedeen refugee camps in Pakistan, most recently in October. Selig Harrison is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington and has written extensively on the politics of the Afghan war. Ms. Laber, is that local Mujahedeen leader justified in his optimism, when we just heard him say he thinks that things are going their way? JERI LABER, Helsinki Watch: Well, I think his analysis of the spirits of both the Soviets and of the Mujahedeen is probably quite accurate, from all that I can ascertain. And as we know, there is that intangible in every war that victories happen with people because they believe in what they're fighting for. I can say that in the hundreds of interviews that I've conducted with Afghans -- men, women, children from all strata of society -- I have been struck over and over again by the unfailing fierce determination and spirit that these people have. Many of them have just crossed the border days or even hours before I met them. They'd been subjected to unspeakable atrocities, terrible suffering, and yet, they emerged determined to fight 'til the last drop of Afghan blood is shed. MacNEIL: Well, even given that spirit and their willingness to fight that way, can they win this struggle? Ms. LABER: Well, on the other hand, we have something very interesting happening with the Soviet Union right now. Mr. Gorbachev, who has called, as you said, the war a bleeding wound, has called for greater glasnost -- openness -- in Soviet society and seems to mean it. And with openness will come publicity about things that have been suppressed somewhat so far of the deaths of Soviet boys who are fighting in Afghanistan, the lack of morale, the terrible things that these Soviets have been committing themselves and forced to witness. And I think that a protest movement similar to what we had in this country during the Vietnam War is very likely to occur in the Soviet Union. MacNEIL: Selig Harrison, do you read it that way? Is the tide tending to favor the Mujahedeen? SELIG HARRISON, Carnegie Endowment: Well, I certainly agree from all my own interviews with the refugees that there's a tremendous spirit in the resistance. But the difficulty is, it's very divided and seriously factionalized. Now, Masoud in the Panjeh Valley is not representative of the resistance. It's really the one area where the resistance is well organized. It had an organization even before the Russians came into Afghanistan,because he had a political party there which was representing the ethnic minority in that part of Afghanistan. So it's a very special case. And I think Masoud and his people are some of those who will hold out and keep on fighting, even if there is a political settlement leading to the end of U. S. aid. And he made a reference in what he said, that ''We're going to fight on even if the help from Pakistan stops. '' But I don't think there's any tide in this war. It's a stalemate. The resistance is on a treadmill. They're fighting bravely, but they're very divided. They can't follow up when they win a battle and establish territorial control in the territories where the fighting goes on. They go in, they go out. It's a checkerboard, certain areas under the temporary control of the resistance, certain areas under the political control of the Russians, many areas -- I would argue most of the country -- really up for grabs, with people just trying to survive. And the war ebbs and flows, and it really hasn't changed materially for the past several years, except that we are now making the Russians pay more for holding on by giving the resistance better weapons. But we're not changing the military balance. MacNEIL: Do you believe, Ms. Laber, the Soviet statement suggesting that they really -- the more recent statements -- that they really do want to get out? Ms. LABER: I think they do want to get out. The question is, on what terms. They're trying several different tactics at once, and they are contradictory tactics. I think probably they don't know exactly where they stand at this point. On the one hand, there's a new leader, Dr. Najib, in Afghanistan, who is trying new tactics. He's stressing his Moslem dedication, he's using money, as I gather, to pay off local chieftains and try to bribe people to accept the Afghan government -- puppet government's protection. On the other hand, the Soviets seem to be in there for the long haul. They're training young children, sending them off for ten years and more to the Soviet Union. I think the Soviets would like to withdraw from Afghanistan at the point when they feel that there is a government there that they can control. But I think they've got a long way ahead of them before they can do that. MacNEIL: Well, there's another track that the Soviets are on, and that is the negotiations with -- under the United Nations and Pakistani auspices for some kind of negotiated settlement. Where does that stand, Selig Harrison, at the moment? Mr. HARRISON: Well, on February 11, Pakistan and the communist regime in Afghanistan are going to resume negotiations under the auspices of the U. N. And they've got a 35 page document entirely agreed upon, except for one number. That number is how long the period of the Soviet withdrawal is to be. MacNEIL: So the Soviets have agreed -- have accepted that they're going to withdraw. Mr. HARRISON: They have accepted an agreement which includes monitoring by U. N. observers who will fly around in helicopters over Pakistan, over Afghanistan, to check the Soviet withdrawal, to check whether Pakistan is living up to its agreement to stop aiding the resistance. They have, however, as Jeri Laber says, agreed to a type of settlement which would leave behind the present government. The present government would be there, and Soviet forces would withdraw over a period that has to be negotiated. And it's their hope that during the period of withdrawal, after the aid has stopped, there would be an entirely different climate, and many Afghans who are now in the resistance would either stop fighting and simply sit on the sidelines or would actually join the government in Kabul. They think they can stabilize it. MacNEIL: Let's just pick up on one of those points, because the agreement which the United States, as I understand, has also accepted is that when this agreement is signed and the pullout starts, the U. S. will stop its aid through Pakistan to the Mujahedeen. Correct? Mr. HARRISON: Well, the U. S. -- that's right -- would guarantee the agreement. It would be committed to stopping aid at the time when the withdrawal goes into effect, under an agreed timetable. MacNEIL: So it would be -- Mr. HARRISON: And this, of course, is very controversial. There are lots of people on the hill -- Senator Gordon Humphrey, Jean Kirkpatrick and others -- who don't want the U. S. to go ahead with this. MacNEIL: I see. Will the Mujahedeen accept -- people like the man we just saw -- will they accept a settlement of this kind, which would leave in place some form of Soviet approved government? Ms. LABER: I doubt it very much. It's hard, as Selig Harrison pointed out, to speak about the Mujahedeen, because they are divided. But I think that they probably would agree to this extent: they are not going to accept that government and that the war would continue, with or without aid. MacNEIL: What do you think -- representing Helsinki Watch and having a certain sympathy for the Mujahedeen -- what do you think of the proposed settlement? Do you think it's a good idea for the United States to agree, if the Soviets started pulling out, to stop aiding the rebels? Ms. LABER: No, I think -- my own feeling is that the only way to avoid an even greater blood bath than already has taken place in that country is to have an accelerated withdrawal. I mean, a prolonged withdrawal with Soviet troops without aid from outside of the country, I think, will just lead, as I say, to new genocide of the people in that country. MacNEIL: So you think the only kind of agreement that should be accepted, both by the two countries and by their sponsors, is one in which the Soviets have to get out quickly. Ms. LABER: Get out quickly and let the Afghan people decide for themselves the kind of government they should have. MacNEIL: What is the prospect of a short withdrawal, and what kind of time periods are we talking about, Selig Harrison? Mr. HARRISON: The formal Russian position at the last round was a three year withdrawal. And the formal Pakistan position was a four month withdrawal. But Pakistan has since been talking about a one year agreement, and the Russians have now been talking about a two year agreement at Geneva. So that would imply that a possible 18 month time frame might be the compromise that could be agreed upon. MacNEIL: Would 18 months constitute an accelerated withdrawal to you, or would that leave time for the blood bath that you talk about? Ms. LABER: I'm not a military theorist, nor is that my profession. It seems like a long time to me. MacNEIL: What does it seem like to you, Selig Harrison -- 18 months? Mr. HARRISON: Well, I think it would be a very difficult decision for the administration. But I think that it depends a lot on the details. Suppose, for example, that half of the forces were to be withdrawn with in the first nine months, which is one of the hints you hear as a possible wrinkle in this. That would sweeten the pill. And it should be remembered that the resistance is very divided. Some of the resistance groups, I think, would definitely go along with anything that would get the Soviet forces out, that would commit them to leaving. Others, particularly the Islamic fundamentalist groups, would continue fighting. But the fighting would certainly be reduced. And there's a great war weariness among the refugees. There's a determination. But it's a determination that, I think, is basically directed at getting the Soviet forces out. And as long as they're there, they'll fight with the kind of spirit we've seen exemplified. But if they're committed to getting out and if the United Nations and United States are involved, if China has decided not to help them anymore, which is also something I learned in Peking is likely to happen, it seems to me that you're going to find a lot of the resistance subsiding and watching to see what happens. And then in time -- in time, after the Russians have had their withdrawal -- their face saving withdrawal -- they'll take care of the communists. MacNEIL: Selig, I'm afraid we're going to have to watch and see what happens and watch that February meeting and see what the timetable is agreed on, if one is. Jeri Laber and Selig Harrison, thank you both for joining us. Ms. LABER: Thank you. College Crunch LEHRER: Next, the story of a university caught in the double squeeze for money and for students. The school is Brandeis University of Waltham, Massachusetts. It has a student body of 3,500 and a distinguished alumni that includes Paul Solman, an economics lecturer who also does work for us and public station WGBH in Boston. He did the report on Brandeis.

PAUL SOLMAN [voice over]: The Dreitzer Gallery, Brandeis University. The biggest money raising effort in the school's history, a $200 million capital campaign, is about to be announced. These are among the campaign's key people: donors like Ben Hornstein, age 95, who made his money with a retail store chain; Lillian Poses, an attorney whose fortune comes from cosmetics; and this is 87 year old chancellor and founding Brandeis President Abram Sacker. In 1948, when the school was established, Sacker turned these people into an instant alumni association. He called them foster alumni. And he put the touch on the American Jewish community from Palm Beach to Palm Springs. Today, less than 40 years later, Brandeis is one of America's preeminent universities. But higher education is now entering an age of austerity. The student pool is shrinking, the government is cutting back, and the old money is getting older. No one is more familiar with the challenges of running Brandeis as a business than its new president, Evelyn Handler. EVELYN HANDLER, president, Brandeis University: Ladies and gentlemen of the faculty, dear friends, inner family -- SOLMAN [voice over]: Handler has inherited a tough assignment. Brandeis has been operating hand to mouth for all its 39 years, dependent on the annual benevolence of the inner family. Handler's business strategy is to change and expand the school. But she's in a bind. She has to usher in the new without excluding the old. Ms. HANDLER: Without our past accomplishments, we could not be here today. SOLMAN: This is exactly the sort of pomp and circumstance that used to drive me nuts when I went here 20 years ago. Rich people get honorary degrees just for giving money? Some underwear baron gets to sit on the board of trustees and decide university policy? My friends and I were outraged. We figured we were the real university -- the students and faculty -- yet they got to wield the power. It didn't seem fair. As to the cost of running a place like this, hey, that wasn't our problem. In fact, it didn't seem like much of a problem at all. Theatres like this were going up all the time -- new buildings and such. Brandeis was flooded with outbuildings. This was the '60s, remember. You didn't worry about money; you worried about being an individual. And in the '60s, that's just how Brandeis portrayed itself in its promotional material. [clip from ad] ANNOUNCER: The student body is scholarly, and the atmosphere is intellectual, irreverent, often iconoclastic.

SOLMAN [voice over]: Brandies was founded in 1948 as a kind of refuge for the American Jewish community. Up to that time, quotas had kept many Jewish students and faculty out of some of the country's most prestigious schools. But the times were changing. By the 1970s, Brandeis was facing business problems on two fronts; first, with the applicant pool. Quotas were gradually disappearing, so Jewish students had more options. As the baby boom tailed off, the applicant problem intensified. The second problem: fund raising. In 1973, war broke out in Israel, siphoning off funds from Brandeis' foster alumni. These were the problems facing Evelyn Handler. Unlike many of here counterparts at comparable universities, however, she had hardly any endowment money to fall back on. Ms. HANDLER: The problems of a small research university and in thinking of it as a business is that we have a faculty student ratio of one to eight. We have a very distinguished faculty and a very small student body. And this is very expensive for a university to maintain. SOLMAN [voice over]: The ratio of eight students for every faculty member has been a point of pride at Brandeis from the start. [clip from ad] ANNOUNCER: There were 107 students, 13 faculty. Nineteen years later, there are 2,504 students, but the student faculty ratio of eight to one remains unchanged.

SOLMAN [voice over]: Another 19 years after that, Handler had decided that the only way to survive was to take in more revenues, and that meant taking in more students. And how do you get the students? Refurbish the campus to make it more attractive, award merit scholarships to attract good students, and consider establishing several new professional schools. So just when you'd expect dorms to be closing due to a student shortage, Handler is actually building a new dorm for over 300 students. Ms. HANDLER: This is the photo opportunity you've been waiting for. SOLMAN [voice over]: Handler's strategy means having to invest heavily today for the Brandeis of tomorrow and having to rely again on old money like that of Toys R Us executive Sy Ziv. SY ZIV: Gladys and I are glad that we can make some small contribution to the university and, we hope, to the student life here. SOLMAN [voice over]: The Zivs' daughter went here. Now her parents will be part of the community forever. MAURICE COHEN, board of trustees: I think it's a little bit of immortality. When you have your name on a facility, you feel that you're part of that facility, even if you yourself are not around anymore. And the names continue on. SOLMAN [voice over]: On the buildings, on individual rooms, even on an occasional rock. Ms. HANDLER: If you think about how you piece funding together for a project, to make it possible to have a little place for students to sit, how do you do that? Somebody can only give you a small sum of money, and this someone really wants to be part of things. And so you say to him, ''Students will sit here, and every time they sit here, they will see that you've participated. '' And that's appealing. SOLMAN [voice over]: But rooms, rocks and benches don't add up to an endowment. And the longer Brandeis waited, the worse the problem became. When the iconoclasm of my era became the radicalism of the late '60s and early '70s, including a black student takeover at Brandeis, the Jewish businesspeople had to be thinking, ''Why should we give any money to these ingrates?'' [on camera] Did you sense our unappreciativeness? Mr. COHEN: Well, I'm glad you grew out of it. Because the fact of the matter is that we did sense that. SOLMAN [voice over]: But they gave anyway. And that's what the capital campaign is all about. It's led by this man, the most inner of the inner family, Trustee Stanley Feldberg. His fortune comes from the discount chain Zayre. The capital campaign is the lynch pin of Evelyn Handler's business strategy. It's the only way to tide Brandeis over as Handler tries to reposition the school while awaiting the day that its real alumni come of age and can help pick up the tab. Feldberg has been soliciting funds for decades. It's almost as if he wrote the rules. STANLEY FELDBERG, board of trustees: So the very first rule is, make the call and make the appointment. Secondly is, know the institution. But sooner or later -- and now we come to my last rule -- you must put forward the proposal. You must say what you've come for and to name a figure. SOLMAN [voice over]: And in this case, the figure is key to the strategy -- to hit up the foster alumni for more money than they ever dreamed of giving. So today, Stanley Feldberg is calling on a fellow foster alumnus, a real estate developer who allowed us to record the actual solicitation, so long as we didn't use his name. Mr. FELDBERG: Murray. MURRAY: Hi, Sam. Mr. FELDBERG: How are you? MURRAY: Nice to see you. Mr. FELDBERG: Nice to see you. Wonderful to see you. MURRAY: You look wonderful. Mr. FELDBERG: Well, I wish I felt as wonderful as I may look. MURRAY: Well. Mr. FELDBERG: You ready for an hour's worth of trial and tribulation? MURRAY: Yes, indeed. SOLMAN [voice over]: This is money raising the old fashioned way: a solicitation between two members of an extended but, in a sense, very real family. Mr. FELDBERG: You know what I came here to talk to you about, since I advertise in advance. MURRAY: Yes, indeed. Mr. FELDBERG: I'm coming to -- I want to talk to you about Brandeis. SOLMAN [voice over]: It's taken months of planning, several prior discussions and about 20 minutes today to arrive at this point: naming the figure. Mr. FELDBERG: -- on a rather large gift, rather large pledge, but one that I feel comfortable in presenting to you. And that is that I would like to ask you to entertain the notion of a pledge to the university of $2 million. And we have a written proposal that expresses all of this. And with your okay, I will forward a copy of it to you and ask you to think about it and talk about it at home and then, obviously, to allow me to come back and talk further about it. MURRAY: Well, as you know, Stan, the university is very close to my heart. I sincerely hope that I can meet your expectations. I'm very grateful that you've given me some time to think about it. Mr. FELDBERG: Well, in my usual fashion. No more than 30 seconds. MURRAY: I'm afraid I can't give you an answer in 30 seconds. Mr. FELDBERG: You mean that Mildred's not available in the next 20 seconds? MURRAY: Not really. I'd phone, but I don't think that's a decision she could make on the phone. Mr. FELDBERG: I see. MURRAY: I do tell you in all sincerity that I will certainly give it some very serious consideration. And if my fortunes permit, nothing would make me happier. SOLMAN [voice over]: As of today, Brandeis has yet to receive a pledge from Murray, but the capital campaign seems to be on track. The inner family is coming through, to the tune of nearly $80 million already. Mr. FELDBERG: One thing I didn't ask you about was the wedding. How did the wedding go? SOLMAN [voice over]: This is the older generation, a generation that had much to be thankful for. To them, Brandeis was not only a cause and maybe a place to send their children, but a nonsectarian gift to America. If Evelyn Handler's growth strategy doesn't work, if real alumni aren't willing to give in the same proportions to a less iconoclastic, less intimate school than they attended, then Brandeis could suffer the fate that looms for many other private universities as the market for higher education continues to soften. Chipping Away at Charities LEHRER: Colleges like Brandeis aren't the only ones changing their way of raising money. So is the local art museum and the symphony orchestra, the hospital, the favorite charity, the think tank and most every other institution that has been dependent on charitable contributions and the tax deduction to raise money. Here to tell us about some of those changes is Brian O'Connell, president of Independent Sector, a Washington based umbrella group representing a large number of such organizations. Mr. O'Connell, of course, the immediate problem is the changes that are coming up on Thursday as mandated by the tax reform law, correct? BRIAN O'CONNELL, charity lobbyist: Yes. That does represent some bad news, but by no means is it the end of the world for Brandeis or the symphony orchestras or the other organizations that you mentioned. LEHRER: But what is -- I've noticed tremendous appeals going out now by organizations, I'm sure including many that you represent, trying to get people to make their contributions between now and Thursday. Why? What's so special about getting under that deadline? Mr. O'CONNELL: Well, there are two factors. One, the rates will go down. That is, the tax rates will go down next year, which makes giving slightly more expensive. If you had been in the 50% bracket and gave $1,000, you could deduct $500. Next year, you can deduct 65% -- I mean, only 35% of it, and the following year only 28%. So it won't affect the number of gifts, it won't affect people's loyalty to Brandies, but it will impact whether an individual can give that 2 million or whether the accountants and the lawyers and other considerations say, ''No, it's got to be a million now. Maybe more later. '' LEHRER: As a general rule, is it working? Are you noticing -- are your organizations noticing a surge in contributions that would not normally have come this time of year, because of the tax reform scare? Mr. O'CONNELL: I wouldn't describe it as a surge. I would say some people are paying up pledges earlier. Some are thinking ahead into next year and saying, ''Gee, there is an advantage if I can do it this year. I'm paying more to my church or to my university or to the United Way this year. '' But I wouldn't describe it as a surge. People, while sensitive to tax issues -- particularly if they're in the wealthier brackets -- people don't really think that much about taxes when they give. People give for all the right reasons: wanting to help Brandies or their college or their community or causes that they care passionately about. LEHRER: But isn't guilt -- I've often heard people say that guilt is really what causes people to give mostly to charitable organizations. Is that true? Mr. O'CONNELL: To make the point, I would answer you with, nonsense. Absolute nonsense. People give because they really feel that it is a responsibility that we all have in a community of caring people. People give because they have seen need around them. Indeed, most of the giving comes from people who are closest to need. The poor are much more generous than the wealthy in our society. LEHRER: Is that -- demonstrate that to me. Mr. O'CONNELL: People with incomes under $10,000 give three times, proportionately, what people with incomes $50,000 to $100,000 give. They give about 3. 6% of their income, with their own small incomes of less than $10,000. People with incomes $50,000 to $100,000 give about 1. 6% of their income. LEHRER: Now, the changes. Even before Thursday, charitable contributions had to go through some changes, because of changes in the tax rate that happened in 1981. Tell me about some of the changes. We've heard what Brandeis is doing. That's a very unique case in many ways. But tell me about some others, how they're changing the approach to raising money as a result of this. Mr. O'CONNELL: Well, voluntary organizations, whether they're universities or symphony orchestras or neighborhood groups, are becoming much more sophisticated in their fund raising approach, much more aggressive, much more comfortable in telling the story, and much more confident that once that story is told that people will respond generously. Whether it's that bold approach of asking for $2 million at Brandeis or asking a friend to provide $25 or to give clothes to a drive, we're much more willing to put our causes forward today. LEHRER: You're having to work harder for it. Is that -- Mr. O'CONNELL: You have to work harder. But if you work hard, the money is there. LEHRER: What about other things, like actually going into profit making in some ways, setting up side businesses, that sort of thing? I was reading about that today, as well. Tell me about that. Mr. O'CONNELL: A lot of voluntary organizations have learned the lesson from business that you can be entrepreneurial, you can be creative. So we find more and more colleges, for example, not only raising money very effectively, but using dorms in the summer or their dining rooms for convention facilities and making a good deal of money off it. A lot of synagogues present real competition to restaurants in the way they can handle a bar mitzvah or a wedding and make money that helps support the other activities of the synagogue. You find more and more museums that have enormous gift shops. They found a way to do good replicas of statues or paintings. They've often gone into business with for profit organizations in a catalogue direct mail promotion of replicas of things in the museum. You find voluntary organizations of all stripes beginning to think in terms of not only who needs the service, but who, in addition, might be willing to pay for something we can do that expands our income, and therefore expands our ability to serve the people who need us most. LEHRER: Is there a bad light coming at the endof that tunnel, though, of private enterprise saying, ''Wait a minute. Museum A is competing with our book industry, and they're a nonprofit organization. '' What kind of problems is that creating? Mr. O'CONNELL: Well, there are some problems, but I think they're greatly exaggerated. The rule is that a not for profit organization can only engage in activity that relates to its mission -- that is, the museum sells replicas of things that are in that museum. There was a wonderful case back in the '30s, when New York University inherited the Muller spaghetti factory and operated it as a not for profit corporation. Understandably, some of the other spaghetti factories got a little unhappy about that, and the law was passed that says that a nonprofit organization must stick to its mission. If it wants to operate a spaghetti factory, it's got to pay taxes on any money that it makes. So a museum can still sell its cards and its replicas of the painting, but if it starts a spaghetti factory in the basement, it's in trouble. LEHRER: The changes, in a word, are making the future not as bleak as it had appeared in the past as a result of law changes and tax changes. Mr. O'CONNELL: There is bad news, but this sector, more than any part of the American society, is vibrant, is able to bounce back. More of us are talking about daring goals for a caring society. And I think more and more people will be willing to give more of their income, because they're going to see these needs. And more people are going to be aggressive about saying, ''Hey, will you help?'' LEHRER: All right. Mr. O'Connell, thank you. Mr. O'CONNELL: Thank you. Nuke Rebuke MacNEIL: Finally tonight, an essay. Chicago satirist Aaron Freeman has some end of the year thoughts about the end of the world.

AARON FREEMAN: We've all become very mellow about nuclear weapons. ''Oh, those crazy missiles,'' we seem to think, as if 50,000 warheads were little idiot children who we don't quite know what to do with but just love to death anyway. What I found most fascinating about the Reykjavik summit was that some members of Congress did not object to the President's turning down an arms deal with the Russians, but were livid over his reported agreement to rid the planet of nukes. Senator Sam Nunn -- (D) Georgia -- made an impassioned plea on the Senate floor that we not throw away our option to keep nuclear weapons. Sen. SAM NUNN (D) Georgia: If we eliminated every one of them, in my view, war would become more likely, not less likely.

FREEMAN: The nuclear debate is confusing. I tend to agree with whichever argument I've read most recently. For example, French philosopher Andrei Gluxman says that nuclear weapons represent the highest achievement in the moral evolution of humanity. Then again, the French think that Jerry Lewis is a genius, so how credible are they? But Gluxman argues that pre nuclear wars were always wrapped in puerile promises of glorious victory for noble us and wretched defeat for slimy them. Nuclear wars, however, are grown up wars. Even the people who give the orders will die, and everybody knows it. That knowledge restrains our more Rambo esque instincts. If, for example, the Japanese had possessed nukes, we would not have nuked the Japanese. Gluxman wants to build nukes like there's no tomorrow, so that there will be. On the other hand, Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi reminds us that with continued arms production, at a certain level of tension, the button threatens to push itself. So who's right? Whose policy do you follow? Do you feel lucky today? One of the proposed Star Wars weapons is a nifty bit of physics called an x ray laser, which would literally by the nuclear weapon to end all nuclear weapons. Capable of taking out hundreds of un American warheads at a time, the x ray laser would utilize a defensive nuclear bomb, as opposed to an offensive nuclear bomb. You see, an offensive nuclear bomb goes bwoosh, whereas a defensive nuclear bomb goes bwoosh. A very important distinction. Nuke o phelia is, I suppose, only natural. We humans seem to have an almost mythic faith that somewhere out there is the weapon, the holy boom, the one that will defend the nation, preserve the peace and help fight cavities. We're always looking for Mr. Goodbomb. Consequently, nuclear weapons seem to be among those unpleasant realities one must simply get used to. We might as well be mellow, because we're helpless. The genie will not go back into the bottle. As far as I'm concerned, it's just as well, because thinking about nuclear weapons hurts my head. I keep hoping they'll all either go away or go off before I have to make any heavy decisions about them. My only real concern about nuclear war is where I'll be when the mushrooms bloom. When I hear the Soviet missiles are on the way, I plan to make a beeline to ground zero, because the fate of the big one's survivors sounds like nothing I want to hang around to videotape. In another 3,000 years, when the archaeologists from the planet Xenon wade through the rubble that will have been us, I want them to find me as a shadow on the wall, smiling. I'll be a mellow kind of ghost. LEHRER: Again, the major story of this Monday. Representatives of the United States and Iran met in the Netherlands to unfreeze $506 million in Iranian assets from the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Iranian officials have suggested such release could prompt their help in freeing the U. S. hostages in Lebanon, but the United States says there is no connection. Good night, Robin. MacNEIL: Good night, Jim. That's the News Hour tonight. We will be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.