The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

tober 13, 1987 Intro ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Leading the news this Tuesday, President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica won the 1987 Nobel Peace Prize for his Central American peace plan. President Reagan called the battle against Robert Bork a political joke and vowed to name someone they'll object to just as much. An Iranian missile hit a Bagdad schoolyard, killing 29 children. We'll have details in our news summary in a moment. Jim? JIM LEHRER: After the news summary, we have excerpts from Secretary Shultz's congressional testimony about Central America, and a newsmaker interview with the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Costa Rican President Oscar Arias. Then two lawyers who argued a high school censorship case before the U. S. Supreme Court today reargue it before us. Jeffrey Kaye updates the California earthquake story, and we close with a Bill Barol essay about the Road Runner.News Summary MacNEIL: President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica was awarded the 1987 Nobel Peace Prize today for his plan to end the fighting in Central America. The Nobel Committee of the Norwegian Parliament said that the 46 year old Arias ''made an outstanding contribution to the possible return of stability and peace to a region long torn by strife and civil war. '' In Costa Rica, Arias called this the happiest day of his life, and went on to explain the importance of his plan. Pres. OSCAR ARIAS, President, Costa Rica: We just cannot fail. The eyes of the world are concentrated on this piece of land in Central America. And we just cannot fail. Twenty five million people in the Central American (unintelligible) deserve peace. They don't want war. And that is why we just cannot fail. MacNEIL: Arias and the Presidents of Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala signed a plan on August 7. It calls for cease fires, amnesties, democratic reforms, and an end to outside aid to rebels. In Washington, the choice delighted congressional backers of the Arias plan, but opponents said the award was premature. Rep. JIM WRIGHT, Speaker of the House: President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica was a superb choice for this year's Nobel Peace Prize. He has earned the congratulations of the American people and the gratitude of the hemisphere. Rep. JACK KEMP, (R) New York: While the Nobel Peace Prize is a great honor, and President Arias of Costa Rica a man of peace, I believe it was a mistake for the Nobel Committee to bestow judgment on a so called peace plan before the world sees the results. Rep. EDWARD MARKEY, (D) Massachusetts: The Nobel Prize and President Arias say yes to peace, and no to the contras. The peace plan is working. Rep. DON RITTER, (R) Pennsylvania: He has won the peace prize, but we have not won peace in Central America. LEHRER: Most of the words from the Administration were warm and congratulatory. President Reagan said Arias deserves the Nobel Prize for having started the Central American region on the road to peace. He said the award should inspire all efforts to achieve an enduring peace and democracy in Central America. This afternoon Secretary of State Shultz praised the Arias plan before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. But he said the plan does not mean an end to contra aid requests by the Administration. GEORGE SHULTZ, Secretary of State: The specific forms of our aid will depend entirely on what happens in the implementation of the agreement. If the agreement works as we all hope, it will be directed to the peaceful reintegration of the resistance in a free Nicaragua. If it does not, it will be used to enable the struggle for freedom to continue until it does succeed. MacNEIL: President Reagan said today that the battle against his Supreme Court nominee, Robert Bork, was a political joke. In ad libbed remarks to a Republican fundraiser in Whippanee, New Jersey, he added, ''And if I have to appoint another one, I'll find one they'll object to just as much as they did to Bork'' Earlier, the White House had recalled the advance text of a speech saying they wanted to restrain the language and depoliticize the process. In his prepared remarks as rewritten, Mr. Reagan said only that the confirmation hearings had been marred by distortions and innuendos. Today, the White House asked the television networks for time for a short address by the President to the nation tomorrow afternoon before the Senate debate begins. A 54th senator, Democrat Harry Reed of Nevada, declared his opposition to Bork today. LEHRER: The U. S. Supreme Court was a busy place today. The justices decided to review the 1966 Miranda ruling, which requires arresting officers to inform criminal suspects of their legal rights. The court agreed to look at that decision to see if it adequately protects defendants' rights. The justices also rejected without comment a challenge to a Massachusetts law which sets doctors' fees for Medicare patients. The action means the law stands. And there was a demonstration outside the court building today. More than 400 gay activists were arrested when they crossed police lines on the court steps. Protest leaders said the acts of civil disobedience were organized to protest a 1986 court decision declaring sodomy illegal and to appeal generally for civil rights for gays. Today's demonstration capped a week of protests and lobbying in Washington, which included a march by more than 250,000 people on Sunday. MacNEIL: The Surgeon General C. Everett Koop said today that companies should educate their employees about AIDS to keep them from panicking when one of their colleagues gets the disease. He was addressing a special AIDS forum for business executives in Chicago.

Dr. C. EVERETT KOOP, Surgeon General: The treatment of AIDS should be within existing policy for illness. Employees with AIDS should be offered the opportunity to work as long as they can. Encourage employees to be sensitive to the needs of a colleague with AIDS. Respect for the individual, consistent with the company's experience, must be stressed by management and subordinates. And finally, an educational program must be implemented. MacNEIL: The 300 corporate executives attending the forum will establish guidelines to track the disease in the workplace. LEHRER: Iraqi radio said today an Iranian missile killed 29 children in a Bagdad schoolyard. The report said the projectile was a surface to surface missile. We have a report from David Shukman of the BBC.

DAVID SHUKMAN, BBC: This was the scene in Bagdad a few hours after the Iranian missile had struck. It hit the ground just 50 yards from the school, minutes before classes were due to start. Most of the children were in the playground and were caught by the blast. The head teacher said it was like an earthquake. Rescue workers picked their way through the rubble, and four hours after the attack, casualties were still being found. The explosion devastated buildings and cars nearby. At least 30 houses and shops were damaged. Windows a mile away were shattered. Most of the 200 people taken to hospital were children, all of them under the age of 10. In the propaganda war with Iran, the Iraqi authorities are turning this attack to their advantage, producing these pictures of a time when the military conflict shows every sign of escalating. MacNEIL: In Haiti an opposition presidential candidate, Yves Volel was shot dead by police today as he delivered a speech in front of police headquarters in Port Au Prince. Volel was demanding release of a prisoner, witnesses said, when plainclothes policemen shot several times, hitting him in the head and killing him instantly. Volel was a minor candidate, but a persistent critic of the governing junta led by Lt. Gen. Henri Namphy. Some 30 candidates have registered for the national elections set for November 29th. Another candidate was hacked to death in August by peasants who accused him of being a communist. LEHRER: And that's it for the news summary. Now it's on to Secretary Shultz, Nobel Peace Prize winner Oscar Arias, censoring high school newspapers, a California earthquake update, and the Road Runner. Central American Showdown LEHRER: The Central America Peace story is first tonight. Costa Rica's President Oscar Arias was named winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for his plan to stop the fighting in Nicaragua and elsewhere in Central America. President Arias is with us for a newsmaker interview. We will be going to him after we first look at another round of a Washington debate over the Arias plan and the Administration's $270 million aid request for the Nicaraguan contras. It featured Secretary of State Shultz and members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Sec. SHULTZ: I do think that we have to bear in mind the fact that the resistance is running out of money. UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: I understand that, but the point I was -- Sec. SHULTZ: If we wind up with the process, as I said, that leaves them out of business before anything else has taken place, we will have cast away the chance to get the peace and democracy that the agreement seeks. So we have a problem there, and that is why the President has determined that he is going to be sending up his proposal to you before Thanksgiving. But after November 7th. So we'll give a full, free chance for this thing to work itself out. VOICE Of DANTE FASCELL, (D) Florida: Well, democratization, cease fire and amnesty all taking place in full by November 7th is an impossibility. Sec. SHULTZ: Well, Mr. Chairman, a cease fire can be negotiated if people will sit down and negotiate. The resistance is ready. We have talked to them, they have been working at it, they are preparing themselves. It's a lot of technical matters involved in negotiating a cease fire, but that can be done if people will get together and talk. So far, the Nicaraguan communists haven't been willing to do it. So that's the hang up there. Rep. JIM LEACH, (R) Iowa: Mr. Secretary, I was particularly impressed with the first half of your statement in which you were so forthcoming on the Guatemala agreement. I would point out, however, and I think this is the crux of the dilemma at the time, both in the hemisphere and with Congress, that that agreement in Point 5 calls on all outside powers as of November 7 to cease all, and I quote, ''military, logistical, financial and propagandistic'' aid to irregular forces. It calls for this cutoff, and I quote again, ''an essential elemental for achieving stable and durable peace in the region. '' And the problem seems to be that our Nobel designee, Mr. Arias, has suggested that ending support for the contras is the prerequisite for peace. At the conclusion of your statement, you've argued exactly conversely, that maintaining military assistance is a prerequisite for peace. And so the question really becomes, when is peace peace? Is it through guns or is peace the ending of supplying guns? And my query is, is this a profound inconsistency between Washington and all of the parties in Central America that signed this agreement, or is Washington willing to compromise on this point? Sec. SHULTZ: It seems to me that it makes sense to say that the capability of the resistance, the demonstrated capability of the resistance to have a political appeal and a military capability was a big factor in bringing about this agreement, and causing Ortega to decide to sign. Because he had a problem. Now, that being the case, if you want an insurance policy that the agreement will be carried out either by November 7 or some subsequent time, better keep that group together. Or to put it another way, if he succeeds by using this as a tactic to get rid of his opposition without really giving up anything that he can't take right back again very easily, then he will have succeeded in thwarting the agreement. So therefore in my judgment, it is important to keep that funding there. Rep. SAM GEJDENSON, (D) Connecticut: Since the day that Speaker Wright announced the peace plan and people in the Administration spoke about it, the President in particular, and many people within the Administration, including Mr. Abrams, have done nothing, I believe, but to destroy any credible hope that this Administration was forcibly behind the peace process. And frankly, after seven years -- almost seven years -- of watching this Administration in Central America, it's hard for me to believe anything that is said here. And I say that with great pain, because I really had great hope for the process in working with this Administration through the years. But I think the test for you is an important one, because if you think that you're going to be able to come to Capitol Hill and get military assistance for the contras again, you have to somehow convince a small number of members of the House that have moved back and forth, that there was an earnest effort on the part of the Administration and the President, to seek the peace process. And with the loss of Philip Habib, and the continued actions of the Administration, you don't have that confidence in the Congress or with the American people. Sec. SHULTZ: We have been working hard at this, and will continue to work hard at this. As far as the last seven years are concerned, I'm disappointed in your comment, because it seems to me if we look back on it, with all of the struggles and the sometimes acrimonious discussions that we've had in this room, although it's very frank and candid, I think, we've come a long way. And we've accomplished a lot. And the situation in Central America is a lot better today than it was six years ago. LEHRER: Shultz also told the committee if the peace plan does stick, the money allocated for contra aid would be used to establish the resistance as a political force in Nicaragua. Oscar Arias Interview MacNEIL: We go next to the man who has just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to end the conflict in Central America, President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica. The peace plan bearing his name, signed in August, has begun to be implemented in Managua, but it's still -- as we've just heard -- the subject of debate in Washington. He began working on it immediately after his election in February 1986. President Arias is 46, the son of a wealthy coffee growing family. He is a lawyer, an economist, with degrees from the University of Essex and the London School of Economics. He's a former Vice President of Cost Rica's Central Bank and Minister of Planning. Mr. Arias joins us now for a newsmaker interview from the presidential palace in San Jose. Welcome and congratulations, Mr. President. OSCAR ARIAS, President, Costa Rica: Thank you very much. MacNEIL: Tell us your reaction on hearing of this award earlier this morning. Pres. ARIAS: Well, it was quite a surprise to me. I wasn't expecting this. And I simply interpret this as recognition not only to me or my government, but to my country to my people, a recognition to the values we share for democracy, freedom and peace. We've been trying to offer our colleagues and the other peoples of Central America the same values we share so that they can enjoy the peace we enjoy. And -- well, this is a boost. The Nobel Peace Prize awarded tome is going to have a very positive result on the compliance of the Guatemala accord. I think we have a tremendous responsibility, the five heads of state in the region, now more than ever. Because the committee in Oslo is trusting in our -- what good will, in our rationality, so that peace can prevail in the region, and so that we can bury the war that no one wants in Central America. MacNEIL: How will it have a practical effect on compliance, forcing compliance with the plan? Pres. ARIAS: Well, in a way, it's a demonstration of confidence in what we are doing, and at the same time, it's a way by which we feel encouraged to go on and advance even more. Trying to solve all the obstacles and problems that the compliance of the Guatemala has. I think this is going to be a very positive step, and well -- here again it's a test to the rationality of five people. I don't think we can fail now. I don't think we can fail, because if we fail, war will go on, war will continue, and we don't want to be remembered in history as five people who were unable to reach an agreement and bring peace to 25 million people who deserve peace, who deserve a better world, who deserve a higher standard of living, and as we all know, war is incompatible with a better world for our children in Central America. MacNEIL: Can you meet the November 7th deadline for implementation of your plan? Pres. ARIAS: I think so. I think so. I think we have advanced quite a lot. Six months ago, no one ever imagined that we could meet -- the presidents of Central America -- that we could reach agreements on the important problems such as cease fires, as amnesties, as suspension of aid to the rebel forces in the regions. Six months ago, no one believed that the guerillas in El Salvador were able to meet President Duarte after seven years of war and 60 million people dead. And now, the new dialogue between the guerillas in Guatemala and members of the Cereza government in Madrid, after 27 years of guerilla warfare, and almost 100,000 people killed, I'm still optimistic and hopeful that Daniel Ortega will accept my recommendation to use Cardinal Obando Ybrano as intermediary so that a negotiated cease fire can be obtained in Nicaragua, because this is the only way, if we guarantee both parties through a negotiated cease fire, this is the only way how we can obtain a durable peace in that country. MacNEIL: He has refused, Mr. Ortega has refused so far to negotiate directly with the contras. Is that an absolute prerequisite or necessity to make this agreement work? Pres. ARIAS: I think so. I don't believe that a unilateral cease fire guarantees the contras, offers guarantees to both parties, and it could bring a truce but not a durable peace. Unless everybody's satisfied, and this is applicable to El Salvador as well as Guatemala, we'll be able to advance toward peace. That's why for me indeed, it is essential, it is a prerequisite, a negotiated cease fire in Nicaragua. MacNEIL: Does that prerequisite also have as a condition direct talks between Ortega and the contras? Pres. ARIAS: Not necessarily. I think that if they accept the mediation of Cardinal Obando Ybrano, I don't think they have to sit at the same table with the contras. MacNEIL: Do you see signs, Mr. President, that Daniel Ortega is moving towards some negotiated cease fire? Pres. ARIAS: Well, I think that now with the Nobel Prize awarded to me -- and in a way, I think I should share this with my colleagues in the region. Because it's a recognition of what we are doing here in Central America, not to only me. It was my idea, it was my peace plan, but now it's being shared by everybody. And in a way, we just cannot turn our backs to that confidence, to that trust that has been shown by the committee in Oslo. And so in a way, this is a new test for tolerance. And Mr. Ortega has to be more tolerant, more flexible. MacNEIL: If he does not commence negotiations with the contras before -- directly or indirectly -- before negotiated cease fire, before November 7, does that mean the plan will have failed? Pres. ARIAS: No. Not necessarily. But that's a hypothetical question, and I just don't want to accept it. MacNEIL: All right. Pres. ARIAS: I cannot believe that before the 7th of November the Sandinista government is not going to accept a negotiated cease fire and accept the mediation of Cardinal Obando Ybrano. If they have accepted Cardinal Obando Ybrano as head of the Commission of National Reconciliation, I don't really understand why not can then he be accepted as the mediator between the contras and the Sandinista government. MacNEIL: You heard -- we just heard one of the congressmen in that debate with Secretary Shultz saying that you believe that the U. S. ending support for the contras was also a prerequisite for peace. Is that correct? Is that what you believe? Pres. ARIAS: My interpretation has been that contra aid has been used as an excuse by the Sandinistas to make Nicaragua more dictatorial regime, to abolish individual liberties, to be more inflexible, more intransigent, in negotiations -- not to advance toward a more pluralistic society, because they always used the excuse of the contras in order to make Nicaragua a closed society and a more totalitarian government. And even more they have used the excuse of the contras to excuse the failure of the Marxist experiment in their economy. Without that excuse, if there's no more contra aid before the 7th of November, then I think we can advance toward peace. I don't want any excuses to be used by any government. I don't want any more excuses to be used by the Sandinistas. Now the ball is in the Central American court. I went to Washington, as you recall, to ask Washington, to ask the press, to ask the American public, that we as fellow Americans deserve a chance. The essence of my message was, ''Let us give peace a chance. Let us give peace an opportunity. '' That's all I've been asking. Until the 7th of November. And I am sure -- I am confident -- I am hopeful that we will be able to be more tolerant now than ever before, and that the Sandinistas will accept the mediation sooner or later, of Cardinal Obando Ybrano. Because a negotiated cease fire in Nicaragua is essential if we want to bring a durable peace in that country. MacNEIL: What happens to the peace plan if the Congress votes more aid to the contras before November 7th? Pres. ARIAS: That again is a very hypothetical question, because I don't really believe this is going to happen. I think that after my message to the contras I am going to have the support from both Republicans as well as Democrats, and that no new aid will be approved before the 7th of November in the U. S. Congress. MacNEIL: Well, Mr. President Arias thank you very much for joining us this evening from San Jose. Fit to Print LEHRER: The U. S. Supreme Court heard an argument today about a high school newspaper in Missouri. It's an argument over the right of privacy vs. the right to publish, and the two principal attorneys who argued it this morning before the high court are now going to reargue it before us. The case comes from East High School in Hazelwood, a suburb of St. Louis. Four years ago this two page spread was set to be published by the school newspaper, the Spectrum. The articles focused on some of the real life pressures facing teens, the increase in teenage pregnancy, the divorce rate, teen marriages, the effect of divorce on kids, and the growing number of juvenile runaways. The school principal said the articles violated the privacy of students and families. He pulled the stories. Three students on the newspaper staff filed suit, claiming their first amendment rights had been violated. Leslie Edwards is the lawyer who argued the student's case before the Supreme Court today. Robert Baine did the same for the school board. Both are St. Louis attorneys. Ms. Edwards, what's wrong with what the principal did? LESLIE EDWARDS, Students' Attorney: The high school had set up this newspaper for access by members of a class to discuss national, political, the individual students' expressive ideas. And then the principal jumped in at the end and said, ''Well, we don't like this one particular story that you wrote, so we're going to pull it. But not just the story, we're going to pull the two pages the story is written on. '' The student expression was protected by the first amendment, and unless there are fore situations that did not exist at Hazelwood East, the laws of all the other -- the law that's been decided by other federal courts has said that they can't do this. The principal cannot pull the pages of the student paper. LEHRER: Why can't it? Ms. EDWARDS: Once he's opened it up, then to allow the government to say, ''Okay, we don't like this one particular idea, we don't like this one viewpoint,'' then allows the government to have the exact power that the first amendment was designed to protect the people from. LEHRER: All right. Mr. Baine, why was the principal within his rights to do what he did? ROBERT BAINE, School Board Attorney: Well, of course, I disagree with Leslie about how the paper was set up and for what purpose. I think when we tried the case, we established in the trial court that the Hazelwood Spectrum was in fact a part of the journalism class exercise. In order to be involved in Spectrum, you had to complete Journalism I, which was an academic course, and Journalism II, was an academic course, and only the students who were enrolled in Journalism II were allowed to work with the paper. And I think the trial court's evidence was really clear that the teacher was very intimately involved in not only setting up the stories, but in helping to rewrite, reediting and all that process. And the unfortunate thing that occurs in most lawsuits, and that is that about 85% of the way through the process, the teacher who was working with the students and had worked with them in Journalism I, and now was going to work with them in Journalism II, got a job in private industry. So another teacher was sent in to help the students complete the year. Now, when he saw the stories, he thought they were inappropriate for the reasons that we had talked about -- LEHRER: As I understand it, these stories had already been set in type and were at the printers, is that right? When this new advisor -- Mr. BAINE: No. LEHRER: No? Mr. BAINE: No. LEHRER: No. Mr. BAINE: When the new advisor, the evidence in the trial court established when the new advisor took over, he got the rough drafts of the stories from the students, the galley, and when he reviewed them, he had a problem with them, but he was unable to contact the principal, because the principal -- it was the end of the year, the principal was busy on other matters. So he then had them set in proof form, but was not going to do anything with them until he had consulted with the principal about the stories. Because he had a problem with the content of the stories. When he finally did get ahold of the principal, and the principal reviewed the now galley proof, the proof with the teacher, he said, No, I have a problem with the stories, because -- the story about the pregnant young lady start out with 'Their names have been changed to protect their anonymity,' when in fact the principal felt that he knew who they were and that if they had been guaranteed anonymity, the story didn't do it. There is another story that indicated the reasons why one parent, or one student's parents were divorced and the activities of the father, there was nothing -- the principal or the acting teacher could find that there'd been an opportunity for comment on the part of the parent. They both felt, the principal and the teacher felt, that this was -- entangling the families of the students in the school newspaper was inappropriate. LEHRER: The stories were about real people, real situations, and the names were changed, or left out, is that correct? We agree on -- everybody agrees that's what happened. Now, is it your position that the principal felt that despite this, this was an invasion of privacy of these people because anybody who was familiar with the situation could have figured out who they were? Mr. BAINE: Well, that and the fact that it was established at trial that at least one of these pregnant young ladies might have been fourteen years of age, and even though she consented to giving her story about her activities -- sexual activities -- that this may be something she might regret in the future, and the principal, acting as -- I think appropriately so -- in the form of loco parentis, said that maybe you shouldn't print that sort of thing. LEHRER: Isn't that what a principal of a school has a right to do, Ms. Edwards? Ms. EDWARDS: There was no invasion of the right of privacy here. Two of the women interviewed had already had their babies. The third one was five months pregnant. The only thing in the story was, ''I'm pregnant, I've had the baby. '' or ''I did or did not use birth control. '' The problem with talking about birth control was it indicated sexual activity. There was nothing to be discovered. There was nothing private. Once you're either five months or you've had a baby. The other story -- about divorce -- the only thing in there said, ''My dad stayed all out late, playing cards. '' No name. No identification. A freshman says, ''I thought divorce was my fault. No, it was my parents. In fact, my dad stayed out all night, playing cards. '' There is nothing for the school to protect here. LEHRER: Well, I -- forgive me, both of you -- I'm having a little trouble understanding why this thing went to the U. S. Supreme Court. Why it couldn't have been resolved -- was there an effort to resolve this thing at the local levels? The school board, students, principal, or whatever? Mr. Baine? Mr. BAINE: Well, from a tactical standpoint, I think there was an effort to resolve it, but as the evidence in the trial court again established, there were only two newspapers left to be printed. This was part of a classroom exercise, so there were four or five papers to be printed during the semester. This was the next to last paper, and the last paper involved a class legacy. So in regard to this newspaper -- remember, it was established that the principal thought, when he was contacted by the classroom teacher, that he was at the printer's and it was either gonna roll or not roll. LEHRER: So he had to make a decision? Mr. BAINE: In all due respect to Ms. Edwards, the copy that the principal had identified the freshman by name, who commented on her parents' divorce. The copy that the teacher had had already had that name crossed out, but they didn't communicate on that. And here we go to the trial court, listening to witnesses and judging credibility, and the trial court felt that the principal really felt that this was an article about this named freshman and her parents and their reasons for divorce. LEHRER: Let me ask you this, Ms. Edwards. As somebody who's -- I'm in the journalism business, and there are always editors and there's always publishers, and there's always somebody who says, ''I don't want to run that. We're not gonna run that. '' We do that on this program. Where does -- does the principal not function in this process? In other words -- or the students, or the teacher/advisor have no editorial function like that that you consider legitimate? Or is it just the specifics of this particular case that the principal did not have the right to do what he did. Ms. EDWARDS: The difference with the analogy that you've mentioned is that the government is the publisher when you're talking about a highschool newspaper. And the main -- LEHRER: And the principal -- meaning, as an employee of the school -- Ms. EDWARDS: Well, I'm talking about the school board, the superintendent and the principal, okay? I'll leave out the advisor at this point in terms of whether the advisor is a government agent or employee, that well may be, but initially, the government as publisher stands for something that usually doesn't exist in this country. We don't have a U. S. Ministry of Information. We don't have a government owned and run radio or TV station, which is allowed to give political endorsements to candidates or to do propagandizing. And the reason is because the First Amendment was designed to protect from the state, leaving out a viewpoint. And that's exactly what the school did in this case. They want the students to say, ''Pregnancy is horrible, I had a terrible time, don't ever mess around, don't do anything that would get you into this situation. '' When in fact what these writers -- the people they interviewed -- said, ''You know, this isn't so bad. '' And that's what the school objected to -- the viewpoint. LEHRER: Is that it? Mr. BAINE: I -- we spent a lot of time trying this case, and that never came out, really, in the trial court. The things that came out in the trial court, as a matter of fact, were that articles on pregnancy, teenage pregnancy and other issues, divorce, had been printed in the paper. Although I can understand Ms. Edwards' feeling about this, the trial court really found that the principal was concerned about these three young ladies and the fact that they had been granted anonymity -- and judged that to be his motive. LEHRER: But to my question. Is it your position, is it the school board's position, that the principal and the faculty advisor had a legitimate right in the editorial process to say, ''No, pull those stories. '' Mr. BAINE: Yes. The answer to that question is yes, they did have a legitimate right. Again, the evidence that was put forth in the trial court indicated that he journalism curriculum put the classroom advisor at the top, as editor in chief, and then all the rest -- then he was to designate -- and it changed from paper to paper who would be the editor for this, who would be the writer for that, so he controlled all of that. And then it said at the last step, ''and consult the principal'' concerning the output of the newspaper. So the principal was involved in a curriculum guide. Now, that was parallel with the textbook, which indicated how fairness and balance and editing and copy and story generation ideas -- all of that was involved in the process. LEHRER: If you lose this case, Ms. Edwards, before the Supreme Court, what will the effect be? Ms. EDWARDS: I doubt if it will have much effect at high schools, except for those principals that are in a borderline situation -- they're not sure whether they should allow students editorial discretion or not. I think the main concern that we have is that in five years, you're going to have these high school graduates out there trying to be responsible citizens and voting in a democratic society. And they're going to think because they were taught in high school, the first amendment doesn't apply to me. And when it comes time to push them to expand and try and use the first amendment, they're going to have a little hesitation in their mind. LEHRER: What do you think the effect of this --? Mr. BAINE: If she loses? LEHRER: No, if you win. Mr. BAINE: If I win. I think that the policy as practiced by the Hazelwood School Board would be an acceptable method and -- LEHRER: What if you lose, what would be the effect? Mr. BAINE: I think that the dissenting opinion in the eighth circuit said that to follow what the eighth circuit did put the school board between Scylla and Charybdis, either being sued by the students if you refused to publish, or if you made a mistake, the Charybbdis was being sued by those persons whose privacy you invaded. In that case, I think it would have a great negative effect. LEHRER: All right. I expected you both to answer that question exactly as you did. Thank you both for being with us. Picking up Pieces MacNEIL: California residents were shaken again today when a small earthquake rattled parts of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. There were no reports of damage or injuries. Meanwhile, Los Angeles residents are still recovering from the damage caused thirteen days ago by the largest quake to hit that area in sixteen years. Jeffrey Kaye of Public Station KCET in Los Angeles has an update on the quake and its aftermath.

JEFFREY KAYE: The October lst earthquake killed three people. Four others died from heart attacks when the tremblor struck. More than 12,000 were forced from their homes. There was about $180 million worth of damage. Those are the statistics. But behind the figures are the people trying to cope with the aftermath of the quake. WOMAN: In plain English, I'm afraid. WOMAN: You weren't in the building when it was shaking -- WOMAN: We were. I was on the floor by myself. MAN: The building like just a sudden jolt, and then it just kept going on and on, and then I went into the doorway, into the steel doorway, and everybody was just kind of panicking and frenzying around -- WOMAN: And I came over here to pick up my child, so I'm trying to get him off to school now, because he had never (unintelligible) WOMAN: The roof is collapsing, we had to get out, and they didn't let us take anything --

KAYE: As soon as the quake struck, emergency teams went into action. Government agencies had been making plans since the harsh lesson of the 1971 tremblor, which killed 60 people. Within an hour of the quake, 45 Los Angeles city officials assembled in the command post, four floors below the Civic Center. Inspectors were mobilized to check dams and freeways. Fire Department helicopters surveyed the city. The small community of Whittier, hardest hit by the quake, also assembled its comparatively meagre resources. Response teams here were supplemented by emergency squads from surrounding communities. One week after the quake, Red Cross shelters were housing more than 2,000 people, folks whose homes were unsafe, or who were just afraid to return to them. John Carlson fears his house may be uninhabitable. JOHN CARLSON, Whittier resident: It felt like four semis, one on each side coming at me full speed. And it all just hit at once, it was a big crash. It wasn't even -- not a rumble like most earthquakes are, it just hit real hard real fast. It was just a jolt, unbelievable.

KAYE: Carlson and his family have still not recovered from the earthquake. They live in Whittier in a house that seems to have twisted and split down the middle. Mr. CARLSON: It knocked the whole chimney down here, as you can see. And lifted the house right off the foundation, all the way around. The house some places is two to three inches off the foundation.

KAYE: The damage done to their house is only part of the story. Powerful earthquakes leave those who experience them with a feeling of helplessness, and like thousands of others in the area, John Carlson suffered an emotional aftershock. Mr. CARLSON: I'm from the midwest, and I'm saving my money, and I'm getting out of here. I mean, this is an enemy you can't fight. You can't control it. You know, people say why do you want to go back there, there's tornados and hurricanes, but a tornado you know when it's coming. You can plan, you can get out of the way. This thing hit with no warning whatsoever. It didn't rumble, it just hit. There was the ugliest feeling -- I've been -- every time somebody moves now, or drops something on the ground, I'm like this. And hey, I'm a veteran, I was in the Marine Corps in the '60s, I went overseas, this scared me to death.

KAYE: After the quake struck, John Carlson, Virginia Lozano and their three children, moved into a tent behind their house. Now Virginia combs the classifieds for rental housing. They kept two of their children home from school for a couple of days, because they want the family together in case there's another earthquake. They are also trying to cope with their fears. At the temporary Red Cross shelter set up in a Whittier Community Center, Virginia Lozano meets psychiatric nurse Carmen Brunon. VIRGINIA LOZANO, Whittier resident: I'm tired. I'm tired of the earthquake, I'm tired of the disaster around me. I'm just tired of the whole thing. Let's not even talk about it. Let's change the subject, pretend it didn't even happen. NURSE: You are just experiencing what we call a delayed reaction.

KAYE: Psychological counseling is only one of the services available here. Red Cross workers provide referrals for rental housing. They also offer food vouchers, and financial assistance. Next door, a local church group has turned a baseball field into a day care center for children. The teachers say the kids have been holding up pretty well. In fact, much of Whittier survived intact. In parts of the area, you'd never know anything was out of the ordinary. Most streets seem normal. Downtown, people go about their business. But the oldest building in town, now a yogurt store, may have to be torn down. And the local porno theatre has been temporarily closed. That's something months of protesting by activists couldn't accomplish. In all, Whittier building inspectors have declared 200 structures unsafe. Whittier's director of building and safety, Richard Harbinger, is afraid that any slight disturbance could topple buildings in the uptown area. [film clip of man helping woman out of danger area] KAYE: While the quake forced some businesses to shut down, it mobilized others. Fifteen to twenty percent of Southern California home owners carry earthquake insurance, and insurance companies such as State Farm quickly sent claims adjusters into the field. The earthquake caused cracks throughout Bob Earlywine's hillside home. Damage he eagerly pointed out to company representatives. BOB EARLYWINE, Whittier resident: The plaster and everything is all gone, you can see, right along the edge, it goes all the way to the bottom.

KAYE: Under Earlywine's policy, a typical one, he must pay the first $10,000 to repair damages. The insurance company will pay the rest, up to $100,000. Both sides quickly staked out their positions. Mr. EARLYWINE: I don't think the $100,000 will cover it when it's done. I'll probably end up having to get one of those extra loans that they have now. JEANNE DE LA MARE, State Farm Insurance: Well, I don't know that the damage is over the $100,000. I'd like to see what we can do with the money that we have, and get the most for it.

KAYE: At least 150 buildings are beyond repair. At Cornerstone Realty, the cornerstone will have to come down. The building must be demolished. But in the meantime, owner Vince Campion is making the best of it in his sidewalk office. VINCE CAMPION, realtor: And it's a two bedroom with a den, two bathrooms and a view. And there's not even one earthquake crack in it. It's beautiful.

KAYE: The West Whittier Paint Company moved its operation outside after the quake splattered cans of paint all over the store. Not surprisingly, salesman Rod Edwards is now running a thriving business. ROD EDWARDS, West Whittier Paint Co. : I sell a lot of paint, and you know, patching material, and people are trying to put it back together. Window material, everybody locks their windows.

KAYE: The Whittier Drugstore also survived the quake. They're having a sale on items that received minor damage. Pharmacist Paul Applebaum is seeing a run on sleeping pills and sedatives. PAUL APPLEBAUM, pharmacist: Our prime thing today as far as new prescriptions has been nerve pills. Got a lot of nerve pills. We were just remarking we never sold so many nerve pills in one day before. Another thing is birth control pills. I guess they left them in their bedrooms when the thing collapsed. But I've seen a lot of birth control pills. I don't know why.

KAYE: While Whittier residents try to reassemble their affairs, earthquake researchers have descended on the area as if it's as giant laboratory. Scientists with the U. S. Geological Survey quickly placed 18 portable seismographs around the region as soon as the earthquake hit. They are now busy monitoring aftershocks. SCIENTIST: I'd say about three point oh seven (laughter).

KAYE: These are exciting times for the seismologists, people who study earthquakes. The October 1 quake surprised the experts. They originally thought it took place on the Whittier fault, but it turns out the tremblor occurred in an adjacent geological area, one scientists had thought couldn't produce earthquakes. Lucille Jones is with the U. S. Geological Survey. (To Jones) Does that now give Angelenos more need for concern, or cause for alarm? Dr. LUCILLE JONES, U. S. Geological Survey: Anytime you recognize a new seismogenic structure in the middle of a metropolitan area, you've got to think about it. Yes, there's now probably a little bit -- we figure it a little more likely than we used to -- the chance of having, say a 6. 5 underneath downtown Los Angeles. It's still low.

KAYE: But according to Jones, L. A. 's latest earthquake doesn't change the odds of the big one coming. Eight point three trembler, a thousand times more powerful than the October 1 quake. Scientists expect it to strike Southern California sometime in the next 50 years. Because of the danger, California law requires owners of unreinforced brick buildings to either demolish them or fix them up. These smaller masonry structures were the worst damaged in the most recent quake. Cal Tech engineer Paul Jennings has a model that shows why. PAUL JENNINGS, Cal Tech: You can see how the short little two story building vibrates back and forth rather rapidly, and the taller one, which is the model of a ten story building, shows a longer, swaying motion.

KAYE: Jennings says the recent earthquake was not a good test for tall buildings. During an earthquake, they would have to withstand shaking for up to 45 seconds. The October 1st quake lasted only 15 seconds. Science lessons are of little use to the hundreds of people crowded into Red Cross shelters. Although officials here believe this emergency has been instructive. They say they were well equipped to handle this disaster, but they also see it as a dress rehearsal for the big earthquake, according to the National Red Cross representative Donna Nelson. DONNA NELSON, American Red Cross: There are some benefits from this type of exercise in earthquake preparedness, and that is that we're making people more aware of what can happen in the event of an earthquake, and maybe some people were taking preparedness for granted. They go, ''Oh, it's just another part -- something else I have to worry about. '' But this will make them realize that they really need to be prepared. It has been again an excellent test run for us. And I think we'll be able to cope with a larger earthquake. Rules of the Road LEHRER: Finally tonight, an essay about that cartoon character called the Road Runner. The essayist is Bill Barol of Newsweek Magazine.

Bill Barol: They have pursued each other across the vast reaches of the American Southwest for a long time now, ageless adversaries. The Coyote and the Road Runner. The Coyote hasn't caught the Road Runner yet. Chances are, he forgot what he was doing out there sometime in the 1950s. Chuck Jones, who created the characters, likes to quote George Santayana. ''A fanatic is someone who redoubles his efforts when he's forgotten his aim. '' This is the longest chase in movie history, and it enters its fifth decade this year. It was in 1947 that Jones, the preeminent cartoon director for Warner Bros. , began fooling around with a new idea for a series. The first thing he did was lay down a strict set of rules. The cartoons would always take place in the desert. The Road Runner would never leave the road. No matter what terrible catastrophes overtook him, the Coyote would always survive. And finally, no matter what happened, the Coyote would never, ever catch the Road Runner. The first cartoon in the series, Fast and Furious, was finally released in 1949. Jones directed 22 more over 25 years. Every one followed the rules laid down in 1947, and it was just this tight structure that gave the series its edge. The spareness of the format allowed Jones and writer Michael Maltese to concentrate on the two most important parts of the cartoon. First, the characters. Like the others Jones directed for Warner Bros. , Bugs Bunny, Pepi LaPew, Daffy Duck, his Road Runner and Coyote have real comic grace. They always moved funny. And both the Coyote and the Road Runner have flawless timing. Better than any other cartoon director, Jones understood that the difference between a laugh and no laugh could be one frame, literally a split second. Then, there were the gags. Complicated bird catching scams that always blew up in Coyote's face. Jones' ingenuity was astonishing, bending not only the traditional rules of the movie chase, but even the laws of physics. Poor Coyote would dash off a cliff, stand suspended in space, and not fall until he looked down. And just for the record, the Road Runner cartoons broke the fourth walls, talked directly to their audiences some 40 years before Moonlighting. [on camera] You could argue if you were so inclined that the Road Runner cartoons are minimalist masterpieces. This might sound silly, but then again, maybe not. [voice over]: Take a look at what passes for cartooning today: thin, pale, animated features in which nothing really moves, and nothing surprising ever happens. Then look again at the Road Runner cartoons. By comparison, they look like the Flemish masters. Maybe they are some kind of art after all. The Coyote never gives up the chase, even in the face of insuperable odds. Even though the very forces of nature conspire against him. This is persistence. The bird and the Coyote racing endlessly over the sand, lasting proof that there can be high art in low places. Recap MacNEIL: Finally, another look at the main points in the news. President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica won the 1987 Nobel Peace Prize for a Central American Peace Plan. He said on the NewsHour tonight that he believes Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega will accept mediation with the contras. President Reagan called the battle against Robert Bork a political joke, and vowed to name someone they will object to just as much. An Iranian missile hit a Bagdad schoolyard, killing 29 children. Good night, Jim. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.