The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Monday, the U.S. is considering a permanent military base in the Persian Gulf. The Supreme Court will decide if smokers can bring liability suits against cigarette makers. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff's in Washington tonight. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: On the NewsHour tonight we turn first to the debate over blacks in the military. Are they better or worse off for being in uniform? Charlayne Hunter-Gault has a report and we get four different views. Next, smarting from the reaction to weeks of anti- war protests, San Francisco's business community tries to shake that city's peacenik reputation, and Essayist Roger Rosenblatt considers the LA police beating and how powerful pictures unlock the demons in all of us. NEWS SUMMARY

MS. WOODRUFF: The United States may establish a permanent military base in the Persian Gulf. White House Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said today U.S. military officials are discussing the possibility with Arab allies in the anti-Iraq coalition. He said the base was needed to facilitate training and coordination with Gulf allies. He said the unit would number a few hundred and would not include ground troops. The Associated Press and Reuters News Agencies quoted anonymous sources as saying the Gulf island nation of Bahrain was a likely site for the base. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: The Pentagon today denied a report that U.S. troops had moved deeper into Iraq over the weekend. The report in the Washington Post said U.S. armored units had pushed 60 miles further into Iraq in a bid to intimidate Saddam Hussein's forces. Iraqi opposition leaders say that Baghdad is under a virtual state of siege because of continuing clashes between rebel and government forces. They also said Saddam Hussein's forces had used bombers and helicopters to attack rebel controlled cities in Northern Iraq. They appealed to the United States for help in stopping the attacks. The rebels also released pictures from Northern Iraq today. We have a report narrated by Richard Vaughan of Worldwide Television News.

MR. VAUGHAN: These amateur video pictures released by the Kurdish rebels show some of the loyalist troops taken prisoner by the rebels in the North of Iraq. They back opposition claims that thousands of government troops have surrendered or been captured in the fighting over the past three weeks. Loyalist soldiers are also reported to have joined the rebels while others have fled towards Baghdad. The rebels are said to be in control of the Kurdish City of Arbeel, one of Iraq's largest towns. Here, as in other towns, the Kurds have set up a regional administration. As in the rest of the country, their immediate problems lie in restoring the shattered infrastructure, working to establish electricity and water supplies. Hatred of Saddam Hussein is intense in the North where the Kurdish majority have long wanted autonomy. It appears they're succeeding in establishing control of their region, but the price they paid is a heavy one. At the Arabeel Cemetery, the rebels say loyalist soldiers desecrated graves, smashing head stones and spoiling fresh burial sites. One Kurdish guerrilla says he witnessed the destruction. The rebellion against Baghdad has proved most successful in the North, but fighting continues in the South of the country. Saddam Hussein is reported to be moving his troops towards Baghdad to protect the capital from rebel troops said to be assembling around the city, although light in Baghdad appears to continue calmly.

MR. MacNeil: Iraq complained to the United Nations today about 13 incidents in which it claimed that Iranian military units had crossed the border to help the rebels. Investigators hired by Kuwait estimate that Saddam Hussein and his family skimmed more than $10 billion from Iraq's oil profits since 1981. The claims were reported by CBS and the London Financial Times. Today the State Department said it could not confirm the accuracy of the figure, nor whether the assets were held for Saddam's personal use. The State Department criticized Israel today for its decision to deport four Palestinians from the Gaza Strip. They were accused of directing acts of violence against Israel. State Department Spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler had this comment.

MARGARET TUTWILER, State Department Spokesman: The United States deplores decisions by the government of Israel. We have protested this decision in Washington and in Jerusalem. Deportations are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention as it pertains to the treatment of inhabitants of the occupied territories. The United States believes that charges of wrongdoing should be brought in a court of law based on evidence to be argued in a public trial. Israel's decision to deport Palestinians at this time cannot possibly contribute to the development of a peace process. We hope the government of Israel does not go forward with this decision.

MR. MacNeil: Israel's Housing Minister, Ariel Sharon, today urged his government to expel hundreds of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Sharon, a hard line member of the ruling Lekud Party, said the leaders of the Palestinian uprising were waging a campaign of stabbings against Israelis. He said, "We must put them on a plane and throw them out."

MS. WOODRUFF: The Supreme Court today agreed to decide a dispute over whether cigarette companies are liable for health consequences from smoking. The case involves a New Jersey woman who smoked for 40 years and died of lung cancer in 1984. The family sued three cigarette companies claiming she was influenced by their advertising. The issue before the High Court is whether the companies are shielding from claims from victims who started smoking before 1966, when a federal law was enacted requiring all advertising to contain health warnings. A ruling on the case is expected next year. In Los Angeles, Police Chief Daryl Gates is urging television stations to stop showing the videotape of police beating a black motorist. He said it could prevent the defendants from receiving a fair trial. Also today, a police spokesman said the FBI will question all 200 officers who were assigned to the station where the defendants work.

MR. MacNeil: The government's savings & loan bailout agency announced a plan to rescue 215 more thrifts today. It would also give away as many as 3,000 repossessed homes to non-profit groups if they can't be sold. Thirty billion dollars in spending for the plan was authorized in legislation signed by the President over the weekend. But William Seidman, Chairman of the agency, said more will be needed to clean up the S&L problem.

MS. WOODRUFF: That's it for our News Summary. Just ahead, blacks in the military, San Francisco tries to shake it's anti-war image and essayist Roger Rosenblatt on those police beating pictures. FOCUS - EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

MS.WOODRUFF: First tonight blacks in the military. More than three weeks after the end of the war in the Gulf, a debate is still underway about whether blacks are asked to bear too much of the burden of defending this nation and its interests. While blacks make up about 12 percent of the overall population, they are 21 percent of the troops sent to the Gulf, and an even higher proportion, almost 30 percent of the Army, most at risk in any ground war. Critics say the sacrifice outweighs the opportunity. Supporters disagree. We will engage the debate after this report filed by Charlayne Hunter-Gault while she was in Saudi Arabia covering the war.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: This is Corporal Costello Spivey. During the war his job was carrying supplies and ammunition to allied troops at the front. Spivey, a single parent, joined the military in large part because of his financial needs.

CPL. COSTELLO SPIVEY, U.S. Marine Corps: I was going to Indiana University, IU, Hoosers, you know, and I needed some money for school, so I decided to get a look at the world and I thought the Marine Corps might mature me just enough to help me make it through college.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is it?

CPL. SPIVEY: It's doing a great job.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The story is a familiar one, repeated often by troops all over the war theater in all branches of the military. Air Force Staff Sgt. Leroy Wells of Sumter, South Carolina.

SGT. LEROY WELLS, U.S. Air Force: I came from a fairly poor family and I felt it was between my sister and I to go to college and I felt myself I could make a better deal by going to the military and try to go to college that way and let my sister go to college from the family.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But a growing number of sisters also join the military. Several hundred miles away at a camp close to the Iraqi border, Nechole Reed and Sheila Burden were serving in a National Guard unit from Mobile, Alabama.

PVT. NECHOLE REED, Alabama National Guard: My brother was in it and all my friends started going in so I joined, and some schooling too, but I haven't had a chance to experience that yet.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why not?

PVT. REED: Because I'm over here.

SPC. SHEILA BURDEN, Alabama National Guard: I just joined because I had family members in and I really wanted to be the first female in my family to join the military so I did and at that point in time I had no other reasons for joining, other than just for that. So now it's changed. I've had two children since then and now I stay in because of the benefits for them.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Capt. Don Barber also from Mobile.

CAPT. DON BARBER, Alabama National Guard: A lot of small rural areas of the country there is not a lot of economic opportunity for whites or blacks or any other races, and a lot of times in the small towns you'll have, the National Guard will represent a sizeable proportion of the income for everybody in that particular area.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So what you're saying is that poor whites as well as poor blacks are in the same boat?

CAPT. BARBER: My only observation would be that when it comes to poverty, regardless of the race, a person is going to take opportunity where it exists, and the National Guard and the Reserves and the military have afforded economic opportunity for people of all races who have found themselves in economic distress.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And a lot of these people who joined for economic opportunity never thought that they would be joining to fight a war.

CAPT. BARBER: That's true. I guess it's, you know, the expression, if you play, you pay, so,you know, a lot of people have enjoyed the income from the National Guard and the Reserves for a number of years and no one really wants to be here, but you have to fulfill the obligations when you sign on the dotted line.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Sgt. Lester Fountain said he was an anti-war protester in the early '70s, but in this conflict, he was prepared to die fighting for his country.

SGT. LESTER FOUNTAIN, U.S. Marine Corps: It's my watch now. I had friends in the Nam, my father and relatives I had were part of the Korean experience. I'm sure there were those in World War II or whatever it may be. And now it's my watch, and I want to be as honorable as they were and I want to participate in the campaign. I want to share the Americana experience. I think when I go back, I can start demanding whatever rights that I rate as a citizen, whatever the case may be, I think I can write my different creditors, and say, look, don't give me this, because I've been here, or whatever the case may be. I feel more comfortable. I feel a part that I rate the package, as it were.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And you want to fight?

SGT. FOUNTAIN: I want to be there with my unit, yes.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: On the front line?

SGT. FOUNTAIN: On the front line.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But you could be killed.

SGT. FOUNTAIN: Yes. That's definitely part of the package.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Many of the black GIs had heard something, if not a lot, about protests back home over the disproportionate number of blacks serving in the Gulf. Air Force Staff Sgt. Michael Smith.

SGT. MICHAEL SMITH, U.S. Air Force: What can we do about it? If we say that certain minorities cannot join the military, then that's going back to discrimination. The top and low military man in the military is a black, so what can we say, only blacks can hold certain positions, because only so many blacks join the military? I don't think it's going to be fair. Well, we could bring back the draft. Then maybe that'll equal it out, but then you got to sectionalize that also. So it's not going to be fair no matter which way it goes I don't think.

SPOKESMAN: We're not the only one that's out there fighting the way the world, you know, is figuring. Myself, it's just as many other minorities out there fighting along with us. We don't have to just key it on one minority by itself the way I see it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Twenty-one years ago Air Force Maj. James McClain joined the military to help ease the burden on his parents who were trying to bring up 11 children. He acknowledged that the circumstances today may still limit the choices for poor minorities, but he argues that the military is, nevertheless, a viable choice.

MAJ. JAMES McCLAIN, U.S. Marine Corps: I hear the purpose about the disproportionate number of minorities, but again this is something that was chosen by the individual. The military is a perfect place for a young man or young woman to get a start, to serve their country. This is not a vocational school. This is the armed forces. Our business is to plan and execute war, period. That's the bottom line, no matter what anyone else says. Our profession is arms. That you get an education en route is a benefit of the profession, but anyone who signs on the dotted line who thinks that war is not a possibility while serving is really not being realistic.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The highest percentage of blacks who served in the Persian Gulf, some 30 percent, were in the Army. To respond to the concerns about that and related issues, we sought out the Army's highest ranking officer in the war theater before he left his tour of duty in Saudi Arabia. He was deputy commander in chief of all allied forces in Operation Desert Storm, Lt. Gen. Calvin Waller.

LT. GEN. CALVIN WALLER, U.S. Army: Young men and women, especially minorities who are serving here in Saudi Arabia, are far, far better off than they would be if they would be in the streets of some of the places where gangs are doing their thing and where they are subject to lose their lives more in disproportion than they are here in Saudi Arabia. Now I happen to think that if we are concerned about people losing their lives, that we ought to be more concerned about what's happening on the streets of Washington, D.C., in Chicago, or in L.A. more so than we should be concerned about the number of casualties that we may take here in Saudi Arabia.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: While blacks were highly visible on the front lines, Gen. Waller argued that most of them were not in the combat arms, but serving in other specialties.

LT. GEN. WALLER: Well, they're truck drivers, they're supply personnel, they're people working on missiles, they're people working in communications vans, they do all sorts of things, from A to Z, other than being in the combat arms.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Gen. Waller also took issue with critics who argued that when blacks joined the military it was because they had so few options and that none of them expected to fight in a war.

LT. GEN. WALLER: There are a few of them who will tell you that, no, they joined for some other reason. They really didn't intend to fight, that they wanted to get a college program, or they wanted to have a meaningful job. On the other hand, when they raised their right hand and they swore to defend this Constitution, they were taking a solemn oath and as far as I'm concerned, that's a contract that they should honor.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: General, you've been in the military some 31 years. What do you think of the military as an option?

LT. GEN. WALLER: I don't think there's any question in anybody's mind that the military is one of the fairest employers anywhere around. There are opportunities for all people, not just minorities, and the military is certainly a viable option to what was facing our young men and our young women when they graduated from high school and looking for a job, however, that particular option is one that they should take the maximum advantage of and use all of the great opportunities that we have in the military to prepare themselves for what they want to do after their military life.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How do you compare the number of black generals and top ranking officers who are minorities in the service today say to 30 years ago?

LT. GEN. WALLER: There are more minority generals today than there were 30 years ago. When I first came in the Army in 1959, it was rare to see anyone above a, especially an African-American, above a rank of lt. col., it was very rare. Today in the Army, we have 374 generals, and 27 of them happen to be black. So we have made a lot of progress. That doesn't mean that it's perfect. There are a lot of things that can be better. But we continue to work on them.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The argument has also been made that the military is a more egalitarian society than the private sector. Do you think that's the case?

LT. GEN. WALLER: I certainly do.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: In what way?

LT. GEN. WALLER: In many ways. Because you are mostly accepted for what your abilities are, how well you can do. You're not based solely on the pigmentation of your skin.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The numbers that you gave me sound good inasmuch as there are more black generals, as you said, than 30 years ago, but still there's a great discrepancy in the larger number, or sounds as if it is, and the number of generals overall of the number of ranking officers overall, and the number of minority ones, how does the progression work and how well is it working for minorities to work their way up the ladder?

LT. GEN. WALLER: It's a very difficult, very difficult system. Anyone who joins the Army as a second lieutenant or a private who thinks that they're going to be a general is usually generally normally out to lunch. It's not a right to passage type of thing. It is a regimented system that you must complete in order to be qualified to obtain and be eligible for promotion to the rank of general.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So racial discrimination, in your view, doesn't enter into it?

LT. GEN. WALLER: I would be less than candid if I tell you that racial discrimination doesn't enter into it sometime. I can tell you that there are people who have racial prejudice in any walk of life that you're going to go into. Certainly there are some right here in the military, but I would say that it is less in the military than it is in many other walks of life. When I look at what's happening across this great country of ours and look at the number of senior vice presidents or the number of CEOs in majority owned firms and so forth, it tells me that we haven't reached the utopia or the goal that we had hoped to reach many years ago, especially since 1964, when the Civil Rights Act was passed. We still don't have all of those individuals that we should have, or we would have thought that we would have had by now. And it's not much different than it is in the military, but I would tell you that if you contrast the military with the great corporations of Kuwait, you will find that there are more higher ranking, more senior level minorities, and especially African-Americans in the military than you will find in some of the other board rooms across this great nation.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you think that the fact that there are those numbers at the top, how much of a difference does that make for those at the bottom, enlisted men and so on, and do you find that it resonates in a positive way, and that there is less discrimination for them in the military than there is in the private sector?

LT. GEN. WALLER: I certainly hope so. I certainly hope that when the young men and young women in all of the branches of services can look up and see that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is an African-American, and they can look up and see that the deputy commander in chief of some kind is an African- American, and they can look out and see that their division commanders are African-Americans, or their corps commander is an African-American, it makes a difference. It says that if he can do it, I should be able to do it too.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Gen. Waller, thank you.

LT. GEN. WALLER: Thank you, a pleasure being with you.

MS. WOODRUFF: With us now to discuss why the military attracts so many young blacks and what the service has to offer are the Rev. Benjamin Chavis, executive director of the United Church of Christ Commission For Racial Justice, he's in New York tonight. Here in Washington are Col. Fred Cherry, a former Air Force pilot and POW in Vietnam, Ron Walters, chairman of the Political Science Department at Howard University, and Alan Keyes, a former State Department official, now president of the Citizens Against Government Waste. Rev. Chavis, let me begin with you. An earlier concern that you expressed and you and others expressed, that because there are a disproportionately high percentage of blacks in the military that they stood, that they were at greatest risk to suffer the highest or disproportionate percentage of casualties. As we know now, that didn't happen. The casualties were low. Of course, any casualty is too many, but it didn't happen to the degree that many feared. Does that mean the issue's gone away?

REV. CHAVIS: No, the issue has not gone away. In fact, any casualty, any African-American casualty in this war we feel is unjustified. I would say any American casualty is unjustified. When we talk about and say that we are calling into question the disproportionality of African-Americans in the United States military, we are not just talking about the military, because that is a symptom of the larger society. You just heard Gen. Waller and others talk about how they believe that the military offers greater equal opportunity than other sectors of American society. I think that's true. And, in fact, that's an indictment on the rest of society. That's how the function of racism plays in our society. Race is a factor to determine and limits equal opportunity. Why is it that the military offers greater access to African-Americans than corporate America, than in higher education, than other fields? Why can't we have that same equal access to Wall Street? It's based on race. And that is why we object to it.

MS. WOODRUFF: But you could also turn that around and say that if there is greater opportunity and greater access, why shouldn't blacks now today take advantage of that?

REV. CHAVIS: Because it's unfair, because you ask -- the military is not some option. As the general said, when you join the military, you'd better take sure that oath you're taking. You have to be prepared to shed your blood and lose your life for the nation. That's not the same burden of risk of one's life going into other sectors of this society, and the important thing about it is that if we're going to fight to lose our lives for this nation, then this nation ought to be more equitable and just. The situation that just happened in Los Angeles, California, shows that race is still a significant factor in this country in terms of the quality of life. Racism is running rampant in America, while our soldiers over there are shedding blood for this country.

MS. WOODRUFF: What about that, Alan Keyes?

MR. KEYES: Well, I think it's absurd to say that if the military is offering a great path of opportunity we should discourage young black and women from walking that path to improve themselves in a concrete way in the name of I think what is clearly demonstrated here is a kind of abstract argument that somehow this is unfair. I don't think it's an accident, by the way, that the military turns out to be to an area where you're going to find less prejudice and more cooperation. When your lives are on the line, you are looking at only one thing, is that guy who's covering my back going to cover it or not, is the person I'm relying on in the communication area going to get the message through or not, are the Air Force pilots and others going to be here to support me or not. That means that color is going to be much less important than ability and that means that the military isn't just more equitable because it started earlier, which it did, it's also more equitable because it's always been the great pressure cooker in terms of breaking down the walls of misunderstanding and hatred in America. When people have to rely on each other in a war, all of the different prejudices, racial, religious, whatever they may be, are less important.

MS. WOODRUFF: How do you respond to that, Ron Walters?

MR. WALTERS: Well, I think that what we have to do is we have to look at what are we going to do in the future. The question really is how we are going to be used and how should we use our skilled manpower? We can't, on the one hand, talk about the terrible situation in the black community and the inner-cities of the United States, and at the same time take a disproportionate share of the cream of the crop away. At the same time, when you look at the future of this country, and the requirements for a skilled force in the private sector --

MS. WOODRUFF: You're saying men and women who go into the service you're saying are the cream of the crop?

MR. WALTERS: There isn't any question about that. If you look at high school graduation rates, they're higher than whites in the military. If you look at families over $20,000 a year, they're higher than whites in the military. So what we're doing, we're skimming off the top and the future really of the black middle class, because only 27 percent of those people are going to college, whereas, 40 percent of whites are going to college.

MS. WOODRUFF: Col. Fred Cherry, that's a pretty powerful argument.

COL. CHERRY: I have to disagree with that because the military does open doors for those with potential and those who see goals beyond the community from which they live. For me, I was poor, as was mentioned earlier on the program, rural, and I didn't see much opportunity elsewhere, except in the military, and I chose the military to go and develop myself and my community, and I have done that. Today after 30 years in the service, I still go to my community and try to motivate the young blacks to do better, whether they do it in the military or elsewhere, but to do better.

MS. WOODRUFF: But Ron Walters, do I hear you saying that it has changed from the time when Col. Cherry went in the service, that there's a different group of blacks, socioeconomic, whatever you want to call the term, who are now attracted to the military, is that what you're saying?

MR. WALTERS: There isn't any question about it, Judy. When in the early 1980s, the military shifted its requirements up, it really had two effects. It had the effect what I call skimming the cream off the top, and the other effect it had on the bottom --

MS. WOODRUFF: By the way, we want to make it clear, we're not in any way criticizing or denigrating anything that Col. Cherry's done -- we want to make it clear, of course.

MR. WALTERS: Not at all.

MS. WOODRUFF: But you're talking in a general way.

MR. WALTERS: But what I was saying that with respect to the bottom this is not a poor Army, with respect to the socioeconomic class. In fact, what the military has done is to prohibit many of those young black males that you see standing on the street corners from getting into the military, and when Col. Cherry was coming along, that was an option that many of us had. We no longer have that option, and so the military in a way is complicit in the build-up of the black underclass.

MS. WOODRUFF: Alan Keyes, you're shaking your head.

MR. KEYES: I think that that is absurd. Folks who want to get into the military have to discipline themselves. They have to be willing to reach a certain standard in their high school studies and so forth. Sure, those who are going to hang around on street corners, take drugs, choose crime and disillusion as the alternative way of life aren't going to make it. And I think that's precisely what we need to tell young people in the black community, that you're not going to make it if you waste your time and fool away your life, but that there is an option for people, even poor people, who are willing to accept the discipline and be like the folks we saw, a cleaner, clearer thinking bunch of folks with more honor and integrity I don't think you could hope to find, and the final point is how can you say skim the cream off when, in fact, by going into the military, what you're going to be doing is developing that cream, training it, giving it information and discipline that will then be brought back to the community when they leave to improve the community.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right, Rev. Chavis, what about that?

REV. CHAVIS: Well, to me, it's not a question of the cream. It's a question of, has African-American participation in the military changed the social condition of African-Americans in the United States of America, and the answer to that, all the statistics show is no. Our lot is -- the unemployment rate of the African-American is going up. It's been negatively impacted by this war. The lack of health care in our community, it's almost non-existent. The educational opportunities are being denied, and I appreciate it. I see Brother Keyes frowning, but there's a human factor in this whole fact that here's -- the absurdity of his argument does not hit home. I appreciate that the youngest person that was killed in the war, his name was Private Robert Talley, 18 years old, from Newark, New Jersey, from a poor family, Robert Talley, emerging out of poverty wanted to be a doctor. The Army recruiters came to him and said, join the Army, we'll help you get educational benefits so you can be a doctor. Six months later, he finds himself on the front line in Saudi Arabia, and he's killed not from Iraqi fire, but U.S. friendly fire. And if you talk to the family of Robert Talley, they'll be quick to tell you that the loss of their son in no way is some sense of patriotism or some sense of feeling like that their son's life has benefited their situation in Newark, New Jersey. In fact, it is the absence of their son's life now that has thwarted a sense of future for this particular family.

MS. WOODRUFF: Col. Cherry, what do you say?

COL. CHERRY: I think that his argument would be much better appreciated and more effective if he would try to deal with these ones who are out here, left out here into crime and drugs and all of the other things. To focus it on the military as an argument about what the advantages are for African-Americans, is just totally out of kilt.

MR. WALTERS: Well, the Work Force 2000 Report indicates that when you look at the future by the year 2000, 83 percent of the new entrants into the work force are going to be minorities and women, 44 percent of that minority, 20 percent of that black. Now the question is if this country is going to come to depend more and more on the skilled manpower of blacks and other minorities, where would we rather have them, bunched up in the military, or in the private sector? So I think that we really have not an argument to make against the military here. I think that's really the wrong argument. I think what we're talking about is that with this disproportionate impact, a building up of our young blacks in the military, we are leaving aside the fact that they really should be retrained for the private sector. And that's where I think we're going to get the most bang for the buck. So you can't have it both ways. You can't say that your community is terrible and at the same time take away the very resource that's going to make it better.

MR. KEYES: But see, I don't think you're taking that resource away, and that's where your argument breaks down. In point of fact, if you look, I am now interim president of Alabama A&M, has one of the strongest ROTC programs in the country. There is no contradiction between being in the military and developing the skill that the community needs. As a matter of fact, added to the skill and knowledge that you get from a college education is the discipline and managerial experience that you get from Army training. That means that disproportionate numbers of the blacks who go into the Army will come out of that training process and go into the managerial cadre, go into the executive cadre, provide the leadership and inspiration for other blacks coming along to realize they can succeed in the private sector. There is no contradiction here. The military is, in fact, a suitable training ground not only for knowledge and information, but also for the indispensable ingredient of character without which no one can succeed anywhere in life.

MR. WALTERS: Alan Keyes doesn't have any facts on his side. What he is talking about is what one hopes. The fact of the matter is that Col. Cherry and men like him, even those who are generals, don't have access to the CEO rank at the same rate of their white counterparts, and the same had to do with the young who spend two or three years. What happens is that those young who go in and spend two or three or four or five years in the military are really delaying their training and delaying college entrance at the same time their white counterparts are already gone, and that's a disturbing trend I think that we see.

MS. WOODRUFF: So you don't see any value in their being able to go into the military and --

MR. WALTERS: I didn't say that. What I'm looking at is the trend here. If we say that it's okay for young blacks, particularly young black males, to go in and spend time in the military while their white counterparts are spending time getting training and going into college, I think we're wrong about that. I think what we ought to be trying to do is make the same opportunities available for young blacks, particularly those that are college eligible, that we are making for young whites.

MR. KEYES: I think in theory that's wonderful. I think what we're looking at is a group of people who face real life choices. I am looking at the people who are coming out of communities, rural and urban, where their choices are going to be drugs and crime and failure, where they are not getting in the schools right now the kind of example and support and guidance that they need. Sure, all the things you say are wonderful in terms of what the future ought to be like, but what is there now is that this is an avenue of opportunity that is taking people who might otherwise get there and turning them into the clean, straight, articulate, upright, honorable people that we saw with the knowledge they will need to face this society's rigors. And I don't think we should discourage any of them from making that choice.

MR. WALTERS: What is clear about the individuals you're talking about is because of the military's regulations, they can no longer even get in, and that is a fact. So what you're talking about increasingly is the middle class of the black community. It would be fine if those people really had access like they did before, but those people you're talking about are standing onthe street corners with no options but to take drugs.

MR. KEYES: Some of them are not middle class people. They are working class people that we never want to talk about anymore.

MR. WALTERS: What we don't talk about is the culpability of the military and the build up of this particular segment of the population that nobody in terms of our public policy has picked up.

MS. WOODRUFF: Yes.

COL. CHERRY: Don't you think these -- Gen. Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Wiler, and those like him, that these young African-Americans in these neighborhoods can't draw something to want to aspire to?

MR. WALTERS: I think they can, but the question is we ought to have Colin Powells at IT&T and AT&T and other places in this country. We ought to try to use the tremendous record that these people have built up in the military and say that that's fine, but let us pressure the private sector, let us not build them up in the military. Let Colin Powell and the rest of you fight to make sure that there is a proportionate share of blacks in the military and that the rest of them go into productive sections of the private sector --

MR. KEYES: But what you're doing --

MR. WALTERS: -- of the blacks will not get anyplace.

MR. KEYES: But what you're doing is going to prevent that outcome. Instead of bad mouthing blacks in the military, running down the effort that we just made in the Persian Gulf, we should - - excuse me -- be building it up because it is precisely the people who are leading in the military today, who are in the top positions in the military today, who are going to get out and for a change step into those CEO positions and leadership positions in our private and public sectors. The war precisely broke open that opportunity and it's only the detractors here who I think are obstacles to having everyone see that.

COL. CHERRY: Those reserves are not complaining. They weren't complaining when they went. It was those who wanted to distract that and create some negative image that are complaining, those young men and women who went to the Persian Gulf, went to Desert Storm, were not complaining.

MS. WOODRUFF: Rev. Chavis, let me turn to Rev. Chavis, is that right? Is it true that the ones who served are not complaining?

REV. CHAVIS: No. I have a lot of respect for Brother Cherry, but that's just inaccurate. Let me use an example, because I want to make sure what we're debating is the same thing. I want to know, does our participation now in the military, this disproportionate participation, improve our lot as a people in this country? Last year, a lot of us were in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1990. Before the deployment, we were very critical of this administration's attitude toward employment discrimination. You're talking about getting jobs for African-Americans. The Civil Rights Bill, will it help prevent employment discrimination? So now the commander in chief, after he deploys our troops disproportionately, vetoes the Civil Rights Bill. Now we're here in 1991, as troops are beginning to come back home, the same troops, Brother Cherry, that you and Col. Wiler and others say are going to get better rights now when they come back home, the commander in chief says he's going to veto the Civil Rights Bills in 1991. Is that right? Is that right?

MS. WOODRUFF: Col. Cherry.

COL. CHERRY: I think you're trying to take us back to what I tried to do --

REV. CHAVIS: That's happening now. That's happening now. I'm not trying to take you back --

COL. CHERRY: You want to set quotas to prevent -- you're asking the Department of Defense to set quotas to prevent too many blacks -- yes, you are --

REV. CHAVIS: I'm not talking about quotas. I never mentioned quotas.

MS. WOODRUFF: It's a question about the Civil Rights.

REV. CHAVIS: I've never mentioned quotas.

MS. WOODRUFF: About the Bush administration not supporting civil rights, the civil rights legislation in the last year.

COL. CHERRY: The reason was said for not supporting that Civil Rights Bill, was quotas.

REV. CHAVIS: But you and I know, Brother Cherry, the Civil Rights Bill has nothing to do with quotas. The Civil Rights Bill is to prevent employment discrimination, to prevent African-Americans from being denied employment in this country.

MR. KEYES: I think it's a real problem, and the point that you're most missing is that if you want an effective struggle for civil rights, then you need trained, disciplined people with the background and knowledge to fight that battle. Those people are going to be coming out of the military now, just as in the past. At the end of World War II and the Korean War, they came out and made a difference in this society. We've moved along a little since then. The differences they're making will be in different areas, in the corporate sector, and even in the political sector, and instead of bad mouthing them, you should be welcoming the fact that --

REV. CHAVIS: Nobody's bad mouthing them. Nobody's bad mouthing them.

MR. KEYES: -- it's going to have coming into its midst now these trained people who, on whom the country has focused its pride and its support, and it's going to be responding to them like a country that knows --

REV. CHAVIS: Neither one of the gentlemen has answered my question. They're skillfully avoiding the real issue here.

MS. WOODRUFF: Which is --

REV. CHAVIS: Racism is on the increase inside of the United States of America. Are the returning troops that fought in Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm, would those returning troops help stem the tide of rising racism in America?

MS. WOODRUFF: And you're saying they're going to be given -- you're saying they're not going to be given the opportunities in the private sector that they were given in the military?

REV. CHAVIS: That's right.

MR. KEYES: But the problem is that he's looking at it as if all a gift somebody gives the people. This is something for which our people have to struggle.

REV. CHAVIS: You're still not answering the question.

MR. KEYES: -- did not struggle -- when they are disciplined and strengthened in that struggle by a military background, they come out and they wage that struggle more successfully, and that's what you're missing.

REV. CHAVIS: You're avoiding the question.

MS. WOODRUFF: Let me turn --

COL. CHERRY: Most of the mayors of our cities that are African- American are ex-military people. And our governor of Virginia is a military person.

MS. WOODRUFF: Let me ask a question about -- specifically about blacks in the military. Are you, Ron Walters, for one saying that we ought to limit the percentage of blacks who serve? Is there some formula that we ought to arrive at and say any higher than that is just not fair, and just disproportionate?

MR. WALTERS: Yes. I think that there ought to be a fair proportion of standards for the participation of minorities in the military, because, No. 1, when you take them out of their communities, you approach --

MS. WOODRUFF: So --

MR. WALTERS: -- them twice -- not necessarily. The military has had more testing than any other organization probably in this country and what they did deliberately, a recent Congressional Budget Office study shows when they readjusted the entrance requirements for the military, precisely what sort of product that they would get, and I think that what they have to do now in order to achieve a fair representation of blacks and other minorities is to readjust those same entrance quotas to make it fair.

MR. KEYES: They didn't readjust the entrance quotas for the reason you've described. They readjusted the entrance quotas to make sure that when we sent the military into the battlefield, they can do the job. And I'm certainly sure every American in this country is glad that they were able to do the job. And second, I think it's the most galling and tragically absurd suggestion that when black people, young men and women, make a choice, themselves, and this patronizing notion that they had no choice and they're not responsible when, in fact, they have made the most responsible choice, followed a responsible path, and you're now saying we should cut off that path with some kind of absurd legislation that will cut off their future and close off this path of opportunity. That is tyranny.

MR. WALTERS: Again, this is simply not informed. When you look at the career choices that young black males have in particular, ages 18 to 24, 16 to 19, use any cohort you want to, what you see is a very restricted range of economic opportunities. The recent studies have shown that they have access to a whole series of very short-term low wage jobs, and finally, they say, okay, well, this is a good thing now to go into the military in comparison with the opportunities I have. Any study of a major metropolitan area will show you that blacks are lumped into a few of the employment categories. And so the range of economic opportunity for blacks is simply not as wide as that for whites. So what we have here is a pattern of steering, and we have I think quite appropriately called it economic conscription.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. Let's --

COL. CHERRY: And you're not going to improve that by restricting one of the better avenues they have to improve themselves.

MR. WALTERS: I think we're going to -- I think if we bring this to public attention, what we can do is to say to the United States government, to the Congress, and to the President that you have an obligation to rectify this situation when what we have here is a pattern for the future of blacks, not only the middle class, but the future of regular working class blacks is going down the drain, you have a responsibility to sign the Civil Rights Bill, to protect the -- you have a responsibility to impact on the private sector so that this does not occur --

MR. KEYES: But the great problem that I see -- the great problem I see is as usual that the argument is here are some people that made a responsible choice, they're doing something through their own effort that is going to improve their lot in life in which they will be able to take pride. They won't have to be beholding to you or anybody else in the welfare plantation establishment that's been established in this country, but we must deprive them of this, and we must establish a government program so that they can be beholding to our handouts instead of their own efforts. I think people in this country are sick of that! They won't take it anymore!

MS. WOODRUFF: Reverend Chavis. You're sick of it.

MR. KEYES: Yes. I'm sick of it.

MS. WOODRUFF: Rev. Chavis, just finally, what advice do you give the young people who are considering going into the military at this point?

REV. CHAVIS: I think in the wake of the war many young people now are going to consider the life threatening aspects of joining the military. I can tell you that the family of Robert Talley and Robert Talley, himself, did not consider the life threatening aspects. I think this debate is going to continue and I would hope that the brothers who are here and others who are listening would try to get to the heart of the matter. I think part of the heart of the matter is that our nation in 1991 has not made as much progress as it should have made toward racial equality in our country, racial justice. Yes, the military has provided opportunities that the other parts of society does not.

MS. WOODRUFF: We're going to have to --

REV. CHAVIS: That's part of the indictment of the whole society.

MS. WOODRUFF: We're going to have to leave it there. We thank you, all four of you gentlemen, for being with us. Robin. FOCUS - IMAGE PROBLEM

MR. MacNeil: The end of the fighting in the Persian Gulf has not put an end to controversy over the war in the United States. In San Francisco, city officials and others are engaged in a noisy public debate over that city's image as a center for anti-war activity. Spencer Michels of public station KQED reports on the price the city has paid for its reputation.

MR. MICHELS: In the '60s and '70s, the San Francisco Bay area was aflame with protests against the Vietnam War. Activists took credit for bringing an end to the war, but they were criticized for not supporting the country, for aiding the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese. During the 1980s, anti-war sentiment in the Bay area remained high. The Navy wanted to home port the battleship USS Missouri here, but the cities' governing body, the Board of Supervisors, voted against it. The voters later narrowly backed the Navy. When the Gulf War broke out in January, Bay area residents once again took to the streets in numbers estimated up to 200,000. At first, there was some violence and disruption, but for the most part, three giant peace marches within the first three weeks of the war were law abiding and peaceful. Nevertheless, critics accused the demonstrators of failing to support the President in time of war and claimed city officials condoned disruption.

JIM LAZARUS, Chamber of Commerce: It just set a bad tone. I mean, demonstrators ran amuck downtown the first couple of days after the war started.

MR. MICHELS: Jim Lazarus is vice president of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.

MR. LAZARUS: We seemed to encourage demonstration, seemed to encourage closing down businesses and bridges and highways, and that's what the country saw, and it wasn't really the right perception we felt.

MR. MICHELS: The Chamber of Commerce had a point. While the San Francisco streets were filled with demonstrators, most Bay area residents did support the President. San Francisco Chronicle City Editor Dan Rosenheim.

DAN ROSENHEIM, San Francisco Chronicle: One of the stories we did which was rather provocative was this one, a Chronicle poll that we conducted which showed that residents of the San Francisco Bay area by nearly a 4 to 1 margin supported the war and by more than 70 percent supported Pres. Bush.

MR. MICHELS: Polls are only one indicator of the city's character. Political activism on the left has long been a San Francisco tradition. Just before the war broke out, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution declaring San Francisco a sanctuary for conscientious objectors and others who opposed the war on moral grounds. It was authored by City Supervisor Harry Britt.

HARRY BRITT, Supervisor: The streets of San Francisco were filled with hundreds of thousands of people at the time we passed this resolution expressing concern about this war. Now, that's real. That's not something I created. That is the city. And particularly since the Vietnam War, we have been a center of the peace movement. There are just a lot of people in San Francisco who believe with a religious passion that we must find ways to solve the problems of this world that don't depend on military force.

MR. LAZARUS: The perception was that everybody out here in California or certainly in the San Francisco Bay area opposed the efforts in the Persian Gulf, and that wasn't the case. And we thought the record had to be set straight or we'd have some long- term damage to the business community and the tourism and convention industry in San Francisco.

MR. MICHELS: The Chamber of Commerce took out large ads in local and national newspapers saying most San Franciscans supported Pres. Bush's policy and that City Hall was just out of sync with public opinion. Before the ads ran, the Chamber had received hundreds of angry letters from individuals at large organizations threatening the city's tourist industry.

MR. LAZARUS: Major conventions like the National Board of

JIM EASON: When you go to other cities and say what do you know about San Francisco, they say, well, that's where all the gays live, and that's where the people have the strange politics. And now the vote, the vote on making San Francisco a sanctuary, the vote on not putting the Missouri here, shows that it's also sort of a left wing city. Now that may be the image San Francisco wants, but that's certainly the image that San Francisco's got.

MR. MICHELS: Supervisor Willie Kennedy who put her name to the sanctuary resolution said its original purpose was to keep the U.S. from going to war. But the sight of American servicemen and women in the Gulf led her to introduce a new resolution rescinding the first one.

WILLIE KENNEDY, Supervisor: I cannot allow this stigma to be on San Francisco that we make it a sanctuary for those persons who don't feel that they want to go over there and fight this war, but I do feel that we should open our arms to the ones that are there and let them know that we appreciate what they're doing and we stand behind them 100 percent.

MR. MICHELS: The city's mayor, Art Agnos, agrees that the sanctuary resolution should be repealed, even though he signed it. He also wants the world to know San Francisco is patriotic.

MAYOR ART AGNOS: Once the war started, we passed a resolution supporting the troops and saying we want them to come home safe and we want them to succeed while we're there.

MR. MICHELS: This city does seem to have a reputation as a kind of a center for the peace movement. Is that a reputation that you agree with and that you like?

MAYOR AGNOS: I don't apologize for this city supporting a different point of view, including the peace movement. That's what this city stands for. That's what this city has always stood for in its history, and thank God it does.

MR. EASON: The San Francisco supervisors and the mayor are trying to cover their fannies, because they were opposed to or at least they dragged their feet on support for the troops until we won a quick war, 100 hours on the ground, the war was won. Now they're saying, hurrah for the troops. A little late, Johnny Come Lately.

MR. MICHELS: Nevertheless, the city is now talking about sponsoring a parade welcoming back the troops.

MR. EASON: I'mnot sure they can get a parade for that. I'm not sure they can get an audience. If they do, they'll have to import them from the surrounding counties. You want to get a parade to show anti-war, you want to get a parade to show concern for the environment, you want to get a parade for homosexual rights, you want to get a parade for pro-abortion, you can always get that kind of parade in San Francisco.

MR. BRITT: To me, to be a good patriot is to precisely challenge the leadership of your country when you feel they're not doing the right thing for your country. That kind of patriotism is very strong in San Francisco. And when the troops come back here, they will find the same warm reception that they will find everywhere.

MR. MICHELS: With City Hall festooned in red, white, blue and yellow, San Francisco's mayor's office is already at work planning the official military parade. Depending on the turnout and the crowd reaction, it could reverse or reinforce this city's controversial image.

MR. MacNeil: Today the Board of Supervisors held public hearings on resolutions to modify or rescind the sanctuary proposal. The Board also debated a proposal to extend the sanctuary offer to conscientious objectors in future wars. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: We're sorry we didn't bring you Roger Rosenblatt's essay as promised. Our discussion of blacks in the military ran a little longer than we expected. Again, the main stories of this Monday, the U.S. may establish a permanent military base in the Persian Gulf. The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether smokers can bring liability suits against cigarette manufacturers. Finally tonight, the Pentagon identified more Americans killed in Operation Desert Storm. We close tonight's program with their names. Good night, Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Good night, Robin. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.