The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, Elizabeth Farnsworth looks at the new violence in Kosovo; Andrew Kohut, Margaret Warner, Terence Smith, and five college editors examine impeachment trial reaction outside Washington; Spencer Michels tells the story of racial diversity in California's law schools; and poet laureate Robert Pinsky reads a poem for Martin Luther King Day. It all follows our summary of the news this holiday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Serbian President Milosevic and his forces today ignored NATO warnings about attacking Kosovo rebels. Serb tanks and artillery pounded the village where some 45 ethnic Albanians were found slain execution-style over the weekend. The foreign ministry ordered the head of international peace monitors in Kosovo, William Walker, to leave the country within 48 hours. He had blamed the Serbs for the massacre. Border guards banned the U.N.'S chief war crimes prosecutor from entering the country to investigate. And two NATO generals dispatched to see Milosevic were told their plane could not land in Belgrade. The meeting was rescheduled for tomorrow. In Washington, Secretary of State Albright said this:

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, Secretary of State: We have condemned in the strongest possible terms the atrocities that have taken place in Kosovo. The international community is united in its condemnation. Yesterday there was an emergency meeting of the North Atlantic Council, and they made very clear that the activation order for air strikes is on the table, is effective. We are very determined that these kinds of atrocities are unacceptable.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have more on the story right after the news summary. Bad weather brought death and destruction to western Tennessee Sunday. Eight people were killed, 100 injured, 11 critically, by a string of tornadoes. At least 60 homes and businesses were destroyed. Extra state troopers and military police were dispatched to the area. Residents in Jackson today rummaged through mounds of debris, trying to collect their belongings. Power outages were reported after high winds downed power lines throughout the state. Senate Minority Leader Daschle conceded today live witnesses may be inevitable in the impeachment trial of President Clinton. Daschle insisted witnesses were not necessary, but if such testimony is allowed, there might be no limit to the number of people called. Republicans have said the number should be limited. Daschle said, "Who are we to tell either the House or White House how they're going to run their case?" He made his comments to the Associated Press. Presidential Spokesman Joe Lockhart had this to say on witnesses:

JOE LOCKHART: Even though the record that exists is probably the most prejudicial that could exist we're willing to go forward and argue this case on that record. If the House Managers insist on witnesses and if the Senate approves them, certainly I would think that we would look at calling witnesses. Either way, we're looking at a process that is extended and delayed.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Clinton's lawyers are to begin presenting his defense tomorrow. We'll have more on the impeachment story later in the program. The President today previewed another initiative from his State of the Union address tomorrow night. It's aimed at families where one parent works and the other stays home to care for children. The plan includes a tax credit of up to $500 for each child under a year old. Mr. Clinton also took note of this Martin Luther King birthday holiday by doing some volunteer work. He did reconstruction labor at a retirement home in the District of Columbia. He was joined by Vice President Gore, D.C. Congressional delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, and a group of Americorps volunteers. Britain's highest court began rehearing the Pinochet extradition case today. The 83-year-old former president of Chile is fighting extradition to Spain. He's been charged there with crimes against humanity during his 17-year rule in Chile. Pinochet claimed legal immunity as head of state at the time. The court ruled against his claim, but that ruling was nullified and a rehearing ordered. Pinochet has been under house arrest in London since November. Russian President Yeltsin has another health problem. He was hospitalized Sunday with a bleeding ulcer. Doctors said he may be confined for as long as three weeks. Brazil will let the value of its currency, the real, float on foreign exchange markets. The finance minister made the announcement today. Prices on Brazil's major stock exchange rose immediately 7 percent. There had been a 33 percent gain on Friday. U.S. markets were closed for the Martin Luther King holiday. And in Florida today, Joe DiMaggio was released from the hospital after 99 days in intensive care. The former baseball great suffered from lung cancer and pneumonia. He had been comatose, and received last rites before his recovery began. Now, he said through his lawyer, he's looking forward to opening day at Yankee Stadium in April. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to a Kosovo update, the impeachment trial from outside Washington, diversity at California's law schools, and a Martin Luther King Day poem.

UPDATE - KILLING THE TRUCE?

JIM LEHRER: The Kosovo story: Louise Bates of Associated Press Television News reports on the renewed fighting. [Gunfire].

LOUISE BATES: Gunfire rings out in the have the village of Racak once more. Serb forces launched their mortars and machine guns from the hillside overlooking the Kosovan village. It's just days after the massacre here of dozens of ethnic Albanians. The Kosovo verification mission could only look on. They're in the breakaway province to monitor the fragile U.S.-brokered cease-fire between Serb government forces and rebels. The deal was agreed to by Serbs October under threat of NATO air strikes, but it now appears to have crumbled. The Serbs continue to defy international calls to stop their assault against ethnic Albanians. The Serb paramilitary police moved into Racak early on Monday to carry out what they called a search for Kosovo Liberation army guerrillas. They came heavily armed. Fighting had broken out in Racak on Sunday when Serb experts tried to enter the village with a police escort, despite the warnings of monitors. The discovery of the mutilated bodies of 45 ethnic Albanians in a gully outside the village has raised tensions in the region. While Serb forces claim the killings followed a fire fight with rebels, villagers say the men, women, and a exiled were murdered cold blood. NATO has led international condemnation, but on Monday Serb forces moved an antiaircraft gun into position and fired on Racak. The verification officers said the Serbs seemed determined to attack and destroy ethnic Albanians villages.

SPOKESMAN: They're lobbing shells down here right now. We're hoping they're hitting buildings and making stubble out of stucco. But we don't know how many people are in there.

LOUISE BATES: NATO wants the Yugoslavs to allow the U.N. War Crimes Tribunal to investigate the killings in Racak, but on Monday the Serbs further defied the international community by refusing to allow chief U.N. War crimes prosecutor Louise Arbour to enter the country. The Yugoslavs says she hasn't have the correct visa. Arbor says she must be allowed to enter.

LOUISE ARBOUR: It is therefore not clear who is responsible for that, but it's very clear who is preventing us from ascertaining the truth.

JIM LEHRER: And to Elizabeth Farnsworth in San Francisco.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And for some perspective on the events in Kosovo we turn to Robert Hunter, ambassador to NATO from 1993 to 1998, and now a senior adviser at Rand, a national security research organization; James Hooper, a retired foreign service officer and now director of the Balkan Action Council, a study and advocacy group that focuses on the former Yugoslavia and Nathan Landay, who covers foreign affairs for the Christian Science Monitor. He was in the region last month. James Hooper, the war crimes prosecutor can't get into Kosovo. The government is apparently expelling the head of the international verification mission. Villages are being attacked. A massacre has taken place. What's going on?

JAMES HOOPER, Balkan Action Council: Well, this strikes at the heart of NATO's credibility of the standing of the war crimes tribunal, of the cease-fire agreement negotiated between Mr. Holbrooke and Mr. Milosevic in October, and of the leadership of the United States. What's going on is that Mr. Milosevic, Serbia's strong man, believes that with President Clinton focused on defending his presidency, that he will -- he is distracted from organizing and leading NATO to implement the threat that NATO has made to Serbia to stop these kinds of attacks.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So you see this as a direct provocation by Mr. Milosevic?

JAMES HOOPER: Certainly it is. And it's because he feels that NATO threats are not credible; that the only thing that is going to stop him is going to be action by NATO, and he does not think that President Clinton is going to be capable of leading the allies into forceful intervention in Kosovo.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Hunter, do you think that's what's behind these events?

ROBERT HUNTER, RAND: I don't think it really is connected with what's happening here in Washington. I do think it is connected to the very weak agreement that was reached last October on the cease-fire, which was really an opportunity to buy time. Unfortunately I don't think the time has been used wisely in the last two-and-a-half months.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Remind us just briefly about the agreement, please.

ROBERT HUNTER: Well, the agreement called for a cease-fire. It called for the removal of troops and police by the Serbs from Kosovo. It called also for a political process to try to resolve the future of that province. Unfortunately there has not within much attention paid at the highest levels of allied governments, including this government -- kind of routine diplomacy, and no effort at NATO finally to bring the allies together to figure out exactly what their goal should be in Kosovo. Should it be an autonomy regime, sort of the way there was before the Serbs undercut it in 1989, or could we live with an independent Kosovo? Without that, I'm afraid it has been impossible to get a kind of coherence and cohesion at NATO that has to underpin any effort to use force.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Jonathan Landay, -- and let's remind people that Kosovo is a province that is 90 percent ethnic Albanian. What do you think is behind this recent train of -- all these reset events?

JONATHAN LANDAY, Christian Science Monitor: There's been an escalating series of confrontations in Kosovo beginning roughly in December starting with individual killings until we got to December 24th when there was a real major battle that lasted for four days around the town of Podujevo. Since then there have been other incidents, individual killings, plus a fairly large ambush of Kosovo Liberation Army rebels up on the Albanian Kosovo border. And I think that Mr. Milosevic was seeing himself not only having an opportunity to take some action, but seeing an opportunity to get tough, an opportunity to show his people who are suffering under unprecedented economic crises right now, an opportunity that he can take matters into his own hands, that he can defy the international community. And when police went in to the small village on Friday, apparently they were looking for the killer of a policeman. Though we saw what the results of that have been, which is another massacre in Kosovo.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And Mr. Landay, what are your sources telling you about that massacre? What happened?

JONATHAN LANDAY: Apparently, the police went into this village where there was a stronghold of the Kosovo Liberation Army. They refused to allow the verifying mission in. They refused to allow journalists in. And as soon as they were able to get in, they discovered the bodies of the massacre victims. And there does seems to be a discrepancy on the numbers. Officially we're hearing 45, but there are some estimates that put it as high as 80.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now the Serbian government says that these were either -- that these were basically guerrillas that they were fighting against, or they also seem to be saying that this was a massacre set up by the guerrillas to make the Serbs look bad.

JONATHAN LANDAY: Yes, indeed. There are a number of different investigates coming out of Belgrade, one being that these people were victims of a major battle between the police and the Kosovo Liberation Army. They're also saying that the Kosovo Liberation Army staged this, put their bodies of their own dead there. But I don't think there's any disputing of what the verifiers themselves saw, which was in addition to mostly old men having been killed, there was at least one woman and one small child.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And Mr. Hooper, it was for saying that this was an action carried out by Serbian security forces that William Walker, who is an American who is head of an international monitoring mission is apparently about to be kicked out. Is that right?

JAMES HOOPER: That's right. He spoke honestly and directly after he went down there. He saw the bodies. He said that this is a Serbian massacre, Serbian-sponsored massacre, and for that, and a week earlier he had also said here at a press conference in Washington that most of the violations are the responsibility of the Serbs. And I think for this -- for telling the truth, for speaking out, he has been removed from this position by Mr. Milosevic. But what Mr. Milosevic is saying is that he is not going to allow the verifiers, the monitors to do their job. And the trouble now is for NATO -- in order for NATO to intervene forcefully, the verifiers have going to have to be removed because otherwise there are going to be six or seven hundred potential hostages out there.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Mr. Hunter, how would they be removed? There are some NATO troops in Macedonia right next to Kosovo who are there to do that. Will they have to come in and get them out?

ROBERT HUNTER: Well, if it were a matter of removing the verifiers, and I think that that's something that should be contemplated this week, it's not that far for them to get out of country. There is a NATO extraction force in Macedonia that is designed to bring out the verifiers if there were hostile action. But frankly if there were hostile action, that wouldn't be much comfort. I think what needs to happen now is two NATO officials are going out there, the two generals need to give one last warning to Mr. Milosevic and then sometime very shortly, and I would say about 48 to 72 hours, if Serbian behavior doesn't change, then NATO needs to implement its air strike decision. Now I don't think that will happen. I think most of the allies would rather not do that. A number of them are arguing that the Kosovo Liberation Army is provoking this kind of matter. Essentially the problem is that there is no basic understanding in the alliance of exactly how people want this to come out. Those who worry about the K.L.A. say we just get an independence. We have a war in nearby Macedonia. And nobody -- nobody in the alliance is at this point willing to take the big risks of putting troops on the ground. And I fear that if NATO's going to redeem its credibility, not only does it have to be prepared to use air strikes, but possibly also put troops on the ground at some point in the next several weeks.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Jonathan Landay, when you look at this situation now, what do you see as the options?

JONATHAN LANDAY: I think that it's a very difficult choice, but again, NATO credibility is on the line here. Plus, Mr. Milosevic has been putting in very slowly troops that he was forced to take out under the air strike threat in October. And this itself is a direct -- calling directly NATO's credibility into question. Mr. Milosevic it has long been said only understands one thing, and that's the use of force. He has responded in the past to threats of the use of force and to the use of force by NATO in Bosnia, and perhaps this is another occasion where that is required.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Landay, how strong is the Kosovo Liberation Army right now the K.L.A. -- which we should say is fighting for independence from Serbia and Serbia is the largest part of Yugoslavia.

JONATHAN LANDAY: My understanding is that after taking it on the chin pretty heavily over the summer, that they're in fairly good shape once again. And when I say take it on the chin, I mean that they were forced to pull out of positions, about 40 percent of Kosovo, that they had controlled. But my understanding is that they did not suffer that big losses in that offensive that lasted seven months by the Serbs. In fact, most of the victims seem to have been civilians. My understanding is that perhaps as many as 120, 130 guerrillas were killed, but since then, they have re-consolidated. My understanding is they have re-appointed regional commanders, that they have obtained new weapons, including anti-tank rockets, that they have mended fences with a rival militia and have joined forces with them. And I think that you're going to see them fighting more of a classic guerrilla war than what we saw last summer, which was basically them plus a large number of their supporters trying to hold territory.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And James Hooper, given all this, what do you see as the options for ending the fighting and ending the massacres?

JAMES HOOPER: Well, it all boils down to a test of presidential leadership here. The president has to be prepared to actually use force, not just threaten it. That's not going to carry any weight any longer. And what he needs to do is aim at getting all of the Serbian police forces out of Kosovo, and most of the military forces -- I think symbolic military forces could be left there - and then impose a political settlement -- an autonomy agreement that would give the Kosovo Albanians, as Ambassador Hunter said, most of what they had in 1989 before Mr. Milosevic took it away. And I think that would for five years, an interim agreement - and I think that would be enough in order to stabilize the region. This is, as I say, this is a real test of American leadership.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Well, thank you all three very much.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the Newshour tonight, several non-Washington views of the impeachment trial, diversity at California's law schools, and a poem about freedom.

FOCUS - WITNESSING HISTORY

JIM LEHRER: Media Correspondent Terence Smith begins our coverage of the impeachment trial, as viewed beyond Washington.

TERENCE SMITH: For the last five days, one story above all has dominated the nation's media.

SPOKEMAN: The Senate will convene as a court of impeachment.

TERENCE SMITH: The capitol hill press galleries were humming from the first moments of the trial of President Clinton. The senate hallways served as the backdrop for nearly non-stop interviews, while television correspondents prepared their live shots from cramped cubicles. And the networks treated the trial as certified big news.

ANNOUNCER: This is an NBC News special report: The trial of William Jefferson Clinton.

TERENCE SMITH: NBC interrupted its regular programming at the trial's start, as did ABC and CBS. But momentous history doesn't necessarily make memorable television. CBS bailed out of its coverage just 90 minutes after the trial began with a pledge that -

ANCHOR: If news breaks out, we'll break in. We're back on the air. Otherwise, I'll see you tonight on the CBS Evening News.

TERENCE SMITH: ABC followed suit, while Tom Brokaw handed the live coverage of the trial over to Brian Williams and NBC's cable outlet, MSNBC. By day two, the networks returned to their regular and lucrative daytime programming, soap operas. On the weekend, the trial lost out to local fare, including the Saturday morning -

["WINNIE THE POOH"] MUSIC: Pooh Bear, Winnie the Pooh Bear.

TERENCE SMITH: But for those following every word, PBS provided gavel-to- gavel coverage, as did the all-news cable channels and C-Span. Across the country, the impeachment juggernaut led most evening broadcasts, network and local.

CORRESPONDENT: The political career of Bill Clinton takes on a new significance as his impeachment trial gets under way in the U.S. Senate.

CORRESPONDENT: Good evening. House managers are outlining their case against President Clinton, listing the reasons why they believe he should be removed from office.

TERENCE SMITH: But in other parts of the U.S., Bill Clinton's troubles came second to important local stories.

CORRESPONDENT: Two people are injured and the suspect is in custody. And that shooting is our top story tonight.

CORRESPONDENT: Family and friends of missing Monterey County teenager Christina Williams were shattered today to learn -

TERENCE SMITH: The nation's larger newspapers led with the trial. But the "Arizona Daily Star" headlined a story on a massive border buildup in Nogales. The Senate trial was below the fold. For the "Savannah Morning News," state approval for a charter school was the big story. Coverage of the President's predicament failed to make page one. By Sunday morning, the Senators, who were compelled to sit mute through the testimony, were making up for lost time. Nearly a fifth of the entire United States Senate popped up as guests on the television talk shows.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Have you ever seen 100 senators sit quietly, attentively? I mean, nobody's in there signing their mail or anything else. They're actually paying attention.

SEN. PHIL GRAMM: It seems to me that the case is pretty ironclad; that if you commit perjury and obstruction of justice, you should be removed from office, whether you are president, whether you're a federal judge, or whether you're a federal magistrate.

SEN. TOM HARKIN: I think Henry Hyde's closing argument yesterday really showed what this case was: Excess, overreach. He tried to compare what we're about to Normandy, Iwo Jima, the Magna Carta, for crying out loud, Gettysburg. Talk about overblowing and excess.

REP. BILL McCOLLUM: If the case stopped today, there's a powerful case that that is precisely what the president did-- committed perjury and obstructed justice.

SEN. ROBERT TORRICELLI: I want to remind you that the House Managers argued persuasively that the President's testimony in the Paula Jones deposition was at variance with the truth. I think they did an admirable job. Their problem is that the Paula Jones deposition is not before the Senate.

SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON: I think it is a very powerful case that we've got to look at, whether the President of the United States has a different standard from the C.E.O. of a corporation, or a federal judge.

TERENCE SMITH: It all resumes again tomorrow, when the President's attorneys get their chance to answer that and the other questions that have been raised in the trial so far.

JIM LEHRER: Now, the latest polls, and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: We get that polling information from Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. He his most recent survey was conducted from last Thursday through last night, meaning it reflects public sentiment during and after the days that the House Managers presented their case against the President. Andy, are Americans paying attention to this trial?

ANDREW KOHUT: No. Margaret, the American public is largely ignoring the Senate trial so far. The percentage of people saying they're following very closely fell from 34 percent in December during the House impeachment vote to 27 percent in the current survey. And when we asked the American public how closely -- how much of the coverage they've been watching, as the slide shows, 15 percent say all or a lot. 34 percent say some, 50 percent hardly any or none. These are very low numbers. Now, that 15 percent, during the O.J. Simpson trial, was at 25 during the slow parts of the trial. That's considerably less. And those are very low numbers. That presentation by the House Managers did not stir the public; it didn't engage them.

MARGARET WARNER: And what's their view of how the Senate is handing the trial and handling itself during the trial?

ANDREW KOHUT: Well, to the extent they have a have given the low numbers, it's very similar to what we saw during the House impeachment vote. When we asked the public, are the parties working together? Is the a more bipartisan effort, we have a slide on this, we largely find people saying, no, they're mostly bickering. Only 19 percent say they're working together. When we asked more directly, well, how do you compare the two, the House effort and the Senate effort, they largely say it's the same. So there's not some - there's not a sense of difference here; for the public it still is very, very partisan.

MARGARET WARNER: The House Managers spent a lot of their energy making the case for live witnesses. How does the public feel about that? Do they want to see live witnesses in the Senate?

ANDREW KOHUT: Before the Senate trial began the polls showed about 60/40 against live witnesses and a Gallup poll this weekend conducted at the same time of our survey showed essentially the same thing; no greater sentiment for house witnesses. Less is more with regard to this trial from the point of view of the average American.

MARGARET WARNER: So, has the trial affected at all [a], the way the public feels about the President in general, and two, how they want to see this thing resolved?

ANDREW KOHUT: Well, to answer, that you could pull old tapes of her time you've asked that question about every stage here. And, again, we find only a third of the American public saying that the President should be removed. I think we have a slide on that. That's almost identical to the percentage we had in December, and it's been that way for some time. Only 28 percent want to see him resign. There's no -- there's a very robust two-thirds of the American public that wants to see the presidency of Bill Clinton continue.

MARGARET WARNER: And his personal popularity then remains undiminished, at the same level?

ANDREW KOHUT: Very healthy 62 percent. In fact, when we asked people how is he going to be judged, 52 percent say his accomplishments outweigh his failures, just about what the public said about Ronald Reagan at exactly the same time in his second term.

MARGARET WARNER: So on the eve of the State of the Union, how does the public feel about the country or their life in general? I mean, is there any sense or any evidence that the fact that there's this trial going on in Washington is making them feel uncertain or insecure at all?

ANDREW KOHUT: Twelve months ago before this scandal broke, we did a comparable poll. We asked the public how satisfied were they with the state of the nation. Only 42 percent said they were satisfied with the way things were going in the country. We asked that same question after 12 months of this. We have a slide here. We get 53 percent. The public is more satisfied one year later. Talk about disconnect. There's the number.

MARGARET WARNER: And how about their own lives?

ANDREW KOHUT: Well, underpinning this, that number is a great improved appraisal of people's own bottom lines. We asked people questions about their own standard of living, 45 percent say very satisfied.

MARGARET WARNER: That is high.

ANDREW KOHUT: That's very high -- 35 percent two years ago, that's a 10 percentage point jump since Clinton's second term. And 35 percent is higher than in previous years. So the Americans are largely happy with the way things are going. They are, therefore, happy with conditions in the country, and they remain unfazed and unchanged in their opinions about the scandal.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Well, thank you very much, Andy.

ANDREW KOHUT: You're welcome.

JIM LEHRER: Additional perspective, and again to Terence Smith.

TERENCE SMITH: Joining us now for a different perspective five college newspaper editors: Sharif Durhams of the "Daily Tarheel" at the University of North Carolina; Jin Whang of the "Daily Trojan" at the University of Southern California; Dan Alter of the "Badger-Herald" at the University of Wisconsin; Gregory Thomas of the "Hampden-Sydney Tiger" in Virginia; and Christine Whelan of the "Daily Princetonian" at Princeton University. So welcome to you all. Jin Whang, let me begin with you and ask whether those numbers that you just heard from Andy Kohut and those opinions reflect attitudes on your campus.

JIN WHANG: Yes. I certainly agree with them. When we wrote about the -- what students felt last semester when we first read and heard of the Starr Report, I think the general feeling was that, you know, the same as now, the president's doing his job. You know, we agreed -- we all agreed as a staff for the "Daily Trojan" that the farthest that we hope this would go was censure, and now that the trial is going on, I think people still feel the same. It hasn't affected the way they felt. If anything, there is a greater apathy toward what's going on. And people still feel the same. There hasn't been a change.

TERENCE SMITH: Greg Thomas, is that the situation at Hampden-Sydney?

GREGORY THOMAS: Well, we're not apathy free certainly, but many of the students are interested in public affairs and are looking at the situation we're in very closely. We're quite different from the last speaker there. I think that the majority of the students on our campus, certainly not all, but the majority would say they would like to see the President removed from office.

TERENCE SMITH: Why?

GREGORY THOMAS: At Hampden-Sydney, we're a school steep in tradition. This is based on an honor code which guards the three basic principles I shall not lie, cheat, or steal. Here's a situation where the leader of our country has, you know, could have broken one of these promises. And if he were a student at our Hampden-Sydney, he would be expelled. Yet, here he is the leader of our country and he gets to keep his job.

TERENCE SMITH: Dan Alter at the University of Wisconsin, is that the prevailing attitude?

DAN ALTER: Not at all. There's a strong general consensus here that this whole thing has gone way too far, and that it needs to be ended as swiftly as possible. This is a pretty liberal campus. And I think basically people -- there's almost an air of surrealism surrounding the whole thing. I think people had sort of -- there's an underlying awareness of the whole process, but one morning when we all woke up and the newspaper is saying Clinton is impeached, I mean, it caught people off-guard. It was almost -- they couldn't really understand why he was impeached. And I think that basically most people here think that it needs to be ended sooner rather than later.

TERENCE SMITH: Sharif Durhams, is that the view where you are among the students and in your own view?

SHARIF DURHAMS: Well, people on our campus are paying attention to what's going on. The community has kept up with what's going on. But when it comes to day-to-day coverage, are people glued to the televisions and watching it; that's definitely not happening. Even the televisions in our journalism school are tuned to these programs and people aren't stopping to see what's going on. They'd certainly rather have their soap operas on.

TERENCE SMITH: Christine Whelan, it sounds like a low level of interest and different opinions on what should happen to the President. What about Princeton?

CHRISTINE WHELAN: At Princeton, the "Daily Princetonian" we came out with a staff editorial in late September calling for the resignation of President Clinton. I don't think that fits with the consensus of campus opinion. Later in December, about 75 students came out to protest the impeachment of Clinton. But that's 75 out of a student body of 4500. So I think for the most part it's a non-issue at our campus.

TERENCE SMITH: If that's so, if this trial, if this moment of history has failed to engage students, why?

CHRISTINE WHELAN: Well, right now we're in the middle of finals. We are wrapped up in what we are going to do after graduation, and as long as the job market continues to boom and investment banks keep hiring, I think college students are happy.

TERENCE SMITH: Jin Whang, to the degree that people are paying attention, does this trial strike you and fellow students as a fair trial or a partisan exercise?

JIN WHANG: Oh, I think everyone will agree that it is a strictly a partisan battle. And I think that is why people may have -- are not tuned in with it. They're tired of it. They know the arguments from both parties, and they're just tired of it. It's the same thing over and over again.

TERENCE SMITH: Dan Alter, is there also an assumption perhaps that the end is foregone, that the President is not likely to be removed? Does that explain some of it?

DAN ALTER: I think that's certainly part of it. I think that there's a general understanding that as far as the Republicans want to take this, it's very, very unlikely to end up with anything but a censure. And also I think people realize that because the vote was so partisan, it wasn't about issues that the Republicans had spoken about, like morality and values. It just came down to a strict issue of partisanship. And I think that's an affront to the American people and the people realize that. And I think a lot of people are sort of offended and turned off by that, as well.

TERENCE SMITH: But that's not the way you see it, Greg Thomas?

GREGORY THOMAS: Many people might be turned off by the party battle, you know. I think that many people are looking - I mean, at least I'm looking at it as I would like to see our leaders look at this as - you know -- it as their constitutional responsibility to make a quality decision here. I mean, this is something that's going to affect everybody, and this is -- if there's any time I have been allowed that we needed the political leaders to rise above mere partisanship, it's right now.

TERENCE SMITH: Sharif Durhams, what's your view of President Clinton and the job he's doing and has that view been affected by this whole scandal and this trial?

SHARIF DURHAMS: Well, what the scandal and trial show is that President Clinton, although he is a good leader, he can engage people; people pay attention to him. He, unfortunately, cannot get beyond scandals that he has produced and just the partisanship in Washington. He can't get Republicans to agree with him. He also can't get beyond the scandals of Whitewater and his infidelities. And, therefore, that has hurt his ability to preside. People still feel compelled to believe him a lot. He's a very good orator. But, in fact, he can't get a lot of things done because of these scandals.

TERENCE SMITH: Christine Whelan, how's he seen at Princeton?

CHRISTINE WHELAN: Well, I certainly think that this hurts the idea of a president. Certainly we don't view Clinton as a role model. And I think that this also damages for our generation the idea of going into public service. I mean, we're not going to go into public service with this the same idealism of our parents' generation, given what this president and this congress have done.

TERENCE SMITH: Greg.

GREGORY THOMAS: Many students, though, would - you know -- if you've been interested in public affairs and you're still interested in public affairs at the stage we're at, you know, this one incident isn't going to deter anybody from wanting to go into public office. I mean, just because one person got elected to president because of his, you know, excellent demagoguery doesn't mean that there aren't other people out there who strongly believe in wanting to help people and won't want to go into public service.

TERENCE SMITH: His excellent demagoguery, Jin Whang, is that the way you see it?

JIN WHANG: Well, I was kind of thrown off by those two words, but I do agree that if there are people that want to make a difference, they will go into public service. Perhaps the negativity generated by the recent events may even encouraging other people to go and do right if they view that what's been done wrong. But I think there is another thing to look at, and that would be that the cynicism or mistrust we have toward politicians is even greater now.

TERENCE SMITH: Yes. Dan Alter, one of the big questions in this trial all along and still not resolved is, is it about sex or is it about lying, perjury, obstruction, et cetera. What is your view?

JIN WHANG: Well, I'll tell you. I mean, it certainly speaks to how certain segments of our nation feel about sex and issues surrounding it. It's funny because we wouldn't be having this conversation, you know, Clinton is not on trial right now because of either the tryst that he had outside his marriage or because of the perjury. Clinton is on trial because there's a Republican majority in Congress. I mean, had there been a Democratic majority and a partisan vote, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. In essence, it's about neither at this point. You know, it's almost about the partisanship. It's almost taken over and overshadowed the issues that should be at hand.

TERENCE SMITH: Christine Whelan, you were shaking your head.

CHRISTINE WHELAN: I think I have to disagree with that. I think this is about lying about a private matter in a public forum when he lied under oath. A private matter became a public matter. And I definitely think this is about letting the American people down and about lying about obstruction of justice and about perjury. And I think the Senate needs to make their decision based on those facts.

TERENCE SMITH: Sharif Durhams, one of the issues here has been that point, it is about private lives or public lives. One of the features has been the disclosing of private lives. I wonder how that strikes you, s -- both as an individual and as an editor.

SHARIF DURHAMS: Well, I think it's interesting. Although this trial is being portrayed as one of now higher issues than just sex, I don't think Ken Starr would have been able to get as far as he had if the issue wasn't of sex. If it hadn't been about questions of infidelity, Bill Clinton wouldn't have looked over the truth the way he did if it wasn't an issue of sex. So I think that has a lot to do with it. And I think that is a big part of the story. I think that's why a lot of people paid attention to the story during the past year.

TERENCE SMITH: Greg Thomas, to you it's about integrity; it's about lying; and it's about what you expect from a president?

GREGORY THOMAS: Exactly. And I would have to agree with the last speaker in that the media has definitely purported this to be - or at first, I think a lot of people were interested in it because it - you know, to the average citizen it was about sex and mass media sort of pandered to the lowest common denominator in public opinion. Now we're in a situation where now it's about the Constitution. Now it's about what exactly constitutes removing a President from office. And this is turning off many of the people, you know. But at the heart of the entire issue lies the dignity of the institution of the presidency.

TERENCE SMITH: Jin Whang, what would you think if you saw Monica Lewinsky sitting in the well of the Senate testifying, answering questions? What impression would it strike you?

JIN WHANG: You mean impression of her or - the trial?

TERENCE SMITH: As a witness. In other words, if as now seems possible, witnesses are called in this trial and if we reach a point where theoretically Monica Lewinsky is sitting there answering questions, I wonder what you would think of that.

JIN WHANG: I think the trial itself will have gone - I mean, we're saying, God, this has gone, you know, so far. I think that's even going further. We've had reports. We've heard videotapes, and now it's live and I think it's just pushing the mark. I think we'll be shocked to see that. I personally will think, God, where is this going? And I think it's been said before -- this needs to end now. And I think a lot of people just want the government to listen to what the public is saying and take it from there.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay. That's all the time we have. I'm afraid. Thank you all very much.

FOCUS - BUILDING DIVERSITY

JIM LEHRER: And speaking of colleges, Spencer Michels reports on the latest efforts to achieve diversity in California's law schools.

SPENCER MICHELS: Within an hour's drive of each other, three prestigious San Francisco Bay area law schools are coping with the problems of achieving diversity in their student bodies. Stanford University, here in Silicon Valley; Hastings Law School in San Francisco; and Boalt Hall at the University of California at Berkeley all have similar goals, but differing approaches.

PETE WILSON: Are we going to treat Californians equally and fairly, or are we going to continue to divide Californians by race?

SPENCER MICHELS: Former Governor Pete Wilson made diversity an issue in 1995, when he and businessman Ward Connerly urged their fellow regents of the University of California to ban affirmative action. After contentious debate, the regents ended the use of race, gender, or ethnicity in university admissions. Then a year later, California voters, after a bitter campaign, enacted Proposition 209, that eliminated racial preferences in public education, employment, and contracting. Under this double mandate, state universities had to change admission policies that had given an edge to minorities. In the first year of the new policy, starting in 1997, U.C.'S Boalt Law School reported that just one African-American, a deferred admission, was in the entering class of 271 students. Fourteen Blacks had been admitted, but none had chosen to attend Berkeley. For law school dean Herma Hill Kay, the political climate made her task difficult.

HERMA HILL KAY: I think that there was a feeling that California in general had turned its back on minority applicants. People felt that they didn't have to come here if they weren't welcome here. And one of the things that we tried very hard to do was to turn that perception-- which we thought was wrong-- around, and make clear that we do welcome minority applicants, and we want people to come here.

SPENCER MICHELS: The dean appointed Professor Robert Cole to head a task force on changing the admissions policy, with the goal of obtaining a diverse student body without violating the new rules.

PROFESSOR ROBERT COLE: You cannot have a first-class law school in this country without racial and ethnic diversity. It's just absolutely essential, both, because it improves the quality of the education, and because people are going to go out and be in positions of leadership, they have to be educated through a more diverse student body.

HERMA HILL KAY: Professor Cole recommended, and the school adopted, an admissions policy emphasizing individual achievement and placing less value on undergraduate grades and law school admission test, or LSAT scores, regarded as barriers to some minority students. Boalt Law School also began sending recruiters to some less prestigious undergraduate colleges than before, without actually targeting any one race.

SPOKESPERSON: They talk to people, they tell them about the school. They also make contacts with the college counselors. We produced a video last year called "Welcome to Boalt Hall" that we sent to college counselors and we sent to students we admitted.

STUDENT: [on video] You should come to Boalt because something important is going on here.

SPENCER MICHELS: But Boalt's attempt at change didn't come fast enough for some students.

MICHAEL MURPHY, Student Association President: We were concerned with what we perceived to be hesitance on the part of the faculty and administration to really take some leaps.

SONYA ENCHIL, Students of African Descent: If I was the dean of this law school and this had come down, I would have not complied with the decision and allowed a plaintiff to sue, and this is what the law is about.

SPOKESPERSON: These are people who are now lawyers and...

SPENCER MICHELS: For others, like students in Boalt's Federalist Society, the school is going too far. Second-year student Dave Weiner is vice president.

DAVE WEINER: I think it's terrifying when you say diversity is based on skin color and not on viewpoint, and that one's skin color and viewpoint are one and the same. Yeah, of course we like to see people from more diverse backgrounds, of course. But the thing is, do we then discriminate against people from other backgrounds to achieve that goal? I don't think that's right. I think that's what Berkeley stood for in the 1960's. I think that's what we're trying to create, is a society where people aren't judged.

SPENCER MICHELS: 23-year-old Sylvia Barbosa, a native of Peru and the daughter of working-class parents, was admitted to this year's Boalt Hall class after three years at a junior college and 18 months as an undergrad at Berkeley. Before she decided to attend, she was wooed by student clubs and alumni, and she was awarded a new race-based scholarship. The scholarship money was put up by an upscale San Francisco law firm, working with the local bar association. The grants, totaling $400,000, targeting minority students, are legal, since the firms are private and not covered by Prop 209. The efforts on all fronts appear to be paying off. When school opened last august, nine African-Americans joined the new class, although one of them is no longer enrolled. That's 3 percent. And 23 Latinos are attending, compared to 14 last year, for a total minority enrollment of 11 percent. Berkeley's admission policies, and its use of essays as part of the application, were greeted with some skepticism by Ward Connerly, the regent who championed ending affirmative action.

WARD CONNERLY: If the result has been obtained through a genuine adherence to the policies of the Board of Regents and the dictate of the California Constitution, as reflected by Proposition 209, then they've done a good thing. If they've cheated in any way-- and we really don't know, and I will assume that they have not-- if they have cheated in any way by looking at those essays and finding code words for black and Latino, then we are basically in the same place we were before the regents took this up.

SPENCER MICHELS: Connerly's concern is that admissions be based strictly on merit.

WARD CONNERLY: Diversity is clearly desirable, I think. But it should not be the objective, because once it becomes the objective, then you start trying to influence the outcome, and I think that's wrong.

SPENCER MICHELS: At Hastings Law School in San Francisco, the outcome is prescribed by a policy adopted nearly 30 years ago. About 20 percent of places in each class are reserved for students whose education, economic status, social experience, or physical disability puts them at a disadvantage. Hastings is a University of California affiliate with its own governing board, and therefore not subject to the regents' rules. Dean Mary Kay Kane is implementing a policy that began in 1969.

MARY KAY KANE: We thought it was still very important to provide opportunities for disadvantaged individuals, of whom many would be minorities, but some would not be minorities. And so we revamped our program and set up something which we call LEOP, which is our special admissions and academic support program.

SPENCER MICHELS: LEOP stands for "Legal Education Opportunity Program," and Hastings says it is not race-based, and therefore doesn't violate Prop 209.

MARY KAY KANE: So we have dodged a bullet to the extent that we didn't have to scramble, we didn't have to change what we were doing; we could sort of continue our efforts.

SPENCER MICHELS: Besides allowing Hastings to admit students who have overcome hardship, the LEOP program supports them once they have been admitted.

SPOKESPERSON: If you want help from your peers, if you want extra practice exams, you can go to LEOP and ask for the help, and it's there. And it's not just for blacks or women. You can be a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant and still come to LEOP and ask for help. And you can still be in a program. That's one thing I like about LEOP, is it's not a race-based program.

STUDENT: When I first came into law school, you don't know the experience you're about to have. And this causes a lot of stress, and it also can be emotionally draining and kind of counterproductive. So I went through the orientation recently, and it gave me tools and plans, and an idea of what I'm going to experience.

STUDENT: It has helped me to learn how to act in law school; it's a drama here, and it has given me the --basically given me my script.

SPENCER MICHELS: Over the past three years, between 10 and 15 percent of the Hastings student body has been made up of African-Americans and Latinos, with the numbers dropping a little after the passage of Prop 209. At the Stanford Law school, 17 African-Americans and 25 Latinos are part of this year's class. That's 24 percent of the 180 students enrolled, a figure that has gone up slightly over the last three years. This university is private, and not subject to Prop 209 or the California regents. Stanford seeks diversity of various sorts in its admissions process, according to law school dean Paul Brest.

SPENCER MICHELS: But race is one of the factors?

PAUL BREST: Race is absolutely one of the factors.

SPENCER MICHELS: So if you had a class that didn't have African-Americans in it, or Chicanos, this would be upsetting, right?

PAUL BREST: We would think that we could not give the student body as a whole the kind of professional education we do if we didn't have members of those minority groups.

SPENCER MICHELS: As one of the nation's top- rated law schools, Stanford attracts applications from many highly qualified minorities, increasing the chances for a diverse class. The applicants are judged not just on their scores, but on their life experience. Janice strong is a 39-year-old single mother and a third-year law student.

JANICE: I didn't start college until I was 34. Before that, I was raising kids. I was a business owner, so I by no means was destitute, but I decided to quit everything that I had. I went to community college.

SPENCER MICHELS: She transferred to Stanford undergrad, and then applied to law school without high test scores.

JANICE: They still took me because of my life history and who I am, because affirmative action isn't just color, it's a life story, it's a life history; because my grades are good, I'm in good standing, and I'm living proof that the merit argument means nothing.

SPENCER MICHELS: Stanford's policies are outside the purview of the state and of regent Ward Connerly. Nevertheless, Connerly says considering race in admissions anytime is unfair.

WARD CONNERLY: The reverse of saying, "we want more blacks and Latinos," is saying, "we want less Asians and whites." That's the reality. It is a zero-sum game. If they want to discriminate-- and that's essentially what we're taking about; we can call it "diversity building," or whatever we want to call it-- if they choose to discriminate, that is their business. I wish they wouldn't, and if they're using government money, we should slap them and take the money away if they in fact are doing that.

SPENCER MICHELS: Stanford officials do worry that the Supreme Court could in fact ban affirmative action in schools that receive federal grants. So far, that has not happened. The deans of Stanford, Hastings, and Boalt Hall law schools say their efforts to attract minorities will continue, and California's new democratic governor also is pushing to ensure diversity at state colleges and universities.

FINALLY - FREEDOM

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, a poem for Martin Luther King Day, read by NewsHour contributor Robert Pinsky, the poet laureate of the United States.

ROBERT PINSKY: The first African-American poet to hold my post, Robert Hayden, wrote a visionary sonnet about the ex-slave, writer, and political leader Frederick Douglass. It seems an appropriate poem to read on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. "Frederick Douglass." "When it is finally ours, this freedom, this liberty, this beautiful and terrible thing needful to man as air, usable as earth, when it belongs at last to all, when it is truly instinct, brain matter, diastole, systole, reflex action, when it is finally one, when it is more than the gaudy mumbo jumbo of politicians, this man, this Douglass, this former slave, this Negro beaten to his knees, exiled, visioning a world where none is lonely, none hunted, alien, this man, superb in love and logic, this man shall be remembered, oh, not with statues' rhetoric, not with legends and poems and wreaths of bronze alone, but with the lives grown out of his life, the lives fleshing his dream of the beautiful, needful thing.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this holiday Monday -- Serb security forces ignored NATO warnings to stop attacks on Kosovo rebels. And Eight people were killed, one hundred injured when a string of tornadoes touched down in west Tennessee last night. We'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. We'll also resume our gavel-to-gavel coverage of the impeachment trial at 1:00 P.M. Eastern time tomorrow, on many PBS stations. And tomorrow evening at 9:00 P.M., we'll provide special coverage of Mr. Clinton's State of the Union address. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.