The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Good evening. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Jim Lehrer is away. On the NewsHour tonight a Newsmaker interview with U.N. Secretary- General Kofi Annan; a report on the Hindu Nationalists who won the most votes in the Indian elections; a new Supreme Court decision on same sex harassment; and a look back at the life of broadcasting pioneer Fred Friendly, who died last night. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday.NEWS SUMMARY

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan today agreed with the United States' interpretation of what Iraq must do to get economic sanctions against it lifted. Annan said Iraq must comply not only with demands to abolish its weapons programs but also with other Gulf War cease-fire conditions like the return of all Kuwaiti prisoners and property. He spoke in a NewsHour interview, which we'll have right after the News Summary. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that same sex harassment is banned by federal law. The justices said such claims fall under a 1964 civil rights law barring gender discrimination in the workplace. The action reverses an earlier decision by the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. At issue was the case of a Louisiana man who said he was harassed by other men on an oil rig in 1991. We'll have more on this story later in the program. The Senate today adopted an amendment that would set a national standard for measuring drunk driving. Members voted 62 to 32 to set the blood alcohol level for intoxication at .08 percent. States that failed to do so would lose federal highway dollars. Currently, 35 states set the drunk driving standard at a higher .10 percent. The measure is part of a larger transportation bill still under consideration by the Congress. The House of Representatives debated today whether Puerto Rico should be offered another chance to vote for statehood. Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: The legislation carries the backing of House leaders of both parties and President Clinton.

REP. GEORGE MILLER, [D] California: The people of Puerto Rico, if this bill is passed, will be given the opportunity by the Congress of the United States under the laws of this nation to choose their status. They can choose to continue in a commonwealth arrangement. They could choose to become an independent nation. They could choose to become one of the states of the United States of America.

KWAME HOLMAN: That choice would be made by the people of Puerto Rico in a vote later this year. If they chose statehood or independence, more votes in Puerto Rico and in Congress would occur during a transition period of up to 10 years. But some members charged that process is deliberately weighted toward statehood. Illinois Democrat Luis Guiterrez supports independence for Puerto Rico.

REP. LUIS GUITERREZ, [D] Illinois: It is a bill--read it--it is a bill that is cleverly designed to obtain an artificial majority for statehood for Puerto Rico and to lead Congress down an irreversible path first to the incorporation of Puerto Rico, and then to the admission of Puerto Rico as the 51ststate of this great union.

KWAME HOLMAN: Some members complained they haven't had adequate time to consider the issue.

REP. ROGER WICKER, [R] Mississippi: Adding a star to the United States flag is a major decision for Americans to make. It's a serious matter, which Congress and the American people need to have a full understanding about. I don't think the American people know this issue is out there.

KWAME HOLMAN: A vote on the plebiscite bill is expected late tonight or tomorrow. The Senate has not yet scheduled any floor action on the Puerto Rico issue.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: President Clinton today endorsed new legislation to ensure the safety of imported fruits and vegetables. The legislation would authorize the Food & Drug Administration to ban imports from any country whose produce is suspect, or whose safety standards are considered inadequate. The Agriculture Department has similar authority over imported meats. Food industry opponents say the FDA already has the power to stop unsafe food imports. In Miami today, last November's mayoral election was thrown out because of fraudulent absentee voting. A circuit court judge ordered a new election. The city commission is expected to select an interim mayor until a new vote can be scheduled in about 60 days. Professional basketball star Latrell Sprewell was reinstated today. He had been fired by his team and suspended from the game for punching and choking his coach in December. An arbitrator said the Golden State Warriors must honor the remaining two years on his contract for $16.3 million and that the National Basketball Association must reduce his one-year suspension to seven months. Sprewell is expected to return to the Warriors in July. Broadcast Journalist Fred Friendly died early today at his home in New York. He had suffered a series of strokes. The television news pioneer began his career in radio in the late 30's. In 1948, he began a long collaboration with the legendary Edward R. Murrow. Friendly was president of CBS News from 1964 to 1966. He taught at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism and after 1984, produced programs for public broadcasting. He was 82 years old. We'll have more about his career at the end of our broadcast tonight. And between now and then U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, the Indian elections, and the Supreme Court on same sex harassment. NEWSMAKER

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: First tonight, a Newsmaker interview with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Margaret Warner talked with him this afternoon.

MARGARET WARNER: Welcome, Mr. Annan.

KOFI ANNAN, U.N. Secretary-General: Thank you very much.

MARGARET WARNER: Thanks for being with us. What is the meaning to Iraq behind the resolution that the U.N. passed this week?

KOFI ANNAN: I think the meaning to Iraq is that if they do not comply next time round peace may not be given a second chance. And I hope that they will comply because the test will be in the application.

MARGARET WARNER: So does the severest consequences, which is the phrase used in the resolution, does that definitely mean military action?

KOFI ANNAN: I think it implies that the Council will take a very strict action, and that if there is further disruption of inspections, that there could be very serious consequences. And my sense is if that were to happen the mood in the Council may be quite different. And, let's not forget that the resolution was passed unanimously. So the unity of the Council is restored. And if they have to act again, my sense is that unity could be sustained.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, President Clinton said yesterday that he felt the resolution, the phrase he used was provides the authority to act, as he put it, if Iraq doesn't comply. Is that how you read it, that it provides the authority say for any single member state to act unilaterally?

KOFI ANNAN: This is a Council-led decision. I'm mean, the resolution yesterday was passed unanimously by the Council, and the Council decided that it will remain seized of the matter. And my sense then is that if Iraq does not comply and action is going to be taken, the Council will somehow want to be seized of it. But I think it will be much easier then for the Council to move forward unanimously.

MARGARET WARNER: So you feel that say the French, the Chinese, the Russians, would be-- do intend to follow through--would be more open to the use of military force than they were before?

KOFI ANNAN: I think they--first of all, let me say that everybody this time round indicated they preferred a diplomatic solution. We have got that solution, and we are now going to test it. If Iraq fulfills it strictly and in accordance with the understanding we've reached in Baghdad, it may see light at the end of the day. If it does not and disrupts it, and the issue came up again, I don't think there will be many members in the Council hesitating to take action.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, what would constitute violation of the agreement, of the agreement you negotiated with the Iraqis, in your view?

KOFI ANNAN: The agreement offers full and unrestricted access for the U.N. inspectors. And we are also being given access and entry into the presidential palaces. This can only be done with the cooperation of the Iraqis, and hopefully they will stick to this understanding. If they don't, and they block the inspectors from doing their work, it will constitute a violation.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, in your reading of the agreement, which, of course, you negotiated, is there any room for legitimate disagreement, as you see it, over an access question?

KOFI ANNAN: It's difficult to answer that question. I think we pretty much covered most of the issues, but, you know, you've asked a theoretical question, and I'm often hesitant about dealing with theoretical situations. In life, you never know. It could happen, yes.

MARGARET WARNER: I guess I was just asking because it also says unconditional access. And I just wondered if, in your view, that means basically the inspectors can go anywhere, anytime they want.

KOFI ANNAN: I think, you know, we all have to be reasonable, and I think the Iraqis and the U.N. officials in that even though we have unconditional access, almost everything we've done in Baghdad we've had to rely on the cooperation of the Iraqis. For example, the Iraqis participate; they travel with the inspectors; they go along with them; and in some cases inspections have been canceled because the Iraqi participants have not appeared. And so there could be some misunderstanding, but it is not beyond human ingenuity to find solutions to these. And I hope that even if the situation you've alluded to were to occur, with the professionalism and goodwill on both sides, we can work them out.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, turning to the presidential sites, which was the special category you particularly had to negotiate, what is going to be the role of these diplomats, who for the first time are going to accompany the UNSCOM inspectors?

KOFI ANNAN: There has been some confusion about that. The role of the diplomats will be to observe, and they'll be observing both ways, to ensure that the Iraqis carry out their commitments and do what they have promised to do--and also to ensure that the U.N. inspectors get on with their work with certain respect and sensitivity, given the fact that these are presidential sites, and for the government it is extremely important that it is handled with dignity and sensitivity. And so the diplomats will observe. They will have nothing to do with the actual inspections. The team leader will be an expert either from UNSCOM or the Atomic Agency. And the diplomats will be there to observe.

MARGARET WARNER: And will the diplomats have any independent authority or independent line to you?

KOFI ANNAN: They will have access to the commissioner, who is the head of the special group for the palaces. And he and Mr. Butler will be working very closely together. But it will be to the commissioner.

MARGARET WARNER: Not to beat this horse to death, but will you be getting your report from Mr. Butler, or will there be a separate report from the commissioner of the diplomats?

KOFI ANNAN: The report of the special group, which is headed by a commissioner, will be sent to the Security Council from Butler through me to the Council.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, you also said that the diplomats are there to ensure that the UNSCOM inspectors treat these sites with the dignity they should be treated. Are you suggesting that in the past UNSCOM inspectors have not done that?

KOFI ANNAN: Well, this is the first time in seven years that they've been given access to any of these palaces. And this is a direct outcome of the agreement we signed in Baghdad on the 23rd of February. Some of the other sites have been factories; they have been laboratories. They have been other sites which perhaps do not require the kind of sensitive treatment that the Iraqis are demanding here. And I know that I have been misquoted and misquoted wrongly time and time again, and, in some cases, I think deliberately, that I have called the inspectors cowboys. I did not call them cowboys. I reported what the Iraqi authorities told me, that some of them throw their weight around and behave like cowboys. And they don't want that sort of treatment around these--that sort of behavior around these palaces. I have been working with UNSCOM right from the beginning, and I know the tremendous amount of work they have done, and I have respect for them. But I also have a duty to report to the Council what I picked up in Baghdad.

MARGARET WARNER: And this week, as I understand it, your representative with Mr. Butler and others have been negotiating these procedures. Has that been concluded? Is all this agreed to?

KOFI ANNAN: Yes, it's more or less done. We have the procedures, and we should be ready to begin the inspections of the palaces as soon as the team is gathered in Baghdad.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, President Clinton also said that U.S. forces will remain, that beefed-up U.S. forces will remain in the Gulf for the time being. Do you think that's necessary, or helpful, to ensure Iraqi compliance?

KOFI ANNAN: I think in the President's judgment that is necessary for them to remain there until we've had a chance to test the agreement. And, as I said, agreement is something on paper until one lives up to their commitments. And I hope in the next few months we will see serious performance on the Iraqi side, and when that happens, presumably the President will not see any need to keeping military on the ground.

MARGARET WARNER: How long do you it would be appropriate--you talked about several months--for the U.S. to keep forces at that level in the region?

KOFI ANNAN: That judgment is not mine. The judgment of how long the troops stay is that and that of the President and the alliance alone. And so it is a decision they will have to take. The reference to a month or a couple of months is a guess--guesswork on my part. The decision is the President's and his alone.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, the resolution also says that once Iraq complies with Resolution 687, which was the resolution that ended the Gulf war, that sanctions could be lifted, but again there's some confusion over really what it is Iraq has to comply with. What has Iraq not done yet, very briefly, that it hasn't? Is it all dealing with weapons, or are there other issues?

KOFI ANNAN: I think you have the weapons issue, the question of disarmament, and we have two phases of that. You first disarm to establish a base line, and then you have ongoing monitoring, which can go on for quite some time. And then you have the question of missing in action, a Kuwaiti missing in action, and return of Kuwaiti properties. These are the things that Iraq has to comply with, and then the Council will lift the sanctions.

MARGARET WARNER: Finally, as you know, your deal has been criticized by some Republicans in Congress, and you personally, Trent Lott, the Senate Majority Leader, said--he was describing your dealings with Saddam Hussein, and he said you were someone bent on appeasement and someone devoted to building a human relationship with a mass murderer. How do you answer critics like that?

KOFI ANNAN: Well, these are rather strong and harsh words. And I'm not even sure if I can comment because I don't know what is behind those statements, because I think what I did was to try to save lives, to try and get Iraq to comply in accordance with the Security Council resolutions. And I think if this effort, which was not an easy one, which entailed quite a lot of risks, to try and get Iraq to comply, to save lives, and to prevent explosion in the Middle East--is going to be described in those terms, then of course we have different objectives. I know that some people on the Hill have a different idea as to how Iraq and President Saddam Hussein should be handled. That is not my concern. I am guided by Security Council resolutions. Yesterday, on the Larry King Show I was asked: Some people say the President must be taken out. And I explained, quite candidly, that the U.N. is not in the business of taking out any president, this or that president out. In our organization that is illegal. And I have no mandate from the Council. And so for those who think that should be the objective, whatever you do short of that is failure, is appeasement, and is weakness. And so I don't think there is anything else I can say.

MARGARET WARNER: How do you think you can--or do you think you can regain the trust of these Republicans who are ones who are going to decide whether or not the U.S. pays back its U.N. dues? You were supposed to be down here this week to talk to them about that, and Sen. Lott sent word he was too busy to see you. How are you going to get around that?

KOFI ANNAN: Well, first of all, I had to postpone my visit to Washington, because I had to be in New York for the Security Council discussion of the agreement I brought back. It was legitimate that I remain here, and so, perhaps just as well he didn't have time to see me also, because I was going to go down in any event. But let me say that I have done my work as secretary-general, I'm accountable to the United Nations, to the Security Council, and to the 185 member states, including the U.S.. And I did what the Security Council and the United Nations wanted me to do. The U.S. is a member of this organization; the U.S. voted in the Security Council before I left, agreeing to what I was attempting to do. And since I came back, the entire Council has unanimously endorsed the agreement, and the U.S. voted for it. And so those who have a problem with the agreement should not quarrel with me. They should take it up with the member states of the U.N.. There are 185 of them. If they have a quarrel, it's with them and not with me. From the day they approved the agreement in their program, I negotiated it.

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

KOFI ANNAN: Thank you. FOCUS - BATTLE FOR POWER

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Next, tonight the new force in Indian politics, Hindu Nationalism. No party has won a parliamentary majority in the month-long elections, but the Hindu Nationalist BJP Party was the top vote getter. We have a report on the campaign from Fred De Sam Lazaro of public station KTCA- Minneapolis-St. Paul.

[SHOUTS OF RAMESH CHAND THOMAR]

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Ramesh Chand Thomar has served in India's parliament since 1991, representing a semi-rural district in the Northern, Uttar Pradesh province. He began this campaign day with a stop at a Hindu temple, part of a routine that emphasizes the central theme of his BJP or India People's Party. Called Hindutva, the slogan has few specifics but declares India "a nation of Hindu values." He insists this does not violate the secular democratic tradition of Mahatma Gandhi, on which the nation was founded. Thomar says it simply calls on Indians to be patriotic.

RAMESH CHAND THOMAR: Indian must think first of India, the development of India, the prosperity of India, we like that. The people are living here and they are thinking about other countries.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: What other countries specifically?

RAMESH CHAND THOMAR: Neighboring countries, whatever they have in their mind, I cannot say.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The BJP's critics say that's code language aimed at India's Muslim minority. They are often accused of being loyal to Pakistan, India's Islamic neighbor and adversary in three wars, according to Syed Shahabuddin, a former member of parliament and publisher of a journal called Muslim India.

SYED SHAHABUDDIN, Publisher, "Muslim India:" This is precisely their method of trying to undo, or rather to do a minority out of its due share. Point one, look, he's the enemy, he is the other, he is the enemy, he is the adversary, he's with them; he's the fifth columnist. He's at the beck and call of Pakistan. And Pakistan, of course, you know, is always leaving difficult responsibilities against us. And this is how you create a miasma of fear, and that is how you create distrust. That is how you inject poison into the body politic of this country, and that is how you create an atmosphere in which any amount of violence can take place.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Critics blame the BJP for trying to reignite religious tensions that date back centuries. In the early 1990's, the party led a campaign to remove a 16th century mosque, called Babri Masjid, and replace it with a Hindu temple. They claimed India's Muslim conquerors built it in a sacred spot; the birthplace of the Hindu God Rama. Murali Manohar Joshi, a BJP leader, explained the campaign to foreign reporters.

MURALI MANOHAR JOSHI: If Hitler would have been victorious in the second world war and there would have been a statue of Hitler in Trafalgar Square, and in 1990 the Britishers would have been liberated from Hitler's yoke, what would they have done to that statue of Hitler?

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: In 1992, rioters stormed the mosque called Babri Masjid and razed it. The incident sparked violent clashes that claimed dozens of Hindu and Muslim lives, and for a while, it seemed to alienate many voters from the BJP, but political observers say it also hurt the ruling Congress Party government, which was criticized for not cracking down on the rioters. At the same time, the Congress government, which had ruled India almost uninterrupted for four decades, began to face increasing voter resentment for policies that failed to deliver even basic amenities. It's frustration that's still very much in evidence.

MAN: [speaking through interpreter] Take a look at the condition of our village. Do you see any water taps? We have to go two kilometers to get water, and we still get water from an open well.

TEACHER: [speaking through interpreter] The minister came here, he promised to expand this school. We're still waiting. We only go to the fifth grade. I'd love to see kids go to the eighth.

ANOTHER MAN: [speaking through interpreter] When it comes time for our votes, they say they'll do this, they'll do that, in the end they don't do anything.

THIRD MAN: [speaking through interpreter] The Congress Party has been in power for a long time. They haven't done anything for the poor, the lower castes.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Perhaps the biggest reason for the Congress Party's fall from grace were allegations of widespread corruption. It's an issue the BJP has seized. A BJP promise to clean up politics has struck a responsive chord, even among some Congress Party members, like Colonel Ram Singh.

COLONEL RAM SINGH: I really got so disgusted. Every minister, barring four or five of us, there is about 65, every minister was looting the country literally with both hands, and it was shameful.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Singh, who ran for parliament this time as a BJP candidate, believes his adopted party is divorcing itself from its extremist past.

COLONEL RAM SINGH: I think that is gradually being removed. I mean, my total outlook has always been, and will always be that every religion should have equal place, equal rights, and they should be no persecution of anybody on religious grounds.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Singh describes himself as a moderating force in the BJP and the party has gone out of its way to tone down its Hindutva rhetoric, according to H. K. Dua, editor of the Times of India.

H. K. DUA, Editor, "The Times of India:" They are trying to project more a centrist party, keen to do the business of the state, taking the others along, than the kind of image they had tried to project earlier. Possibly they are seeing it's politically necessary. They won't be able to come to power if they are taking an extreme position. So there is a definite attempt to demarcate themselves from the old--the old Hindu image. But they're doing it softly, lest they may lose their old constituency.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Hard-line BJP candidates, like Ramesh Thomar, insist they're committed to freedom for all religions, but at the same time, Thomar says a temple must be built at the site of the demolished Babri mosque.

RAMESH THOMAR: Construction of the temple is the permanent solution, and most of the Muslim people also wants that the temple of Rama in Ayodhya that should be constructed.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: So you would like to see a temple constructed in--

RAMESH THOMAR: Must, must, must.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Election results show the BJPB won the most seats in parliament but not the majority needed to form a government. Its position on the temple and other issues will be the subject of intense and difficult negotiations as it seeks coalition partners. Kuldi Nayyar is a columnist and former diplomat.

KULDIP NAYYAR, Columnist: The roots of tolerance, the roots of secular polity, the roots of sense of accommodation are very deep, because even last time, they tried their best to get others to join them. Fourteen, fifteen parties came together to keep them away because these people represent a philosophy or an ideology which is alien to this country.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Opposing the BJP in the race to form a coalition government is the once dominant Congress Party, whose campaign was led by a woman with India's best-known political name, Sonia Gandhi. It finished a distant second and will try to team with a group of smaller parties called the United Front to stop the Hindu Nationalists.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the Supreme Court on same sex harassment and a look back at the life of Fred Friendly. FOCUS - SUPREME COURT WATCH

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Phil Ponce has the Supreme Court story.

PHIL PONCE: For a legal explanation of today's same-sex sexual harassment ruling we turn to NewsHour regular Stuart Taylor, senior writer with National Journal and contributing editor to Newsweek, and we look at the ruling's impact on the workplace with Ellen Bravo, co- director of 9 to 5, the national association of working women which represents women and men in non- management positions, and Kathleen Neville, a business consultant and author of "Corporate Attraction: An Inside Account of Sexual Harassment on the Job." Welcome all.Stuart Taylor, first, a quick statement of the facts of the case that led to this decision.

STUART TAYLOR, National Journal: This is a lawsuit by a man named Joseph Oncal, who had been harassed on an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico on which only men worked. Two of his supervisors and a third man engaged in a succession of sexually harassing types of things with him, including humiliating him with a bar of soap when they were naked in the shower once, for example, threatening him with rape. He ultimately resigned, saying that he feared being raped, although none of this was apparently motivated by homosexual desire--it was just being nasty to him--and ultimately sued for sexual harassment, claiming a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VII, sex discrimination provisions.

PHIL PONCE: And the lower court, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, held that?

STUART TAYLOR: They held flatly that because he was a man suing for sexually harassing conduct by other men he had no federal remedy. He could sue in state court for battery, or something like that, but they held broadly that same-sex sexual harassment doesn't violate federal civil rights laws. And that was the issue the Supreme Court took the case to consider.

PHIL PONCE: And the Supreme Court held that.

STUART TAYLOR: The Supreme Court unanimously reversed that decision and held that male-on-male or female-on-female sexual harassment can violate Title VII, can violate federal law, just as, for example, it might violate federal law if a female supervisor discriminated against all the women who worked for her in promotions or whatever. The court said that there had been a bewildering variety of different views of this in the lower courts. Some said same-sex sexual harassment doesn't violate federal law. Others said, well, only if it's homosexual and, therefore, motivated by sexual desire. The Supreme Court said all that was wrong, that it depended on all the facts and circumstances, that courts should try these things with common sense, that it didn't have to be motivated by sexual desire to constitute a violation of federal law but it does have to be sex discrimination. In other words, they called upon the courts--maybe wished that the courts would not turn this into a code of civility in the workplace so that every flirtation or locker room horseplay gets to be a lawsuit, but that if it's serious enough and abusive enough to subject members of one sex or the other to unequal treatment, then there's a federal lawsuit.

PHIL PONCE: That's because sexual harassment is a form of sexual discrimination under legal rulings.

STUART TAYLOR: That's right. The words sexual harassment don't appear in the relevant law. They've come in--that concept has come in as a form of sex discrimination because Title VII not only protects you against discrimination in terms of promotions, firing, hiring, but also the terms and conditions of employment. The Supreme Court has interpreted that broadly to mean that if women or men are subjected to a hostile environment that denies them the same opportunities that members of the other sex have--the opposite sex have--that's sexual harassment. If it's done because of sexual desire on the part of the boss, that's illegal, and if it's done for some other reason, that's illegal too.

PHIL PONCE: So, you talk about the Supreme Court giving a common sense kind of an approach to what same-sex sexual harassment is. So the elements then are for establishing it?

STUART TAYLOR: Basically if, as a result of abusive conduct, serious abusive conduct, members of one sex are treated unequally from members of the other to the point that they are subjected to what the court calls a hostile environment in the workplace, then they can sue. Now, if that sounds vague and mushy and confusing, it's because it is. And if you noticed that the Supreme Court was unanimous in this case, it's because they've been unanimous about all their sexual harassment cases because they have generally dealt with broad, abstract principles and have not gotten down to the difficult business of okay, how do you prove it's discrimination. In this case, for example, everyone on the oil rig was a man. So it would have been fairly hard to prove that women would have been treated differently. The Supreme Court punted on that issue and let the lower courts worry about it.

PHIL PONCE: Ms. Neville, is it vague and mushy for employers? How do they-- how do they respond to this decision?

KATHLEEN NEVILLE, Sexual Harassment Consultant: Well, all along I believe that many employers have had a very difficult time at bringing the definition of sexual harassment to all their employees. And I think we're still struggling with that. This decision makes perfect sense because one of the key aspects of it is that it's of a sexual nature. The confusion lies with--when we talk about a hostile work environment that under the law, under Title VII, that it must be a hostile--of a hostile nature, of a sexual nature. And I think that element is definitely present in this case. And for me, it's actually a very good decision as far as helping employers to further define what sexual harassment is in the workplace.

PHIL PONCE: But are you saying that there's still quite a bit of--quite a bit of interpretation that's out there as far as what actually--what kind of an act might constitute same-sex sexual harassment?

KATHLEEN NEVILLE: I do quite a bit of training on site with all different size corporations here in the U.S., and I find that still, although we've kind of established a quid pro quo and hostile work environment, are the definitions of sexual harassment, I still find at the real level inside companies that there still is confusion because it's so interpretive and it's so subjective.

PHIL PONCE: Ms. Bravo, are employees still confused about what constitutes same-sex sexual harassment?

ELLEN BRAVO, 9 to 5: I think employees are confused about what constitutes sexual harassment, regardless same sex or opposite sex. But that's possible to clear up with the training, which is something we also do. I think this is a good ruling because it upholds the guideline of the EEOC since 1980. If you look at what the employer's argument was, they said, oh, this is just horseplay; it's just men kidding around. That implies that simply by being male any man would find any sexual conduct okay. That's really insulting and sexist. I think it's very clear in this case that the behavior was abusive, created a hostile work environment. Regardless of the gender of who it's done by or to, it ought not to be allowed.

PHIL PONCE: Ms. Bravo, do you have any understanding of sense of just how widespread this kind of harassment exists in the workplace.

ELLEN BRAVO: Well, of course, the most common kind of harassment is male against female, but we certainly are aware of same-sex sexual harassment from our trainings and calls we get on our hotline. And our experience is that usually the perpetrators are heterosexual, who act in a way against either men who are heterosexual or gay to put them down for demeaning them sexually often because they won't go along with sexually offensive behavior, or simply to punish them for being gay.

PHIL PONCE: Ms. Neville, how about that, is it--Ms. Bravo seems to think it's fairly evident in the workplace if one--if one is interacting with one's colleagues what crosses the line and what doesn't.

ELLEN BRAVO: Well, I think to us it is obvious, but I do find that we still at the employee level, it's still for me a challenge on most days to help employees and employers clearly define within their own workplace and their own culture what legally is binding regarding sexual harassment. I often hear people say, I'm being harassed, so, therefore, it must be sexual harassment, when oftentimes it's obnoxious behavior or a personality conflict. And clearly, there is a difference between that and sexual harassment.

PHIL PONCE: What happens, Ms. Neville, when an employer comes up to you and says an employee has complained that he or she is being subjected to this behavior, that people are not--are treating them poorly and he or she thinks that maybe there's a sexual component to it?

KATHLEEN NEVILLE: Well, what the responsibility of the employer to conduct an investigation, to do it promptly and thoroughly, and to look for what we look for as far as the signs of evidence of sexual harassment. It must be of a sexual nature. I mean, a hostile work environment must be repeated, such as pressure for dates, physical advances, but there are clear--there are clear indications what exactly sexual harassment is.

PHIL PONCE: And in light of this decision, Ms. Neville, what kinds of advice are you going to be giving to employers?

KATHLEEN NEVILLE: I think that, you know, just like with 1986, when Michelle Vincent, the Merida Savings Case, it helped us define--and this is much--this is just a further definition of broader definition--that sexual behavior, misconduct in the workplace, violates everyone's rights. And I think if we can take that to the companies that we're now training, that they'll just have simply a better workplace.

PHIL PONCE: Stuart, how much guidance did the court give in determining what's the difference between horseplay over here and sexual harassment over there?

STUART TAYLOR: It gave some very general guidelines. It's a rather short opinion, six and a half pages, uncharacteristic for this Supreme Court. But it was mostly common sense guidelines: A little horseplay is not sexual harassment, a nasty, abusive environment is. Now, obviously, there's an infinite number of gradations between those two extremes, and what the Supreme Court has not told us in this case is where do you cross the line from tolerable to intolerable, and I think in the nature of it, frankly, there isn't a clear line. There never will be a clear line because, as Justice Scalia says in his opinion, you can't capture these sorts of things with formulas of words. For example, he says, for a football coach to whack one of his players on the fanny on the way out to the field, not sexual harassment. If he does the same thing back in the office to a secretary, male or female, maybe it is sexual harassment. That's not the sort of distinction that you can capture with a definition.

PHIL PONCE: Ms. Bravo, do you think in practice people will be able to make those kinds of distinctions?

ELLEN BRAVO: I do. But I think what will really help is if employers say, you know, we can be more strict than the law, and what we want as a bottom line is that everybody treat each other with respect and dignity and particularly supervisors to people that they supervise. If you have an atmosphere like that where you can't bully people around or yell at them and scream and be insulting, regardless of whether it would rise to the level of a violation of Title VII, you can just say it won't fly here. And that would really be the kind of workplace we need.

PHIL PONCE: Ms. Bravo, what do you say to those critics of this decision who say that this is going to encourage a lot of spurious kinds of complaints?

ELLEN BRAVO: You know, people say this all the time, and the truth is most people who are sexual harassed don't file complaints; they don't do anything for a lot of reasons, because they don't want to be trouble makers, because they don't want to be in trouble, because they fear they won't be believed, and often because they don't have money for lawyers, because most lawyers won't take these cases on contingency. It's pretty scary to go against your employer with a battery of corporate lawyers if you don't have one at all. So I think it's really misleading and distorting to say that thebig problem we face is furious lawsuits. The big problem we face is that sexual harassment remains a persistent problem in the workplace and that there haven't been serious enough consequences. Some companies have done a great job, many have not, and we have to do better.

PHIL PONCE: Ms. Neville, still a serious problem, pervasive in the workplace as Ms. Bravo says?

KATHLEEN NEVILLE: Oh, absolutely. It continues to be. There is encouragement because there's more training and there's more heightened awareness. But, you know, it continues to be a challenge.

PHIL PONCE: Stuart, quickly, what do you say to those people who look at this case and say legally it provides a basis for further expansion of gay rights generally in the workplace? Is this an apples and oranges thing, or does this case legally have the potential to do that?

STUART TAYLOR: It does not really. The court treats it the same, whether you're gay or not gay, for purposes of sexual harassment. Interestingly, during the argument Justice Ginsberg started to suggest that maybe if people are being harassed because they're gay men and, therefore, that's a stereotype about what men are supposed to be like, why maybe that is a form of harassment. That verges down the road towards gay rights, but the court didn't touch it, didn't touch that concept, didn't deal with it either way.

PHIL PONCE: And nor did the court touch the concept of harassment based on somebody's sexual orientation, is that right?

STUART TAYLOR: They did not. I think if you're--except it's implicit in the court's decision that if a boss is harassing homosexual males based on sexual orientation, that nobody else in the workplace, that's sexual harassment because the males--those males--are being treated worse than the females. And that's discrimination.

PHIL PONCE: That's where we'll have to leave it. Thank you all very much.

STUART TAYLOR: Thank you. FINALLY - IN MEMORIAM

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Finally tonight, remembering broadcast journalist Fred Friendly. Spencer Michels begins our report.

SPENCER MICHELS: Born in New York, Fred Friendly grew up in Providence, Rhode Island, where he started his broadcasting career in 1937 on local radio station WEAN. In the late 40's, Friendly teamed up with the famed broadcaster Edward R. Murrow to produce a radio documentary series called, "Hear It Now". In 1951, Friendly and Murrow moved the series to television and called it "See It Now". Perhaps their most famous report was a 1954 documentary taking on Senator Joseph McCarthy and his anti-communism investigations. Eight years later, "See It Now" became "CBS Reports", a long-running series of award winning news documentaries, including "Harvest of Shame", a documentary about the plight of migrant farm workers. He became president of CBS News in 1964, but quit two years later, after the network decided to run soap operas and reruns of "I Love Lucy," instead of live coverage of congressional hearings on the Vietnam War. Friendly then joined the faculty of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism in New York. At the same time, he worked with the Ford Foundation, where he was instrumental in the formation of public broadcasting. In 1984, he returned to television to produce a series of public affairs programs on current issues for public broadcasting. Here he introduces one of the programs in the series: "That Delicate Balance, Our Bill of Rights."

FRED FRIENDLY: Tonight, we begin by examining the relevance of our Bill of Rights on the 20th century dispute over abortion. The conflict of rights versus rights stimulates our thinking process. That thinking process is the central core of the American ethic and as much a symbol of our national destiny as the American eagle and the grand shadow it casts.

SPENCER MICHELS: In his fifty-year career, he won 10 Peabody awards and influenced many broadcast journalists who are working today. In an interview aired on PBS in 1987, Friendly spoke about his career and the broadcast industry.

FRED FRIENDLY: There is no limit to the money you can make out of television. The only trouble is, as you keep lowering the common denominator, which began with the $64,000 Question, you begin to take all of the integrity and all of the caring out of it, until you reach a point like we're in right now, where the only thing that matters is will it make money. The hallmark of my life my job is to make the agony of decision-making so intensive that you can escape only by thinking. And if I can do that as a senile old man, that's better than walking on the beach or watching soap operas on television.

SPENCER MICHELS: Fred Friendly died last night in New York. He was 82 years old.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: With us now are two people who worked with Fred Friendly. Daniel Schorr was a CBS News correspondent for 25 years and is now the senior news analyst for National Public Radio. Ed Bliss also worked at CBS News for 25 years, including a stint as associate producer for CBS Reports. He is also a former journalism professor and author of "Now the News, the Story of Broadcast Journalism." Thank you both for being with us.Daniel Schorr, in your view, what was Fred Friendly's most important contribution to broadcasting?

DANIEL SCHORR, National Public Radio: I thought probably his most important contribution was to invent a documentary called "See It Now," which was not like today's magazine programs. It was based on the power of being able to communicate ideas. He would take, for example, an atomic scientist like Robert Oppenheimer and say, Murrow, one hour of you talking to him. Can you imagine one hour of one great talking head? He was willing to go very far out to present--the Friendly that you saw there a moment ago was the real Friendly. He projected ideas. He had a creative energy, and in his way he almost invented what was then the best of television.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Ed Bliss, what, in your view, was his most important contribution?

ED BLISS, Former CBS Producer: Well, he set such good standards. He was a genius in what he did. He had the great imagination, a great--but it was always high standard. He was a fighter but he always fought for the right things: civil rights. He--well, it's hard to stop. He produced the first documentary on the danger of cigarette smoking 20 years before the surgeon general--and, of course, Murrow was the correspondent and Murrow was puffing away, and literally killing himself, but there was the first big documentary on water pollution, the shortages of water. Early this evening you had the scene in India, with the lower tables and everything. But he was the great documentarian-- documentary maker of his time. There's no question, I think.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What was he like to work with?

DANIEL SCHORR: Well, he was very tough to work with. For one thing, he didn't think anything was impossible. As, for example, when I was in Moscow, he called me up and said, I've got his great idea, Dan. I want you to go to your friend Kruschev, and you tell him that CBS would like to cover live the launching of a space shot from wherever they launch their space shots from. I said, exactly, we don't know where they launch their space--well, you go, and we'll tell him we'll put him on live, we'll put on Kruschev, we'll give him two hours of time. I said, impossible, and it was impossible, but then he called me in Berlin, and he said, I want you--this was 1961--after the wall went up--he said, nobody knows what happens in East Germany- -take a camera crew and a producer--I want you to go to East Germany and do a documentary in East Germany as to what really goes on there. I said, impossible. He said, try. And I tried, and they said, yes, so we produced a great piece of documentary work. He was not to be stopped. He was not to be discouraged. He spun out ideas, not all of which were very good and some of which were quite zany, actually. But that one in ten was a great idea, and resulted in a great documentary program.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Tell us about the documentary, about McCarthy. He really filmed McCarthy and used his words with very little narration, right, and why did it have such a strong impact?

ED BLISS: McCarthy hanged himself. McCarthy hanged himself. And he came through looking like what he was--a very bad man--cruel. Of course, that famous scene that wasn't in a Murrow documentary but in the McCarthy hearings--you know--when Joseph--you know, I never knew until this moment what you are, you know--but I'd like to pick up on what Dan said about working with him. When I went to work with him that year, 1961, I told my wife, forget the weekends, forget everything; you've got to give your soul to CBS Reports, and Fred Friendly, and it was true, but he worked himself just as hard. One night he was going to have a good time, and he went to the theater with his wife, and he felt very guilty about it. But she had looked forward to this, and he went with his wife to the theater, and the show began, and he had an idea for the documentary, and he left her, and he never saw any of this play that they had looked forward to, and it came back, and he had the idea for this documentary that was going to make it work.

DANIEL SCHORR: Could I just undermine something about it that needs to be underlined.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Sure.

DANIEL SCHORR: We had here this Ed Murrow; we had this Fred Friendly. Fred Friendly was really the other half of Ed Murrow. It was Fred Friendly who said let's take on this McCarthy, let's show him what he is, let's take all his footage and just show him for what he is. I don't think Murrow would have been Murrow without Fred Friendly, nor would Friendly have been Friendly without Murrow.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: That's very interesting. He was always worried that the line was being crossed between news and entertainment, right, that's why--is that why he left CBS in 1966?

DANIEL SCHORR: Yes. In 1966, what happened was there was a man named Jim Aubrey running CBS Television who never got along with Friendly very well, and there was a Senate hearing where we were going to have Vietnam up, NBC was covering it live; CBS dumped out of it, saying this is going on too long, and put on, indeed, as he said, a fifth rerun of "I Love Lucy," because it made more money. And when he said--you know, how--how in television can we do our best when television makes so much more money doing its worst?

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And he was always concerned about that, as well as the ethics of news gathering. He was opposed to simulations, for example. What else was he opposed to?

ED BLISS: They had that Appalachian Spring theme that you heard earlier this evening, but that's all I remember on one program--somebody said let's have some music in there--he said, there will be no music on anything we do.

DANIEL SCHORR: We have to almost discuss television in terms of the techniques. We have this thing called the cutaway shot, which you film afterwards. He hated things which were artificial in any way. The result of it was that some of his programs were not technically quite as smooth as programs might be because he was much more interested in reality than in technique.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: He wouldn't go along with the kind of thing where you--a docudrama, for example, where you kind of--he just hated that. Did he--

DANIEL SCHORR: He would have hated television today. He would hated a news magazine that you see on commercial television today. He would have hated simulation. He would have hated using actors for anything in recreating things. He had this sense that we are in charge of delivering reality, and if reality isn't always interesting, by God, we'll make it interesting.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So much of what he predicted might happen and worried might happen has, in fact, occurred in television.

ED BLISS: He did work to make things interesting. I remember that thing of water--they compared the consumption of water today to ten years ago. He said, now how will we do that, and of course, everybody thought of the bar graph and all of that. He ended up with these great bottles of water and here was one long--and here was, you know, a half longer. And he had this pan, you know, going--there's your difference in the consumption of water. He was always thinking. But he would push things sometimes too far, and this is where Murrow came in. Murrow was the conscience on that thing. Now, I know when I was there and Murrow--Murrow bequeathed me--I had been with Murrow and Murrow went to Washington--why he bequeathed me to Fred, to his gentle care. And the--I forget where I was going with that.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Talking about Murrow keeping him from going too far.

ED BLISS: Yes. And he sent me to the U.N. to interview the No. 2 man in the--next to the ambassador from India to the United Nations on the water in India. And I did the interview off-camera but I did the interview, and when it came, lo and behold, in the script it said that he was the Indian water expert. Well, he was the No. 2 man in the delegation at the U.N. and I said, Fred, I said--well, he would not change it because water expert fit it, you see.

DANIEL SCHORR: Do we have 30 seconds--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: We have to go, I'm sorry to say, but thank you both very much for being with us.

DANIEL SCHORR: A pleasure. RECAP

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, on the NewsHour tonight U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Iraq must comply with all Gulf War cease-fire conditions before economic sanctions can be lifted. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex harassment is banned by a federal law barring gender discrimination in the workplace. And the Senate voted to set a blood alcohol level of .08 percent as the national standard for drunk driving. We'll be with you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Thank you and good night.