The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Leading the news this Monday, the U. S. said Sandinista concessions were employed to defeat contra aid. In Argentina, a dissident army officer mounted another revolt against the government. A Pacific storm battered the West Coast and dumped heavy snow inland. Americans observed Martin Luther King's birthday with marches and speeches. We'll have details in our news summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy? JUDY WOODRUFF: After the news summary, we go first to the impact of Nicaragua's weekend policy moves with Congressman Tony Coelho and Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams. Then, Charlayne Hunter Gault reports on the state of the black male in America today. Finally, essayist Roger Mudd looks at Washington's passion for the Redskins.News Summary MacNEIL: The U. S. today dismissed fresh concessions by Nicaragua's Sandinista government as a ploy to defeat new aid for the contra rebels. Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams said the move two weeks before a vote on contra aid in Congress meant the Sandinistas wanted to win that vote. In Managua, the government released seven prominent opposition leaders who'd been charged with plotting with the contras. President Daniel Ortega was expected to issue an executive statement lifting the six year old state of emergency that suspends the right to demonstrate, strike, move about the country and receive a speedy trial. Meeting with other Central American leaders on Saturday, Ortega also promised to hold direct talks with the rebels and to release political prisoners if the cease fire talks succeeded. In Argentina the government of President Raoul Alfonsin defeated a second revolt led by dissident army officer Lt. Col. Aldo Rico. Loyal army units mounted an infantry and artillery assault on the garrison Rico had seized 325 miles northeast of Buenos Aires, and he surrendered. Other rebel army officers also gave up after a 4 hour siege at the Metropolitan Airport in Buenos Aires. Rico was demanding the removal of senior military officers responsible for the Falklands War. A previous revolt by Rico last year ended with Alfonsin's personal intervention. Judy? WOODRUFF: Winter weather turned nasty last night for Southern California and the states in the Southwest. At least seven deaths were blamed on a fierce storm that hit the beaches around Los Angeles and dealt heavy snow in the Rocky Mountains. The coastal cities of Redondo Beach and Huntington Beach in California were particularly hard hit. Several people were hurt when waves crashed into windows of a Redondo Beach bar, while a hotel in the same town partially collapsed. Fifty people inside had to be evacuated. Waves in the area were reported to be breaking as high as 14 feet. Up to two feet of snow fell in Southern Utah, up to 20 inches in parts of Colorado and Arizona. The bodies of two men and a woman were found in a car buried under an avalanche in the Angeles Forest just 30 miles northeast of Los Angeles. MacNEIL: Americans marked Martin Luther King's birthday holiday with speeches, marches and prayers. In Atlanta, the widow of the civil rights leader, Coretta Scott King, and her children laid a wreath at his grave. Then with political and civil rights leaders, they attended services in Ebenezer Baptist Church. Speakers urged Americans to make a renewed commitment to fight racism. The church's pastor, the Reverent Joseph Roberts, said the disease is still among us. In Phoenix, some 5,000 people marched in the rain to a rally at the state capitol. They demanded that Martin Luther King Day be made a state holiday, despite the opposition of Gov. Evan Mecham. Mecham's refusal to create a King holiday started efforts for his recall. WOODRUFF: Early returns from regional elections in the Philippines showed that allies of President Corazon Aquino were generally in the lead. But the voting was tarnished by several incidents of violence. A campaign worker was shot to death when he tried to stop armed men from stealing ballot boxes. About 80% of 27 million eligible voters, including President Aquino, cast ballots in the provincial races. Several provinces postponed voting because of fears that violence would break out. At least nine soldiers were reported killed and five people wounded in three separate clashes with communist rebels. There were also irregularities reported in the presidential election held in Haiti, where only an estimated 10% of the eligible voters went to the polls. Observers saw the names of several candidates left off lists given to voters. The man considered to be running ahead was 57 year old Leslie Manigat, a former ally of the late President Papa Doc Duvalier and his son Jean Claude, who was later deposed. Spokesmen for the opposition to Haiti's ruling military junta said that most voters stayed away from the polls because they expected the vote to be rigged. MacNEIL: In Yugoslavia, Andrei Artukovich, the Croation fascist leader has died in prison. He was 89. The ailing Artukovich was extradited from the United States almost two years ago to stand trial as a war criminal. Known as the ''Butcher of the Balkans'' Artukovich was held responsible for 700,000 deaths in World War II. He was sentenced to death but not executed because of ill health. In Moscow, Jewish activist Joseph Begun left for Israel with his family after winning a 17 year battle to emigrate. His struggle included years in prison and exile in Siberia. WOODRUFF: That's it for the news summary. Now on to the impact of Nicaragua's policy moves in Central America, the black male in American society, and essayist Roger Mudd on the Redskins, the team that unites Washington. Elliott Abrams Interview MacNEIL: We go first tonight to Central America, where in a dramatic windup to this weekend's Central American summit, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega promised far reaching political changes. We will discuss this latest development with the senior U. S. official responsible for Central America, and a leading congressional Democrat. But first a background report on the Sandinista concessions from our correspondent Charles Krause.

CHARLES KRAUSE: The concessions came late Saturday, only hours before Central America's five presidents would have ended their meeting in Costa Rica, by announcing the Arias plan had failed. At the last minute, to avoid blame and to try to prevent more U. S. aid for the contras, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega announced the Sandinistas would make four major concessions. One, Ortega said his government will end Nicaragua's state of emergency, a measure which for six years has provided a legal framework for the Sandinistas authoritarian rule. Two, the government will enter into direct cease fire talks with the contras to end the war that's already killed thousands and destroyed much of Nicaragua's economy. Three, a partial amnesty. The Sandinistas promise to release an unspecified number of political prisoners from Nicaragua's jails. And finally, the Sandinistas promise to hold elections for mayor, for other municipal officials and for a new Central American parliament. They would be the first elections in Nicaragua since Ortega was elected President in 1984. Of all the concessions, probably the most important politically was the decision to end Nicaragua's state of emergency. That should mean freedom of the press for newspapers as well as radio stations, freedom of speech, and then to arbitrary arrests, freedom of assembly, a restoration of due process, as well as other important legal and political rights. Yesterday, President Arias was asked whether as a result of Ortega's concessions over the weekend he believes the U. S. should now respond by ending its support for the contras. Pres. Oscar Arias, president of Costa Rica: I think the future of more aid to the contras is entirely in Daniel Ortega's hands. It depends on what he does in the next few days, in the next few weeks, I would say, before the vote, on February 3 and 4. I think that if you give them one dollar to the contras, the Soviet Union is going to give the Sandinista government five dollars. And then we are going to have here in Central America a long, long war for many years. Because as most people agree, and I am one of them, we don't believe the contras will be able to overthrow the Sandinista government.

KRAUSE: But the Reagan Administration has already said it doesn't trust the Sandinistas and will request more military aid for the contras. Congress has promised to vote on the Administration proposal two weeks from now, February 3 and 4. WOODRUFF: We turn now to the Administration's perspective, with its point man on Central American politics, Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams. Mr. Abrams, you just heard President Arias say in effect that we should give Mr. Ortega's plan a chance, at least sit and see what happens, see what he does, whether he follows through. Is the Administration just not willing to do that? ELIOTT ABRAMS, Asst. Secretary of State: I think we are willing to do that. I think our attitude is one of wait and see. The problem is this: Wait and see means continue support for the resistance. You can turn it off at any time if Ortega makes good on any of these promises. If you abandon the contras, if they disappear, that's it. There's no form of pressure available. That's not a wait and see attitude, that's faith and trust in Ortega. Unless you have complete faith and trust in Ortega, then you've got to continue aid to the resistance. WOODRUFF: But the Sandinistas and others are saying these are significant concessions, these are after all what the Central American countries that are neighbors of Nicaragua have been asking the Sandinistas to do. Mr. ABRAMS: I would have to differ with that. Whether there are significant concessions remain to be seen. That's why I say let's wait and see. The presidents in their communique Saturday called for an immediate total amnesty. Ortega's not doing that. They called for immediate freedom of the press. Ortega's not doing that. The lifting of the state of emergency means -- we don't know, let's wait and see. Because the press censorship is under a different law. The public security law is the one that was used this weekend to arrest the leaders of the democratic opposition. And let's remember that. While he was making the new promises of democratization, the leaders of the democratic political parties, the president of the bar association, were jailed this weekend. Why? What does that tell you about whether you can trust Ortega or whether you ought to wait and see and keep this insurance policy of the contras. WOODRUFF: But we also heard that a number of these opposition leaders were released today. Mr. ABRAMS: You know, this is exactly what happened in August. Ortega signed the Escapulos Plan, the Arias Plan, August 7. Then, the President of the Bar Association, the President of the Human Rights Commission were arrested. I think that's a kind of signal to Nicaraguans. That's meant for Washington. You guys better behave. Now he goes to San Jose. Once again he makes more promises about democracy. At the same moment that the President of the Social Christian Party, Social Democratic Party, Conservative Party, Bar Association, are being arrested. A couple of days in the cooler, then they're released. But isn't the message can we trust him? Because unless you believe you can trust him, you've got to have this insurance policy. WOODRUFF: But it sounds as if the Administration's saying -- has already decided that it cannot trust him, because as soon as these concessions were announced, the Administration was saying, ''We're going to go ahead with contra aid, we're going to do our very best to get Congress to pass it. '' Mr. ABRAMS: I think that the question is whether you want to wait and see. And maintain the option of the resistance. Or whether you want to eliminate it. What's interesting to me is that when this congressional group, Mr. Bonior and Mr. Hamilton, went to see Ortega Friday night, they apparently told him you'd better make some concessions or there'll be more contra aid. In other words, they used the pressure of the contras. If there are no more contras, there will be no more pressure. And there will be no compliance with the peace plan. If you want to continue down this road towards democracy and peace, if you want to continue on a negotiating track, you've got to keep the pressure on. Unless you just completely trust Ortega to democratize. And that kind of trust I don't think any American puts on him. WOODRUFF: But as of right now, you are saying that the Administration's going to pursue contra aid, more contra aid, is that correct? Mr. ABRAMS: Absolutely. It's either pursue that contra aid as insurance policy, or trust Ortega, and that we cannot do. WOODRUFF: In other words, you're not going to wait to see what more comes out of Nicaragua? Mr. ABRAMS: No. First of all, the vote is two weeks from now. But the bill can say, as we have always said, that, for example, if the cease fire is in effect and there is no fighting, there's no reason to continue military supplies. This bill can match the peace plan. But unless there is aid to the contras, all you've said is we abandon that track, we trust Ortega, we are confident the communists will democratize. We don't have that confidence. WOODRUFF: Secretary Abrams, we'll come back. Robin? MacNEIL: We get a congressional view now from the number three man in the House Democratic leadership, Representative Tony Coelho of California. Mr. Coelho, do you agree with Mr. Abrams that unless you have faith and trust in Ortega you must continue aid to the contras? Rep. TONY COELHO, (D) California: Well, the Secretary, Robin, is trying to keep up a restrain that it's Daniel Ortega vs. Ronald Reagan. That isn't what it is. What it really is is the five Central American presidents have gotten together, come up with a peace plan that Elliott Abrams and his right wing friends don't like. And they're very much opposed to the fact that these Latin Americans have the ability to come up with something to bring about peace in Central America. It has to be the Administration's way or no way. Everything that the Administration wanted originally has now been agreed to. But yet they're still saying they won't go along. I mean, at some point we've got to say to the five Central American nations, ''We trust you. Go ahead and do what you need to do for your own area. '' We can't keep treating these nations like Banana Republics. We've got to treat them like they have the dignity to go about and do what's in their best interest for their own region. MacNEIL: Earlier today in another interview, Mr. Abrams said these concessions by Ortega were a ploy to win the vote on contra aid. Do you see them as a ploy? Rep. COELHO: Well, basically, Robin, don't forget there's five Central American presidents getting together. It isn't Daniel Ortega trying just to convince us and the Congress. He has to convince four other Central American presidents. They've agreed. Secretary Abrams and General Powell went down to the four Central American nations last weekend, and basically threatened them. that isn't me saying that. That's basically what a White House official said they were doing down there, and telling them that they had to say, that the plan was a failure. And that was quoted in the New York Times. So what we have here is that we have an administration that is determined to do what the American people don't want. The American people want to give peace a chance in Central America. We have the five Central American nations saying, ''Please give us a chance. Stay out. Contra aid doesn't help us, it hurts us. '' And the president saying no. MacNEIL: Well, isn't it true, as Mr. Abrams just said, that Rep. Bonior, Rep. Hamilton, and others who were at the talks over the weekend, did urge Mr. Ortega to make concessions or risk losing the contra vote, isn't that right? Rep. COELHO: Well, I don't know the facts of what they did or did not say, Robin, but the facts are that the weekend before, the Secretary and General Powell were down there, saying, ''You have to say that this has been a failure, and if you don't, you're going to possibly lose economic assistance. '' Again, quoted by a White House official, not by me. The threats have been going on down there by the Administration to work against these people. Now, Congressman Bonior went down there as an official delegation of the House, invited 20 different Republican members to join with him -- they wouldn't go -- but as an official delegation, asked by the Speaker, and he talked to all the different, or the delegation, talked to all the different Central American representatives, as to what they were doing or not doing, and we need to stay informed, because we have to make a decision and fight on this on February 3. MacNEIL: Let me ask the question another way around -- The Administration, Mr. Abrams is saying the only reason Ortega caved is because he feared, too, that the House would vote for more contra aid. Do you believe he only caved in under the pressure of that? Rep. COELHO: No. Because I think again, as I said, that it's an issue between the five Central American nations to resolve. It is not an issue between Dan Ortega and the United States Congress. If Dan Ortega doesn't comply with the accord, the agreements that have been reached among the five Central American presidents, those four others, I am sure, will come to the United States and seek some help, and we should give it to them. But we shouldn't be in the process of saying that we don't trust you, we don't believe that you can come up about with an agreement that makes sense for your own region. We should work with all five of those nations. Now, the Secretary and others have implied that Mr. Bonior was able to get Daniel Ortega to do X, Y, or Z. If that's true, just think what would have happened if Secretary Abrams, Secretary Shultz, President Reagan were to go down there and try to negotiate for peace, instead of trying to kill peace -- what would happen then? MacNEIL: Do you think that's the Administration's motive, to kill peace? Rep. COELHO: Oh, absolutely. They're not interested in the peace process working. They have worked against it every inch of the way. When they got Speaker Wright to be involved in one of the weekly magazines, a White House official was quoted that they went after getting the Speaker involved in order to trap him to support contra aid. Not to support the peace process. MacNEIL: What will it do to the peace process if the Congress does vote renewed aid when the Administration requests it early in February? Rep. COELHO: Well, if we request -- if we go along and increase the amount of money to go to the contras, I think President Arias is right. That what you're going to do is you're going to get more money coming in from the Russians, and you're not going to have the military victory that the White House has insisted has to occur in Central America. You're in effect going to have continued war, continued death, and that's not what the American people want. MacNEIL: What effect will the Sandinista concessions over the weekend have on your fellow members in the House in this vote? Rep. COELHO: I think a major impact. And I think the White House knows that. They're concerned about it. They're organizing right now -- have been -- to try to prevent the erosion from occurring that they see happening already. MacNEIL: How close is it right now in the House? Rep. COELHO: Oh, it's a close vote. The Republicans have the same count that we do, we know that it's a matter of just a few votes either way. MacNEIL: And do you think that the -- how do you read what the Administration strategy is right now? Rep. COELHO: Well, basically they are trying in effect to negate the impact of five Central American presidents getting together. They want to keep the focus on Daniel Ortega, they want to keep saying that you can't trust Daniel Ortega. So what you're really saying is you can't trust the five Central American presidents. Because the other four Central American presidents are asking us to stay out. And Secretary Abrams and others are saying, ''Don't trust any of them. They're incapable of doing what's in their best interest. '' MacNEIL: Well, Mr. Coelho, thank you for joining us. Judy? WOODRUFF: Secretary Abrams, you heard what Congressman Coelho just said. Among other things, he said you're -- the Reagan Administration is trying to kill the peace process down in Central America. Mr. ABRAMS: Well, he's taking a very extreme position. There's only one way to get the Sandinistas to agree to peace. Mr. Coelho apparently thinks Ortega's a born again convert to democracy. We don't. We don't trust him. President Arias doesn't trust him. None of the presidents trust him. What came out of that summit was an attack on Nicaragua. That is why there was no five president communique in which they agreed to anything with the Sandinistas. They had a non substantive communique. Then Ortega came out and made his own speech alone, isolated, because he was heavily attacked by those presidents. WOODRUFF: But the other four presidents did not together criticize his concession. Mr. ABRAMS: They -- some of them had not actually said anything at all. What I'm saying is we need to see whether these are concessions. Thus far he hasn't done anything. The communique the five presidents signed called for an immediate amnesty, and immediate complete freedom of the press. Okay, it's Monday. Those don't exist in Nicaragua. We'll see if they exist by the time of the vote. Let me just set the record straight on it -- WOODRUFF: Are you saying that if those things come about -- Mr. ABRAMS: I'm saying if Nicaragua is a democracy by the time of the vote, we'll all be amazed, and that would be wonderful, and there won't be any more contras at that point. They'll all go home and become voters and citizens. But let me just make one thing clear. The charge that the Central American presidents were bullied was refuted by no less an authority than President Arias. If you want to talk about bullying and interference and banana republic treatment, a congressional delegation of Democrats from the House went down to be there to see these presidents in the middle of the summit. They weren't even permitted to meet alone. This delegation had to go down and get at them in the middle of their summit meeting. That's nothing -- WOODRUFF: What is your point? Mr. ABRAMS: Well, my point is that we have not been bullying anybody. But I think there's been a bit of bullying on the part of the House Democrats. I think it is really wrong for that kind of interference with U. S. diplomacy. WOODRUFF: But what about the congressman's broader point that at some point we have to stand back and let the Sandinistas demonstrate whether they're acting in good faith or not? Mr. ABRAMS: Well, the problem with that is that if by that you mean that you abandon the resistance, which cannot be reconstituted, you know, that's irreversible, then you'd better be damned sure that the political change in Nicaragua is irreversible. The state of emergency lifted can be reimposed. Press censorship can be reimposed the next day. The question -- and this is really the difference, I think, between the congressman and me -- is he seems to believe that Ortega has moved so far he can now be trusted, he's on the irreversible road to democracy. We believe that we need to wait and see. And while we are waiting and seeing, the pressure of the resistance must be maintained. WOODRUFF: What would it take for the Administration to pull back its request for contra aid? Mr. ABRAMS: Nicaraguan Sandinista compliance with the peace plan. Real movement, not rhetorical movement. Real movement towards democracy. There hasn't been any at all. WOODRUFF: But again, President Arias of Costa Rica, we saw earlier in the program, was saying yesterday that we have to let Ortega demonstrate, have a chance to demonstrate what he's going to do, whether he's acting in good faith. Mr. ABRAMS: Well, I agree with that. And as a matter of fact, he has in a sense had eight years to demonstrate that. Remember that the peace plan was signed on August 7. Arias himself has said for five months the Sandinistas did nothing. Now, two weeks before the congressional vote, they make a series of promises. Well, they've got two weeks. Let's see if any of them come true. Let us see if there is really more freedom in Nicaragua two weeks from now than today. There is less freedom now than there was a week ago, because of those arrests over the weekend. But again, do you have this insurance policy? Or do you simply rely on trusting Ortega. WOODRUFF: What about the notion that this is a judgment call that should be made by Nicaragua's neighbors, the four other presidents, the four Central American countries that neighbor Nicaragua, rather than by the United States? Mr. ABRAMS: Well, Mr. Coelho is misrepresenting, I think, what happened at the summit. The Ortega proposals are his unilateral proposals. The five presidents met before Democrats really banged the hell out of Ortega. We have many reports on that at that summit meeting, refused to give him any more time -- he wanted an extension, they refused. They demanded immediate compliance. And they refused to sign any kind of substantive joint communique with him. Then he comes out with these promises, no doubt at the urging of the Democrats with whom he met. WOODRUFF: But again their public stance was not to issue a statement critical of what he had done. Is that correct? Mr. ABRAMS: All of them -- not a joint statement, because they can't, because he wouldn't sign such a statement. You couldn't get a five country communique. But each president has been extremely critical of the Sandinistas. WOODRUFF: What do you think will happen, just quickly, when this comes to a vote? Mr. ABRAMS: Oh, I would say that it will be very close. Every contra aid vote is close. But I think we're feeling pretty optimistic, because it comes down to this: Do you trust Ortega or do you take out an insurance policy? WOODRUFF: Secretary Abrams, thank you for being with us. Endangered Species? MacNEIL: The uproar this weekend over Jimmy the Greek's remarks about black athletes has revived the controversy over whether racism is institutionalized in sports. But there are those who say that the problem goes beyond sports. Especially where black males are concerned. Tonight, Charlayne Hunter Gault has the first of several reports we will air in the coming weeks on black men in America.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: It's Sunday morning at Detroit's Tabernacle Baptist Church. Not just any Sunday, but Men's Day, the traditional annual celebration of the men of the church. The speaker, one of Tabernacle's most highly respected members, Federal Appeals Court Judge Damon Keith. But Judge Keith was in no mood to celebrate. He was worried that black men in America are becoming an endangered species. He gave examples of their precarious existence. Judge DAMON KEITH: Did you know that there are more black males of college age in prison than there are in college? Let me say that again -- there are more black males of college age in prison than there are in college.

HUNTER-GAULT: It was also a speech of personal witness, like the story of going to dinner after work with his law clerk in Cincinnati. Judge KEITH: And the maitre d', although the place was almost empty, put Miles Link and me right next to the kitchen. And I told the lady, I said, ''May we have a better seat than this?'' And very reluctantly she eventually gave us a seat, not too good, but better than we were sitting before. Within a ten minute period -- now I want to just back up a second -- I had a shirt and tie on, and a blue suit, and Miles Link had his Brooks Brothers on, and he was looking good, and I thought I was looking pretty good. Within ten minutes, six white motorcycle young men came in, loud, boisterous, uncouth, and this maitre d' placed them in the best seats in the house. And I told Miles Link, I said, ''Miles, there's a lesson in this. '' I said, ''I want you to learn it. '' I said, ''You have done what white America has commanded you to do. And what they say we must do to get equality. You finished Harvard with honors, and Harvard law. But they never got to your credentials, they couldn't get past our black face. '' It didn't matter that I sat on the second highest court in the United States, and it didn't matter that he had finished Harvard. They couldn't get past our face.

HUNTER-GAULT: It's the same kind of story that black men all over America are telling, regardless of class, social status or age. That no matter where they go people just can't get past their face. Young Male Comic: I was born a suspect, came out of my mother's stomach, anything that happened within a three block radius I was the suspect. White America is so scared of black teenagers, I walk down the streets, and women are like grabbing ahold of their mace, and everybody's tucking in their chains, everybody's getting in their car doors, and big 300 pound white guys start flexing, trying to scare me. First of all, I weigh 120 pounds soaking wet, holding a brick. I asked this white guy for the time and he gave me his watch.

HUNTER-GAULT: This perception that all black males are potential criminals, however, is no laughing matter, especially if you are a young black urban male. Fifteen year old Jamil Toure and his friend Kamau Patton are tenth graders in two of New York's most prestigious city high schools, good students as well as good skaters. They skate all over the city. They know from first hand experience what it's like to be born a suspect. JAMIL TOURE: I was skating once with a group of my white friends, and I was separated from them a little bit, I was doing something else. And a policeman walked over to me and he pushed me against the wall, and he took out his club and he was like, ''What do you think, you're like them? Do you think you have the privileges they do?'' He said, ''I know them, but I don't know you. I think you'd better get off this property. '' And he actually kicked me out of the place. KAMAU PATTON: I was on 86th Street, and I was walking around looking for a friend. I decided to go home, because I couldn't find him. So when I went into the train station -- and from behind -- I guess a plainclothes policeman grabbed me and threw me up against the wall. And all of a sudden I was getting pushed around and a woman policeman was calling me names -- I don't know -- like scum -- I don't know -- just some -- she thought I was a criminal. And so they handcuffed me and they took me down to the station. When I got there, the other policemen were standing, were calling me names, and like ''Oh, this is another one of those juveniles, '' and like ''What prison is he going to?'' So they told me that I had walked here, had been following old people, and I was going to mug them, and that I had -- well, I think 40, 50 people before. And they showed me a picture of some guy who looked nothing like me, but he was black, I guess. And you know, they, like called my parents, and my dad was really, you know, really surprised, and so he came down and while I was waiting they accused me of taking drugs, drinking, being drunk. And I just didn't really know what was going on. So after all this, they gave me a record. I don't think it's there anymore. I called -- my dad got it taken off. I guess that's the worst thing that's ever happened to me. Mr. TOURE: Yeah, just like, why me? I mean, I do well in school, I'm a nice young person, I don't seem dangerous, I don't think. So why would you pick me to do this to? It just doesn't, you know, seem like something you'd think of. It doesn't seem right, really.

HUNTER-GAULT: The fear of young black males, like Jamil and Kamal, many argue, is the logical outgrowth of statistics that show a disproportionate amount of crime today is committed by young black males. The assertion led to one of the hottest debates so far on the subject. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen defended the practice of certain jewelry store owners in Washington, D. C. , of admitting customers only through a buzzer system. He argued that young black males commit an inordinate amount of urban crime. And that the mere recognition of race as a factor is not in itself racism. Joining that debate was New York Times editorial writer Roger Starr. ROGER STARR, New York Times editorial writer: Well, we're talking about small stores -- it's the fear of any person who seems out of place in the particular surrounding. If I were selling jewelry and someone in working clothes or clothes that looked atypical of the neighborhood and he was male, I'd be alone in the store, I'd be worried about it, because I would say, ''What does he want to do in this store where I sell, let's say, expensive antique jewelry, and I'm all alone?'' And if the person is black, the statistical evidence that it's more likely that blacks commit this kind of crime at this particular moment in civilization, would add to my fear or discomfort or worry about admitting a person to the establishment.

HUNTER-GAULT: Writer Juan Williams took strong exceptions to arguments like Starr's and Cohen's, attacking the statistical argument as a convenient racist lie, an outrageous offering of well dressed bigotry. Williams cited government figures showing that 21% of all robberies and muggings are committed by black males between the ages of 18 and 29. But that white males between the same ages commit exactly the same percentage of muggings and robberies. Statistics aside, many blacks argue that the attitude that black males are menacing is fed by media portrayals of the so called black underclass. Northeastern University sociologist Herman Gray has studied the problem. NORMAN GRAY, sociologist: There is a very real perception that there is a menace loose in the society, and we see it in representations of crime, for example. These images of arrests, these images of violence, these images of drug abuse all play into that. In a society where race is such a volatile issue. I'm not trying to suggest that there are not problems in certain areas of the black community. My concern, though, is that the explanation, the accounts, the ways in which these issues get represented, how can they tell the whole story? I think there's a way in which these people who are either forced into a life of crime or pursue a life of crime for whatever reason, that it's a more complicated explanation than that. And that this sort of knee jerk reaction to it on one level certainly makes sense. At quite another level, at the level of policy, the level of sort of societal sensitivity, I think it really is a very sort of narrow response. And all these stories again, in Boston, where people have been going shopping, have been shopping, and calls have been made ahead of them to warn shopkeepers that a group of black men are coming, approaching a store, be on the lookout for them. Imean, these were people who were dressed in business suits, they were people who are proud, upstanding citizens, to put it that way.

HUNTER-GAULT: Dr. Camilo Marquez is an upstanding citizen, a child psychiatrist at a New York hospital. He lives in New York's Greenwich Village, and one night, dressed more casually, he became a victim of perception when he tried to enter a small shop with a buzzer. Dr. CAMILO MARQUEZ, psychiatrist: As I approached, she got up to let me in. And I could see clearly that she was moving towards the door to open it and then she drew back as she looked at my face and said, ''Closed. '' And I said, ''What do you mean?'' And she said, ''Sorry, we're closed. '' And I knew immediately what was going on. I mean, she was going to open the door and when she could recognize that I'm black, she decided not to let me in.

HUNTER-GAULT: Store owner John Husiak did not defend his employee's actions, but said they were understandable. JOHN HUSIAK, store owner: Oh, there's definitely a reason for fear here. That same week that this incident with Dr. Marquez occurred, one of the other shopkeepers on the block, her shop was robbed at knifepoint. Dr. MARQUEZ: Certainly there's justification for being anxious about being assaulted or robbed. But the issue is how do you deal with it? Rather than judging the likelihood of your being robbed on the basis of someone's color, you can protect yourself by having adequate security in the store, or using some other means that -- other than discriminating. The simple fact that a person's black doesn't mean that they're a thief. HUNTER-GAULT: Was this a revealing conversation that you had with him, that he could have been so humiliated? Mr. HUSIAK: It had never occurred to me. I was really quite shocked that the frequency that he says it occurs to him and other black males. And it was quite revealing, yes.

HUNTER-GAULT: Dr. Marquez took his case to the New York Human Rights Commission. And along with the store owner worked out a solution without going to court. An ad urging other storeowners to weigh their security concerns against the need to be sensitive to the feelings of customers, regardless of color. Quincy Troupe had a similar experience at an Upper West Side store. But he solved it a different way. QUINCY TROUPE: So finally what I had to do was to put my American Express Gold Card up to the window, and they saw that, and then they opened the door.

HUNTER-GAULT: But Troupe, a college English professor, says that the Gold Card as passport doesn't always apply. Prof. TROUPE: We were supposed to divide up this class, and it was myself and another white professor -- male. And he had this large class, about 50 people. And when he looked me, there were only two black kids in that class, it was a writing class. And he says, ''Twenty five of you are going to have to go with Professor Troupe, and 25 will have to stay with me. '' Nobody wanted to go with me. Even though I'm the most published poet, writer, at that school, and I was almost put in the position to beg for students, you know -- which made me feel very strange, you know?

HUNTER-GAULT: For Troupe and other black men, the reactions they get from society weight heavily on their minds. Prof. TROUPE: When you walk into a class, the first thoughts in your mind if there are white kids in this class, how are they going to respond to you? The first day there's a little terror. But you get used to that, you know. HUNTER-GAULT: You do get used to it? Prof. TROUPE: I think you can. You have to -- either you live on the point of rage all the time and ready to murder somebody, or you just have to overlook some things. Dr. MARQUEZ: One thing that it's doing is making black people angry -- it's making kids angry. And it is scary. I think the parents are really justified in having to warn your kids -- I had a patient tell me that he asked a policeman for the time, and I guess the policeman just sort of dismissed this little teenage boy. And the boy threw a rock at him. JAMIL TOURE: He just had a bad experience with a police officer. That's pretty scary, because, you know, I mean, anything can happen because he's the law, you know, and he can make up any story. And it'd be believed because he is the law. And you'd have no say in it if you're dead or unconscious or something. So that's kind of scary. But other than that, it's pretty routine. KAMAU PATTON: You have to be aware that it's around, that people are always going to be looking at you as if you're a criminal or like they're going to be threatened by you, because you're black. You don't have to be afraid of it, but you just have to walk around knowing that this might happen. And be cautious. Judge KEITH: What do these examples teach us? That the experience or experiences of one black man or woman is the experience of every black person. Whether he's a Ph. D. , janitor, doctor, maid, lawyer, or judge, in the eyesight of the majority of white people in the United States, we are still black. And let us not forget it. Because they will not let us forget it.

HUNTER-GAULT: For more on what is happening with black men in this country and why, we turn now to someone who has been studying the issue for many years. He is Walter Stafford, a sociologist and senior researcher at New York's Community Services Society, a private social welfare agency. Dr. Stafford is currently writing a book about black and Hispanic men in New York City. Dr. Stafford, endangered species? Is that a little hyperbole there, or -- Dr. WALTER STAFFORD, sociologist: No, it's not a hyperbole. We are an endangered species. If you look at that film, and I think it's a very important film on Martin Luther King's birthday, if you look at that film and understand basically the high numbers of suicides that are now occurring among young black males, in addition to the homicides, in addition to the large numbers of black males who are under stress, and that's taking a lot of lives of black males, then we are endangered. We really are society's quintessential outsiders. We are outsiders no matter how you look at it. HUNTER-GAULT: But what is feeding the perception of all of this fear? I mean, how does it get to this point? Dr. STAFFORD: Well, long lasting stigmas of black males -- the most recent ones obviously what Jimmy the Greek said -- but I mean, clearly, long lasting stigmas of black males in society, starting with us being studs, criminal types, all the way through to the 1960s where we became the militants and then the savages, by the way -- (unintelligible) very much into the stigmas, and they're helped by the media to a large degree. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you mean the militancy and then the savages? Dr. STAFFORD: Well, it's interesting that during the 1960s we were able to get rid of the kind of Sambo characteristic, because most of us were so militant no one dared call us ''Sambo. '' However, it was very clear that with black power we became the militant, and on top of that we became the savages, the Black Panthers and everyone else, to a large degree. We also redefined terms. We said it's our community, not to get out. We said definitely this is -- we redefined all the terms. However, one of the things that was very, very clear about that is that it's easy to shift back and forth with stigmas, very, very easy. And the media did it. The new media concept of stigmatization it seems to me is underclass. The media is very anxious to find themselves a typical stereotypical black male who fits the underclass, and it's shown up in a lot of ways in the media in recent years. Recent months, by the way in terms of national magazines. HUNTER-GAULT: And are you saying that this characterization of the so called underclass is what feeds the perception that all black men are out of work, on the street? Dr. STAFFORD: Well, the perception of underclass, along with these other stigmas that are still there. I mean what New Yorkers will see, for instance, to a large agree, they'll see homeless men on the street, or fit this one stigma clearly. They'll see young black males who may be doing break dances on the street, which fits another stigma. Certainly athletes will fit another stigma for many people in this country. So that's what they see. Most whites in this country -- I was on a program yesterday with Jimmy Breslin, and he pointed out that most political columnist, cartoonists, couldn't draw a picture of a black male. I mean, most of them just don't have contact with black males. If you look at the way the labor market is structured, most people don't work with black males unless black males are in menial positions. So the stereotypes in themselves are fostered and much more are carried on just by the nature of our work in the society. HUNTER-GAULT: But what about the point made by Roger Starr and Richard Cohen that it's not racism necessarily to say this perception that black males are committing a lot of crime -- I mean, aren't' they? Dr. STAFFORD: Black males are disproportionately arrested for crimes. Among -- and you have to divide it by over 18 and under 18. You look at males over 18, clearly they make up about 45% of all the males arrested in this country for violent or property crimes. Males under 18 represent about the same proportion. However, I think it's very important to understand another part of this. That is that the number of arrests of black males under 18 in this country has been going down for the last -- between 1977 and 1986 -- has been going down. The number of murders of black males has been going down in this country for quite some time. That's not talked about. Nor is it talked about that the fact of self reports of juvenile delinquency among whites are much higher than they are for blacks. Now, one can't deny that crime is a major problem in the black community. But most of the victims of crime are black. Over ninety percent of the victims are black on black crimes. It's really not a white perception per se of what -- because we are committing crimes against them -- if anybody's concerned, and the black community is very concerned -- as black on black crime would be in our communities. And I think that's something we have to pay very close attention to. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you see as some of the consequences of this fear and these perceptions? Dr. STAFFORD: Well, I think the young comedian -- I don't want to laugh at it, but it was very funny -- being born a suspect -- really (unintelligible) policy. I think that's one of the reasons I got involved in all of this. One, being a suspect, what I would say being born a potential problem, stigmatized at birth at being a potential problem, has consequences throughout every policy level. I've seen it in the social welfare sector, and the reluctance, I mean the pure reluctance to even deal with the problems of black males. You see it in the over arrest of black males. You see it in the over incarceration, disproportionate incarceration of black males -- which by the way is not just a Southern problem. This is really a Northern problem. New York State, New Jersey, Connecticut, these other states, have enormously high incarceration rates of black males. It's been -- HUNTER-GAULT: You mean they're not committing the crimes? Dr. STAFFORD: Well, the point of it is they're over arrested. They are committing crimes, but if you look at New York State prisons, for instance, at which I've been looking very closely, most of the blacks are there for economically motivated crimes. I'm not saying they're not committing crimes, but as the young guy on television said a few minutes ago, that his father was able to get his record cleared. Most blacks are not able to -- black mothers and fathers are not able to go down and get those records cleared for the youth. I'm not denying that blacks are not disproportionately committing crimes, I'm saying that the large part of them are over arrested and they can't get them removed. It's very difficult once they get into the criminal justice system to turn it around again. Sentences -- longer sentences also. HUNTER-GAULT: What about within the black -- I mean, so many black men told me in preparing for this piece that they tell their kids things like, ''Don't ever run in the street, because people are going to think you have committed a crime. '' I mean, these kinds of things are going on within the -- Dr. STAFFORD: Oh, they've always been going on. My father very clearly -- made it very clear to me growing up, ''Watch your back, watch your back, watch your back. Don't run here, don't run here. '' Yet at the same time, I think the difference between me growing up in the period of 1940s, '50s, '60s, and many of my friends, was that at least during that period we had a political ideology. Our parents were fighting for the civil rights movement. These young kids now do not -- they can't join a civil rights movement, there is no civil rights movement for them to join. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what can be done? I mean, the problem seems so broadbased, because you've got kids like Kamal and Jamil, but you've got other blacks who are not young. I mean, it seems to be so pervasive. What do you do? Dr. STAFFORD: I think there are several things that can be done. I think first of all, adult males need employment. Having a job is the basis of all of this. At least for adults. I'm not saying for youth, but at least for adults -- that if you look at the surveys nationally, blacks rate unemployment as being a number problem over and over and over again. Crime is related to unemployment in any black community. I think black people understand that very, very clearly. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, you've said that the perception, though, that all males are part of this underclass, or at least potential criminals, gets them cut off from the social policy considerations that go on. I mean, is that -- Dr. STAFFORD: Yes, that's true. I mean what happens with perception is the net is cast, where they include all black males. But even in terms of social policy, that it's very difficult for people who have grown up or actually studied -- most textbooks,by the way, have very little written on black males. You can go through all the textbooks in sociology, social work and almost never see anything written on the black father that's instructive for anyone who has to deal with that family. HUNTER-GAULT: So you think the starting point is where? Dr. STAFFORD: I think the starting point has to be first of all, getting adult males jobs. I think the second point has to be in a school system. Something has to be done with the large number of black males who are expelled -- for the same incidents that young whites commit, by the way. Suspensions, special education -- we certainly have to begin to teach more black history in the schools -- that it not only starts with slavery but goes beyond that. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. We're going to come back to this, as Robin said, and we'll get some more of those insights later on. Thank you very much, Dr. Stafford, for being with us. Hail to Redskins WOODRUFF: Finally tonight, essayist Roger Mudd looks at Washington's special passion for the Redskins.

ROGER MUDD: Around the League, there are not many teams that like to play the Redskins in Washington at (unintelligible) Stadium. The word around the League is that the Washington crowd gives the Redskins a homefield advantage almost as good as the Broncos get from their crowd in Denver. What they mean by homefield advantage is noise, angry, full throated, obliterating noise, just when the visiting quarterback is trying to be heard. How could a Washington crowd be so feared? How could a Washington crowd be an advantage to anyone? Washington crowds are not known for anything except for being faceless bureaucrats, or for being government regulators, or for being from some other hometown. Washington crowds are thought to be jaded, because politics makes them that way. They are thought to lack civic pride, because there is so little local civics here. And they are thought to be undemonstrative because the Hatch Act won't let them be otherwise. But on any given Sunday, as they say in the NFL, the Washington crowd is transformed into a secret weapons for the Redskins. It becomes fused with its affection for this one team, for these 50 ballplayers and their $200,000 annual salaries. It wasn't always this way. In the '50s and the '60s, the Redskins lost nearly two of every three games that they played. In fact, over the 50 years since the team came to Washington from Boston, the Redskins have won barely half. The post war Redskins were truly second rate. They had as many different quarterbacks as they had coaches. They rarely finished higher than third, the crowds were thin, and the tickets were easy. But beginning in the late 1960s, when the owners of the Senators baseball team infuriated Washington by skipping town, the city discovered the Redskins. Other than politics, they became the only game in town. Big time basketball, the NBA Bullets, wouldn't arrive until 1973. But they were transfers from Blue Collar Baltimore. Professional hockey arrived a year later, but they seemed mostly to be from Canada. And soccer never did get a toehold here. So Washington began following the Redskins the way it follows Democrats and Republicans. That is, total. First, the stadium started selling out. Then came the heroic Vince Lombardi. And in one season, he brought Washington its first winning season in fourteen years. Coach George Allen, who cut enough deals and traded enough players to make politicians blink in admiration, took Washington to its first Super Bowl. And the current coach, Joe Gibbs, whose teams have been winning three out of every four games they play, gets almost as much ink as the President of the United States. Going to the games became a great Sunday ritual. Owning a ticket, a market of power. Inheriting a ticket a cause for family rejoicing. Sitting in the owner's box a guarantee of being spotted by millions watching the tube. In short, being at the Redskins games has become a matter of political necessity. Not everyone who goes, of course, knows the difference between off tackle and off sides. But they do know the difference between being seen and not being seen. Still, what is it about pro football that has so drawn this politically divided, racially split city together? It would seem that baseball, with its slow pace, long (unintelligible) and extra innings would more closely fit the tempo of this political city. More likely, football is a tie that binds Washington because it is so different. It is so physical, where everything else is so verbal. Where winning is everything and where compromise has no standing. And where emotions win games, not lose elections. Besides, cheering for the Redskins is a lot more fun than cheering for the Defense Subcommittee of Senate Appropriations. Recap MacNEIL: Again, the top stories of the day, the U. S. said Sandinista concessions were a ploy to defeat new aid to the contras. The Sandinista government released seven opposition leaders arrested on Friday. The Argentine government ended a revolt by a dissident army officer. A big storm lashed the West Coast and produced heavy snow inland. Americans observed Martin Luther King's birthday with marches, speeches and prayers. Good night, Judy. WOODRUFF: Good night, Robin. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.