The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Memorial Day, we have a report and some analysis of the upheaval in Thailand, Elizabeth Farnsworth updates economic change in Vietnam, Charlayne Hunter-Gault talks to some brand new college graduates, and Roger Rosenblatt talks about tenement living. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: The new U.S. policy toward Haitian refugees drew criticism today. Yesterday, President Bush ordered the Coast Guard to intercept Haitian boats outside U.S. waters and to return them to Haiti. Congressman Steve Solarz, Democrat of New York, called the decision "cruel, callous, and cynical." He said the refugees faced torture and terror in Haiti. President Bush returned to the White House this afternoon, following a holiday weekend in Maine. In response to reporters' questions about the new policy, he said, "We've done the right thing." The parliament reduced the military's control of Thailand today. The action followed last week's violent confrontation between the government and pro-democracy demonstrators. Yesterday, the military-backed prime minister, Gen. Su Shinda, resigned. We have a report from Richard Vaughan of Worldwide Television News.

MR. VAUGHAN: In the hours after giving Gen. Su Shinda a final push from power, lawmakers scrambled to rewrite the constitution, aiming to convince the people that commitment to democratic change doesn't stop there. Opposition leaders put forward amendments designed to reduce the power of the military and met no opposition. Former backers of Su Shinda's military regime had apparently changed their colleagues, supported by all that future prime ministers be elected but democratically by the people, not a collection of generals. The people, themselves, want more than constitutional change. They want the architects of last week's massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators to pay for their crimes, for turning the military machine against the people. As their leader, Chem Long Shamawan made his way into parliament, he condemned Su Shinda's last political declaration, granting amnesty to both sides involved in the pro-democracy clashes.

REPORTER: What do you think of the amnesty?

SPOKESMAN: I don't agree with the amnesty, okay. That's all. Thank you.

MR. VAUGHAN: Crowds standing outside parliament reinforced opposition calls inside for amnesty for the innocent, punishment for the guilty in government.

MR. LEHRER: We'll have more on the Thailand story right after this News Summary. Members of Yugoslavia's federal army were stranded in the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo today. The Bosnian leaders want the troops to leave their weapons behind. The federal army has refused. Negotiations over that issue have broken down. At the same time, Serbian militia forces opposed to Bosnian independence continued to shell Sarajevo and other cities. We have a report on the refugee situation from Robert Moore of Independent Television News.

MR. MOORE: In the largely deserted hill towns close to the besieged cities of Mosta and Sarajevo, the reason for the civilian evacuation is clear. Any up surge in the fighting triggers another mass movement of people. The buses here service not passengers but refugees. Many are fleeing the hills in lorries. Women and children tend to safety, while the men stay behind to continue the unequal struggle against Serbian forces. These are shattered lives with no one, not even the adults, understanding what has sparked this human tragedy. They arrive at local sports centers, but their future remains in grave doubt. Some will go abroad to the West; others will seek refuge within Croatia, while they wait impatiently for peace to break out. The crisis is being limited largely thanks to a huge tourist structure on the Adriatic Coast. Refugees have taken over the caravan sights, the hotels, even the beaches. But it is a short-term solution. This woman, who fled with her twins, said that what worries her most is that neighbor is now fighting neighbor, friend fighting friend. The only relief this evening was on the dock site near Split, where the children have spent last night in Bosnia under fire, but now have found sanctuary in Croatia.

MR. LEHRER: Israeli warplanes today attacked three villages in Southern Lebanon, two of them within the United Nations peacekeeping zone. Israeli military officials said the planes struck what they called terrorist targets. Lebanese police said the only casualties were a civilian family of four. Also today, Israeli officials sealed off the occupied Gaza Strip, following several violent incidents Sunday. A 15-year-old Israeli girl was stabbed to death by an Arab attacker. That touched off revenge attacks by Israelis. In a separate gun battle, three Arabs and one Israeli soldier were killed. Palestinians today began a three-day strike to protest that clash. This was Memorial Day in the United States. There were traditional Memorial Day ceremonies at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington and elsewhere around the country. In a radio address, President Bush talked about Americans still missing from the Vietnam War. He promised to do everything humanly possible to win the uncertainty for MIA families. At Arlington Cemetery, Vice President Quayle led the nation's official commemoration of Memorial Day by laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns. Afterwards, he talked of values.

VICE PRESIDENT QUAYLE: Today some mock and scorn our reverence for values. They don't seem to grasp the meaning of values, values of freedom, patriotism, duty, honor, and country. Many think these words are simplistic slogans or phrases. My friends, they are more than that. They are what loyalty and service to country are all about.

MR. LEHRER: Bill Clinton was in his home state of Arkansas today. As governor, he led Arkansas's official Memorial Day ceremonies by placing a wreath at a national cemetery in Little Rock. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now, it's on to Thailand's troubles, Vietnam's revival, a conversation with a class of '92, and a Roger Rosenblatt essay. FOCUS - POWER TO THE PEOPLE?

MR. LEHRER: Thailand is our lead story tonight. The bloody fighting between the army and pro-democracy demonstrators in the capital of Bangkok is over. At least 46 people died. The bloodshed stopped when the king of Thailand brought together the prime minister and the leader of the opposition and told them to resolve their differences. Over the weekend, the prime minister resigned. Now, the country of 57 million, which was an American ally in the VietnamWar, is trying to put together a government and a more democratic constitution. Our coverage begins with a reprise of this weekend's developments and reports from Caroline Kerr of Independent Television News.

MS. KERR: Today the army released these previously censored pictures taken by Thai cameramen last Monday night when hundreds were injured and scores killed. All the soldiers firing weapons are seen shooting into the air in pictures apparently released now to portray the army's viewpoint. Many troops appear distinctly frightened, as though under attack from the crowd. Meanwhile, the demonstrators are seen throwing missiles at the troops. And in spite of the sound of gunfire, the emphasis is on the danger caused by the demonstrators. At the democracy monument, Thais have been gathering once again this evening to honor those unarmed civilians who died in the massacre. Such images will do little to lessen their anger. As Buddhists, they say the souls of those killed cannot rest in peace until the prime minister is gone. It had been designated an unofficial day of mourning for those killed in the protests, but it will be remembered as the day when Thailand's most hated prime minister finally resigned from office, forced out by the sheer weight of public disapproval. Crowds at the Democracy Monument listened to a makeshift public address system to hear the historic broadcast. On state television, Prime Minister Su Shinda said he'd submitted his resignation to the king. He said he regretted the bloodshed but had signed an amnesty, absolving the soldiers who'd fired on protesters. There were sporadic outbursts of rejoicing on the streets, but for the most part, the response to the news was muted. Anger and distress that he should leave the country unpunished overcame the relief that he'd resigned.

SPOKESPERSON: We don't want him out. And we want to kill him here, you know.

WOMAN: He can't live any place in this world because Thais, all Thais who are abroad will kill him.

MS. KERR: In spite of public anger, it's understood that Su Shinda agreed to go only on the understanding that he would never stand trial in Thailand. Today the main demand of the protesters was met, but it's not considered a cause for celebration here. Only now can this country give itself over to grieve for those who died and the demand for retribution for those who killed them.

MR. LEHRER: Now, two views of what happens next in Thailand. Catharin Dalpino is the Washington director of the Center for Asian and Pacific Affairs of the Asia Foundation. She lived in Thailand from 1988 to '90. Thitinan Pongsudhirak has been a research associate at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He's returning to Thailand to work as a journalist with Bangkok's largest English language newspaper for the nation. He's written for the Christian Science Monitor and Far Eastern Economic Review. Is it correct to say the protesters won?

MR. PONGSUDHIRAK: To some extent, yes. The battle, I would say, has been won, but the war is certainly not over in terms of achieving a genuine democratic system.

MR. LEHRER: But does the end result, do you think, Ms. Dalpino, mean that at least Thailand is moving in the right direction as a result? In other words, the protesters protested for a specific reason and the government took some actions as a result of those protests. Is the end result going to be a better Thailand for the people in the country?

MS. DALPINO: Most certainly. A very important loophole has been closed, which is that, that requires now that the prime minister be an elected member of parliament, instead of one who may be appointed. And that loophole had been plaguing Thai politics virtually for decades. Beyond that though, the greater work will be in helping to solidify the political party system, giving it some measure of political accountability, and finding a role for the Thai military that will be possible to get them out of the political arena overtly.

MR. LEHRER: For those of us who don't follow Thailand politics or Thailand affairs very carefully, tell us, describe what the form of government is there now. How does it work?

MR. PONGSUDHIRAK: It's a constitutional monarchy. There are elections and multiparty rule and you get to form a coalition based on a number of seats that your party wins.

MR. LEHRER: And the parliament had power but it didn't have the power to appoint the prime minister until today, is that correct?

MR. PONGSUDHIRAK: Right. After the coup in February 1991, a new constitution was composed, including provisions which determined that the prime minister does not have to be an elected member of parliament. That has been a source of controversy that ignited the recent uprising.

MR. LEHRER: Now, Mr. Su Shinda has left the country. Were you stunned by these protesters on the tape saying, we want to kill him here?

MR. PONGSUDHIRAK: Actually not, because the protesters have seen for the first time a couple of days ago the footage, the TV footage, of the killings and brutal beatings of people by soldiers and they have become angrier than ever before. Now, they want some responsibility, some accountability by generals who ordered the killings.

MR. LEHRER: But they're not going to get that, are they?

MR. PONGSUDHIRAK: It's possible I think still, because the amnesty decree by the king still has to be approved by parliament. Now there is an introduction in parliament of possibly amending the amnesty law to make three particular generals, at least three particular generals accountable for the killings and the beatings of the people.

MR. LEHRER: Under the new amendments adopted today and the way things even were before, who runs the army? Who's the army accountable to, the prime minister, the parliament, to the king?

MS. DALPINO: That's always been very undefined in Thai politics. And, in fact, it is one of the reasons that the military chose to intercede in February of 1991, when it seemed that, in fact, the civilian sector was having more and more control not only over the political arena, but also over the budget of the military and also appointments of top senior military officials. At the present time, for all practical purposes, the prime minister makes those appointments, of course, with the approval of the king.

MR. LEHRER: But this -- another end result of this, of the bloodshed, et cetera, is that the military is weakened in a very serious way, is it not, in its control of the affairs of Thailand?

MS. DALPINO: Certainly it is on the books in terms of a constitutional amendment. The danger though is that if democracy truly doesn't take root in Thailand, certainly the military may see fit to intervene again. There is no clause that you can put into the Thai constitution that says military can't or won't mount a coup. Certainly the military can't but that they won't.

MR. LEHRER: Because they still have the guns?

MR. PONGSUDHIRAK: Right. The key, the crucial element now is for the parliament to work successfully, and at the same time, the military has to be defanged. They are talking about having the TV transferred over to private control, run by private firms. That would reduce the influence of the military and other ways by possibly demoting or firing a number of generals.

MR. LEHRER: Well, what -- yes.

MS. DALPINO: It isn't just a matter of mechanics though in terms of fire power or even of media, though I do agree with that. It's a matter of whether or not the Thai population will stand for a military intervention again. And it's sort of interesting that last year there was not a great popular outcry with the coup, as opposed to what we've seen this last week. And this is in part because of the disillusionment with the civilian government at that time.

MR. LEHRER: What -- when you look ahead, do you see this as the first of many serious confrontations or a confrontation that's come and gone and from here on, things are going to get better, but in a democratic way, slower possibly, but in a democratic way, or more bloodshed, more confrontation?

MR. PONGSUDHIRAK: Our most recent confrontation parallels the one that took place in 1973 and if we could learn from history and use 1973 as an example, I think we could --

MR. LEHRER: For those of us -- refresh our memory about '73.

MR. PONGSUDHIRAK: '73 we had a similar situation in which military dictator was ruling the country and was eventually uprooted by a popular uprising, just as we have seen in the last week, involving a lot of killings and beatings.

MR. LEHRER: And then there was progress to get us to this point or actually in February '91, and now to this point, and you think it's going to continue that way?

MR. PONGSUDHIRAK: Actually, the three following years after '73, the Thai politics became highly volatile because the political forces had never enjoyed a period of democratic rule. And I'm afraid that -- my fear now is that the demands could become excessive. Pro-democracy forces that have won may not end their demands. They may keep going and asking for too many --

MR. LEHRER: Too much.

MR. PONGSUDHIRAK: Yeah, asking for too much basically.

MR. LEHRER: Do you share that fear?

MS. DALPINO: I think certainly there is that possibility, given the headiness and the clear victory in certain ways of the democratic revolution in the streets. What also needs to be done is to work on the political parties, themselves. In Thailand, parties tend to coalesce around individuals, rather than issues. And the ability of the political parties to form a coalition that will be stable throughout the tenure of the parliament and their ability also to police themselves, to be accountable to themselves, will be important.

MR. LEHRER: Many Americans immediately made the comparison with Tianamen Square and China. Is that a legitimate comparison?

MS. DALPINO: For the actual incident perhaps. Certainly the body count is in question as it was in Tianamen and the very serious specter of soldiers firing on their own people is also similar. Beyond that, Thailand and China are in very different stages of their political development. Thailand has had several years of parliamentary politics, although be it intermittently. It does have a multiparty system. It has a very free press, compared to many in Asia. And it has a very yeasty civil sector that presses the government for reforms and keeps issues into the public eye.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. Well, thank you both very much. And you have a good time at home.

MR. PONGSUDHIRAK: Thank you. FOCUS - VIETNAM REFORM

MR. LEHRER: Next, a report on change in another Southeast Asian nation, Vietnam. Communist governments are toppling most everywhere in the world, but notin Vietnam. Its one-party Communist rule has been there for 17 years and the leaders have shown no inclination to change it. But they are committed to an economic reform process begun in 1986 known as "doi moi." Correspondent Elizabeth Farnsworth reported on it for us two years ago. She returned recently for a second look at "doi moi" and other areas of Vietnamese life.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Lenin may have fallen in Moscow, but in Hanoi, he stands defiantly upright. The Communist Party is still very much in charge here, but the reforms of doi moi, now six years old, continue to transform the way Vietnam works. Recent changes are most notable in Hanoi, which seems to be just waking up from a long nap. There is more of just about everything here now. New, privately owned shops dominate streets that had only one or two stores just two years ago. And markets offer a profusion of flowers and other products grown on newly privatized land. In Ho Chi Min City, Saigon, where capitalism never really died, hundreds of new privately owned businesses have opened in the past two years. Most are fairly small, like this new American style hamburger joint, and the popular Apocalypse Now cafe. But some of the businesses involve huge sums of money. Taiwanese investors put up the funds for this new office building and a $65 million five star hotel and mall are also in the works. The free market isn't working miracles. This is still one of the poorest countries in the world, with a per capita income of $195 a year. Off the main streets are slums, where people live in rooms that are little more than large cages. The U.S. trade embargo still blocks most multilateral development aid and all U.S. investment. But the economic reforms have boosted productivity in the countryside and made consumer goods readily available in the cities. Socialist economics had failed on both counts. Huu Tho is deputy chairman of the ideology and culture committee of the Communist Party.

HUU THO, Communist Party Official: [Speaking through Interpreter] We have no doubts about the socialist direction we are following, but we have made mistakes along the way. And they kept us from improving people's lives. The sad thing is we didn't acknowledge our errors. After the victory over America in 1975, we suffered from pride. We thought we could do anything. We turned against private enterprise. We turned against light industry. We put all our efforts into developing huge industries, which was a big mistake. We made other errors too and now we can't make the necessary changes as quickly as we want.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The changes of doi moi have reached beyond the economy. Even in politically correct Hanoi, there's an increasing tolerance for behavior the Communist Party would have considered decadent just a few years ago. And on the street individual differences and eccentricities are more likely to be accepted.

MAN ON STREET: [Speaking through Interpreter] All of Vietnam has changed. I myself have changed. I can begin to search now for the most beautiful dreams.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Artists have begun to stretch the limits of the new openness. In a play which ran for 55 performances in Hanoi late last year, a bathroom in the middle of the stage stood for everything wrong with Vietnam. Two couples in adjacent hotel rooms shared the bathroom, just as they shared a hidden history of repression by the Communist Party. The villain in the play was a party bureaucrat out to convince a famous director to make a propaganda film which would cover up a murder by state police. Actor Le Duc Trung played the director.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Have you been criticized by the Communist Party for this?

LE DUC TRUNG, Actor: [Speaking through Interpreter] I, myself, am a member of the Communist Party and I feel totally comfortable with this play, even though it touches on the raw nerves of the party. This kind of criticism acts as a purge. This is the only way to move forward. You can't lie to an audience.

MS. FARNSWORTH: At the end of the play, the film director portrayed by Le Duc Trung committed suicide rather than betray his principles. It was a grim view of today's Vietnam, and it is shared by many intellectuals. We met with a group of leading Hanoi writers at the offices of the literary magazine Van Nghe. Several had fought as soldiers against the French and Americans and are Communist Party members.

HUU THINH, Editor, Van Nghe Magazine: [Speaking through Interpreter] We writers are trying to struggle against all the mistakes and evils in our society to speed up the reform process. We need a better life and more prosperity so that we can join the rest of the world.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Lin Koch Tron published a novel last year extremely critical of Communist Party politics in a Vietnamese village. He said his book is about feuding klans who become party members and then use their power to feather their own nests and even to kill their enemies.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Is this different? If this novel had been written five years ago, would there have been trouble?

LIN KOCH TRON: Not even five years, only three years ago it couldn't be published. It would be refused by the publishing house.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Why can it be published now?

LIN KOCH TRON: Because now criticism about the bad side of life, we are now free to criticize it. Before, we avoid this, because they feel that we are revealing the bad side of the regime, the system.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Even with the new openness in the arts, there are still important limits on freedom of expression in Vietnam, as Saigon's Tui Tray Newspaper discovered last year. This is Vietnam's most outspoken publication, with regular exposes of official corruption and bureaucratic ineptness. But last year, editor Lu Kim Han went too far. She wrote an article alleging that Ho Chi Minh had been married. The party line holds that the sainted founder of Vietnamese Communism, whose tomb in Hanoi is a shrine, remained single all his life. For her transgression, Lu Kim Han lost her job as editor and was sent back to school to study Marxism Leninism. Nguyen Ho, a key Viet Cong leader during the war, has suffered more seriously for speaking out.

NGUYEN HO, Critic of Government: [Speaking through Interpreter] There are big problems with the reforms. It would be easy if there weren't any problems. There is a struggle here between those in favor of real reforms and those who don't want political change at all.

MS. FARNSWORTH: When we talked with him in 1990, Nguyen Ho was director of the Club of Retired Resistance Fighters, mostly ex Viet Cong, who used to meet in this house in Saigon. They put out a few issues of a newspaper very critical of the Northerners who run the government in Hanoi. Nguyen Ho wrote in one issue that Vietnam's rulers had done more damage to the country since the war ended than Americans did with their troops, bombs, and money. In mid 1990, Nguyen Ho was placed under house arrest. We tried to see him on our recent visit, but it was impossible. The newspaper was also closed. The unevenness of Vietnam's reform process is to some degree explained by the Communist Party's reading of events in Russia and Eastern Europe. Party ideologue Huu Tho.

HUU THO: [Speaking through Interpreter] In some of those cases, the parties refused to reform and that caused their collapse. In other cases, the parties didn't carry out the reforms properly. Social and economic crises caused people to lose faith during the reform process and so the party fell. This has been an important lesson for us.

MS. FARNSWORTH: At meetings last year in Hanoi, Communist Party leaders adopted the view that Vietnam must carefully calibrate doi moi to avoid what happened in Russia and Eastern Europe. The party endorsed the continuing expansion of the free market and some political reforms. For example, hundreds of political prisoners have been released and Vietnam's parliament has been granted more power vis-a-vis the Communist Party. But in the meetings, party leaders also held the line against deeper changes that would have allowed the formation of opposition political parties.

HUU THO: [Speaking through Interpreter] Look at the formerly Communist countries now moving towards multiparty systems. They are so chaotic we don't want to do it like that. After 30 years of war, our people want stability.

MS. FARNSWORTH: So far, there are no signs of an organized internal opposition to Communist rule in Vietnam. A visitor hears complaints about the conditions of ordinary life, but now even more than two years ago, there is hope of improvement. These men in Hanoi said they worked two jobs to feed their families, eleven hours a day, seven days a week. They said their situation is typical and tolerable.

MAN ON STREET: [Speaking through Interpreter] Personally I think people here are used to it. We all live the same. There aren't large inequalities in income and the important thing is that the living standard is slowly getting better and better.

MS. FARNSWORTH: If the reforms of doi moi continue to improve people's lives, further pressures for change here may be forestalled. Some people are calling Vietnam's hybrid system market socialism. It remains to be seen whether a free market and a cultural thaw can preserve the red star of Communist in Vietnam, when it has fallen almost everywhere else.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, a class of '92 and a Roger Rosenblatt essay. CONVERSATION - CLASS OF '92

MR. LEHRER: Now a conversation with a class of 1992 about no cold war, Los Angeles, and few jobs, among other things. Charlayne Hunter-Gault conducted the conversation when she returned to her hometown to speak at a local college commencement.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Graduation day at Erskine College is the biggest event of the year in the small, South Carolina town of Due West. That's because Erskine, with a student body of 500, is the main industry in this tiny town of 1300. Both are on the National Register of Historic Places and for both, it was a joyful day of homecoming and of celebration.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: If ever it was a secret that I was born here in Due West, it's certainly out now. Of course, my first sojourn here lasted only a short time, and Due West and Erskine College were quite different places then. The place of people with faces the color of mine was not hidden but it was taken on this campus only as maids and janitors. Never in her wildest dreams in those days would my young mother have imagined this day.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Erskine College was founded in 1839 by the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. Its original mission was to increase the church's supply of ministers. Today, while religion is an important part of the college's program, it has also moved from a classical to a liberal arts curriculum. It has a separate seminary with 200 students.

SPOKESMAN: I now confirm upon you the degree of bachelor of arts, with all the rights, privileges pertaining thereto.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: This was a class of 116, among the first to enter a world free of the threats of the Cold War, but only a few days from what many young people are calling the war in Los Angeles. This class is also facing one of the toughest job markets that any class has seen in two decades. Studies show that 1/3 of the nation's entry level jobs for new graduates have evaporated during the recession and the job market is already flooded with nearly 1 million unemployed managers and unprofessional workers. Several students agreed to talk with us about some of these things. Cathy Gilmore is the valedictorian, a 22-year-old English major from Denver, Colorado. Charles Collins, also 22, is president of the Association of Minority Students, a history major from nearby Somerville, South Carolina. Danielle Hollar, 21, is also from Somerville, and a business major. C. Scott Williams is a 22-year- old history major from Social Circle, Georgia. And Regina Lynn Johnson is 22 years old and an English major from Las Vegas, Nevada.

SPOKESMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the Erskine College Class of 1992.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: After the ceremony, we met in the college president's backyard. Well, first of all, congratulations to all of you once again. Cathy, do you leave school today with high hopes?

CATHERINE GILMORE: Yeah. Umm, I really hope that I'm going to find something to do that will be helpful to other people, as well as to myself, I guess. I'm going to Colorado State to get a degree in speech communication.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Charles, do you leave today with very high hopes, very optimistic about the future?

CHARLES COLLINS: Well, you know, when I crossed over, getting my degree and everything, I just thought, well, this is it, this is the big world. I'm nervous right now, because I'm stepping out into the big world, but I'm wanting to get into politics and hopefully I'll become successful at that.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Are you optimistic, Regina, about leaving here?

REGINA JOHNSON: Yes, I'm very excited. There's a lot of things I want to do. I don't really have a clear set plan. I guess I should be nervous, but I'm really not.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Danielle, how about you?

DANIELLE HOLLAR: I'm optimistic about, you know, my future. I decided a few days ago that I didn't want to go and get an MBA right now, so that was a total change in career. I'm going to go work in social work.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: C. Scott, how about your attitude right now?

C. SCOTT WILLIAMS: I would be very optimistic. Everybody asks you what you're going to do. You just have to be honest. I don't know what I'm going to do, but I can do anything really.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: None of you seems to be concerned at all about news, about the job outlook for college students being bleak or the economy being in a bad way. Why is that?

CATHERINE GILMORE: I don't think it's so much that I'm not concerned, but graduate school is almost a way to pretend that that's not happening to me for a while. It's like if I go to school, I can continue to be somewhat sheltered from what's going on in the job market, which doesn't do anything to make it all better, but it makes me feel like the impact is not going to hit me right away.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Does it worry any of the rest of you?

CHARLES COLLINS: I don't think it worries me now, not when I'm out. I don't know where I'm going to get a job. I just hope something turns up for me pretty soon. Now that, you know, they say that we're coming out of a recession I just hope that the job market gets better. Like I said, and I stated earlier, I want it to get in some aspect of politics or government.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: None of what's going on now with politicians and all that bother you?

CHARLES COLLINS: Yeah, that does bother me. I mean, there are a lot of ethical things going on now. And I think that politics now, we need to, you know, clean the whole system up. We need more people to speak out and clean the system up.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How do the rest of you feel about it? C. Scott.

C. SCOTT WILLIAMS: I think what Charles is saying maybe politicians need to not be so concerned about themselves and, you know, what they can gain by being a congressman, you know, I guess, what is it, $180,000 a year now or something like that, salary? That's a lot of money. Why do you want to be a congressman? You want to get that money, or do you want to do something good for your constituents? And I think that when people, well, especially politicians, make that transition to thinking more about the people they serve, the people that elected them, that that's when they can make a difference.

CATHERINE GILMORE: Politically it seems like it would be really hard to get in that business and maintain your integrity. Do you have any idea how you would want to do things differently so that you didn't get into the same thing that they all -- well, they don't all -- but many of them seem to fall into?

CHARLES COLLINS: I thought of that question a good bit myself. I think that the major thing that the politicians do, being in office, is communicate with the people, with the population. And I think if you maintained a high rate of communication, then a lot of these problems can be solved. Politicians can go in and see what's actually going on in the community and they can through that, do certain -- you know -- to remedy the situations and the problems.

C. SCOTT WILLIAMS: Part of the problem though is the fact that politicians don't know enough about the issues. Politicians can make all kinds of political decisions, but can they make, like in my case, scientific decisions, and I think that when we get people who are talented in lots of areas, then's when we can start to make political decisions that are real good, sound decisions, not just politically, but maybe economically or scientifically or things like that.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Are you all excited about the fact that you're graduating in a political year, the Presidential campaign? Are you excited about that?

CATHERINE GILMORE: I don't think there's anyone to vote for at this point. I mean, there's not a candidate I would vote for. I mean, I will vote because I don't believe in just sitting back and letting things happen to the country. But as yet, I'm going to have to do a lot more research on what these people stand for, because I'm not just going to vote for someone because they have a nice haircut or they lack charisma or they have it. I mean, I want somebody who is going to tell me what they stand for and then stick behind it. I guess the thing I was going to say to you is to me, the most important thing that we need from our politicians is accountability. They've got too much power right now to the point where no one is asking them why they are making the decisions they are. No one is making sure that they follow up on what they said,instead of just throwing it out. And I guess that's, you know -- right now, I'm not excited about the campaign because I don't see anyone to vote for that I can trust.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Regina.

REGINA JOHNSON: There's nobody that I feel like I can trust to vote, that I would want to vote for, and so it kind of makes it hard when you feel that you need to vote, but you just don't want to vote for the people that are running.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: There seems to be an awful lot of interest starting to be generated about Ross Perot. What do you all think about that?

C. SCOTT WILLIAMS: Who is Ross Perot?

REGINA JOHNSON: I know, I don't know nothing about him.

CATHERINE GILMORE: I don't either.

REGINA JOHNSON: I hear about him all the time, but I mean there's really nothing concrete. We don't hear anything about what he stands for. He just showed up all of a sudden.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you want your politicians to stand for? I mean, who would be your ideal candidate? What would he be like or she?

CATHERINE GILMORE: Somebody who's not in there for an interest group or -- and I don't even know if it's possible for someone like that to be elected. But somebody who actually says there is a big problem in this country, we need to be able to have more faith in our leaders, I guess. It's really a problem to me to have politicians stay in office year after year after year, because nothing gets changed that I can tell.

C. SCOTT WILLIAMS: It seems that these politicians have been in office so long that they've lost touch. They've lost touch with us. And I mean, sure, he can get you a passport or something if you're stuck overseas or something, but, umm, what does he do to make your life better as a constituent?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you think about this country now? How does it look to you?

REGINA JOHNSON: There's a lot of sad things happening just as far as race relations. I think education is sadly lacking just everywhere and I think it's important for people our age to let especially high school kids know that, you know, we know it's rough, we know what you're going through, but you really need to stick with it; it's worth it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What other problems do you see confronting the world, this country right now that you think are really important?

CATHERINE GILMORE: I feel like race relations are a lot bigger problem in this country than most people are willing to say. I think that what happened in Los Angeles is not a surprise. I would expect that of people who do not have the money and the power and the influence to be heard and I really sympathize with them. And I think that one of the biggest problems is people don't seem to be able to see the other side. They're much more ready to live in their own comfortable world than they are to look around and say, there are things going on with other people that are not so comfortable and not so nice. Not everybody comes home to a comfy house, you know, where daddy pays for everything. That's one thing I really want to look at after college, I guess.

C. SCOTT WILLIAMS: What it all boils down to is we have to come to a point in time in our lives where your situation is more important than mine. I want to do things that will make your lives better while making my life better as well. And I think when we get away from the "me" generation, you know, where look out for No. 1, who's No. 1, and we get to, you know, I care about you and I want to do things for you and I want to make your world better and make your life better, I think then that's the transition that I hope we, our generation, is going to start.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Did LA intrude in your life here at Erskine very much? I mean, people talk about LA being a wake up call to America. What was it here at Erskine?

CHARLES COLLINS: I think that at Erskine the whole situation upset me as far as the outcome of the verdict and all.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you think, Regina?

REGINA JOHNSON: I think that's true too. I was also amazed that a lot of the students at Erskine were just boiling it down to a color thing and watching the riots on TV and saying things like, oh, those people are so ignorant, that's things that those people do. And, you know, a lot of times --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You heard that?

REGINA JOHNSON: Yeah. And, you know, you kind of are sheltered here and you think -- every once in a while somebody will say something that will make you stop and say, you know, that's not right, these people are kind of reacting in anger to something that they might not be able to control and I didn't agree maybe with some of the people just looting for self-interest, to gain things that they didn't have, just to have them, but I can understand people acting out of anger and reacting to injustice. And that way, like Charles did, I could identify with the violence. I don't think I would go out and be violent, but I would want to act out in some way to show that this is wrong.

C. SCOTT WILLIAMS: Can you find a better way to address the problems than violence?

REGINA JOHNSON: Oh, I agree with that. I think you can find a better way. I think a lot of the people that are in Los Angeles and in the areas that they were showing, they know no other way and they have no other means of expressing themselves, other than that very visual way, where they can get it across the country quickly and show that, you know, we're tired of this, we're not going to take it anymore.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How wide do you think the racial divide is?

C. SCOTT WILLIAMS: I was taught that the next guy is just the next guy and it really didn't matter whether you were black, white, Hispanic, Chinese, Korean, just that they were a person just as much as you were.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you think race relations can be improved now, or is the wound so deep or the scar so raw that --

CHARLES COLLINS: I think once more people start addressing the issue of racism, once you start seeing your politicians, once you start hearing it in school, once you start -- I mean, in the community -- once more people start speaking about the issue then that's when relations will get better.

CATHERINE GILMORE: Just the whole thing in LA really made me feel - - I was listening to the radio one day and I cried listening to the people yell at each other because I thought there is nobody here listening; there's an awful lot of people here yelling. And I wonder how many people need to die or blow up or whatever before somebody says, well, this is kind of dumb, you know. Maybe if we sat down and talked about it, it wouldn't have to be like this.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, how do you feel about affirmative action?

C. SCOTT WILLIAMS: My parents lived in a generation where, you know, if you were a white male with a college education, you could get a job, you know, no problem. And now I think that, that it's not necessarily a white male, it's just necessarily, there's more people out there competing for the same job that I am. And maybe I'm concerned and maybe that's just the way I can express it, is that I'm scared that the white male, the successful white male, will be a thing of the past.

REGINA JOHNSON: Are you -- I have a question for him too -- are you concerned as far as like affirmative action, from that standpoint, or --

C. SCOTT WILLIAMS: I don't know enough about affirmative action to say. I think it is a good program because it obviously equalizes some past wrongs of employment and things like that, but I don't know enough about it to say I feel comfortable with quota or no quota or anything. And I just, I mean, I'm uncomfortable with affirmative action.

REGINA JOHNSON: I don't really agree with that system either, not as far as affirming past wrongs, because I think there's no way you can affirm past wrongs. I mean, what was done was done and the only way you can do is work to improve what you have now. And that's kind of the standpoint from affirmative action I don't agree with and I don't agree with like preferential treatment either I don't think.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, how do you make up for the past discrimination?

REGINA JOHNSON: I think you need to recognize it, and learn from it, but you can't make up for it. There's no way you can make up for what all people in the past went through. So you need to recognize it, learn from it, and change what you're doing now, and just keep going.

C. SCOTT WILLIAMS: I guess I can't enter -- I can't emphasize enough my concern though -- does, you know, setting yourself apart from society, does that just perpetuate that when little children or young people see, well, he's different from me, why is he different from me, he's in that other group, hold it. Why can't I be in that group? Well, he's black and you're not. Doesn't that perpetuate the problems, the idea of you're different from me because of the color of your skin? Shouldn't it be we're trying to perpetuate the idea of you're just the same as I am? And maybe that just needs to be a restructuring of our programs that we have.

CHARLES COLLINS: Okay. If we took this method, how long do you think it would take to bring better conditions or whatever for the job market and stuff like that?

C. SCOTT WILLIAMS: I have no idea. I don't know.

REGINA JOHNSON: I think you don't need to erase the differences altogether. I think it's important to just educate about the differences, because you can't -- it's kind of idealistic to say, okay, let's all live together and we'll all be the same and not see any color, because, you know, that's going to always be there, but if we just look at the differences and try and understand why they're different and educate each other on why they're different, I think that would work.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So, you know, just to sum up, is -- am I reading you all correctly that while you have some concerns about some things in the society, basically you leave this place today very happy about the world around you, final words?

CATHERINE GILMORE: Yes and no. I'm still really scared. I'm scared to go out there and try to prove to myself that I can make it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Charles.

CHARLES COLLINS: I agree with Cathy also, but all I can do is think positively. I think if I get out there and I just use a little determination, I believe I can go really far in life.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Regina.

REGINA JOHNSON: I think the same as Charles. If I work hard and find something I like to do, I think I'll do just fine.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You don't think there are any obstacles out there? You don't worry about barriers and obstacles?

REGINA JOHNSON: Not if there's something I want to do.

DANIELLE HOLLAR: I feel the same. I'm ready to go, you know, get on with the rest of my life. And it's there. Let's go for it.

C. SCOTT WILLIAMS: I'm concerned, but I feel prepared to do anything that I want to do that I feel can make a difference, and part of that is why we're here, we've been through four years of training for that I think and it's really nice to feel good about four years of investment.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, C. Scott, Danielle, Regina, Charles, and Cathy, thank you and once again, congratulations. ESSAY - HONOR THY FATHER

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, essayist Roger Rosenblatt on an effort to save some American history.

MR. ROSENBLATT: The immigrant experience in America is a hidden experience in spite of the fact that the majority of Americans are late 19th and early 20th century immigrants, or the progeny of same. Yet, the original immigrants have tended to keep the past a secret. The villages of Italy, Germany, Ireland, China, the ghettos of Russia and Eastern Europe, the plantations in the pre-Civil War South, America was populated and in a sense created by the residents of such places who, once they had achieved freedom in America, acted as if they had come into being in America. Lives in a former place were to be hurled into a past of which one never spoke. They were not enthralled with history, our ancestors. History was for burying in the earth of the brand new world. So it falls to their children and grandchildren, safer and more secure denizens of the new world, to attempt to unearth that buried past. This is the mission of the Tenement Museum on the lower Eastside of New York. The people who once lived in the Tenement at 97 Orchard Street where the Tenement Museum is located would probably think it crazy to consecrate their cramped, dark house as a museum. A tenement was where one lived because there was no place else. From 1863 to 1935, it is estimated that as many as 10,000 people lived at 97 Orchard Street. The likely ambition of all 10,000 was to get out as soon as possible and to make the tenement part of the buried past as well. But poverty is a point of interest, a subject of study, even of beauty, to those who do not have to suffer poverty firsthand. The Tenement Museum displays the photographs of Arnold Eagle, a native of Hungary who came to New York in 1929. As part of a WPA project, Eagle took photographs of the poor. So here they are today, hiding in the open, allowing themselves to be exposed by the camera, yet, not really exposed. They're looking elsewhere. Going back into the tiny, lifeless rooms of the museum, you sense how hard the early immigrants had to fight for their privacy. There was no privacy. So many packed into so tight a space in which all of life's activities occurred, lovemaking, birth, disease, death, caskets set beside cradles. Yet, the people said they saw nothing. They put on blinders. It's how they survived. I remember as a boy asking my grandparents about the Europe from which they came. They would dismiss an entire continent with the wave of a hand. They did not want to talk about it. That was the "then." For their grandchildren and their children, however, the "then" is fascinating, exciting. We walk around the renovated Ellis Island in a dream state. This is the tension between those who seek to understand history and those who are history. One wants to bring it back; the other wishes it had never happened. In the rooms of the Tenement Museum, the tension is palpable. It is as if the rooms, themselves, do not really want the inspection of the modern world. The modern world, for its part, needs to look into the rooms which are the chambers of formative minds. The modern world wants to look into the pogroms, the famines, the slave quarters and into the tenements after them, which it will never know except as the Tenement Museum. The old world seeks to close its doors. The new world works to pry them open. So history is built -- always a little too late for complete accuracy, yet, not so late as to hide a basic truth. These ancestors of ours were brave, tough, clever, and strange, something to see. I'm Roger Rosenblatt. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Memorial Day Holiday, there was criticism for the new U.S. policy of intercepting Haitian refugees at sea and returning them to Haiti. One member of Congress called it cruel, callous, and cynical. But President Bush said he believed he had done the right thing. And Thailand's parliament voted for constitutional changes to reduce military control of the government. Have a nice holiday evening and we'll see you tomorrow night with full analysis of the Haitian refugee situation. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.