The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday, the nation's unemployment rate fell to 5. 4% in April, the lowest it's been in 14 years. President Reagan criticized former Chief of Staff Regan's attacks on Mrs. Reagan. And Eastern Airlines sued its pilots and machinist unions for $1. 5 billion. We'll have the details in our news summary in a moment. Charlayne Hunter Gault is in New York tonight. Charlayne? CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: After the news summary, we'll look at the French hostage deal and what it might mean for American held in Lebanon with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and terrorism expert Michael Ledeen. Then Kwame Holman reports on the Muslims' controversial war on drug dealers. Next, what the good employment news means. And finally, June Massell reports on the debate over curbing college drinking. News Summary LEHRER: Not since June 1974 has the unemployment news been as good as it was today. The Labor Department said the rate was 5. 4% in April, the same for that June fourteen years ago. President Reagan opened a White House Cabinet meeting with some happy words about it.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: The good news on the economy continues. Unemployment is the lowest it's been since 1974 and the proportion of our population working is at an all time high and one of the best barometers of the state of our economy is to see more people working. Today's report, coupled with those of the last two weeks, show that the economy continues to grow at the moderate pace and inflation is under control. HUNTER-GAULT: Also at the photo session, President Reagan had some strong words about words written by former Chief of Staff Donald Regan. In an upcoming book, Regan is said to have revealed that Mrs. Reagan used astrology to determine the timing of the President's schedule. When asked about Regan's account, the President had this to say:

Pres. REAGAN: I would have preferred it if he decided to attack me. But apparently from what we hear he's chosen to attack my wife, and I don't look kindly upon that at all. HUNTER-GAULT: Regan was frequently at odds with Mrs. Reagan and it was widely believed that her opposition played a role in his ouster. LEHRER: The judge took the Iran contra conspiracy case behind closed doors today. Washington U. S. District Judge Gerhard Gesell ordered the secret hearing to determine why it was taking the Federal Government so long to declassify some documents. The judge wants the documents made available to the defense. They include many found in the White House safe of former Security Aide Oliver North. North was present for today's hearing, as were two of his codefendants former National Security Advisor John Poindexter and Richard Secord. HUNTER-GAULT: In Paris today, a former French hostage told his family that American hostages in Lebanon were brutalized because they tried to escape. Agence France Press reported that the sister of former hostage Jean Paul Kauffmann said he shared a cell recently with Frank Herbert Reed, and that he told her that Reed was mistreated to the point of being left prostrate. Reed, kidnapped in September of 1986, is one of nine American hostages in Lebanon. Meanwhile, Kauffmann's wife said today that the Lebanese kidnappers told their French captives before their release that all Western hostages in Beirut were still alive. Back in Washington, the State Department appealed to the Iranian government to use its substantial influence to help secure the release of the remaining 18 hostages. LEHRER: Eastern Airlines sued two of its major unions today. The federal suit filed in Miami, asked for $1. 5 billion of the Airline Pilots Association and the International Association of Machinists. The suit accuses the two unions of violating racketeering, extortion and defamation laws and trying to destroy the airlines so they can buy it themselves at a bargain basement price. A pilots union official said late today Eastern was trying to shift attention from investigations of its own safety and financial mismanagement. Also today, the federal government brought conspiracy and money laundering charges against the New York brokerage firm E. F. Hutton. The alleged offenses occurred in Hutton's Providence, Rhode Island, office and involved organized crime figures and businessmen seeking to hide income from the Internal Revenue Service. HUNTER-GAULT: Two more bodies were found today in the wreckage of a Shell Oil refinery plant in Norco, Louisiana. The discovery raised to three the number of known dead in the explosion and fire that rocked the refinery early yesterday. Forty two persons were injured in the blast that shattered plate glass windows 30 miles away and forced the evacuation of 2500 people. Four refinery workers are still missing. LEHRER: Medicare will not run out of money until the year 2005. That was the forecast today in the social security system trustees' annual report to Congress. It was considered good news because last year's report set the bankruptcy date three years earlier. The system's old age pension fund was found to be in much better shape. The trustees said it should remain solvent well into the middle of the 21st century. HUNTER-GAULT: In Poland, pressure on striking Solidarity workers intensified as hundreds of police carrying clubs surrounded the Lenin Shipyard in Gdansk. Reuters reported that management threatened to use other means if the striking workers didn't leave. Authorities have also stopped people from bringing bread to the workers, prompting a senior dissident to say officials are planning to take the shipyard by hunger. Some 3000 workers have reportedly left the shipyard, and Reuters reported that he strike may be crumbling. Meanwhile, the Jarulzelski government began drafting legislation to ban all protests for the rest of the year. LEHRER: There was another outburst of violence and killing in Beirut today. Twelve people died and 40 others were wounded in combat between two rival Palestinian groups and a West Beirut refugee camp. Machine guns, mortars and rockets were used in the fighting between PLO leader Yasir Arafat's Fatah faction and a rival group supported by Syria, called Fatah Uprising. Also in Southern Beirut, four Shiite militiamen were gunned down and killed by members of a rival Shiite group. And in the Moslem section, two people died when a bomb exploded in a theatre. HUNTER-GAULT: And finally in the news, there were two air travel tragedies today. Police officials in Oslo said all 36 people onboard a plane which crashed and burned in Central Norway are feared dead. Fire and explosions at the scene of the crash have hampered rescue operations. And in West Germany, two persons were killed and several others injured when a British military helicopter crashed while landing at an international air show today. The chopper was described as a U. S. --made Chinook, whose back rotor apparently hit a loading ramp as the craft was returning from a demonstration flight. That's our news summary. Still ahead on the NewsHour, France's hostage deal, Muslims vs. drug dealers, good news on jobs, and college drinking limits. Dealing for Freedom LEHRER: Three Frenchmen were set free in Lebanon this week. And thus came the questions. If the French can gain freedom for their hostages, why can't the United States? Did the French cave in to terrorists? Did their deal help or hurt the chances of freeing the nine Americans still there? Those are among the questions we ask now of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and National Security Consultant Michael Ledeen. We take as our text these words spoken officially on the subject today by State Department spokesman Charles Redman.

CHARLES REDMAN, State Department spokesman: The American government's position is clear. We do not believe that taking of hostages should be rewarded. Such behavior in our view serves only to encourage more terrorism and prolong the ordeal of other hostages, including the nine innocent Americans. We are deeply concerned about the hostages, and are doing what we can to obtain their release. As we've said over and over again, the United States is willing to talk to anybody at any time about the release of the hostages. But the American Government will not take actions such as changing our policies which would encourage more hostage taking. LEHRER: Now to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Mr. Secretary, did France do the wrong thing? Did they do something that encourages the taking of more hostages? HENRY KISSINGER, former Secretary of State: In my view, yes. Any time that a deal like this is made, it rewards hostage taking, and while one can have great sympathy for the families of the hostages, one has to think of the hostages that may yet be taken and the hostages that remain behind that may remain behind longer in expectation that other governments will cave in the same manner. LEHRER: Do you think -- in what way -- take me through a scenario how this deal could lead Iran or some other group to take hostages? Sec. KISSINGER: The only -- the purpose of taking hostages is to achieve some objective that the government concerned, that is backing the terrorists, believes it could not achieve in any other way, or in any other way effectively. Any time there is any positive achievement as a result of hostage taking, like the French promise to return $600 million of blocked funds and restoring diplomatic relations, that becomes the road by which Iran or other countries supporting terrorism chooses to achieve its objective. It has the additional benefit for the present government in Iran of humiliating Western nations which they want to undermine, whose influence they seek to undermine in the Islamic world anyway. LEHRER: How does it do that? Sec. KISSINGER: Therefore, whenever the Iranians want something now, they feel that taking hostages is the way to do it. LEHRER: And they would -- you mean they would say to the United States or to any other country, Well, France makes a deal, you're going to have to make a similar deal? Sec. KISSINGER: They have said this to the United States. They have made similar propositions to us that we should return to them the military equipment bought by the Shah, to which they lay claim, that we should arrange for the release of the 17 prisoners in Kuwait. And for a period we did the same thing as France, we caved, and we also got three hostages. But the result is that the other hostages are still there, and that many are in jeopardy. When there was difficulty with the Germans, perhaps extraditing a terrorist to the United States, immediately two German businessmen were kidnapped, one of whom is still in custody. LEHRER: What about the suggestion that's been made that what was really behind this from France's point of view was an effort to influence the outcome of the French presidential elections this weekend. Sec. KISSINGER: I can't speak about the motives of the French Government, but obviously arranging for the release of these prisoners so close to the French election was a sign by the Iranians of the contempt in which they hold Western nations in creating the impression that they can influence elections. They did the same in the United States when they released the prisoners they had, our hostages, to coincide with the inauguration of President Reagan. They used these to attempt to influence domestic politics. Now whether that was the French motive or not, I have no right to say this. But it is certainly the impression that is created, and I regret it deeply because I'm a great admirer generally of French foreign policy. LEHRER: Is there anything that the United States should or could do to show its displeasure in any kind of official way with what France did? Sec. KISSINGER: Well, I think, I agree very much with the statement that the State Department spokesman made, and I would strongly support the policy of Secretary of State Shultz on these issues. I think that what Iran has done by the deal it has made with France is to make clear that it controls the taking of hostages. And in fact the alleged promise that has been reported not to take any more French hostages puts other people's nationals at risk. What the United States ought to do, together with other civilized nations, is to organize a campaign against terrorism as there was against piracy in the early 19th century. And rather than reward a country that admits that it has control over terrorists, the mere fact that they can obtain the release should be a reason to increase pressure and punishment against Iran until it stops these methods. LEHRER: All right. Mr. Secretary, thank you. Michael Ledeen does not see it the same way. He is the National Security Council Consultant who was involved in Reagan Administration efforts to win the release of the hostages in Lebanon. He's the author of a forthcoming book entitled Worse than a Crime: The Inside Story of the Iran contra Affair. The Secretary says that what France did was reward Iran for taking hostages. Is that how you see it? MICHAEL LEDEEN, National Security Consultant: Well, that may have happened. I don't think we know enough yet to be certain that that's exactly what happened. There is at least another possibility, and I'd be willingto suspend judgment for a few more days anyway until more facts come out before we make such a tough conclusion. Certainly if what France did is what Dr. Kissinger thinks they did, which is to negotiate for the release of their hostages and make that the central part of their talks with Iran, then it's to be absolutely condemned. But if in fact -- and I think it's possible -- that what France did was to defeat Iranian terrorism in France, to wage a really tough war against terrorism, not only in France but all over Europe -- remember this French Government is unprecedented in European history. They smashed all kinds of Arab and Iranian terrorist organizations inside their own country. They finally worked a cooperative relationship with the government of Spain, leading to the arrest of hundreds of past terrorists who had been taking refuge inside France. If on that basis they then went to the Iranians, having beaten them inside France, and said we are willing to normalize relations with you, but only under certain terms, if you change your behavior, if you start to come to terms with the Western world. And if in that context of trying to normalize relations and inch Iran away from its terrorists policies back in the direction of the civilized world, then I think there may be some benefit in all of this. If what they did was simply try to get their hostages out and unblock this money in exchange for that, then I think it's awful. LEHRER: But any kind of negotiation that requires the -- in this case France -- the aggrieved country, the aggrieved party, to give up something in exchange for the release of hostages, Secretary Kissinger says that's not the way civilized society should function. Mr. LEDEEN: Yes, and I agree with that. But on the other hand, once you have the kind of diplomatic conflict that existed between France and Iran, and an Iranian claim which I think no one has challenged that they were entitled to that money, and France had blocked that money at the beginning of the Khomeini Revolution and always said they intended to repay it, if they then unblock it as part of a diplomatic process of normalization between the two countries, I'm not sure that that's the same things as paying ransom. I rather don't think it is. In other words, I think that there's at least a chance that you could view this not so much as the humiliation of France but the defeat of Iran and the failure of Iran's policy. And that it was Iran that was forced to come to terms with a Western country which had fought terrorism. And that's the important thing. You see, I believe that it's very different for a country which has fought terrorism and which has defeated terrorists and which has had an aggressive anti terrorist policy to then also talk to the countries which are sponsoring terrorism than countries which have been very feeble in their response to terrorism, who are then clearly dealing out of weakness and clearing making concessions. LEHRER: Where does this put the United States now and the nine American hostages that are being held? In other words, the French deal, what's your analysis of how this affects their chances for freedom? Mr. LEDEEN: I don't think it affects their chances for freedom one way or the other unless there's going to be a drastic shift in Iran's policy toward the Western world, which I think is quite unlikely. I think what we have to do -- LEHRER: You don't agree with Dr. Kissinger that it's very possible that Iran is now going to say, All right, the France model is what we're now going to use.You want your hostages out, you make a deal. Some kind of similar basis. Mr. LEDEEN: Well, as Dr. Kissinger quite rightly said, it's really the American model. They came to us at the beginning, and unfortunately the Iran Initiative of 1985 turned into the arms for hostage deal of late 1985 and 1986. And it became explicitly that. The French of course have not given them arms, at least as far as we know. And so if anything, we are in a weaker moral position than the French because we did something significantly worse. LEHRER: But don't you -- in order to -- what about Dr. Kissinger -- We'll go back to Dr. Kissinger on this point. But when Iran made the deal with France, what they said to the world was, Yes, we can control the hostage taking. You recognize us and you do these other things and suddenly those three French hostages are on an airplane. Now, where does that put Iran as far as a nation in the world to deal with? Mr. LEDEEN: Well, it's good news and bad news. Which is -- the good news is that you have a government with which you can deal which can effect the release of hostages and which you can hold accountable for acts of terrorism. And I don't think that's a great secret. The bad news is that it is a terrorist regime and has been all along. And that's why my notion of what American foreign policy toward Iran ought to be is first and foremost aimed at the replacement of the Khomeini regime. LEHRER: Dr. Kissinger, what about that point? That, okay, Iran has taken responsibility. Now they're in a position where they can be held accountable. There's no longer this dodge that they're not really responsible for this. Sec. KISSINGER: No, I think not. They have taken responsibility and they ought to be penalized for that. I also would like to make a comment about Mr. Ledeen's point. I don't give the French government a great deal of credit for having resisted terrorism on its own territory. To protect your population on your own territory is not something for which a government ought to be rewarded. That is absolutely basic function. Secondly, you can always find a good excuse to pay ransom and give the impression that this is something you might have done anyway. But if it is done in the context of an election, if it is done coupled with the immediate release of hostages, it looks like a very threadbare argument and the impression is certainly created that you have in effect paid ransom. The decision that government have to make is whether they increase the value of the hostages by negotiating about them, or whether they devaluate the hostages by saying to the terrorists, You have an object for which you can get nothing, and which in fact will cost you increasingly because we will keep bringing pressure on you. But this can only be done if the civilized nations work together against a threat that affects them all. LEHRER: Mr. Ledeen? Mr. LEDEEN: Yes, I agree with that. That's why I stressed that the context is all important. If the primary issue was the relationship between the Western world and Iran, and if in the process of addressing that relationship the hostages automatically came up, because you cannot have improved relations as long as the hostages are held, and that is one thing. If, as Dr. Kissinger clearly believes, this was simply an arrangement to get hostages out and the French Government did everything possible to save their hostages, and made the hostages the primary issue, then it's contemptible. Sec. KISSINGER: But the ability of governments to reduce themselves into taking the expedient course is very great. We noticed it in our own government which invented a moderate faction in Iran in order to engage in an arms for hostage deal. If the Iranians had been, had been told, The first thing you have to do is release hostages. And then after some decent interval we will consider every case on its merits, and if three to six months later there had been a negotiation to reopen relations with them, I wouldn't be against that in principle, because I think Iran has to be brought back towards the Western world and probably will be as soon as the Khomeini government is replaced. But in this particular context, the appearances are terrible, and I believe that the action itself furthers terrorism rather than weakens it. Mr. LEDEEN: What I don't understand is why the sequence is so important. That is if we agree, as we clearly agree, that it is important to deal with Iran and try to inch Iran back to the direction of the civilized world, I don't really see what difference it makes whether we ask for the hostages to be addressed first or last. I always thought that the hostages should be addressed last and that what one wanted to address with Iran was Iran's behavior in the world and the relationship between Iran and the Western world. In that process, the hostages must automatically be dealt with because there's no way to avoid it, and everybody understands that. Sec. KISSINGER: But it's no proof that Iran has been inched back towards the civilized world when it takes $600 million and reestablishes diplomatic relations that were broken because it had surrounded the French embassy to stop doing something that they never should have done before. And to graciously receive money is not a proof that the country has returned to the civilized world. If it did something dramatic, or something significant, I would accept that argument. Mr. LEDEEN: Well, fair enough. But the suspension of terrorists attacks, first against our people for more than a year while the negotiations were going on between the Americans and Iran, and now the promise that all terrorists acts against the French would be terminated might be something significant. LEHRER: But what about Dr. Kissinger's point that while they've suspended terrorists attacks against the French, that makes all other Western nations and their citizens liable to attacks? Mr. LEDEEN: Well, that's certainly true. And Iran has not abandoned the policy of terrorism as far as we can discover towards mankind in general. And I would think the Khomeini regime is very unlikely to abandon terrorism against its real enemies, countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia. No, my point is -- and I think we agree on the basic point -- it's a tactical dispute, which is that Iran is a terribly important country to us and to the Western world in general. One has to deal with Iran. My own notion of how to deal with Iran, and I think we agree on this too, is that you must attack them and attack the terrorist regime. There's never been any question that this was the terrorist regime and that these terrorist acts were carried out at the behest of or in collaboration with the Iranian regime. And we should be attacking them. One of the reasons why we've had so much trouble with terrorism over the past ten years is because we have not gone after the terrorists and we have not directly threatened the regimes that sponsor terrorists. LEHRER: We meaning the United States. Mr. LEDEEN: Yes, and the West in general. But again, in fairness to the French, I think they've done rather more than most countries. It isn't just a matter of defending their territory against terrorism, it's working with other countries like Spain in defending Europe against terrorism as well. LEHRER: You just disagree with that, right Dr. Kissinger? Sec. KISSINGER: Well, no, I give France credit, providing terrorism with the skill and brutality for which the French police is known on its own territory and to cooperate with Spain, in view of the fact that there will be a common Europe by 1992. For this I give France credit. This does not mean, however, that France has gained a victory over Iran. And I think this is one of these acts where an exceptionally expedient road was taken, looking particularly bad in view of the proximity of the election, which cannot be perceived as a victory against terrorism. I think it was a gain for terrorism. LEHRER: All right. Henry Kissinger in New York. Michael Ledeen here in Washington, thank you. HUNTER-GAULT: Still ahead, the controversial Muslim war on drugs, the good news on jobs and curbing college drinking. Local Justice HUNTER-GAULT: Next tonight, a report from one battlefield in the war against drugs. In the middle of a climate of fear and lawlessness, a group of black Muslims have gained public notice by their attempts to rid one Washington, D. C. housing project of its open air drug market. Kwame Holman reports. Dr. ABDUL ALIM MUHAMMAD, Nation of Islam: Got a little crack in your neighborhood? Who you gonna call? The Dope busters. Got a little dope and you're losing all hope? Who you gonna call? The dope busters.

KWAME HOLMAN: The dope busters are Muslims, members of the Nation of Islam, devotees of Muslim leader Minister Louis Farrakhan. The Washington, D. C. chapter of the group was praised last week by civic leaders and politicians for driving violent drug dealers out of this neighborhood. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: I would just like to take this opportunity to thank the Nation of Islam for making it possible once again that Mayfair Mansion be an enjoyable and safe place to live. Thank you.

HOLMAN: Tenants' council leader Betty Adams remembers the drug related violence that plagues her apartment complex, called Mayfair Mansions, for two years before the Muslims arrived three weeks ago to patrol here neighborhood. BETTY ADAMS, Mayfair Tenants Council: The violence was between the dealers themselves. And people were getting shot, there were nightly gunshots here in Mayfair, shotgun firing, and just all around violent situation. And it had gotten to the point that I was afraid to let my child walk to school, because a bullet has no name. And any one of our children could have gotten caught in the crossfire and then seriously hurt or maybe killed. MAYFAIR RESIDENT: The perpetrators will come urinate, defecate, molest, rob, steal, shoot -- Dr. MUHAMMAD: We know that almighty God never intended for the human being to be degenerated by the use of these illegal drugs. And we are declaring to the world that enough is enough.

HOLMAN: Dr. Abdul Alim Muhammad is leader of the Washington, D. C. Muslims. Dr. MUHAMMAD: We noticed as we went through the neighborhood selling our Final Call newspapers that drug activity would decrease as long as we were in the area. This was also noticed by our neighbors, who asked us that, Well, why don't you come in and have a more prominent presence. We talked with them about it, we talked with management about it, we spoke with the Police Department about it. And everyone was in agreement that this might be worthwhile to try. And that's how the patrols actually got started.

HOLMAN: Small bands of Muslims, equipped only with walkie talkies began patrolling the neighborhood early this month. It's generally agreed in Washington that their impact on open drug dealing and violence was immediate and dramatic. Ms. ADAMS: There are always a few skeptics, you know. But after they were here for that one day, and they saw that our kids could get out and play again, they had to acknowledge that the Nation of Islam had made a beautiful difference. We had peace and serenity in one day that we hadn't had in two years. I mean, they came out and did in one day what the police couldn't do in two years. MAURICE TURNER, Chief, Washington, D. C. , Police: I don't think we failed at all. We did what we could do. We made arrests. And we will continue to make arrests.

HOLMAN: Maurice Turner is Chief of the Washington Police Department. Chief TURNER: I don't want you to get the mistaken idea that the Muslims out there policing that neighborhood. They are not policing that neighborhood. They're just walking through.

HOLMAN: Washington, D. C. is 70% black, and so is the overwhelming majority of the 35,000 people arrested here in a two year battle over the drug trade. Mayfair Mansion's resident manager Glenn French says the Muslims traded on a long history in black communities and a reputation for religious commitment to end drug dealers occupation of his neighborhood. GLENN FRENCH, Mayfair Mansion Resident Manager: I can remember as early as the age 10, members of the Nation of Islam in my community. And they always wore the bow ties, they always wore suits, they always -- they did not smoke, they did not drink. In a colloquial manner of speaking, I guess you would call them some righteous dudes. They just look you in the eyes, and, brother, you know you're doing wrong. You know it's wrong and it's going to have to stop. And nobody's saying nothing to these guys.

HOLMAN: The 37 year old Muslim leader, Dr. Muhammad, says he was himself a drug dealer and user until he joined the Nation of Islam in 1968. He went on to college and to medical school, becoming a surgeon. Dr. MUHAMMAD: These young men, and most of them are young men who are peddling drugs and people using drugs, who wants them in this society? The Nation of Islam wants them. We can turn these armies of violent, misguided, sometimes vicious, young men who are pursuing careers of crime, we can turn them around and make them into worthwhile citizens, make them productive, make them self respecting.

HOLMAN: Dr. Muhammad says the Muslims' moral force accounts for their success in driving off drug dealers. But others point to the Muslims' reputation for physical retaliation against those who challenge them. Gwynne Peirson, professor of criminology and sociology at Howard University in Washington says that reputation is well known in the nation's prisons, a prime recruiting ground for the Mulims. Prof. GWYNNE PEIRSON, Howard University: Over the years the Muslims have had a reputation for being able to take care of themselves in a physical sense. And that is why, one of the reasons why, they became so attractive to some of the people in the prisons because it became known that if you were a Muslim in prison, no one would harm you because of the fear of retaliation. So a lot of the drug dealers out there have been to prison, they know the way the game is played. They know that in this case it's not worth the risk. Dr. MUHAMMAD: When one Muslim is attacked, then all Muslims are attacked and all of us are pledged to go to the defense of our brother or sister Muslim who comes under attack.

HOLMAN: The use of physical force by the Muslims became an issue on the first day of their patrols in Washington. During a confrontation, the Muslims beat and kicked two men, one of whom was armed with a shotgun. A news cameraman and a reporter also were attacked. Dr. MUHAMMAD: The video camera did not record how our brothers approached individuals involved in this illicit drug trade and respectfully and politely asked them to leave the premises. HOLMAN: The sound on the videotape at the time of the confrontation there can be heard, ''Break his neck. '' Were those your members saying that? Dr. MUHAMMAD: Yes, we said those things. And we said them in much the same way that a parent who is chastising a naughty child would say, ''I'm going to break your neck. '' It's not to be taken literally. If we had intended to literally break that young man's neck, we certainly could have done so. UNIDENTIFIED VOICE at ceremony: All of these are young, strong black warriors. (sings) We're the ones who wake at dawn, go (unintelligible) Elijah and Farrakhan.

HOLMAN: The melee prompted charges that the Muslims had revealed their violent side, that they had become extremist vigilantes in trying to stop drug dealers. Prof. PEIRSON: The Muslims have been written up by the news media as going from door to door and telling certain people that they will move out. To that point it may not be a violation of the law unless it's accompanied by a threat of what will happen if the person doesn't move out. Then that would become I believe open vigilantism.

HOLMAN: Meanwhile, the Muslims last week expanded their drug patrols to an adjoining complex called Paradise Manor. Police too have stepped up patrols in the area, they say, to protect the Muslims from drug dealers. Police say drug dealers have threatened to kill some of the Muslims because of their patrols. But the Muslims say the only threats they've received were from corrupt police officers who are involved in the drug trading. Dr. MUHAMMAD: We have received such threats, and we have taken steps to neutralize such threats. Again, I would not like to emphasize the negative situation here. We know that we're only talking about a handful of policemen who are involved. Chief TURNER: I think Mr. Muhammad, and I've told him this, needs to be specific and say who. And because you have allegations that residents in that community say police officers are selling, distributing drugs, bring me some factual information, names, dates, places, descriptions, and we will investigate that.

HOLMAN: Chief Turner says the Muslim patrol not only have not replaced the police, but their success at ending drug dealing has been overstated. Police say some of the street drug dealers who have left the Mayfair and Paradise communities have simply moved to this area about a mile away. According to police, there are 83 such street drug markets in Washington. Chief TURNER: It isn't going to stop it. People that are abusing and using drugs, even the residents that live in Mayfair, they didn't stop using drugs. It's just displaced. There's another marketplace. HOLMAN: Is that a criticism of the Muslim patrol? Chief TURNER: Certainly not. I told you I welcome the support of the Muslims. I welcome the support of the other communities. I think we need to get more involved. I think we need to get some type of model plan across where citizens can participate with the police department.

HOLMAN: Professor Peirson says citizen involvement in anti crime efforts, including neighborhood patrols, is the wave of the future. Prof. PEIRSON: Citizens are going to have to recognize that it's their responsibility and they're going to have to become involved and they're the ones, they may be the only ones who can save the situation. Mr. FRENCH: We just have to let people know that we won't tolerate certain actions in our community any more. That's what the Muslims have done so wonderfully here. HOLMAN: Is the battle over in Mayfair? Have you won? Mr. FRENCH: We have to continue the battle in order to insure the victory, but as of today, I'd say yes, we've won.

HOLMAN: It may take other communities some time to achieve the relief from drug dealing and violence that Mayfair Mansions now has. Last week, Muslims in Washington invited citizens to a meeting to discuss forming anti crime patrols in other neighborhoods. Back to Work HUNTER-GAULT: Next to the good news on jobs. As we reported earlier, the nations' unemployment rate fell to 5. 4% last month, the lowest level in 14 years. Over 600,000 Americans found jobs. The Commerce Department said nearly all the decline occurred among adult men whose unemployment rate fell to 4. 6%. The rate among adult women remained unchanged, at 4. 8%. Unemployment declined among both blacks and whites, with the biggest decreased registered by black teenagers. For a more comprehensive look at today's employment figures, we talk with Audrey Freedman, Chief Labor Economist with the Conference Board, a New York based business research group. Ms. Freedman, is the good news as good as it looks? AUDREY FREEDMAN, Conference Board: Yes, it is telling us that there's continuing job growth in the economy. Even though at this point you would begin to think that it would slow down. We had growth last month not only in manufacturing employment, but continuing growth and service employment. HUNTER-GAULT: Why is that happening? Tell me what the process is. Ms. FREEDMAN: Well, in manufacturing, particularly for machine tools and that kind of capital goods equipment, there is increased demand. And part of that is coming from overseas. The falling dollar has created some jobs because it's created more opportunities to export American machine tools. And in services there is continuing growth, there has been continuing growth for over five years, right now, especially in health services, and there's some growth in business services. Last month, though, there was no increase in construction employment, following, though, two months in which there was a very great growth in construction industry and employment. HUNTER-GAULT: You expect that to pick up again, or -- Ms. FREEDMAN: I think we will continue to see some employment gains for part of this year. HUNTER-GAULT: What -- does that mean that we are no longer losing jobs to Japan and other countries? Ms. FREEDMAN: Well, it means that we are a little more competitive in terms of international marketplaces. We are beginning to get our productivity up, we are beginning to keep our wage costs under control. And the falling dollar makes our goods much more attractive to foreign buyers. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you expect this trend to continue? Ms. FREEDMAN: I hope so, yes. HUNTER-GAULT: I noted that joblessness declined most sharply among men. And not among women. Why is that? Ms. FREEDMAN: Well, some of that is the manufacturing employment. The manufacturing jobs are mostly going to men, and those are growing right now. But women's unemployment rate is about the same as for men. It used to be that women's unemployment rates were much higher than for men. Then they fell below those of men during the early 80s, and now they're about the same. There really isn't a significant difference between the unemployment rates for adult men and adult women. HUNTER-GAULT: One of the areas that traditionally has proved most unyielding was unemployment among black teenagers, which has been double and triple that of other groups. And it appears to have gotten better. Is that real, or is that -- Ms. FREEDMAN: No, black unemployment rates are still about 2 1/2 to 3 times that of whites. That really is not improving. I'm comparing one with another, not just this one month period. HUNTER-GAULT: What about the black teenage rate, I thought there was some slight improvement there, there was not? Ms. FREEDMAN: Nothing remarkable. No. HUNTER-GAULT: But there was an uptake in Hispanic -- Ms. FREEDMAN: Unemployment, yes, that is correct. HUNTER-GAULT: What accounts for that? Ms. FREEDMAN: I don't know, I don't know. But again this is a one month figure, and with a very small group like the Hispanic speaking group, it may not be a significant change. HUNTER-GAULT: The wire stories pointed out that nearly all of the improvement in the job picture was among picture who had been laid off from their past jobs, as opposed to those who had quit or were seeking employment. Is there any big significance in that, or any -- Ms. FREEDMAN: People who had been laid off from their last jobs perhaps in manufacturing are finding those jobs in manufacturing again. HUNTER-GAULT: But people who didn't have jobs are not finding jobs, is that -- Ms. FREEDMAN: No, no, that's really not true. In the past year, our labor force has grown by 1. 9 million people. And they have found jobs, because we have grown many more jobs than that. We've grown about three million jobs. So that's how we are reducing our unemployment rate. We're absorbing all the new people coming into the labor force, and some of the unemployed people as well. HUNTER-GAULT: The stock market was off slightly today and fell 38 points over the past two days because of fears of this improved job picture. I mean, why would this kind of good news for most people in the country be bad news for Wall Street? Ms. FREEDMAN: I think the Wall Street is a conflicting signal. For example, this is a sign of strength in the economy. That's good news. But then Wall Street looks at the Federal Reserve and says if the Federal Reserve is fearing that we will have inflation because of tightening labor market, because labor supplies are growing very tight, if we're going to have inflation and the Federal Reserve looks at it that way, then they will raise interest rates and they will tighten the money supply and bring on a recession. So Wall Street is seeing two conflicting signals and doesn't know what to do. HUNTER-GAULT: Why would labor supplies be tight? Ms. FREEDMAN: Labor supplies are tight because we're creating so many jobs, and we're bringing down the unemployment rate. Usually when the unemployment rate comes down sharply, there is wage inflation. But we don't have any wage inflation -- HUNTER-GAULT: People go out and start spending money. Ms. FREEDMAN: Well, yes, and employers begin tobid up wages because their labor supplies are short and they start trying to raise wages to bid workers away from someone else. But we don't have any wage inflation in the economy right now. In fact, average hourly earnings over the past year have increased less than 3%. HUNTER-GAULT: Someone today used the term, which I haven't heard in a very long time, zone of full employment. This rate puts into that zone. Are we approaching what might be considered full employment America? Ms. FREEDMAN: Well, full employment is one of those slippery terms that might be related to inflation. And it might be related simply to fictional unemployment, the amount of time it takes to find another job. But if we are concerned that the unemployment rate comes down too far and then we get wage inflation, I think that has changed. I think that full employment term has changed in the past decade. And now we could drive unemployment much lower without having to worry about wage inflation. And the figures prove it. HUNTER-GAULT: Let's stay on the good news note. Thank you very much, Ms. Freedman, for being with us. College Drinking LEHRER: Finally tonight, college students and alcohol. This morning that mixture proved explosive when a beer party at Iowa State University turned into a near riot. While drinking on campus is not new, incidents like this have forced another look at an old issue, how much control should school officials exercise over their students' drinking habits. Correspondent June Massell reports.

JUNE MASSELL: A scene from the movie Animal House. In 1978 this was the image of life in a fraternity house, wild parties, lots of drinking and no or few restrictions. The idea of in loco parentis, the university serving as parents away from home, went out with the 60s. In came the new independence and new freedoms. April 1988, a fraternity party at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. The music is the same, but the atmosphere is different. The students are drinking Coca Cola, not beer. Most of the fun is pretty old fashioned. It could almost be a scene from the 50s. Whatever the era, one thing is for sure. Diet Coke and Reddi Whip can't get you drunk. WOMAN: I know that personally I have just as good a time without alcohol and I think everybody here would agree with that too.

MASSELL: It's the first dry Greek Week at Rutgers ever, a disciplinary measure to teach students a lesson after the campus tragedy that occurred in February. Eighteen year old James Callahan died from excessive alcohol consumption during a fraternity pledge party. Another student at the Lamda Chi Fraternity house that night told the campus newspaper that the pledges were told to ''drink until you get sick. '' Both fraternity hazing practices and drinking under 21 years old are illegal in New Jersey. Immediately after the death on campus the university declared a general moratorium on all fraternity and sorority parties and pledge activities. At the end of March, the university relaxed the ban and once again agreed to allow parties on campus, but no alcohol, a restriction which lasted until the end of the semester. WOMAN: It was a freak thing that could have happened anywhere, you know. So to classify rockers as having a drinking problem I think is wrong.

MASSELL: Despite the drinking ban, a lot of students say there is still drinking on campus, it's just not being done at public parties or events. MAN: Alcohol's here. There's a million bars in the New Brunswick, there's a million liquor stores, alright? Alcohol's available anywhere, you can get it anywhere.

MASSELL: What happened at Lamda Chi has revived an old debate about in loco parentis, and has raised a lot of questions. Among them, how much should a university police drinking on campus and how responsible is the university for student behavior? Because the death of James Callahan is under criminal investigation, university officials would not discuss the case. But they did agree to talk about the larger issues. Stayton Wood is the Dean of Students at Rutgers College. MASSELL: Should a university be responsible for student behavior outside the classroom? STAYTON WOOD, Dean of Students, Rutgers University: Yes, I think so. I think that there are obvious limits to that, but I think that there is a real responsibility. Students spend most of their time outside of the classroom. We have a role. These are our students, and we have a role in saying what standards we want to have.

MASSELL: Six years ago, after the drinking age was raised to 21 in New Jersey, Rutgers began reevaluating those standards. New regulations required that all parties in the dorms and at fraternities had to be registered with the university. The amount of alcohol permitted was limited. In addition, fraternities had to establish door policies. Student IDs were checked and the parties were monitored by the fraternity board of control and an assistant dean. The February party at Lamda, however, was not registered, and minors were served alcohol. As a sanction, the university derecognized the fraternity. Despite the regulations, some students feel the university needs to take a stronger role in monitoring student behavior. MASSELL: Do you think the university has been too lax in this area? STUDENT: I think that the university has been. I think that they need to put a stronger grip on what's going on. I mean, they have a responsibility to take as well. STUDENT: I'd be willing to have more restrictions in order that -- you know, a lot of students in this university don't die. Yeah.

MASSELL: State Senator Frank Graves is responsible for drafting a legislation that raised the drinking age to 21. He agrees that the university needs to tighten its control. FRANK GRAVES, New Jersey State Senator: There is no reason justified or otherwise that we lost this kid's life. Somebody failed. In this particular case, it appears two elements failed. The school failed, and the responsibility of the fraternity failed.

MASSELL: But just how much control should the university impose? Some have advocated a dry campus, but university officials are wary of establishing policies they can't enforce. Dean WOOD: If we had a dry campus you have to realize our campus is surrounded by things that we don't control, in which alcohol is very much a part. We would be wrong in banning alcohol. It's not a realistic kind of thing. I mean, people have to learn to live in a world with alcohol. They have to learn how to make this a part of their life if they want it a part of their life in a constructive way.

MASSELL: An argument State Senator Graves agrees with. Sen .GRAVES: Because then we're going to have prohibition, we're going to have underground, we're going to be worse. More people will be tempted to drink because they have a rule not to drink. I want them to be able to do what they're doing, but I want them to put it under control where they monitor and police and supervise the students in that school the same as they do in the daytime.

MASSELL: But supervising students requires a delicate balance. The university wants guidelines, but not a police state. Dean WOOD: We didn't want our staff, particularly in residence halls, to be seen as police going door to door looking for a can of beer. But we felt that if we determined that there were problems in existence that certainly we would intervene. Students, certainly our students, are very aggressive, they're very aware, they're very in touch with things. They're sensitive to their own space and their own particular right to do certain things, and we have to respect that. We have to realize that they're here to learn things and change and grow, and we've got to give them the room to do that.

MASSELL: Shelly Steinbach is vice president of the American Council on Education. He says too much monitoring is antithetical to growing up. SHELLY STEINBACH, American Council on Education: To monitor their behavior, to restrain their activities is to really curtail their development as adults.

MASSELL: In addition, Steinbach says courts have tended to rule that colleges are not liable for the consumption of alcohol on campus. Mr. STEINBACH: Judicial decisions are quite clear that institutions are not responsible for the private actions of college and university students. They are not insurers of the safety of individuals who the law has now regarded as adults. MASSELL: So in other words you're saying that it is not the college's responsibility to make sure that minors don't drink. Mr. STEINBACH: That is correct. Now -- although that may have been the prevailing judicial line of thought for 150 years, that is certainly not the way the courts have gone, nor has society sort of dictated within the last 15 to 20 years.

MASSELL: Nonetheless the university is reexamining both campus drinking policies and the fraternity system. A select committee was set up to look into the role of fraternities. Dean Wood has made some of his own recommendations. Dean WOOD: I think that we should not allow people to rush a fraternity or sorority until they're sophomores, until they've completed 24 credit hours, and have at least a C average. And I think that we need to return to the position of having an adult -- by adult I mean an older than student adult -- living in the houses. I'm not saying we need to go back to the kindly old housemother of the 50s, but I am saying that it may be a graduate student, it may be an alum of the chapter, it may be someone else who's interested in this aspect of student life.

MASSELL: Some students feel that fraternities at Rutgers have been let off the hook too easily. They criticize members for treating the death on campus too casually. STUDENT: They don't have any remorse, they don't show any remorse when they commit these crimes. And they admit to it. I would like to see fraternities banned from campus. I noticed that when it happened.

MASSELL: Many fraternity members feel the anti fraternity sentiment that has evolved is unfair. Some say all fraternities are being punished for the actions of ''a few bad apples. '' STUDENT: Right now it's the point where anything a fraternity does is bad. We've been here for 150 years, 200 years, and it's like nothing's ever been wrong. All of a sudden right now, everything we do is all of a sudden we're all rapists, we're all drunkards, we're all killers. And it's like someone seems to want to have a scapegoat.

MASSELL: Michael Steinbruck is president of the Rutgers Fraternity Council. MICHAEL STEINBRUCK, Rutgers Fraternity Council: I know I couldn't represent a system that I felt wasn't about comradery and academics and friendship. And I don't think that the incident at Lamda Chi reflected the course of the Greek system at Rutgers. Our goal, I guess, is to formulate a unified student opinion on alcohol policies, and --

MASSELL: Student leaders, including Steinbruck, are not ignoring the problem. They, too, are reevaluating. They have set up a committee to discuss discipline, social activities and alcohol education programs. STUDENT: I mean, 90% of the people come in here are into drinking, okay? So you've got to accept that and deal with it and educate them in a way where they can actually make a choice where they don't want to drink they don't have to. But don't ignore it. At least they know what they're doing and they won't get into something over their head like what happened at the fraternity. I think pursuing that through courses, a mandatory freshman course, would be the best way.

MASSELL: In addition, many feel the university needs to set up social alternatives to drinking. STUDENT: The alternatives are not good, and what frequently happens in the residence house is somebody'll decide to have a party, sneak some beer up to their room and invite their friends. STUDENT: Yeah, but Saturday, really the only thing to do is go out to a bar or something, or have a dorm party. STUDENT: And that's an issue I think is relevant and pertinent to this group, because there doesn't seem to be a third place where minors can go.

MASSELL: James Callahan's death is a bitter reminder to students of what can happen when someone drinks too much. This week 15 members of Lamda Chi were indicted for aggravated hazing. As first offenders they probably won't go to prison. The university also plans to hold hearings into their behavior. Potential penalties range from nothing to expulsion from school. State Senator Frank Graves says the indictments are only a slap on the wrist and plans to draft new legislation which could make it mandatory for a university to expel minors who drink. Recap HUNTER-GAULT: Once again a look at today's top stories. The nation's unemployment rate fell to 5. 4%, the lowest in 14 years. President Reagan had some tough words for his former Chief of Staff Donald Regan, rebuking him for attacking Mrs. Reagan in an upcoming book. And Eastern Airlines sued its pilots and machinist unions, accusing them of trying to destroy the financially embattled airline. Good night, Jim. LEHRER: Good night, Charlayne. Have a nice weekend. We'll see you on Monday night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.