The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Monday, Pres. Bush and civil rights leaders exchanged charges over new civil rights legislation. And Mr. Bush continued eased trade rules for the Soviet Union. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: After the News Summary, our lead story is how and how much should Pres. Bush help Mikhail Gorbachev reform the Soviet economy. Then Charlayne Hunter-Gault begins a weeklong series of conversations on the increasingly charged issue of affirmative action. To close we have a report on proposals to stimulate recruitment of Catholic priests. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: The political battle over the new civil rights bill intensified today. John Jacob, president of the National Urban League, accused Pres. Bush of using lies and fear to defeat the Democratic version. Mr. Bush has said that bill would force businesses to adopt hiring quotas. Speaking on Capitol Hill, Jacob called quotas a phoney issue.

MR. JACOB: The ugly truth behind the quota smear is that cynical political leaders are trying to turn a civil rights issue into a political issue that plays on irrational fears and latent racism. For the sake of what they think are extra votes, they are willing to abandon America's ideals of fairness, subvert civil rights protections, and encourage racial divisions. We urge Congress to reject such slash and burn political terrorism. We urge Congress to reject this unprincipled appeal to the worst aspects of our national life. And we remind the members of Congress that women and minorities and African-Americans vote too.

MR. MacNeil: Pres. Bush rejected the charge that he was playing politics and returned the accusation, saying Democrats and special interest groups were playing politics by avoiding debate on his version of the civil rights bill. He spoke to a conference of business leaders on Capitol Hill.

PRES. BUSH: We have tried to compromise but not to accept quotas. And at one point last year, we had an agreement that would bring all sides together that the beltway interest groups refused. They wanted a political win. They wanted to grind me into the political dirt. And we have a good record on civil rights, and we had a good history of fair play, and I want a fair, strong, anti-discrimination bill that will guarantee workers' rights, women's rights, workplace rights, but will not create quotas!

MR. MacNeil: The House of Representatives begins debate on three versions of the civil rights bill tomorrow. All three are aimed at fighting job discrimination. We'll have more on civil rights and affirmative action later in the program. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: The Supreme Court today let stand another restriction on abortion. The Court rejected without comment a challenge to a federal ban on U.S. aid to foreign family planning agencies performing or promoting abortion. The rule was adopted in 1984 by the Reagan administration. The High Court also ruled jurors in non- criminal cases cannot be rejected because of their race. The vote was six to three. It extended to civil cases the Court's 1986 decision banning such exclusions in criminal trial. In another decision, the Court upheld a Georgia County's affirmative action program designed to help women and minorities win public construction contracts. The Justices with one dissent rejected challenges to the program by two white-owned companies denied such contracts.

MR. MacNeil: Pres. Bush today extended some trade privileges with the Soviet Union but he has not decided whether to grant most favored nation status. White House Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said the President would waive the so-called "Jackson Vannic" trade restrictions for one more year. Those restrictions were adopted nearly two decades ago because of the Soviet restricted emigration policies. Bush waived the restrictions last year to permit bank credits and loan guarantees for Soviets to buy U.S. products. We'll have more on the Soviet Union right after the News Summary.

MR. LEHRER: There were more reports today of fighting between Kurds and Iraqis in Northern Iraq. The worst violence was in Dohuk. Turkey's official news agency said six people were killed yesterday when Kurds attacked the headquarters of Iraq's ruling Baath Party. Allied troops did not intervene because Dohuk is outside the security zone. The spiritual leader of Iran today ruled out any resumption of ties with the United States. Ayatollah Ali Khameni denounced the U.S. as criminal. He said it in a speech marking the second anniversary of the death of the Ayatollah Khomeini.

MR. MacNeil: Twenty people were injured and dozens are still missing after a volcano in Japan erupted today. The volcano is located about 600 miles Southwest of Tokyo. Lava and ash rushed down the mountain at speeds up to 125 miles an hour. Rescue workers will be unable to search the area until at least tomorrow. That's it for the News Summary. Still ahead on the NewsHour, how to help the Soviets, affirmative action, and celibacy and the priesthood. FOCUS - CHARITY CHASE

MR. LEHRER: Coming to the aid of the failed Soviet economy is our lead story tonight. A top State Department official and two members of Congress are with us. They follow this backgrounder by Charles Krause.

MR. KRAUSE: Despite all the talk of reform, the only consistent development in the Soviet economy over the past year is that things have been getting consistently worse, longer lines and less food, prices and inflation way up, but the ruble has been sharply devalued and is now worthless outside the Soviet Union. Last summer faced with catastrophe, Pres. Gorbachev's advisers came up with a dramatic 500 day plan to free markets and to end the principal tenet of Communism, central government control over the economy. But Gorbachev killed the plan after opposition from hardliners in the military and conservatives in the Communist Party. Instead, Gorbachev undertook a series of smaller reforms which backfired undermining confidence in the government and its policies at home while causing confusion and disbelief among governments and economists in the West. In Moscow, there were consumer protests. In the Ukraine and in Russia, workers and coal miners went out on strike. Throughout the winter, Gorbachev and his chief political rival, Russian Republican President Boris Yeltsin struggled for control of the economy and with it for the future of the Soviet Union, itself. The crisis came to a head on March 28th, when tens of thousands of demonstrators defied Gorbachev and took to the streets in Moscow. A bloody confrontation was narrowly averted, then both sides drew back from the brink. In April, Gorbachev, Yeltsin and eight other Republic leaders said they would try to find common ground on economic policy, especially on the question of how much economic power would shift from Moscow to the republics. Last week, he sent one of his key advisers, Yevgeny Primakov, to Washington to promote what's being called the "grand bargain," economic reform in the Soviet Union in exchange for massive aid from the West. After meeting with President Bush last Friday at the White House, Primakov spoke with reporters.

REPORTER: Sir, there are some concerns on the American side that the plan doesn't go far enough, that there are no guarantees in there that reform will take place. Was that point discussed and did you try to reassure the President on that?

YEVGENY PRIMAKOV, Gorbachev Adviser: If you want to have guarantees, sending your troops there --

REPORTER: Well --

MR. PRIMAKOV: -- it's unacceptable for us, but at the same time I do believe that we have a lot of guarantees, because we are doing our best to pass this way toward the market first --

MR. KRAUSE: On Saturday during a commencement address at West Point, the President expressed cautious optimism. Progress on arms control treaties plus movement on economic reform, he said, could clear the way for a U.S.-Soviet summit meeting later this month.

PRES. BUSH: The United States and the Soviet Union not many hours ago resolved our differences on the CFE Treaty, clearing the way for an important step towards a super power summit.

MR. KRAUSE: And today there were other signs of good will toward Gorbachev. The administration announced it would waive Jackson Vannic restrictions on trade with the Soviet Union and the White House also said it now tends to favor granting Moscow $1.5 billion worth of credit to buy American grain. There were also strong signals the leaders of the seven major industrial nations, including the United States, would invite Gorbachev to their next G-7 economic summit to be held in London beginning July 15th.

MR. LEHRER: Now to Robert Zoellick, the Under Secretary of State for Economic & Agricultural Affairs and the administration's point man on the Soviet aid issue. Mr. Secretary, welcome. First, on the question of the economic summit, is Mr. Gorbachev going to be invited?

SEC. ZOELLICK: Well, as you know, the British are the host of that summit so that ultimately is their decision. I think the best way to say at this point is that it's still being discussed among the top leaders, but the key point from our perspective is to make sure that if he is there, that he's there in a fashion that can help support the process of economic and political reform.

MR. LEHRER: Well, if he is there, he's going to be there with his hands out, is he not? Isn't he coming for help? Is that part of the -- is that not part of the deal?

SEC. ZOELLICK: I think one has to be careful in assuming that. I mean, just take it from Gorbachev's perspective for a moment. What he wants to signal the West is a serious intention to move ahead with economic reform, and that's at heart the discussions that we had over the past week. I don't think that he will perceive it to be in his interest at home to be coming hat in hand, rather, what he's trying to suggest is if he can undertake serious economic reforms and if the political context remains one that is supportive, then how will the West engage with them. And some of the things that we talked about over the last week and we'll talk about in coming weeks is to answer that question.

MR. LEHRER: Well, does the United States have any objections to his coming?

SEC. ZOELLICK: As I said, that's a decision above my pay grade and I think the President's made his position clear on that and you'll just have to wait a little bit answer to get your final answer.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. But put aside the -- maybe I used the wrong words about whether Gorbachev is coming or might come to the economic summit with his hat in his hand, but the fact is that if he -- this is the ongoing discussion, is it not, we, the Soviet Union will reform our economy and do other things, would you not, please, economic 7 major countries, be willing to entertain the possibility of giving us a hand?

SEC. ZOELLICK: The key question goes to the definition of what you described as hand or some people described as grand bargain. Some people have a notion of almost a ledger where on one side you've got billions of dollars and on the other side you start out with real economic reform, and then you can go to free the Baltics and nuclear war, go through your categories --

MR. LEHRER: And the money starts rolling in direct proportion to the deals on the other side?

SEC. ZOELLICK: So people hope perhaps one can sell the Baltics for a certain amount.

MR. LEHRER: Right.

SEC. ZOELLICK: And I think the point is that that's not probably a very realistic way to proceed for either country, but what is a realistic way to proceed is to engage the Soviets, recognizing this is a country that has not had experience with market systems. It's not even like the countries of Central and Eastern Europe which had that experience prior to World War II, but trying to help them undertake a serious economic reform program and then meet them step by step and try to help them succeed. Another key element of that which we have to face up to is that if they're looking for support from the West, it would only happen in the context of the right political changes. So in this ledger notion I gave you it's not that those are the wrong categories. The question is how to approach 'em.

MR. LEHRER: Where does the issue stand right now as far as the United States supporting the idea of giving economic aid to the Soviet Union?

SEC. ZOELLICK: Well, the, I think the President concluded and it's quite clear from his remarks that we believe that there's a serious intention on the part of the Soviets to move ahead with economic reform and as your segment showed, there have been some significant changes over the course of even the past month, the nine plus one agreement of April 23rd which suggests that the republics in the center, at least some of them, may be coming together, the role of Yeltsin, Gorbachev and other key republic figures like Nazarbaiev. There's also been a recognition that what was called the first variation of the anti-crisis program is not working, the idea of trying to confiscate people's currency, Prime Minister's Pavlov's comments about foreign bankers being the problem. Frankly right now, they're searching and what we have tried to do is point them in the right direction, engage in very serious dialogue. And there'll be a follow-up on what we did last week, and try to encourage those who we feel are closer to recognizing market principles, like Mr. Yalinsky who is part of the commission. And then we match them. And one way we match them, to go to your point about what set of support we can give, there are things that we can start to do at a first stage. There are things we can do in the energy area which could help them draw private capital, help them earn their own hard currency. There's things we can do in the defense conversion area, which is important economically and politically. This is still a society that spends by various people's estimates between 50 and 30 percent of its GNP on defense. There are things we can do in the food distribution area. The President just sent a mission of people to the Soviet Union to try and work on that problem, and their basic recognition was the fact that the major problem is market incentives and distribution, not production in the Soviet Union. There are other things the President's mentioned before, for example, special associate status in the IMF World Bank, start to engage the Soviet Union in these institutions in a way that can help push economic conditionality but also start the connection process that's real.

MR. LEHRER: What do you do about the chicken or the egg question here? The Soviet leadership could say hey, that's all well and good fellahs, but you've got to help us get over this immediate crisis, or all those big plans that you all want us to enact are going to become moot. When do you, meaning the administration and the United States of America, have to make a decision that this thing is so crucial and so near an edge of chaos that we've got to step in before it's all neat and tidy on the ledgers?

SEC. ZOELLICK: First, I think the President has certainly signified, and this has been a carry-on of policies we've had over the past couple of years, that we're very serious about trying to help perestroika succeed, so there is no doubt about our engagement. The question is how to engage. And on that, I think that you'd find that the Soviet leadership too doesn't want to find themselves in a process where they're being asked to take this policy for X billion and this policy for Y billion. So Mr. Primakov's statements also suggested some sympathy with this notion of step by step. They had something to take home along the lines of the package that I described to you that shows if they're willing to make serious reforms we'll respond. And, again, the point I really want to emphasize here is that the Soviet Union is not by nature a poor country. The Soviet Union is rich in resources. It's rich in skilled people, and the question is how can they start to take steps towards a market program that will start to tap those, and what we've signaled is we want to be engaged and we want to work with them step by step, and we started to demonstrate some of the actions we can take.

MR. LEHRER: You used the term signaled a couple of times now. How direct are these conversations with Primakov and others? I mean, when he talks to the President or he talks with you or Sec. Baker or anybody else, I mean, do you say to the Soviet leadership through Primakov, look, if you all will do [a], we will try our best to do [a] over here, and then -- I mean, does it get that specific, or is it all kind of vague, you guys go out there and try, we'll go out and try to help you or whatever?

SEC. ZOELLICK: It depends on the nature of the issue. For example, in the group that I participated in with Mike Boskin, David Mulford, Ed Huett, and others.

MR. LEHRER: I know who Boskin is. He's the chairman of the --

SEC. ZOELLICK: And David Mulford is an under secretary of the Treasury, and Ed Huett is a Soviet specialist on the Anasista.

MR. LEHRER: All right.

SEC. ZOELLICK: They and others, we engage with the Soviets on the practical aspects of their plan. They brought in the latest revision of the anti-crisis plan and basically what we told them was while it had some of the right language and points in the right direction and reflects a serious intention, it's still relying too much on command methods to try and reach a market economy we told them we didn't think would work. We went into details about specific provisions and we plan to follow up on those details so that's one level of engagement. Now another level of engagement is we but also Sec. Baker made quite clear that the context of these changes is going to require evolution of policies in the Baltics, defense policies, Cuba, Afghanistan, and that's simply a practical reality. Now so in that sense we engage on details political and economic, however, what we're not trying to do is create necessarily a one to one linkage that says if you take this policy here, we'll take this policy here. We are trying to say if the political context is correct and if you put together a serious market economic reform program, we'll go over the details with you, we could meet you with a package like the ones that I started to describe. And there are other things, your report referred to Jackson Vannic waiver today.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Is that an important decision today, do you think?

SEC. ZOELLICK: I think every decision like that's important.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah, yeah. In a general way, what do you say to those people who suggest or send a warning out that we've got to be careful, we, the United States has to be careful tying our whole policy toward the Soviet Union, toward one man and the survival of Mikhail Gorbachev?

SEC. ZOELLICK: Glad you asked that. The key point is that part of what's happened in the Soviet Union is that we're not simply doing that. This one plus nine arrangement is in part a very significant step. It may be a significant step in terms of building a new political legitimacy between the center and the republics. By the very terms, it talked about follow-up actions, for example, an all union treaty, it talked about a new constitution, and it talked about elections, which is the fundamental basis for establishing political legitimacy. And that is going to be critical in indicating what people referred to as the war of laws in the Soviet Union. And if you don't have an overall legal system that establishes say basic contract rights and property rights, none of this is going to work.

MR. LEHRER: It's not tied to Gorbachev?

SEC. ZOELLICK: No. Clearly, we believe, and the President believes that Gorbachev has accomplished major things in the world, and that's certainly the case, German unification, the Gulf, so on and so forth, but we're talking about dealing with a country as a whole and we're trying to bring it around to economic and political reform in a mutually supportive fashion.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, thank you very much.

SEC. ZOELLICK: Sure.

MR. LEHRER: Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Now two views from Congressmen, Republican Jim Leach of Iowa is a member of the Banking & Foreign Affairs Committees of the House, David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, is chairman of the House Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and Export. Both men met with a team of Soviet economists that came to Washington last week. Congressman Obey, your committee, subcommittee, wants the administration to move a lot more boldly than it's doing. Will you spell that out, what you would like it to do.

REP. OBEY: Well, our subcommittee simply suggested last week that rather than making clear what it is we won't do, we need to make clear first in our own minds and then to other parties exactly what it is we would be willing to do in the context of performance- based Soviet reform.

MR. MacNeil: And do that up front right away, is that the idea?

REP. OBEY: We're not talking about providing any resources up front. What we're suggesting is that if we want to influence the discussions going on in the Soviet Union, if we want to move the reform process forward, we have to give the reformers some tools by spelling out what, in fact, the West could be relied upon to do if the Soviets met our standards with regard to some of the items that you've been discussing in the earlier part of the program.

MR. MacNeil: Well, don't you think that's what the administration is doing based on what we've just heard from Sec. Zoellick?

REP. OBEY: Well, very frankly, it is at least to me unclear or at least has been until very recent hours what the administration is doing. I think frankly that the administration has been somewhat slow to get off the dime. It was necessary for the Congress to take the lead in providing aid to Eastern Europe two years ago. Last year it was necessary for us to again provide the prod in order to get things moving with respect to our specific aid to Poland. And I think what we tried to do last week is simply to send a signal to the administration that we thought the time had come for more clarity in our own position.

MR. MacNeil: How do the Republicans, House Republicans, feel about this, Congressman Leach? Do you think the administration's been slow off the dime?

REP. LEACH: No, I think caution's been appropriate. I must say I want to compliment Congressman Obey for at least making it clear that there'll be no bipartisan differentiations if there's a change in policy. But having said that, I think this is a time for great caution. I think the President's handling it right. We ought to be emphasizing trade and not aid at this point.

MR. MacNeil: Why a time for great caution? What's the danger of behaving as boldly as Congressman Obey and the others would like?

REP. LEACH: Well, I think the Soviet requests are presumptuous and premature, presumptuous in the sense that they haven't changed dramatically politically, they haven't changed dramatically economically, and they still have a spectacularly large military establishment. They're premature in the sense that this is a country that has a great deal of capacity of its own. I mean, the name of the game in capitalism is to do it yourself. The name of the game in democracy is to take personal accountability. They have to do all those things before the United States can dramatically shift gears.

MR. MacNeil: Yeah. How do you react to that, Congressman Obey, they have to do these things before?

REP. OBEY: Well, obviously, they have to do a lot of things before we do anything. But the problem that I've often found is that very often the West simply is not in agreement about what it is that we would do if we do hit the jackpot. And it just seems to me that we have needed more public comment, more pressure in order to get that crystallization of views. I would point out that the CIA, itself, in testimony to the Congress last week told us that we have a virtual disintegration going on in the Soviet Union. It seems to me that that gives us an opportunity, because I assume that if our CIA knows what the problem is, the Soviets are finally coming to the realization that they have a terrible situation on their hands, they have a no win situation, that they are going to have to reach to the outside world for help. We ought to define what that help would be if and when they're ready to actually produce on reform.

MR. MacNeil: What is the harm in being so off the dime if that's what the administration has been? I mean, Congressman Leach says this is a good time for caution. I mean, why isn't Mr. Bush playing it right, in your view, and what's the danger of being very conservative about this?

REP. OBEY: I don't want to get into an argument about whether the President's playing it wrong or right. What we're trying to do is to cooperatively push the administration forward and to let them know that if they are at a stage where they want to be innovative in dealing with the Soviet Union that they'll have no arguments in the Congress on this. I don't expect that any of this stuff is going to be popular but I think the White House needs to understand that we are prepared to help them deal with the situation, take advantage of opportunities in a constructive way by sending clear signals about what it is we would do.

MR. MacNeil: Congressman Leach, do you buy the argument that without significant help from the West that the Soviet political as well as the economic attempts at reform may collapse and that we would be faced with in the West, with a Soviet Union in danger of a reversion to a totalitarian state and an arms race and so on, do you buy that argument?

REP. LEACH: Well, we're dealing with a lot of conjecture here. It looks as if the Soviet Union is heading towards an unstabilized circumstance. It looks like there may be an internal implosion. On the other hand, I think we ought to be very clear that if we give a lot of assistance, we'll be defending the status quo that doesn't look to be very attractive either, and my sense is that if we really think it over, some aspects of Soviet lack of stability have led to reform and may be in our best interest. How else are we going to get Baltic freedom? How else are we going to get self-determination? How else are we going to get a people making decisions for themselves? If we simply buy off a government, that government has very strong instincts to maintain itself in power. You know, there's probably never been a leader in the history of the world that's used the rhetoric of democracy more to consolidate dictatorial power. That's what Gorbachev has done. We should be very cautious. He may use it for good purposes or bad, but let's bring the Soviet people into this equation, not just the American taxpayer.

REP. OBEY: Well, let me point out that's exactly what our subcommittee is suggesting. What we have indicated is that we ought to spell out what it is we would be willing to do if we get the kind of performance we want from the Soviets on arms controls, if we get the kind of performance we want from the Soviets on flexibility with respect to the Baltics, if we get the kind of performance from the Soviets that we want with respect to economic reform. So we are not about to buy off anybody. We're not going to give anybody any money for being a good boy. What we want the West to do is to crystalize our own thinking. From past experience, dealing with Poland for instance, it's been very apparent to me that these countries as they try to move to a market reform or to a market economy, for instance, often don't know how to do it, they don't know what kind of questions to ask. These are entirely different concepts to them. The best role we can play seems to be is not to hang a lot of money out there. I don't think we should hang a dime out there beforehand, but I do think we ought to spell out exactly what kind of reform we think is necessary before it makes economic sense for us to proceed and before it makes political sense for us to proceed. And I don't see the harm in that.

MR. MacNeil: What's wrong with that, Congressman Leach?

REP. LEACH: Well, a couple of modest problems. One is that we may be raising false expectations. It could lead to a rather angry anti-Western or anti-United States response. Secondly, I think it would be --

MR. MacNeil: Congressman Obey -- excuse me, Congressman Leach - - Congressman Obey, you don't mean the United States by itself in this, do you? You mean the group of seven or the --

REP. OBEY: Absolutely not. We're talking about a shared approach on the part of the West. It means theIMF, it means the World Bank, it means Germany, it means Europe. In general it means Japan. It certainly, if we could cooperate in fighting Saddam Hussein, if we could bail out Egypt virtually unilaterally, it seems to me that we could take the lead in putting together an explicit strategy so that the reformers in the Soviet Union know what it is that they can count on from the West if they succeed in winning their argument about reform --

MR. MacNeil: Okay.

REP. OBEY: -- and if the reactionaries also know what it's going to take on their part before we will listen to their plea.

MR. MacNeil: Congressman Leach, I interrupted you.

REP. LEACH: Let me just conclude in that regard by saying this is an extraordinarily rich country with gifted people. They've got to do things for themselves and that is one of the reasons why this emphasis on trade. Yes, we can offer them credits on things like agriculture, but the idea of massive foreign assistance to this country at this time I think it borders on incredulous.

MR. MacNeil: It seems to me -- I get quite a difference in emphasis between you two gentlemen. Congressman Leach, you seem to be saying, let's wait and see, see how they go and then we'll decide what to do. And Congressman Obey, you've been saying it's dangerous to wait, let's promise them what we could give them if they do certain things. In other words, you want to be a lot more activist than Congressman Leach.

REP. OBEY: I want us to be engaged. I want us to influence the process which is taking place in the Soviet Union right now. I don't want us to dangle out or promise one dime for non- performance. What I want us -- I want us to know what it is we want. The hardest person in the world to negotiate with is somebody who doesn't know what they want. Right now, very frankly, I don't think we have done enough thinking about it in the West so that we know exactly what it is we want the Soviet Union to do, so that we know what the standards are that we would judge them by in determining whether they deserve aid or not.

MR. MacNeil: Did I describe your views correctly, Congressman Leach, let's wait and see how they go along before we decide whether to give them any aid?

REP. LEACH: Well, you have, but let me again stress that this isn't just government to government decision making. We've had the history of the last half century has indicated that Communism doesn't work. They have a self-interest of their own to change. We're not to bribe them in a new direction of policy. We're not going to be able to dole out money without risking, among other things, a maintenance of the status quo. I think we risk the trend in independence movements in for example the Baltics and at the same time we risk driving away some incentives for internal change just by giving aid.

REP. OBEY: With all due respect, I would urge you to simply read what it is our committee produced.

MR. MacNeil: Okay.

REP. OBEY: We specifically asked -- we specifically set --

MR. MacNeil: I'm sorry to interrupt you --

REP. OBEY: -- the conditions for aid, an agreement with the Baltics on their right to secede if they decided.

MR. MacNeil: I'm sorry to break in, but that's our time. Thank you both, gentlemen. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, affirmative action, and celibacy and priests in the Catholic Church. CONVERSATION - COLLISION COURSE?

MR. LEHRER: Next tonight Part One of a Charlayne Hunter-Gault series of conversations about an increasingly divisive issue, affirmative action.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Given the current political divide over affirmative action, it may come as a surprise that it was first put on the table by Richard Nixon. In 1959, then Vice President Nixon recommended limited preferential treatment for qualified blacks seeking jobs with government contractors. In 1961, John F. Kennedy first used the term "affirmative action" and since then, all Democratic Presidents have supported and expanded the concept. In the wake of the 1964 Civil Rights Act outlawing job discrimination based on race, color, religion, or sex, programs to ensure equality of opportunity proliferated in both the public and private sectors. But critics complained that affirmative action led to reverse discrimination against white males and they found allies in the last two Republican Presidents, Reagan and Bush.

PRES. BUSH: Our administration in the 1991 Civil Rights Bill would forbid consideration of factors such as race and sex in employment practices.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: In fact, Bush's attack on quotas and his preference for civil rights measures that are color blind and race neutral have provided new emphasis for the current debate. Enter Washington Post Columnist William Raspberry. One of Raspberry's most provocative columns recently was prompted by a case at Georgetown Law School where a senior law student working as a temporary clerk in the law school's admissions office reported seeing files that black students had been admitted with an average score lower than that of whites. The issue prompted Raspberry to call for a new look at affirmative action. But Raspberry also raised what he called the hard question: When will the legacy of slavery and state-enforced discrimination cease to be a reasonable basis for preference? And then he wrote, "The problem is how to correct for America's racist history while maintaining a sense of present day fairness." It was an unusual position for a black person and when I spoke with Raspberry, I asked him first what had been the reaction to his column.

MR. RASPBERRY: I hid under the desk for a few days. I got beat up at home before I left for the office that morning. It's difficult stuff to talk about. Some of my friends, for instance, say, are you saying, Bill, that you believe the system is fair now -- well, of course not. I may be wrong about some things, but I think I'm not a certified idiot. I simply say that doing what we can to establish fairness as the rule is in our long-term interest. I think affirmative action is becoming one of the most divisive issues on the political scene today. There's some troublesome things about it and there are some very good and necessary things about it, but we really aren't talking about it and it just seems to me that it's time to put the thing on the table and let at least those of us who care about decency and fairness talk about what we ought to be doing, what we ought to be doing to overcome present day discrimination, to overcome a history of discrimination, and what we ought to do to achieve a greater level of diversity in the workplace. The problems come when you don't trust the people who are casting a wider net, when you think that they are casting a wide net for sort of window dressing purposes and they intend to go right on hiring their favored group that they would have hired in any case, and you start focusing, whether that was your intention or not at the beginning, you start looking to results as evidence of fairness.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And do you think that's wrong?

MR. RASPBERRY: There's nothing wrong with seeking outcomes. I see two things: One is that I see no, no element of urgency of fairness in the reparations idea of compensating anybody for his great, great grandfather's enslavement. I do see tremendous value and importance in eliminating to the extent we can discrimination based on race or other irrelevant considerations. But I see some value to institutions and workplaces in promoting diversity. Now the problem is that having all these things as it seems to me quite reasonable goals, you run into a different problem when you establish for a university seat or a job or a promotion a distinct set of criteria based on whatever you want to base them on and say these are the things that applicants for these positions must demonstrate, and then say, after the fact, that those who've demonstrated them the best may not have the place because somebody who demonstrated them less well has a history of discrimination in their background and therefore must get the spot.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But you do feel that the time has come, there's enough foment in the political arena to re-examine some of the assumptions.

MR. RASPBERRY: I think that's absolutely the case. I remember fifteen, twenty years ago during the periodic layoffs and cutbacks in Detroit, for instance, my cousins and other people I knew in Detroit being absolutely convinced that although there was an overall cutback in the labor force, the reason they were out of work is that they were black. If they had been white, they were absolutely convinced they'd be working. Today you've got a flip of that. All the white people in the world who have lost their jobs to layoffs and whose kids are coming out of college and can't find jobs think if they were minority, they'd have a position and that the reason they don't have a position is that some minority less qualified is taking their job. That's the reason Jesse Helms was able to -- with a God awful television commercial he did this race against Harvey Gant. That's the reason this thing was effective.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The one that dealt with the affirmative action thing --

MR. RASPBERRY: The one that said, you know, I really needed that job but the boss said he had to promote a minority. That's real for people. And it may not be real for the reasonably well off professionals, but for white blue collars and for people whose kids are coming out of college these days with very uncertain prospects, that's real.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But are you arguing against affirmative action based on some -- I mean, are you throwing the baby out with the bath water based on --

MR. RASPBERRY: Charlayne, you don't listen to me. I'm not arguing against it. I'm saying that we need to talk about it. That's a quite different thing.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: No, but --

MR. RASPBERRY: I'm saying there's some aspects of the way we do affirmative action that bother me.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Speak to the issue of stigma, because you raised that in your article, saying that a lot of blacks or some blacks you talked with felt stigmatized by affirmative action.

MR. RASPBERRY: I don't think I said that, but I've heard it said, and I understand. For instance, one that comes to mind is the fairly recent one of the University of Virginia Law School where there had not been since the time blacks had first been admitted, which is not all that many years, had not been a black member of the Law Review and some people decided that it was time to put an end to that and they, instead of using the tools, the criteria for admission to the Law Review, which was you test or you write your way on, they introduced a third law which had to do with, with ethnicity and physical handicap and some other things, and I remember so well the young woman who was just on the brink of making Law Review based on the standard criteria when the new rules took over and she was catapulted onto the Law Review under the new dispensation and she said, why are you doing this to me? You see, one of the things that happens -- the reason students want to be on Law Review is that they know that the big law firms look to Law Review as a statement, as an imprimatur, the university saying, this is, this is our top, these are our top people. And that means something to the law firms. But if you have two tracks, one for white kids, one for all kids, and another one for minority kids, the minority kid who makes Law Review is forever having to defend and explain which door he came through. If he came through the second door, if he came through the door marked minority, minorities only, the value is gone from it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You raised the issue of fairness several times. Do you accept the term as a legitimate description, reverse discrimination?

MR. RASPBERRY: It's certainly clear to me that I could describe circumstances that would amount to reverse discrimination, I don't think there's much question of that. When I talk about fairness, let me be clear why I talk about that. I can't enforce the special considerations. I can't enforce the things that people with the power can enforce. It seems to me that if you don't have the power an appeal to fundamental fairness is your best shot, and it coincidentally is the argument we've been making for essentially all of our history in this country. We've said that the things that have happened to us, the untoward things, are not because of any lack of merit we have, not because of anything else except that you have been desperately unfair to us, and we believe, at least until quite recently, that if you, if you work at being fair to us, we'll be okay. And I think some of us are starting to doubt that now. I don't doubt it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But some people are?

MR. RASPBERRY: I also don't doubt that they're not being fair to us yet, although it does seem clear to me that the fairness is as of a much different and much lower order than it was, than it has been during my lifetime. We're a lot closer to it than we were and closer than I might have dared being as recently as the '60s, for instance. We're not there yet and I don't think there's any point of kidding anybody. But we need to get closer, not -- we need to get closer to fairness rather than work down the false trail, it seems to me, of trying to balance unfairness. You -- the system was canted in your direction before, so now we've got to canter it in ours.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you think the argument or these feelings about affirmative action are at the heart of America's growing race problem?

MR. RASPBERRY: I think what exacerbates the debate now or the non-debate, because we're really not having it, is economic hard times. There wasn't much of a problem about, you know, doing some of the special things that we need to do to make sure that the work force is integrated, to make sure that we've got what we now call diversity when the economy was expanding.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You said that you didn't have any solutions but you thought that it was time to start discussing this. How does the dialogue begin and where?

MR. RASPBERRY: I think we need without an excess of name calling and questioning of motives to put small groups of people together to talk about it in as dispassionate a way as possible, say, what is it in all this that we can agree on that needs to be done. I don't think it's very difficult to talk about once we understand the need to talk about it and to understand that people have legitimate differences of opinions on this matter.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Otherwise what are we faced with in your view?

MR. RASPBERRY: What we're faced with I think is a political situation where the majority in this country will walk away from our aspirations and leave us with nothing but legitimate complaints with no proffer of solution from the general society. Politically it's starting to happen already. Judicially it's well underway. The Supreme Court -- I mean, right now we're trying to deal with an attempt in the Congress to restore some of what that Court took away in a half dozen decisions in 1989. The Court's not going to get better in terms of our prospects. And with a couple of more vacancies to be filled by a conservative Republican administration, every evidence says that it's going to get worse. And I think we need, we need some political support for our ideas for fixing things. We need to sell the idea that it's broken and here's the evidence that it's broken. Here are some tools to fix it. And if you look at 'em and talk to me, and listen to this closely, you'll see that the proposals we put out there are fundamentally fair.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, William Raspberry, thank you.

MR. RASPBERRY: It's a pleasure. FINALLY - MARRIED PRIESTS?

MR. MacNeil: Finally tonight we turn to the crisis facing the Roman Catholic Church, a shrinking and aging clergy. The average age of priests is now 58 and will climb to 65 by the turn of the century. That's prompting talk of options unthinkable a few years ago. Fred De Sam Lazaro of public station KTCA-Minneapolis, St. Paul began examining the situation in Minnesota earlier this year.

MR. LAZARO: At first glance, the Queen of Peace Catholic Church is a thriving worship community in the small Minnesota town of Cloque. About 1400 families keep the faith here each weekend, enough to keep the collection plate well endowed. From the other side of the altar, it is also an imposing number.

REV. SEAMUS WALSH: Can we know every person at every funeral? No, we can't. Is it possible that you can give the individual attention that you would like to give? We can't.

MR. LAZARO: A few years ago, there were four priests in Cloque's two Catholic Churches. Today Father Seamus Walsh alone ministers to one large parish, shuttling across town from one Mass to the next, between Queen of Peace and the smaller, once largely Polish parish. It's now called the Chapel. [FATHER SAYING MASS]

MR. LAZARO: Deacon Robert Szyman, a retired salesman and father of eight, helps lighten Walsh's load. He performs many tasks once exclusively done by priests.

ROBERT SZYMAN, Deacon: I do a lot of wake services. I've done a graveside funeral service when he wasn't available.

MR. LAZARO: What Szyman can't do is say Mass. Only priests can consecrate this sacrament. Finding and ordaining priests has become increasingly difficult for the Church. Father Walsh may be a respected spiritual leader for many parishioners, but he's a role model for very few of their sons.

FATHER WALSH: When I speak to the young people, to the men of our parish at confirmation age, and I speak to them all, and those who I see would be excellent candidates I suggest my line of work to them, and invariably they say, well, I sort of thought about it, but I'd like to be married, I'd like to have a family, and since I can't, I think that precludes being a priest for me.

MR. LAZARO: Many older men leave the priesthood because they share that desire for a family. Terry Dosh and his wife, Millicent, a former nun, are among 11,000 members of Corpus, an organization of married Catholic priests.

TERRY DOSH, Married Priest: At the age of 50, 40 percent or two out of every five priests have resigned and married, and you extrapolate it to my age, 60 years old, it means that under the age of 60, every other priest in this country is married.

MR. LAZARO: The exodus from the priesthood dates back to the mid '60s, soon after the Second Vatican Council. That historic gathering of Church leaders changed the liturgy from Latin to native languages, encouraged social activism for freedom and justice, and it also equated marriage and celibacy. For centuries, a celibate lifestyle was considered more virtuous than marriage. Celibacy is still required of Catholic priests and nuns. Will Pelant joined the priesthood at age 25. He felt drawn to it in high school, he says, but took time to think about it with a stint in the Marine Corps.

WILL PELANT, Seminarian: About two and a half years in the Marine Corps decided that I would want to try a seminary.

MR. LAZARO: Pelant took the time to make sure he was comfortable forsaking marriage for a celibate, possibly lonelier, lifestyle.

WILL PELANT: I see great advantages to being celibate in that forsaking the family in order to take care of a larger family so to speak in the parish.

MR. LAZARO: In running that parish family, today's seminarians are taught father may still know best, but lay people are actively involved. Unlike the isolated existence of their predecessors, seminarians mingle freely with lay Catholics with whom they'll eventually share management of parish communities.

KEVIN BOUCHER, Seminarian: Where before we relied on Father to do everything, we have many people working. There's a parish just North of here that has 36 people on professional staff, so the opportunities for lay ministry has expanded tremendously, and I think that's one genuine reason in why less people are choosing ordained ministry for their particular life.

MR. MATT: The problem is we've tended to judge the priesthood by secular standards and those standards bring the priesthood up short.

MR. LAZARO: Conservative Catholics like publisher Al Matt complain the active lay involvement in Church affairs has made priesthood seem too ordinary. He feels returning it to its once exalted status would attract plenty of recruits.

AL MATT, Newspaper Publisher: This is not a calling to be some glorified social worker. But it's a unique and sacred calling.

MR. LAZARO: And despite recruiting problems, it remains a steadfastly exclusive one. No married men and no women.

MR. MATT: Christ chose the first priests. He wanted to establish a priesthood that was gender neutral, that somehow he would have chosen disciples who would have been male and female, priests who are consecrated to be other Christs must necessarily be males.

TERRY DOSH, Married Priest: No, I don't agree with that at all. The fact is that the idea that a priest is supposed to image Jesus, not just the historical Jesus they're supposed to image, but the risen Jesus they're supposed to image, and the risen Christ, as we believe, does not have a gender to Him or Her.

MR. LAZARO: Dosh cites polls that show three out four lay Catholics approve of married priests and one out of every two approves of women priests. An informal sampling of congregants in Cloque, Minnesota seem to confirm that assertion.

WOMAN: Not women, I don't know -- I just, I guess I've just been brought up with men being priests, but I do see them being married.

MAN: I could very easily accept a woman as a priest, but then I've only been a Catholic for approximately 15 years.

MAN: I think there would be less controversy over married clergy than a woman priest, although many people in the parish with whom I speak don't see those as unreasonable alternatives.

MR. LAZARO: Father Walsh included, although he admits for those in the hierarchy of this tradition bound Church, the change is difficult.

FATHER WALSH: We have some women who are pastors in some of the local Protestant churches and they are just excellent, they do fabulous work, and I suspect that many of us priests would be very intimidated and rattled by someone so competent. In our Catholic tradition, a male priesthood has a lot of power. Being human, we don't want to surrender power. Being human, we don't even want to share power, much less surrender. And I think deep down were the truth to be told, this may be a question of power when all is said and done.

MR. LAZARO: But the more pressing question is one of numbers. Dosh predicts it will soon convince Church leaders to follow their Protestant counterparts in making celibacy optional.

TERRY DOSH: I do think that within a decade, presumably John Paul will die within this decade, this question will be moved towards resolution, at least towards a married male priesthood.

MR. LAZARO: Married priests may seem a radical departure for a Church bound as much by tradition as theology, but Dosh notes it will be a return to an even older tradition. Until the 12th Century, many priests, bishops and popes were married. None was female, however, and most collars agree that institution will take much longer. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again, the main stories of this Monday, President Bush and civil rights leaders traded charges over the new civil rights bill. The President also announced a one year extension of some trade privileges for the Soviet Union. The decision means the Soviets remain eligible for credits to buy U.S. grain. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night with conversation two about affirmative action, among other things. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.