TV Channel 2 Sun Dec 15 19:00:02 2002
7?
captioning sponsored by cbs,
duracell easytab--
now inserting your hearing aid
batteries is easier th ever
and ford--
the latest innovations,
the greatest tradition.
>> Stahl: Are you or are you not going to run in 2004?
>> I have decided not to run.
>> Stahl: You have decided not to run?
>> I decide i won't be a candidate for president in 2004.
>> Stahl: Tonight algore's stunning announcement and the reasons behind it.
>> Kroft: If and when the united states decides to take military action against iraq and get rid of saddam hussein, the iraqi dictator will leave something behind: Oil, and lots of it.
>> Man: It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil.
>> Kroft: Nothing to do with oil? If you ask people in the oil industry, you'll get a different answer. Is oil part of the equation here?
>> Man: Of course it is.
>> Kroft: No doubt.
>> Man: No doubt.
>> Bill clinton: I think that what catherine reynolds has done with this is, makes her one of the most important social entrepreneurs in the world. I think it's a huge, huge deal.
>> Wallace: So who is catherine reynolds? And what's the huge, huge deal that drew the likes of henry kissinger, afghanistan's harmid karzai, pakistan's benazir bhutto, and russia's mikhail gorbachev, among others, to spend a weekend with her in dublin? Stay with us. We'll tell you.
>> The question is how much do you value diversity as an education tool for your students?
>> Bradley: Tonight tell university of michigan professor cal cohens if of diversity a long time liberal but the vufrt most vocal opponent using race in admissions.
>> It's evil not meant to be evil but it's fundamentally wrong in a good society, what we always believed treat the races without discriminating on the basis of skin color.
>> I'm mike wallace.
>> I'm morley safer.
>> I'm ed bradley.
>> I'm steve kroft.
>> I'm lesley stahl. Those stories and andy rooney, tonight on "60 minutes."
>> Sta: Almost exactly two years ago, al gore gave up his fight over the 2000 presidential election. After the biggest electoral crisis in american history, and after 36 days of legal and political wrangling, he finally conceded to george bush, and receded from public view. In the last month, however, gore began to remount the public stage with a book tour and a series of interviews-- steps widely seen as the beginning of another run for the presidency. But he has refused to say whether he intends to challenge george bush to a rematch in 2004, until tonight. You have been all over television all over the newspapers for this last week. You have given back to back interviews, answered virtually every question except one and that is, are you or are you not going to run in 2004. Are you going to run?
>> Well, i've decided not to run and i....
>> Stahl: You decided not to run?
>> I have decide i won't be a candidate for president in 2004. My family all gathered here in new york city over the last few days and i found that i've come to closure on this. I don't think it's the right thing for me to be a candidate in 2004.
>> Stahl: Well, i think a lot of people are just going to be bold over, you're not a candidate, you have been looking like a candidate. Tell us how you have arrived at what i think is going to be a stunningly surprising decision.
>> I have run for president twice and there are many other exciting ways to serve. I intend to remain actively involved in politics. I want to help whoever the democratic party's nominee is in 2004 to win the election. I'm going to explore a lot of other opportunities.
>> Stahl: The ambition to be the commander in chief, the ambition to sit in the oval office that is gone?
>> Well, i personally have the energy and the drive and the ambition to make another campaign. But i don't think it's the right thing for me to do. I think that a campaign that would be a rematch between myself and president bush would inevitably involve a focus on the past that would in some measure distract from the focus on the future that i think all campaigns have to be about.
>> Stahl: You say you had the ambition and still have it even you said right?
>> Right.
>> Stahl: Still have the dream?
>> Never say never, but i make this decision in the full knowledge and awareness that if i don't run, this time, which i won't run in 2004, that's probably the last opportunity i'll ever have to n for president. Don't know that for sure but probably it is.
>> Stahl: You think you could beat the president?
>> Look i think i could but the truth is leslie anybody who tells you they know what's going to happen two years from now what would happen, it's just unrealistic.
>> Stahl: I'm still trying to understand why you won't run. The last campaign was an extremely difficult one. And while i have the energy and drive to go out there and do it again, i think that there are a lot of people within the democratic party who felt exhausted by that, who felt like, okay, i don't want to go through that again. And i'm frankly sensitive to that feeling.
>> Stahl: A democrat, you believe, could beat president bush?
>> I absolutely believe that. And think about what happened in 1991, when the first president bush was just as high, well higher in the public opinion poll.
>> Stahl: But not sustained like this.
>> That's true but nevertheless he was at 91% or something. I felt then that the economy was bad and it could turn back toward democrats. It ultimately did and very few people thought that. I feel the same way now.
>> Stahl: Now, you have democrats already out there. You have kerry and gephardt and...
>> Edwardsnd lieberman will now run.
>> Stahl: If so which of the democrats do you think has the best shot?
>> I don't know.
>> Stahl: So you don't have a feeling of what do you have a feeling of what will will take what a democrat has to look like and stand for to beat president bush?
>> I think there has to be a unrelenting focus on the economy.
>> Stahl: Why do you think the economy is just going to to inspireal downward is that what you're saying?
>> The think that the policys they're committed to don't work and i think if they don't change, which i don't think they're likely to, that it will be apparent to people.
>> Stahl: So this is it? You were in the house, senate for two terms.
>> The house for 8 years, the senate for 8 years.
>> Stahl: Ran for president twice?
>> Ran for vice president.
>> Stahl: Vice president of the united states for 8 years and this is it?
>> I had another 8-year plan in mind but it didn't work out.
>> Stahl: Are you surprised in way, yourself you're doing this?
>> Yeah. I've faced the decision on running for president twice before. And both times i have decided to jump in, and there was aig part of me that sort of assumed that that's what i would do this time around.
>> Stahl: You've said i won't be a candidate this time.
>> But i have also said....
>> Stahl: What about 2008?
>> I also said i make the decision in the full awareness it probably means i will never had another opportunity to run for president. And i'm not i'm not planning on some future race.
>> Stahl: So you'll grow your rd back?
>> Don't have a plan to do that, but don't rule it out.
>> kroft: If and when the united states decides to take military action against iraq and get rid of saddam hussein, the iraqi dictator will leave something behind: Oil, and lots of it, 112 billion barrels of proven reserves, the second-largest supply in the world behind saudi arabia. What happens to all that oil if saddam goes, and what role is it playing in the current showdown with iraq? If you ask anyone in the bush administration about the importance of oil in the current crisis, as i did of secretary of defense donald rumsfeld a few weeks ago during our interview for infinity radio, you get this answer. Mr. Secretary, what do you say to people who think this is about oil?
>> Rumsfeld: Nonsense. It just isn'T. There are certain things like that, myths that are floating around. I'm glad you asked. It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil.
>> Kroft: Nothing? If you ask people in the oil industry, you'll get a slightly different. They'll tell you it's got something to do with oil. Is oil part of the equation here?
>> Phillip ellis: Of course, it is.
>> Kroft: No doubt?
>> Ellis: No doubt.
>> Kroft: Phillip ellis is head of global oil and gas operations for boston consulting, based in london, and he travels the world planning strategies for large international oil companies. Ten days ago we went with him to get a glimpse of saddam hussein's oil, traveling north from kuwait city on what is still called the highway of death, towards the iraqi border.
>> Ellis: We are driving on this road....
>> Kroft: We were the guest kuwait petroleum. And one of its top engineers, sarah akbar, who got us access to a vast stretch of desert that is off-limits to everyone but oil workers and an ever-growing number of american and allied military forces, who are gathered near the iraqi border directly to the west conducting live-fire training exercises. So this part of the country is completely closed?
>> Completely closed.
>> Kroft: To how long?
>> Until military ablgs.
>> Kroft: Until further notice?
>> Until further notice.
>> Kroft: Our destination was an outpost the kuwaitis call ritka, where a sand berm and miles of barbed wire and electrified fence now define the long- disputed border between kuwait and iraq. This is where saddam's troops first crossed the border 12 years ago and captured the ramallah oil field, which is half in kuwait and half in iraq. How important is this real estate to the world oil economy?
>> Ellis: Oh, this real estate here straddling kuwait and iraq is... Is very important. It's a giant field. And it's, you know, maybe got 3%, 4% of the world's oil resoces pretty much under our feet.
>> Kroft: Really? Is that an iraqi rig over here?
>> Ellis: That's an iraqi rig. Evidently, what they're doing is every time a kuwait... Kuwait oil drills a well on this side, they move this rig to drill a well directly opposite it.
>> Kroft: In a line?
>> Ellis: In a line. You know, either because they want to say, you know, it's a tit-for-tat sort of thing or because they think that, you know, "well, if the kuwaitis know that, you know, this is the best place to drill, maybe we ought to drill here." Interesting thing is most of the drilling, a lot of the drilling in iraq now, is being done by russian firms. Have no idea whether this is a russian rig. Be, you know, very curious to know. But there's a lot of... A lot of activity going on on that side of the border.
>> Kroft: This was as close as we could get, but just a few hundred yards off in the distance, you see iraqi oil workers flaring off the natural gas escaping from their oil wells.
>> Ellis: It is the biggest field in iraq, and it is one of the biggest fields in the world.
>> Kroft: Because of the u.N. Embargo and a 20-year estrangement from western oil technology, ellis says iraq is producing less than half the oil it's capable of. He doesn't believe the u.S. Is interested in controlling iraqi oil fields even if it could. The united states, he says, now only gets about 12% of its oil from the middle east and is only interested insuring reliable supplies at stable prices. But if there were a regime change in iraq, its oil would become a prize worth billions of dollars for nations and corporations on the winning side of any conflict.
>> Ellis: If saddam's out of power and there's a friendly western government, there's going to be technology coming from all over the world into iraq, which they desperately need to... To rebuild their... Their industry.
>> Kroft: And presumably, some u.S. Participation in that rebuilding and reconstruction.
>> Ellis: No doubt. No doubt. There's plenty of room in iraq for every... Every nationality of... Of oil company and oil service company and... And financial institution. There's an enormous amount of oil in iraq that hasn'T... Hasn't been discovered yet, huge amount. And not only that exploration, but the rebuilding of what's already there is going to take more capital than any one country, or certainly any small handful of companies, could possibly muster. It's going to be a global effort.
>> Kroft: It may take a decade or more, but ellis says all that iraqi oil is going to come on the market one way or another. It's just a question of who gets most of the business. If saddam could somehow satisfy the united states and the world that he has no weapons of mass destruction, sanctions would be lifted, and most of the business would go to russian and french oil companies who have already signed contingency agreements with saddam. If saddam is deposed and a new government installed, it could be a whole new ball game. Ahmed chalabi, head of the iraqi national congress, an umbrella organization of iraqi opposition groups, says all oil contracts negotiated by saddam's regime will be up for review.
>> Chalabi: Any contracts are either illegal or unfair, and no iraq government is bound by them once saddam goes. This is our belief. And, of course, it is up to the iraqi government in the future to decide those things.
>> Kroft: It is impossible to know say whether chalabi or the iraqi national congress would be part of a new iraqi government, but chalabi says he has already had informal discussions with international oil companies eager to explore opportunities.
>> Kroft: Can you tell me which oil companies?
>> Chalabi: No.
>> Kroft: American oil companies?
>> Chalabi: Some.
>> Kroft: The U.S. Government wouldn't allow american oil companies to deal with saddam, and it's unlikely he would have signed contracts with them anyway. But chalabi makes no secret of his willingness to let americans share in the profits of a post- saddam oil boom.
>> Chalabi: American companies did very well by abstaining from dealing with the illegal regime of saddam. And american companies, we expect, will play an important and leading role in the future oil situation in iraq.
>> Kroft: So you would be willing to tear up the contracts, let's say, of the russians or the french and give those deals to the united states?
>> Chalabi: It's up to the future iraqi government to do that. But my view is that american companies must be introduced and given a chance to... To bid and to negotiate for the same things that these people do. The future iraqi government... The government, iraq will be grateful to the united states for helping the iraqi people liberate themselves and getting rid of saddam.
>> Kroft: Those existing contracts that french and russian companies have to develop oil in iraq are among the strongest bargaining chips the united states has in building and maintaining an international coalition to push saddam out of power. And former c.I.A. Director james woolsey believes the united states should continue to use them in the weeks and months ahead.
>> Woolsey: I do think that our french and russian friends, in the lead-up to whatever may happen in iraq, really ought to hear two things. The nice thing is that the united states has no interest in dominang the future of iraqi oil. But I think they should realize that if they create major obstacles to freeing iraq from saddam hussein's dictatorship, and there is a new government, and if that government should come to us some time, let's say late next year, and say, "you know, we're getting these calls from these russian and french oil companies; should we call them back?" I think if i were in the government, I might say, "you know, I can't seem to find that phone number here anyplace."
>> Kroft: Do you believe that the united states has said this to the russians and to the french?
>> Woolsey: I don't know. I rather imagine we've said the carrot side of it. Whether we've said the stick side, I'm not sure.
>> Kroft: There has been plenty of speculation, but little proof, that this is exactly what was said behind the scenes at the united nations security council last month when the U.S. Persuaded both russia and france to support a tough american- backed resolution ordering saddam to disarm or face war. Not long afterwards, president bush said russia's economic interests would be honed. This week, saddam apparently retaliat, canceling the three largest contracts with russian oil companies. Daniel yergin is chairman of cambridge energy associates. He is also a pulitzer prize- winning author, and a leading expert on the history of the oil industry.
>> Yergin: It doesn't really matter whether it's an american company, a russian company producing that oil, as long as the oil is being produd with some kind of reliability and flowing into the world market.
>> Kroft: Yergin believes iraq's oil, post-saddam, would be developed by lots of international oil companies working together in a consortium. The real issue he says is oil security. And is saddam a threat to that security?
>> Yergin: Saddam hussein has a unique place in the annals of oil, in that he has invaded two other oil-producing countries. In 1980, hinvaded iran. In 1990, he invaded kuwait. And it was pretty clear that it his ambition was to dominate the oil supplies of the persian gulf.
>> Woolsey: When he had conquered kuwait and was right on the border of saudi arabia in the summer of 1990, he was about 100 miles away from controlling over half of the world's oil. I think that's the only sense in which it's about oil. He can dominate the middle east with weapons of mass destruction.
>> Kroft: If saddam hussein is removed and a democratic government takes power in iraq, isn't that a huge improvement in the strategic landscape for the united states as far as oil is concerned?
>> Ellis: I think it is. I think it is. So, given that the region is going to see several regime changes coming up in the next decade, having a partner would be a good counter to the... At least the possible downsides that we might see in other countries in the region.
>> Kroft: Phillip ellis is talking about saudi arabia. In a post 9/11 world, there are serious questions to be raised about the kingdom's political stability, uncertainty about the future of the saudi royal family. Right now saudi arabia pumps about 7.4 million barrels of crude every day, about 10% of the world's output. A fully operational oil industry in iraq, under a new regime, with lots of western investment might be able to produce up to six million barrels a day within the next decade. That would weaken saudi arabia's dominant role in opec, put downward pressure on oil prices, and lessen u.S. Reliance on saudi oil. You could make the argument that the united states seems to be distancing itself from saudi arabia, not counting on saudi arabia anymore.
>> Ellis: Well, I think it's... I think we're spreading risk, actually. It's important not to have all your eggs in one basket.
>> wallace: Who is catherine reynolds, and why has she been giving away millions of dollars? Last weekend, her foundation announced its biggest donation yet, $100 million, tthe kennedy center for the performing arts, accompanied by a standing ovation from president george w. Bush-- a far different reaction from two years ago when she tried to give a mere $38 million to the smithsonian to create an exhibit to honor american heroes and was accused of trying to buy her way into the upper reaches of washington society and worse, of trying to buy herself a piece of the sacred smithsonian. Who is this multimillionaire whose ambitions are hardly modest?
>> Catherine reynolds: We want you to change the world.
>> Wallace: She was center stage last summer in dublin, ireland, at an event she called the international achievement summit. Under heavy security, presidents and prime ministers, past and present, from around the world, arrived-- ehud barak, benazir bhutto, mikhail gorbachev, and hamid karzai from afghanistan. But the spotlight was never far from the one person whose face you don't recognize-- catherine reynolds, the biggest sponsor of this event, sandwiched between rock star bono and bill clinton.
>> Clinton: I think that what catherine reynolds has done with this is... Makes her one of the most important social entrepreneurs in the world. I think it's a huge, huge deal.
>> Wallace: It ihuge, and it's called the academy of achievement, a nonprofit organization created to introduce impressionable students to real-life role models. 200 graduate students from more than 40 countries have been flown here to spend the weekend with a virtual who's who of top achievers.
>> And have you both met quincy jones?
>> Wallace: Academy members-- and there are more than 1,000 of them, as you can see on their web site-- include nobel prize winners, presidents, scientists, astronauts, sports heroes, authors, entertainment figures, even a few journalists, including me. Although catherine is front and center, the C.E.O. Of the academy of achievement is her husband, wayne reynolds. His father created the academy more than 40 years ago.
>> Catherine reynolds: We know we change lives with this. We know we touch the souls of young people.
>> Wallace: Which brings us, of course, to the question: How did a girl from working class family in jacksonville, florida...
>> Catherine reynolds: Have you met the president of columbia?
>> Wallace: ...Winds up surrounded by rld leaders and oscar-winning actors?
>> Catherine reynolds: What are you going to talk about, jeremy?
>> Wallace: Her unlikely success story began with a struggling student loan business.
>> Catherine reynolds: When i started there, it was bankrupt, technically bankrupt.
>> Wallace: But ms. Reynolds, a certified public accountant at the time, was brought in to try to save the company, and she did. And when the financial services giant wells fargo brought it 12 years later, ms. Reynolds' share of the sale was reported to be close to $100 million.
>> Catherine reynolds: I didn't marry money. I didn't inherit money. I actually made it.
>> Wallace: The rest of the money generated by that once- bankrupt company-- almost $500 million-- went into a charitable foundation that bears her name.
>> Catherine reynolds: Oh, my goodness.
>> Wallace: And it didn't take long before the catherine B. Reolds foundation began to hand out millions of dollars to fund exhibits at the national gallery of art and performances at the kennedy center. She chaired the gala ball of the national symphony orchestra. But behind her back, certain elements in washington society were furious at the vip treatment ms. Reynolds and her husband, wayne, were getting.
>> Wayne reynolds: The society writers from the "washington post" said to me cathy has unnerved washington society, because these people used to write checks for $1,000, $500, siin the front row, bask in their celebrity. She said, "wait a minute. Let's elevate everything. I'll give $50,000. Let's make a difference here." And they're like, "oh, my gosh."
>> Catherine reynolds: Well, and we also believe that the people that give the largest donation should sit in the front row. I mean, I know that's a novel thought, but, you know, we thought that should happen.
>> Wallace: No excuses.
>> Catherine reynolds: No. Why? Why? I'm not going to apologize for who I am.
>> Wallace: There has been a great deal of talk about how you've tried to buy your way into washington celebrity.
>> Catherine reynolds: I appreciate that I'm the new kid on the block, but I've got to tell you, the people that are saying these things, they don't know me. As you well know, wayne and i know heads of countries. We know nobel prize winners.
>> Wallace: And that is what gave catherine reynolds the idea for her biggest donation yet-- why not showcase the life stories of these nobel prize winners and achievers at the smithsonian where young people could be inspired, not just once a year, but every day, a hall of achievement?
>> Frank mccourt: Well, I think it's a very good idea to have a hall of achievement, especially if i'm in it.
>> Wallace: Pulitzer prize winning author frank mccourt, who was at the dublin summit, is just the sort of achiever the reynolds had in mind. But washington's nose is out of joint. She's a social climber. She's trying to buy her way into...
>> Mccourt: Well, that's what they said in the old days, in the 19th century about the robber barons. They had to buy their way into society-- andrew carnegie, and the vanderbilts, and the rockefellers, they all did that, and they were resisted. They were nouveau riche in the beginning, and i suppose cathy would be regarded as nouveau riche, but she has a heart of gold.
>> Wallace: And when catherine reynolds announced her $38 million gift to the smithsonian, her critics had a field day. Headline: "Disgrace at the smithsonian. The smithsonian for sale." Gifts that can warp a museum. Were you blindsided by the criticism?
>> Catherine reynolds: Oh, sure, absolutely.
>> Wallace: Hurt?
>> Catherine reynolds: Oh, sure. I really think it's sort of a sad thing that this gift, which was really meant to be about inspiring and educating young people, has turned into this controversy, and so misrepresented.
>> Wallace: The problem came from the fact that catherine reynolds wanted to do more than simply hand over a check. She thought the smithsonian's national museum of american history, where visitors can see judy garland's shoes from the "wizard of oz," teddy roosevelt's stuffed bear, julia child's kitchen, and abe lincoln's famous stovepipe hat, she thought that a history museum should do more.
>> Catherine reynolds: Do you see a story about who any individual is? I mean, you see their stuff, you see a hat, but do you know who they are? Do you know what books inspired them? Do you know what passion and perseverance they had to have about whatever it was they accomplished to be in the american history museum? In our opinion, our humble, humble opinion, there was a place, or should have been a place there, to highlight individuals as opposed to things.
>> Eric foner: Some curators were afraid that this was going to become simply a celebrity exhibit.
>> Wallace: Dr. Eric foner, professor of history at columbia university, was on a commission appointed by the smithsonian to look into a variety of problems at the museum, including the controversy over ms. Reynolds' donation.
>> Foner: I would say to ms. Reynolds that her willingness to donate money to promote the public awareness of american history is to be commended, but it doesn't mean that the smithsonian has to simply accept fully her vision of how american history ought to be presented because she's giving money.
>> Catherine reynolds: Oh, i had a very clear contract. This isn't "let me give you $38 million, and then let's talk about what we're going tdo with it."
>> Wallace: The fact is, ms. Reynolds did have a signed contract that gave her, in effect, the right to help decide what would be in the exhibit she was sponsoring. But when they learned about that, more than 70 curators and historians at the museum fired off an angry letter of protest.
>> Catherine reynolds: I read where one smithsonian curator said, "how dare her come in and tell us what to do in our museum."
>> Wayne reynolds: Right.
>> Catherine reynolds: Well, that's no more his museum than it's my museum. I mean, this is america's museum. And, you know, shame on me for thinking what a great place to showcase the current day heroes and role models for young people.
>> Foner: The curators, I think, were put off by what apparently was just an off-handed remark when ms. Reynolds was asked, "well, who would you like to have in this exhibit?" And she mentioned oprah winfrey and a couple of people, and it sort of seemed like she was just talking about an exhibit of, you know, contemporary celebrities.
>> Wallace: But ms. Reynolds and her husband, wayne, insist the curators were opposed to any exhibit honoring individuals, no matter who they were.
>> Catherine reynolds: The curators wou say to us, "well, this is just a hall of big egos."
>> Wayne reynolds: We were told that the heritage of individual accomplishment in america is meaningless.
>> Wallace: No, no, no, wait.
>> Wayne reynolds: That individuals never mattered in american history, only social movements mattered, that only institutions mattered. The american revolution matters, of course. So, even the civil rights movement. You won't find anything on martin luther king there, because they say martin luther king, "yeah, he was great." But somebody else would have come along. It was the wave of the moment that swept history, but that individual didn't matter."
>> Wallace: You really mean that you were told this by the curators with whom you worked?
>> Wayne reynolds: Oh, sure.
>> Catherine reynolds: Many times. Curators refused to work on our project, refused.
>> Wayne reynolds: I never met people like this who said individuals never mattered in history. My whole career, my whole life, cathy's whole life, is based on one person can make a difference in america.
>> Wallace: Ralph nader, also an academy of achievement memr, says he doesn't understand why everyone is making such a fuss over the exhibit the reynolds were trying to create.
>> Nader: The smithsonian takes a lot of money from big corporations who have certain strings attached to their exhibitions.
>> Wallace: Do they?
>> Nader: Yes, indeed. And nothing is made of it.
>> Wallace: Nader says the real scandal is that the smithsonian has sold out to corporate america.
>> Nader: There's been more criticism of catherine reynolds than all these corporate contributors and donators and concessionaires that are commercializing the smithsonian as never before.
>> Wallace: When i go to the smithsonian, there are corporate sponsors all over the museum. The flag is sponsored by ralph lauren. The imax theater was just renamed the lockheed martin theatre. The insect zoo is named after the founder of orkin pest control. Doesn't that upset the sensibilities of the curators?
>> Foner: I think it should upset the sensibilities of anybody, but the smithsonian leadership will say, "look, if congress gave enough money to do this, we wouldn't have to go out and raise all this private funding. And if private funders give money, they're going to want to have their name up there." So you know, the finger-pointing can go on and on forever.
>> Wallace: But catherine reynolds finally decided she wasn't going to take it anymore, and she withdrew her $38 million gift. Why did you finally decide to take back the money?
>> Catherine reynolds: Oh, that was painful, mike. That was really painful. We had worked for what, a year and a half, trying to make it work.
>> Wallace: Of course, we wanted the smithsonian to tell us how this went so terribly wrong, and we wanted to know why the curators were so opposed to her exhibit, but no one there would talk to us.
>> Wayne reynolds: They didn't talk to us either.
>> Wallace: What do you mean, they didn't talk to you?
>> Wayne reynolds: We asked time and time again, bring all the curators together. Let's talk to them face to face, so we can explain to them that.
>> Catheri reynolds: That we're not trying to quote- unquote "hijack" the smithsonian. We're not trying to tell this pollyannish view of history. We just want to do an exhibition. We want to help you, we want to fund it.
>> Wallace: When we last talked to ms. Reynolds, we asked her about a rumor floating around washington. You're about to give some huge amount, I'm told, to the kennedy center.
>> Catherine reynolds: You know what? I actually...
>> Walce: You can't talk about it?
>> Catherine reynolds: Yeah, i don't want to, because it's not done. Because they may want to do something, we may want to and...
>> Wallace: And after they see this...
>> Catherine reynolds: Nobody may want to take our money. We'll be begging people, "please."
>> Wallace: Well, as we said at the beginning, the kennedy center welcomed her $100 million donation as a kind of christmas gift to our nation's capitol.
>> bradley: Just this month, the supreme court agreed to hear a case we reported on two years ago. Three white plaintiffs had sued the university of michigan and its law school for giving an advantage to minorities in the admissions process. The supreme court ruling will determine whether public colleges and universities may continue to use racial preferences in choosing their students, preferences which are intended to overcome past injustices to minorities and to create a more diversified student body. But the plaintiffs in michigan say those affirmative action policies are illegal and unfair. One of those plaintiffs is jennifer gratz, who grew up in southgate, michigan. From childhood, it was her dream to attend college at the university of michigan in ann arbor. Thought you'd get in pretty easily?
>> Gratz: I thought that i had made myself, i'd done everything that i possibly could do.
>> Bradley: Gratz had a 3.8 grade-point average and scored in the top 20% on her college boards. She was a member of the national honor society, vice president of the student council, a varsity cheerleader for four years, the class historian, and even found time to volunteer as both a tutor in math and as a senior citizen escort. But for the university of michigan, it wasn't enough. She was rejected.
>> Gratz: Right away, i definitely knew that there was something wrong.
>> Bradley: Why?
>> Gatz: Well, it... It's common knowledge. They make it known that they use race and that there is a double standard.
>> Bradley: The university is unapologetic about its use of race in admissions. According to michigan's president, lee bollinger, it's the right thing to do.
>> Bollinger: The basic idea is that students learn better when they're in an environment in which not everyone is just like them. And we take into account a host of factors. Race and ethnicity are two, but there are many others.
>> Bradley: How big a factor does race play?
>> Bollinger: The question of bigness or smallness of the factor is not the way to look at it. The question is how much do you value diversity as an educational tool for your students?
>> Bradley: But don't tell professor carl cohen the question is simply one of valuing diversity. Professor cohen has been a member of michigan's faculty for more than 40 years. He's a long-time liberal, but he's also the university's most vocal opponent of using race in admissions.
>> Cohen: It's evil. It's not meant to be evil, but it's fundamentally wrong in a good society. That's what we always believed: Treat the races without discriminating on the basis of skin color.
>> Bradley: Seven years ago, professor cohen read an article pointing out that the acceptance rates for blacks at many major universities was higher than that of whites.
>> Cohen: So i asked my colleagues what was going on here, and they told me it was confidential. And that troubled me. So after pressing and pressing, but not succeeding, I finally used the freedom of information act.
>> Bradley: Professor cohen showed us the form which he says clearly shows that whites were being discriminated against.
>> Cohen: There's a little line up at the top of the form. It says "use the top line for majority students; use the middle and bottom line for minority students." I mean, it was shocking.
>> Bradley: What the university was doing was ranking the more than 20,000 applicants who apply each year by their high school grades and s.A.T. Scores. Those whose combined scores were above a certain level were admitted. Those below were rejected.
>> Cohen: For the white students who get the top line, it's reject. And for the black students or the hispanic students who get the bottom line, it's admit. So in cell after cell, it's reject and admit, reject and admit, reject and admit-- cell after cell after cell.
>> Bradley: Shortly after the documents professor cohen uncovered became public, the university stopped using them and changed to a system that gives applicants points for various criteria. For example, a perfect g.P.A. Is worth 80 points; having a parent who went to the school is worth four; scholarship athletes are awarded 20 points; a perfect s.A.T. Score is worth 12 points; an outstanding essay gets you one; and being a minority is worth 20. Liz barry is the university's deputy general counsel. Is being a minority 20 times more important than writing an outstanding essay?
>> Barry: Absolutely not. That's not how we think of that, ed.
>> Bradley: 20 times the number of points.
>> Barry: It...
>> Bradley: You get one point for an outstanding essay, 20 points if you're a minority.
>> Barryuh-huh. When our admissions counselors are looking at a file, they open it up, and they take into account all these things. They'll look at the essay, and our system right now only affords one point for an outstanding essay, but it doesn't mean that that's all that essay means.
>> Bradley: It means one point, yeah.
>> Barry: In essays, it means one point in this.
>> Bradley: You're not going to give them two points for it.
>> Barry: But back to your sort of basic point, race-- race matters in our admissions process. It matters because we know when we bring together a diverse student body, we get educational benefits. We've been very up front about that. It's lawful, according to the supreme court, and it's part of our process.
>> Bradley: In 1978, the supreme court ruled in the regents of california vs. Bakke that race could be considered as a factor in university admissions so long as it wasn't a deciding factor. The university insists that the way it uses race in admissions complies with the law.
>> Tom turner: In my case, i probably wouldn't have been accepted by the university of michigan had there not been affirmative action.
>> Bradley: Tom turner spent his childhood in poverty, moving from state to state with a mother who had difficulty holding on to a job. He did manage to graduate from high school, but with a mediocre record.
>> Turner: I'm a 3.9, phi beta kappa, honor student in american culture now. Nobody could have possibly predicted that based on my high school scores or anything that came from high school.
>> Bradley: We brought together turner and a group of other students with opposing views on affirmative action. Rory diamond is chairman of the college republicans.
>> Diamond: For every single student who gets in because of affirmative action, there's exactly one other student out there going to some other school who doesn't get to be on "60 minutes," who doesn't get their story to be told, who didn't get in because they were white. They never had their shot to come here and get a 3.9 and be phi beta kappa.
>> Bradley: Shomari terrelonge- stone is now a graduate.
>> Terrelonge-stone: There's affirmative action for athletes, those who can shoot a basketball well or run a touchdown. So why are we attacking race- based affirmative action?
>> Cohen: Race is not to be analogized to legacies or athletics.
>> Bradley: And lawyers at the center for individual rights, a conservative think tank in washington, D.C., Agree. The center is responsible for bringing the lawsuits that did away with affirmative action in both texas and washington state. They are bringing a class-action lawsuit against the university of michigan because they're convinced the university is violating the law. Two of their plaintiffs are jennifer gratz and this woman, barbara gruder, who was rejected by the university's law school in 1997. Uder, a mother of two, put herself through college working nights while maintaining a straight-"a" average. For over 15 years, she has run her own health-care consulting business. She says her rejection was unfair.
>> Gruder: I have two children. And we have always taught them that discrimination was wrong, that people have a right to equal treatment. Our beliefs about equal treatment and equal protection, are those platitudes or are those real?
>> Bradley: Jeffrey lehman is the dean of michigan's law school.
>> Lehman: I understand barbara gruder's disappointment. I understand that she wanted to come here. I appreciate that. But it's not a good lesson for her to teach her children to blame the fact that she did not get in on something that wasn't the cause.
>> Bradley: So race had nothing to do with barbara gruder not getting in?
>> Lehman: That's correct.
>> Bradley: But professor cohen says gruder wasn't competing on an even playing field, and he showed us these law school admissions records from 1995.
>> Cohen: Here, 51 applications, one admit; 61 applications, one admit-- 2%, 3% chance of getting in, not easy. That was for caucasian americans. That's their word language, not mine; this is their sheet. And they prepared another sheet for african americans. Same cells, same scores: Ten applicants, ten admits; five applications, five admits-- 100%, instead of 2% opportunity, which is what the case is for whites. 100% for blacks. It... Oh, come on.
>> Barry: Look, they would like to get people sort of caught up in the intricacies of our process, when the fundamental issue at stake here is: Are colleges and universities going to be allowed to take race and ethnicity into account in their admissions process to pursue important educational aims?
>> Lehman: When we teach our students about difficult issues such as whether it's appropriate for police to be able to use race profiles when they stop people in traffic stops, when we ask our students whether it's appropriate to decriminalize crack cocaine, the discussion, the analysis, the learning that takes place is better in a racially diverse classroom.
>> Bradley: What makes you most angry about what's happened to you?
>> Gruder: Just the fact that someone has the arrogance to think that they have the right to treat me differently, to take away my rights. It is that more than anything.
>> Bradley: Do you still think that you're doing the right thing by taking the university to court?
>> Gratz: I definitely think i'm doing the right thing. I think that the policy needs to be changed. I don't think that there was a fair process
>> bradley: You think the university is going to win this lawsuit?
>> Bollinger: I do.
>> Bradley: Why?
>> Bollinger: Because at the end of the day, I think we have a policy that is consistent with the... With the country's values. This is something the united states can and should be proud of. Dealing with race is hard. Every 50 years, perhaps, in our history, we'vetruggled with this, tried to deal with it and improve and then perhaps grown tired and backed away. This is not the moment in which to back away.
>> Bradley: A supreme court ruling is expected by the end of june. Those outstanding essays, by the way, are now worth three points. I'm ed bradley. We'll be back next week with another edition of "60 minutes." Wednesday on "60 minutes ii," bob simon with the story of this seasons biggest blockbusters. They're not movies, they're video games, and they're for adults. Here's what else is coming from cbs news.
>> This week on "the early show" you'll see hugh grant cameron diaz and ontravolta and the million dollar winner of survivor. Wake up to what's new on "the early show" early.
>> Rather: On the "cbs evening news" are battered women killing in self-defense guilty of murder tomorrow the groundbreaking law <