Meeting With Student Leaders Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session.

THE PRESIDENT. First of all, let me welcome you to the White House and to an opportunity for us to let you know what is going on in our own administration and for you to give us advice on what our administration ought to do in the future. I understand you've had good meetings with my staff members and others. This is very helpful to us and, I hope, to you.

I'd like to say just a few words from the perspective of the Oval Office, as President, undoubtedly repeating some of the points that you have heard during the earlier part of the day. Then I'd like to answer a few questions. And if you all have the time, I would like to stand outside the door and have an individual photograph made with each one of you before you leave.

Also, Dr. Brzezinski has informed me that seven or eight of you had expressed a desire to volunteer for the Army. [Laughter] I have an Army recruiting officer out there with me. [Laughter] The ones who don't come through the line—I know you've changed your mind. [Laughter]

It is exciting to me to have you here. I know you represent a wide diversity of points of view, geographically and perhaps philosophically. You come from campuses in our Nation that are centers of learning and also an epitome of what the future of our country will be.

This is a historic place, as you know. All the Presidents of our Nation have lived here except the first one, George Washington. From John Adams to me, the leaders of our country have lived in this same home. It's a place of excitement, challenge, I think a sober realization of what our Nation is, and a place of great history.

Presidents have had to face difficult challenges, difficult times, when our Nation was tested, when questions arose that appeared to have no answer, when obstacles arose that seemed to have no possibility of being surmounted, and when challenges arose that our Nation alone had to meet. Some nations have looked to us for leadership; others have not. Some Presidents have had wide approbation of the public; some have been severely criticized, for different reasons.

Woodrow Wilson, one of the greatest of all Presidents, was severely castigated for being an idealist. And he admitted the charge and said that what made him feel like an American was being an idealist, because he felt that as President he should represent the finest ideals of our country, should look to the future as a challenge and an opportunity to realize the hopes and dreams and aspirations not only of a great nation but of individual people who comprised it. He, as all other Presidents have, recognized that our Nation is one of unique diversity.

We're a nation that is made up of almost every possible ethnic and religious and racial group in the world. And this is not a cause for weakness or division, but it's a cause or a basis on which our Nation's strength can be mounted, not only in the ties of friendship and kinship that connect us with every other country, friend. or potential adversary but also because we derived in a spirit of unity that varied competitive strength that comes from that heterogeneity of our populace.

We are a nation of freedom, and we are a nation that prides individuality. We are a nation that thrives on difference of opinion, on debate, sometimes on division. We are a nation that looks upon the political process as a sign of potential unity and not permanent divisiveness and weakness. Our country is one that sometimes has to face a difficult issue before other nations face the same issue, because we are strong enough and eager enough to be willing to look to the future without fear or trepidation and because we are in the advanced guard of a cutting edge of society. This is not a detriment for any of us; it's an asset.

We're a nation that believes in strength. And our country is the strongest on Earth—militarily, politically, economically, and, I believe, morally and ethically as well. It's a nation that believes in peace, and we recognize that only through strength and unity can we preserve peace. This has not always been a goal which our Nation has been able to achieve. There have been some challenges which we could not ignore. There have been some mistakes made in the judgment of our leaders.

We are not a nation of infallibility. We're a nation of human beings who, because of our differences and because of the fluid nature of our society and because of the challenges which we sometimes meet first—a nation that makes mistakes. But we're also a nation that has a self-correcting mechanism built in. We have weathered the challenges and the disappointments and the mistakes of Vietnam, Watergate, CIA revelations, and have come through still strong, still respected.

We're a nation of human rights, not only for our own people, to an increasing degree in each generation, but also a nation that holds high the banner of human rights for others to admire and to emulate.

I think the recent challenge to us in the capture of innocent Americans and holding of those Americans in our Embassy in Tehran has exhibited, for the world to see, one basic characteristic of Americans, and that is that 220 million of us, self-satisfied, at ease, blessed with material blessings and security, have been almost devastated in our concern for those 50 people, not famous people or rich people or powerful people, but important people. Not only have we been concerned about their lives but we have been concerned about their freedom.

And for us to exhibit a constant, national, almost unanimous concern about those 50 hostages has been a signal to the world that we do indeed practice our concern about the value of an individual life and the right of that person to be free.

Afghanistan is an additional unexpected challenge to our country. I think a matter of profound significance—the rest of the world is rallying to the same cause which we have espoused; that is, a public condemnation of the Soviets' unwarranted invasion of that country of Afghanistan and the subjugation of formerly free people under military power.

We have responded, along with a tremendous number of other countries, through peaceful means. Every action that we have taken has been designed to enhance peace and to let the Soviets know that they cannot invade an innocent country with impunity. We've not used military power. We have it. What we've used is economic and political persuasion, joined with other countries in the United Nations and independently of us by Moslem countries assembled in Islamabad who voted 34 to nothing to condemn the Soviet Union, in the call for their immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan.

There are rapidly changing circumstances in the Persian Gulf, Middle East, Southwest Asian region. It's an unstable region. There is a resurgence, some say a renaissance, of the Islamic religious faith there. People feel very deeply about those beliefs. There are conflicts that have arised from that resurgence, and we are trying to understand and accommodate those.

Our basic foreign policy is consistent, sustained, uniform: We respect the rights of others to be different. We want their decisions to be made internally. We would like to see them, as much as possible, honor the rights of individuals who live in their own country, to protect human rights. We have no intention of interceding in the internal affairs of another country, but when there is a threat to world peace or to regional peace, we'd like to add our voice and our strength to the preservation of stability and peace.

We've had a good opportunity to exert this influence in the Middle East, in the negotiations that are now ongoing this day between Egypt and Israel. We've helped the British and worked with the British in trying to bring democratic rule and an end of persecution and discrimination in Rhodesia. We're attempting the same thing in Libya. We'd like to see the same thing done in South Africa in the future, as soon as possible, and the end to apartheid, a recognition of the end of racial discrimination.

We've kept our ties of friendship with Taiwan, and we've opened up new opportunities for friendship with a billion people or more in the People's Republic of China. We've made good progress—still have a long way to go. In the last 200 years since our Nation was formed, for the first time we are friends with both Japan and China at the same time.

There are promising signals to Americans for the future. But my responsibilities are multitudinous and diverse, but the preeminent one is to keep our Nation secure and to keep our Nation at peace. And these two responsibilities are not incompatible. I might say that we don't want other nations to misunderstand us. We don't want there to be a conflict created because of miscalculation. And our Nation has to be strong, and it has to be resolved.

There has been a remarkable degree of unity lately in our country, which has been very reassuring to me, reassuring to the people of our country, reassuring to our allies and, I think, a properly cautioning factor in the plans of potential adversaries for the future. We want to control weapons, reduce the threat of nuclear destruction, that all Americans share the responsibility for these purposes.

I know it's been a highly volatile question of the registration for the draft. I have no apology to make for it. I think it's a right decision. I know you've had several discussions about this with Dr. Brzezinski, with Stu Eizenstat, and others.

In closing let me say this: I'm the leader of our Nation, elected by the people of our country. You yourselves have been elected to positions of leadership. You know the responsibilities that fall on the shoulders of a leader, because your voice represents that of an entire student body. And you know that you have to accommodate conflicting advice, conflicting factors and, with a demonstration of personal courage on occasion and personal strength on occasion, go counter to a trend or an idea or maybe whatever might be popular and make a decision that's best for your college or university and also best for the people who've elected you to office. This is a characteristic of our Nation, in a democracy, and it's one that I know you've upheld very well.

You've got a great responsibility and a great opportunity, and I'm very proud indeed to have you come to the White House. I would be glad now to answer a few questions for you.

Q. President Carter, there's been a lot of discussion about your registration for the draft. But I'd like you to know that there's a big group of us from Texas that intend to support you on that. I'm from Southern Methodist University in Dallas, and I would like to know what effect you think the new Education Department, if any, will have on the private universities in the Nation?

THE PRESIDENT. I think it will strengthen the private universities of our country.

When I was first involved in political life, I was on the Sumter County School Board in deep south Georgia. It was a time when we were transferring our emphasis from segregated school systems to integrated school systems. Our schools were on the verge of destruction in the Southeast, including Texas.

When I went to the Georgia Senate, my only request was that I be put on the Education Committee. And I devoted a lot of my time to help save the school system, the public school system of Georgia, and then became Governor and probably spent 25 percent of my time improving the private and public school structure of our State. We put into effect for the first time when I was Governor a per capita grant to the private colleges of our State to help keep them politically and economically viable.

In the Federal Government in the past, the education considerations of all kinds, from Head Start through .graduate school, including research and development and everything else, has been buried under health and welfare. Now, for the first time there will be a single, identifiable Cabinet person—it happens to be a woman-competent, and dedicated just to the quality of education in private and public education at every level of the educational process. I don't think there's any doubt it will be an improvement.

We also have an additional factor that we can now resolve, and that is a better correlation between the product of our universities and colleges and high schools and grammar schools and vocational and technical schools. on the one hand, and the opportunities for careers that exist within the same community or the same region. In the past we've not always matched those two very well. I think we can do that better.

So, I have no doubt that in every aspect of education having a separate department with that unique responsibility will be better.

Q. President Carter, my name is Jerry Kerwin. I'm the student body president at UCLA.

And just the other day you made a comment about students overreacting to the registration plan. A lot of students have been looking at other alternatives—like Congressman McCloskey has a plan in Congress right now which would bring up national service, a plan for that. [Inaudible]-just brought up other ways to strengthen the military, and there's other things also. I'd like to know if in your staff discussions what are the kinds of things you looked at before deciding to come out with the proposed registration?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we looked at those considerations, and they're still viable. Let me repeat, which I'm sure you have heard often today: We have no plans for the initiation of the draft. We do not need it now. There is no need for our country to be mobilized with the involuntary recruitment of anyone. We are now getting along very well with our voluntary military forces.

We are also getting along very well with the voluntary service of young and old people in the Peace Corps, other ACTION programs. There is a constitutional question involved in the involuntary recruitment of people for nonmilitary service; there is a constitutional provision against involuntary servitude. And it would not be constitutionally permissible, according to some lawyers, if we conscripted people for the purpose of rejuvenating communities or solving our energy problem or service in mental health centers or working in hospitals or that sort of thing. So, absent a time of crisis when our Nation was mobilized to defend itself militarily, it would not be feasible, in my opinion, to have the broader based public service as a result of conscription.

I think that many of you would consider, though, a formal public service, perhaps early in your professional career, in some of the forms that I've just described. I don't think many of you are likely to go into the military. I wish you would. I was in there for 11 years and enjoyed it and got a lot out of it and ultimately did okay in politics. [Laughter] But there are many other very strong programs.

I don't know if you all met with Sam Brown today or not. Did Sam talk to you? Well Sam, as you know, is in charge of our ACTION program, under which comes the Peace Corps and other volunteer service programs. You might want to consider those. But I think voluntarily it would be great; conscription for that purpose would be doubtful of legality or need.

Q. My name is Russ Lamp, Wayne State University. We heard the National Security Adviser, Dr. Brzezinski, and the Director of Selective Service make presentations on the world situation, registration, and draft, and so forth. And hearing your position, our school has taken a position in opposition to registration and the draft, and we still hold that.

It hasn't been clearly established what the military need is, and I believe the word "preparedness," a rather vague word, has been given as the rationale. We want to say, and I feel I am obligated from my constituency to communicate to you, as you've requested to hear from us, that we're opposed to it, we're concerned about the use of the military and continued prospects for intervention in the Third World—[inaudible]—military force—that is being considered—our policies in—[inaudible]. We're concerned about this, and we're concerned about whether the draft is a way of responding to a war with the Soviet Union, when the prospects of a nuclear war would loom very large. Since those military questions are very serious and haven't been addressed yet, we're concerned and do not agree that registration is appropriate at this time.

THE PRESIDENT. I understand. I presume that there was not a question. [Laughter] Right?

Q. No, sir. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. Okay. Thank you for your comment.

Q. My name is Tommy Norman, from Southern University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. And I'd just like to ask something on the new Education Department. What kind of concerns will there be for the black universities and black institutions and their preservation?

THE PRESIDENT. All right. I would say that the prime factor that permitted Georgia and Louisiana and other States in the South to change from a segregated society into an integrated society—with tremendous benefit for the black and white people of our region and the whole Nation, perhaps even the world—has been the strength of the predominantly black colleges, a center for teaching and a center for the enhancement of knowledge about the proper relationship between the different people who live in our country, black and white, particularly in the Southeast.

Since I've been in this office, and with my background in the Georgia Senate and the Georgia Governor's office and knowing the Atlanta University complex and our own system in our State, we've done everything we could to strengthen and to preserve the integrity and the character of the predominantly black colleges.

We do not want to see the black colleges discriminate against white students who might want to enroll there, and we certainly do not want to see any form of de facto or de jure prohibition against black students who might want to come into and enroll in the predominantly white colleges.

But I see a permanent role for predominantly black colleges when they are desired, and we are doing everything we can, formerly under Joe Califano and now under Pat Harris, to protect the strength of the black colleges in the future, under Shirley Hufstedler when the Department of Education comes into being. The black colleges are important to us, and I think as a predominantly black educational institution, they should be preserved if that's the desire of the people in that particular community.

Q. Do you feel that the present condemnation by Islamic and Third World nations of the Soviet action in Afghanistan-that the Soviets will try to move further towards the Persian Gulf? And if the answer to that question is no, then why is the registration needed?

THE PRESIDENT. All right. It's hard to guess. We did not anticipate the Soviets' move into Afghanistan. This is a radical departure from the policy and actions of the Soviet Union ever since the Second World War. They have moved large troop concentrations into Hungary and Czechoslovakia to put down a resurgent effort by the citizens of those two nations, already dominated by the Soviet Union as a result of territorial acquisition or influence following the Second World War.

But this is the first time that the Soviets have ever penetrated a country that was not previously under their domination, with Soviet troops. I think this action did deeply disturb those other countries in the region, who see a possible repetition of this kind of invasive action unless the Soviets are cautioned against moving further and castigated and condemned because of their previous actions.

Some of those Moslem countries in Islamabad who condemned the Soviets and called for their immediate withdrawal had formerly been dominated to some degree by the Soviet Union or heavily dependent upon the Soviet Union for economic or military support. And it was an act of great courage on their part to condemn the Soviets and to call for their withdrawal. This was not done because they are relaxed or sure about their own safety in the future; it was done because they are concerned about their own safety in the future.

I might point out that our country has got to be a leader. I started to say "the leader." We've got to be a leader. We don't put ourselves in the forefront of the obstacle toward further Soviet invasion. The first line of defense, obviously, is the strength and integrity of the nations who border the Soviet Union, among their own people. They've got to be able and willing to defend themselves. I would say the second line of defense would be among their own neighbors, within the Moslem world perhaps. I would like to see the Moslem countries, for instance, pledge themselves that if any of their brother nations are invaded by the Soviet Union, that they would respond jointly to that threat. But there has to be some demonstration to them, either through quiet assurances or through public commitments, that our nation is also marshaled, if necessary, to respond.

I said in the news conference the other night that we will not permit the Soviets to choose either the tactics or the terrain. We have to keep our options flexible. And there are a series of things that we can and must do to let the world know that we will be strong—with private assurances to those countries: "If you stand firm, we will give you aid as you request it," which we're doing in the case of Turkey, which we're doing in the case of Saudi Arabia, which we're doing in the case of Pakistan and others, to try to form better friendships between those countries who might formerly have been adversaries.

We're doing the best we can to encourage discussions between Pakistan and India. We would like to see a very firm friendship established between Pakistan and India, recently historical enemies. We'd like to see the alleviation of nuclear tension created between those two countries, because India exploded a nuclear device. We're trying to induce the Pakistanis not to.

But the registration for the draft, which I have proposed, is another important symbolic act to let the world know that we're not joining the 55 other countries who already have a draft. We're not talking about a draft, but we're talking about the preparation for mobilization if it is required. And we're doing the best we can to prevent the need for mobilization and the need for a draft.

The best way we can do that is twofold. One is to let the Soviets know that they must not challenge us through further aggression against innocent people and that we are resolved to resist it. If they don't challenge us, there will be no need for mobilization. And secondly, to make sure that if we are registered, this will save us 90 to 100 days in a time of mobilization and will make the draft much less likely. I see no prospect, under present circumstances, for the need for a draft. We are not asking for additional legislation to permit me to call for registration; that already exists.

So, it's a part of a unilateral, multilateral, regional response to the Soviet Union, to say, "Do not go any further; withdraw your troops from this invaded country." We are not trying to bring the Soviets to their knees; we're not trying to humiliate the Soviet Union. We're trying to let them know that there is a world condemnation of what they have done. If they, with impunity, can take over this adjacent country, then my judgment is they'd be much more tempted to take a further step into Pakistan, into Iran, or into some adjacent country. I think it's excellent insurance, and I think it's needed. And we're .going to go through with it.

Maybe one more question, and then—

Q. You started to say "the leader," and then you changed your mind. Isn't that, in fact, what you did say in your State of the Union message?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes. In many ways, we are the leader, and other countries look to 'us for leadership. I have probably had more private communications, including telephone calls, personal meetings, and secret dispatches, between myself and the leaders of foreign countries in the last 3 months than I have all the rest of the 3 years that I have been in office combined, because countries want to know, "What is the United State. s going to do; what are you prepared to assure us that you will do; and how much can we depend upon your support if we ourselves take action?"

We are so strong and so secure in our own entity that we can take action that others cannot afford to take. For instance, the grain embargo is an action against the Soviet Union that is punitive in nature but sends us severe cautionary signals. We have not sacrificed our own well-being in taking that significant action. For instance, I declared the grain embargo, I think on the 4th of January. It reduced the sale of American products to the Soviet Union by 17 million tons. The price of corn, the cash price for corn now is higher than it was in January. The price of wheat, oats, soybeans are all higher than they were then. It has not depressed the market.

Secondly, we shipped more grain from the United States last month, in spite of the embargo against the Soviet Union, than we did a year ago. So, we can accommodate that kind of signal to the Soviet Union, which has tangible effect, when other countries don't have the grain to sell at the beginning. And if they did take the same action, they would severely hurt themselves economically.

I've had a lot of other leaders say, "We don't believe it's proper for our country to attend the Summer Olympics in Moscow if the Soviets are in the process of having invaded Afghanistan." And they say, "We're going to join you." We've had maybe 50 nations already that said, "We do not support the Summer Olympic games in Moscow." But they couldn't get out in front of us, but they are willing to follow if we provide the lead.

There are many other examples that I could describe to you. I'm not trying to say that we are the best nation on Earth, but we're the strongest, and we are able to stand and take action. We don't take action secretly. We let the world know what we're going to do. We don't take action to cause conflict or combat or disturb the peace. We take action that is peaceful in nature.

One other point I would like to make: It is not easy for a nation like ours to avoid combat. Historically speaking, mine so far, and I pray to God that it will stay, is the first in 56 years that hasn't had Americans losing their lives in combat. And we have been strong, and we have been bold. We have not ducked difficult issues. So, I am not saying that we are better than other countries, but we are a natural leader. We and the Soviets are the superpowers. And my hope is to go out of this office having kept our country at peace; to go out of this office with firm, sound friendship and detente between ourselves and the Soviet Union; to go out of this office having enhanced human rights; to go out of this office with the Nation strong and united; to go out of this office with our own people having a better quality of life; and to go out of this office with alliances and friendships firmly established with as many people as possible on Earth; and to go out of this office with nuclear arms under control.

Those are the goals that I've had since I came in this office. And we have setbacks, and we have successes, and the difficulties are very great, but the reassuring thing is that I don't feel alone. I would wish that all of you would support my positions unanimously, but I don't expect you to do it. But to the extent that you as leaders can say, "On these issues, the President has made a difficult decision and we support him," it would be very helpful for our country. Our country is not culpable. I don't know of any action that I've taken that has caused our Nation embarrassment or caused us to apologize.

And the last thing I'd like to say is this-it's partially in answer to your question. But all of us are inclined, in a free society, in rapidly changing times, to remember the disagreements and the arguments and the debates and the temporary inconveniences and the challenges that we've not yet fully met and the questions we haven't fully answered. That is part of life in a democracy, with a completely open press and a free and open debate of issues and a free right to criticize our own Government in any way you want to. That's part of it. But the thing that we ought not to forget is the tremendous advantages that we have been granted by birth or because of the courage and bravery of our predecessors, to live in this country, a country of strength, a country of unity, a country of freedom, a country of excitement, a country of innovation, a country of confidence, a country of challenge, a country of leadership, a country of ideals. I don't see how we could ask for much more,

Thank you.